Will the T-Mobile, Sprint Merger Be Bad For Consumers? (vice.com)

On Sunday, T-Mobile and Sprint said that they have agreed to a $26.5 billion merger, creating a wireless giant to compete against industry leaders AT&T and Verizon. While a new website has been set up by the companies to help quell consumers' and regulators' fears by promising new jobs, improved broadband service, and increased competition, Motherboard's Karl Bode cites previous telecommunications mergers and Wall Street analysts to argue against the merger. From the report: The two companies attempted to merge in 2014 but had their efforts blocked by regulators who were justly worried about the deal's impact on overall competition. As Canadian wireless users can attest, the reduction of major wireless competitors from four to three only reduces the overall incentive for wireless carriers to engage in real price competition. That was the central point repeatedly made by regulators when they prohibited AT&T from gobbling up T-Mobile back in 2011. Even with four competitors, the industry frequently does its best to avoid genuine price competition, and industry watchers have noted that the overall volume of quality promotions for wireless consumers had been dropping so far in 2018. After regulators blocked the AT&T merger, T-Mobile wound up being a largely positive impact on the sector, forcing its competitors to adopt more consumer-friendly policies like eliminating long-term contracts and early termination fees. However, even with T-Mobile intact, price competition in the sector tends to be theatrical in nature.

Wall Street analysts are on record predicting that a Sprint, T-Mobile merger could result in the loss of up to 30,000 jobs -- potentially more than Sprint even currently employs. From retail operations to middle managers, there's an endless roster of human beings who, sooner or later, will be viewed as redundant. "If approved, this deal would especially hurt consumers seeking lower-cost wireless plans, as the combined company's plans would likely increase while competitors AT&T and Verizon would have even less incentive to lower prices," said Phillip Berenbroick, lawyer for the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. "Unless the merging parties can demonstrate clear competitive benefits we have yet to see, we will urge the Department of Justice and the FCC to reject this deal."

Comments

Yes

[ugen]

(ok, have to comment some more, so "yes, indeed")

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sprint is owned by softBank, a Japanese company headed by a Korean

The merger of Sprint and T-mobile may be beneficial to the consumer of DoCoMo, the Japanese mobile company owned by SoftBank, but will be bad for American customers of both Sprint and T-Mobile

Re:Yes

[squiggleslash]

Scenario 1: Two minor league operators merge to form on major league operator, increasing the number of major league operators by one.

Scenario 2, the likely alternative: One minor league operator goes bankrupt. The three remaining operators, one minor, two major, pick over the remains. The FCC might help out the minor operator on the grounds the other two are already large, but, you know, Idjit Pai is in charge, so that won't happen, and most of the bankrupt assets end up in the hands of the two richest operators.

So my answer is no, because what's being proposed is scenario one. Scenario 2 is very scary. Realistically it'll leave us with only two operators, because I doubt T-Mobile can hold its own if up against Verizon and AT&T with no additional resources.

No

[wtbman]

No it won't. It will only make my crappy Sprint service better.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no T-Mobil stores in the Northern Ohio county that we reside in...
Guess we realty are fly over country...

That's ok, I live north east of Lansing, MI and they claim there is limited coverage here.
By limited, they mean that your phone might get a signal sometimes.

T-Mobile seems to still be largely centered around cities with no coverage outside of them. Fine if you never leave your city.

Re: No

[ranton]

Of course your service sucks, why else would they be able to charge less than the high end carriers?

My take is that it could be good for high end consumers and bad for low budget consumers. Right now TMobile and Sprint are the budget options, with Verizon and AT&T providing more high end service for those who can pay more. This merger will likely allow the new company to compete on the high end with Verizon and AT&T. Even their own website talks of rolling out first class 5g service capabilities.

This increased competition could improve high end service, but potentially at the cost of two good budget carriers. Consumers know Sprint isn't as good as Verizon, but they still want to save $30 per month so they choose the budget option. I did too when I was younger.

Re: No

[rickb928]

TMO has been working on 5G for some time now. That's not a merger-enabled opportunity for them. Sprint also was claiming they would deploy 5G in a year.

Everyone in the business is all over 5G. Mergers are not necessary.

Very bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember what happened the last time Germans and Japanese got in involved in an "axis" regarding America...

Sprint has heavy debts

[Kohath]

Sprint and TMo are saying that Sprint does not have the money to roll out 5G network upgrades without the merger.

Re:Sprint has heavy debts

[markdavis]

>"Sprint and TMo are saying that Sprint does not have the money to roll out 5G network upgrades without the merger."

Then let Sprint die and then sell itself to T-Mobile. That will guarantee T-Mobile, who is doing everything RIGHT will remain 100% in control.

Re:Sprint has heavy debts

[squiggleslash]

If Sprint dies, it doesn't get to choose who buys its assets. You can expect Verizon and AT&T, as two companies with the largest pockets, to take over most of the assets, or drive up the price so high that even if T-Mobile ends up getting more resources it'll pay over the odds for them.

Sprint is dying right now. Might as well make sure the other minor national operator benefits from it.

Economics

[ChrisMaple]

If your phone bill isn't paying part of 30,000 salaries, that would be a considerable consumer advantage.

Re:Economics

[quantaman]

If your phone bill isn't paying part of 30,000 salaries, that would be a considerable consumer advantage.

Considerable stock owner advantage sure, but less competition generally means higher prices, the savings won't end up in the consumer's pocket.

Re:Economics

[plague911]

The question is "will the merger bring more competition." This is one of the areas where there valid debate. Generally fewer players = less competition, but in the case that you have two market dominators and two minor market participants, the merger of the two minor market participants to create a third market dominator class organization, the answer is more ambiguous and would require a real in depth analysis to come up with a reasonable conclusion.

Re:Economics

[markdavis]

+1 Bingo. In this case, it is very unclear if the merger would create more or less competition. I don't think any of us on Slashdot could possibly know everything needed to make a really informed decision in that regard.

I am just worried that Sprint merging into T-Mobile will somehow contaminate T-Mobile or drag them down. T-Mobile has been doing things very, very well for many years now.

Re:Economics

[EvilSS]

The won't be all that much savings from those jobs going away anyway. Most of these jobs are going to be redundancies due to overlap in function when the two companies merge. Those functions are necessary to each company and that won't change when they merge. They just won't need two HR departments, two retail outlets right next to each other, etc.

Re:Economics

[EvilSS]

The question is "will the merger bring more competition." This is one of the areas where there valid debate. Generally fewer players = less competition, but in the case that you have two market dominators and two minor market participants, the merger of the two minor market participants to create a third market dominator class organization, the answer is more ambiguous and would require a real in depth analysis to come up with a reasonable conclusion.

You also have to consider if both the smaller companies are going to last. Sprint has been shaky for a while now and while T-Mobile is in a better position it's might be constrained on how much it can grow with net-new buildout and it's current spectrum licenses.

Also, if one of them (let's be honest, Sprint) goes under, it's spectrum and towers are going to be bought by someone and you can bet it will probably be AT&T or Verizon who get the lion's share. As much as I dislike consolidation, I think a combined T-Mobile/Sprint with T-Mobile's leadership at the helm can cause some serious headaches for AT&T and Verizon, particularly with 5G rollouts just around the corner.

Re:Economics

[jenningsthecat]

The question is "will the merger bring more competition." This is one of the areas where there valid debate. Generally fewer players = less competition, but in the case that you have two market dominators and two minor market participants, the merger of the two minor market participants to create a third market dominator class organization, the answer is more ambiguous and would require a real in depth analysis to come up with a reasonable conclusion.

My guess is that there will be more competition initially, both to gain the new entity a greater market share, and to lull the critics and the regulators into a false sense of security. After the growth of new accounts starts to level off, and the critics are focused on the next big example of capitalistic abuse, SprintMobile's prices will go up and/or their service quality will decline, and there will be a 'triopoly'. Ineffectual mutterings and remonstrations will follow, but will be ignored and forgotten in a couple of news cycles.

I don't think "in depth analysis" is any likelier to result in an accurate prediction here than my wild-assed guess is.

Re:Economics

[rickb928]

This wakes the amateur and inadequate economist in me.

Somehow, while it seems logical, indeed necessary, that lower costs would lead to lower prices. This is not assured.

Prices are set mostly by the demand. If you're willing (or compelled by need) to pay, you will pay. Costs are not the determinant in many markets. In the US some markets (utilities for instance) are regulated in a manner that escapes this, but that's not anything like a 'free market', and not in scope for this thread.

Some markets are somewhat responsive to demand, for instance the US gasoline market - but also responsive to seasonal influences, such as refinery changeovers, and to other influences, such as outages, pipeline failures, weather. US Heating oil is a fabulous market, and many a northern state dealer deals in futures, contracts with customers for fixed amounts at fixed prices, and is active in the heat pump business, since oil is becoming unattractive. Food can be a volatile market for many reasons.

You can be sure that the cell phone industry is constantly determining what the price is that we will pay. The combinations of caps, features, and billing methods are fascinating.

For me the market lesson most fascinating is GM and its response to the Japanese invasion of the 70s-90s. GM changed little until it was past obvious they needed to or fail. So they cut their payroll. Even the white-collar jobs.

Look at a market that is coming to grips with a new paradigm - cable TV. This market is learning that they have both actual competition and customers who are no longer willing to pay whatever they are told to. Early stages, but it's coming.

My point is that these platitudes about mergers not lowering prices aren't very helpful, and often misleading. Real market change can affect prices, for instance TMO changing the phone lease/purchase paradigm, and as the networks 'merge', focusing on LTE and leaving CDMA behind, locked phones will become undesirable, and we will see a more EU-style market, though pricing may not be so simple. Remember, the US is a huge place relative to Europe, and complaints about coverage are often rooted in technology problems.

Long-range solutions will impact a lot. As Band 71 builds out, expect that to be the hammer on the cable TV business head. There is no good solution for cable systems to extend their reach into underpopulated areas, DSL of course can't, and will be limited and fail.

We live in interesting times.

Re:Economics

[rickb928]

Not a football fan, are you?

Watch the line of scrimmage. Some battles are one-on-one, some are coordinated struggles. The competition is at similar levels, but the impacts are different.

Or hockey. Fewer players, the 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 situations, make the players both more cautious and more emboldened, seeking opportunity and momentary advantage to score in ways not common in full-strength situations.

Going from 4 to 3 nationwide cell providers in the US makes all of this riskier for the few left, fewer competitors to take customers from, customers left with fewer and possible (possibly) simpler choices, apparently easier to change carriers. It also gives the incumbents a cushion, splitting the market fewer ways giving a TMO/Sprint more customers to work with, more capital, and TMO has good bandwidth available, so they can use that to leverage their network and build out to match or exceed the capabilities of their competitors.

I'm not at all convinced that this is bad for customers. When AT&T and Verizon start gobbling up smaller regional carriers them I'll be worried, but some of these are going to be leapfrogged by tech in the next few years and struggle anyways. Good riddance to US Cellular.

Never

[110010001000]

What is good for the corporations is good for America.

Just don't see it being an issue

[SuperKendall]

The article seems to worry that the combined T-Mobile would be less willing to undercut market pricing...

But why? Even the combined company would still be smaller than either AT&T or Verizon. Together they can just provide better coverage but would still be scrapping to change the market to compete.

The article points out T-Mobile has been a positive influence, but what about Sprint? Basically it's been a big pile of nothing. The only thing I fear (as a current T-Mobile customer) is some aspect of Sprint will "infect" T-Mobile, I just want Sprint's coverage added... but hopefully that's where all those 300k jobs are going, to let go of the people that made Sprint dead in the water (though humor aside I seriously do not wish unemployment on anyone, even the inept).

Overall I'm more positive than negative about the deal just because of coverage expansion.

Re:Just don't see it being an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

when there is only three players in a game, it is much, much easier for the three to collude.. even if "accidentally" (so they'll claim), than it is with four. once verizon and at&t do something anti-consumer, the combined tmobile/sprint will feel no pressure to not follow suit. with four players, as we have now, tmobile currently has to be conscious of what sprint does or doesn't do, as well.

when post, the smallest (by significant share) of the three major breakfast cereal companies (the larger ones, of course, being general mills and kelloggs) bought their budget competitor and store brand manufacturer (at a time when there was a significant price war ongoing), malt-o-meal; breakfast cereal prices across the board went up considerably.. and selection (of those cheaper store brand copycats) decreased. again, three players is much worse for consumers than four.

Re:Just don't see it being an issue

[alvinrod]

That doesn't explain why a merger is necessary. Sprint can die the horrible death it deserves and the remaining companies can pick up their customers or other assets. That necessarily implies that they will compete for those resources and that each company is less likely to acquire resources it doesn't need or want.

The likely alternative is that T-Mobile acquires Sprint at an inflated price along with a lot of assets that it has no real interest in, which could well capsize T-Mobile as well if they really screw the pooch on the valuation. History is rife with examples of mergers that left the acquiring company a bloated mess and much less capable. Let dysfunctional things die instead of co-opting them and hoping the cancer doesn't spread.

Re:Just don't see it being an issue

[Luthair]

Consider the math - if a company offering rate X can gain 1000 clients, when the company is small the customers added are a larger percentage of their base. So when they offer a rate to both new and existing customers they can literally make up the lower revenue on their exisitng customers by the added customers. For a large company the number of customers added is a small part of their customer base so overall the money from new customers won't offset the lost revenue on existing customers.

Expanded coverage IMO is a red herring, the economics of an under covered area don't much change as there aren't more people there and regulators regardless of stripe have shown they won't hold them to their promises.

Re:Just don't see it being an issue

[thegarbz]

But why? Even the combined company would still be smaller than either AT&T or Verizon.

Nothing good has come from the consolidation of an industry already considered an oligopoly.

Re:Just don't see it being an issue

[swb]

The remaining three would just get larger in proportion to their size, mostly because they could afford to buy Sprint's assets in proportion to their own income and assets.

Verizon and ATT would mostly wind up shutting down Sprint cell sites and repurposing their band assignments to existing towers.

T-Mobile would probably add some new net coverage, but there would still be some duplication that would get shut down.

Uh, yes?

[laughingcoyote]

Same tune, different pipers.

Every time they want to do these mega-mergers, we hear the same thing. It'll be great for consumers! It'll let us provide much more efficient service and lower prices! And we can't do X unless you let us merge!

After they squeak it through approval, it ends up with shittier service, higher prices, mass layoffs, and in many cases, X not getting done anyway (because why do that when they're no longer competing?). This will be the exact same thing.

We already know how this story ends. Why do we need to replay it yet again?

Re:Uh, yes?

[rsilvergun]

Because America is not a Democracy. I don't think it ever was. But for some reason we insist on the charade.

Re:Uh, yes?

[thegarbz]

mass layoffs

This one is at odds with most of the others. The whole point of mergers is to do the same thing using less resources by combining the services and utilities of both sides, and assuming we live in fairy land and savings were passed onto consumers instead of share holders, the mass layoffs would be positive for all except those being laid off.

Different here though

[SuperKendall]

Every time they want to do these mega-mergers

I agree generally but in most other cases it's between companies at the top that combine and stay at the top, sucking in a slightly new way together.

But in this case, even combined they are still smaller than either Verizon and AT&T. And at least one half the marriage, T-Mobile, does not suck - so there's a good chance the combined entity could be simply larger and better like mergers are supposed to be.

Re:Different here though

[laughingcoyote]

Hope springs eternal, I suppose. But I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Different here though

[Ichijo]

there's a good chance the combined entity could be simply larger and better like mergers are supposed to be.

There's also a good chance it will larger but worse, and then there will be no more T-Mobile as it exists today. Are you sure it's worth the risk of losing the option that does not suck?

Re:Different here though

[thegarbz]

But in this case, even combined they are still smaller than either Verizon and AT&T.

So the argument being: Providing we don't join the oligopoly it must be good? Size and market power are really only a small portions of the pie chart of reasons consolidation often screws consumers.

Gang-rape

[Rick Schumann]

Doesn't matter who is running what, the whole wireless 'industry' is a gigantic gang-rape session, and we're all the 'guests of honor'. Makes me want to go back to a landline.

Re:Gang-rape

[Jetstream]

That wouldn't help. The prices for landline service (& long-distance) were almost as bad. And remember that several of these current players also provide landline service.

Re:Gang-rape

[Rick Schumann]

Yeah, I know, I know. In reality, if I got pissed off enough to dump wireless entirely, I'd probably end up using Skype. Not that that's a big improvement, then I'm part of Microsofts' bot-net again, and having to worry about them listening in on my conversations. Almost wish I had no need for it at all other than a few friends, in which case I'd just get them all encrypted radio transceivers.

Will it be bad for consumers?

[sgage]

Is the Pope Argentinian?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Does a tadpole have a watertight asshole?

Corporate gigantism is always bad for consumers.

And who knows ...

[fahrbot-bot]

... a Sprint, T-Mobile merger could result in the loss of up to 30,000 jobs -- potentially more than Sprint even currently employs.

... how many "Sprinterns" and other portmanteaus will be lost.

(Note: I actually like that one.)

Re:And who knows ...

[Jetstream]

When Sprint took over Nextel several years ago, the first thing they did was blow millions of dollars to upgrade those stores to their current "standards". Then not long after that, they started closing dozens (if not hundreds) of stores that were 'under-performing'.

Just imagine how much the insanity will be ratcheted up a few notches with this merger.

You blew the headline

[Sarusa]

The answer to this is Yes, and the answer to question headlines should always be No.

I think we're being unfair to T-Mobile/Sprint

[rsilvergun]

it'll be bad for consumers and employees. The shareholders & CEOs, OTOH, will make out like bandits.

Re:I think we're being unfair to T-Mobile/Sprint

[whoever57]

On the news over the weekend, a news program reported that the proponents of the merger claimed that it would create jobs. I laughed so hard at that.

Create jobs: right! So they are going to merge two companies and their combined costs would increase. That is the reason to merge: so that they can lower their profits. Yeah, right. In other news, I hear that the merger proponents are selling some fine land in Florida.

Good to hear

[SuperKendall]

That's nice to hear that Sprint has been offering more than I thought, for me the most awesome thing about T-Mobile was unlimited international roaming for free - coming from both AT&T and Verizon which had charged VAST sums, just to even make it possible then absurd sums per some amount of KB you consumed, it was amazing.

Anyway, your story gives me hope that the combination will actually be pretty decent, and as you say finally T-Mobile will cover your area for real. I have noticed a couple of times my phone would be roaming on Sprint so making it all one could make the coverage map pretty decent even compared to Verizon.

Maybe in some ways

[caseih]

In the short term I think it will benefit existing customers of both companies in terms of expanded service coverage. As far as on-going monthly customer costs go, I won't be surprised when rates go up.

I can't think of any merger in recent memory where prices actually dropped for the customers in the long term.

Re:WRONG!

[ShanghaiBill]

I should be able to get into a contractual relationship with anyone I want as long as the business itself is legal (so prostitution would not count).

A long term contract exchanging sexual intimacy for financial support is known as a "marriage" and they are legal, even though the legal enforcement is only on the "financial support" side of the deal.

Short term deals, such as SeekingArrangement.com, are legal as long as there is a "relationship", and it is not purely a one-time sex-for-money transaction.

Depends on the customer

[rmdingler]

15 year Sprint customer here.

I'm pleased with the prospect of a merger, without which I had been considering relocating my multi-line cellular service to Verizon or ATT for their superior rural coverage. Work has recently picked up in the boontoolies surrounding our small metropolis, and I've noticed considerably better outskirt's reception by folks with phone service from the other providers.

Even the devastation left behind by severe storms is often a welcome sight to roofers, auto body repairmen, and glaziers... no fallacy.

Re:Depends on the customer

[SScorpio]

If you have Sprint, it should already be roaming on Verizon's network which has been the rural network of choice in the area's I've been. Though some of that coverage is Verizon's roaming agreement with US Cellular.

AT&T's rural support has been mostly dodgy. Google's Fi service allows connecting to TMobile, Sprint, and US Cellular which can give the best coverage. You are limited on which phones are supported, but it will give you the best coverage anywhere you go. If you are in a Verizon area both Sprint and US Cellular are able to roam on it.

Obviously

[c]

As a general rule of thumb, when it's something a large telecom corporation wants then it's almost certainly bad for consumers. If it's something a large telecom corporation is against, then it's probably good for consumers.

I'm sure you could find an exception to that rule if you looked, but I don't find that it's wrong often enough to lose sleep over.

Re:Obviously

[EvilSS]

As a general rule of thumb, when it's something a large telecom corporation wants then it's almost certainly bad for consumers. If it's something a large telecom corporation is against, then it's probably good for consumers.

I'm sure you could find an exception to that rule if you looked, but I don't find that it's wrong often enough to lose sleep over.

Well in this case two large telcos will be for it, two against it. So..... flip a coin?

Re:Obviously

[c]

two large telcos will be for it, two against it

I'm not so sure of that. It wouldn't shock me if the two "against it" will be perfectly fine with the merger, as long as the new merged telco gets saddled with a shitload of conditions that affected it's ability to compete... in order to protect consumers, of course.

Re:Obviously

[EvilSS]

I would surprise me. A combined TMO/Sprint would be big enough to challenge them. The biggest weakness for TMobile has been their crappy coverage, and Sprint has been bad management. TMO with the Sprint towers and spectrum will be a full-fledged competitor.

Re:WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

A long term contract exchanging sexual intimacy...

Obviously written by a single person.

MetroPCS

[darkain]

None of these FUD predictions came true when T-Mobile acquired MetroPCS. Why will it magically come true now that they're STILL the underdog after acquiring Sprint? From TFA, they mention a 3x increase in employees for MetroPCS. Also, we're all nerds here, and looking for stuff that matters: spectrum. They have a huge point in TFA about how T-Mobile and Sprint combined have amazing spectrum to roll out 5G. Coverage issues? They're planning in literally investing billions into infrastructure, this is their plan to compete with the other two major players.

Call me a fanboi all ya want, but honestly I just switched AWAY from T-Mobile this year after having been with them for a decade. Now running on Project Fi, which funny enough, uses both T-Mobile and Sprint towers, so I guess in the end nothing has changed for me!?

Re:WRONG!

[cranky_chemist]

Nice idea... ...until someone decides that the resultant company is "too big to fail" and is therefore entitled to tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep them afloat after their executives demonstrate extreme incompetence while simultaneously collecting multi-million dollar compensation packages complete with golden parachutes.

No such thing as a free market.

Re:I live about a 100 feet from T-Mobiles NA HQ...

[Jetstream]

I worked on the Sprint Campus for over a decade. Didn't notice it myself (the short time I had a Sprint phone), but heard a lot of complaints over the years about poor connections - there at the Sprint HQ!

Good for some, bad overall

[Ecuador]

The only people who might benefit are Sprint users. T-Mobile should really let Sprint die and pickup their pieces, $26.5 billion is ridiculous for such a bad company. T-Mobile has flaws, but it is heaven compared to the rest of the lot, shame that not all users can see it and they can't even reach #2 by being more customer-friendly than AT&T and, especially, Verizon.

Stock Answer

[JumbleGuy]

Will the ________, ________ merger be bad for consumers? Yes.

Sprint Customer

[jshackney]

As a Sprint customer, I can't imagine it could get any worse than it already is. My service is already shite. Now, merged with T-Mobile it could be double shite. How could I lose?

Not much left to lose here.....

[King_TJ]

Sprint has fallen so far in recent years, they're really just a bottom of the barrel carrier that has a disproportionately large number of customers with poor credit, plus people they suckered in with a deep discount on a new handset, only to be locked in to the poor coverage for the next 48 months.

T-Mobile will likely just dismantle the whole thing, keeping the customer database and the frequency spectrum rights. (Existing Sprint customers may get some kind of special deal to move to a T-Mobile compatible handset or hotspot if they stick with them through the transition.)

The bottom line is -- Sprint hasn't really been much of a real competitor lately.

I'd still like to know what ever happened to U.S. Cellular though? I had them years ago and thought they were a pretty respectable regional carrier. As far as I know, they owned their own towers and all that ... just not nationwide. But it seems like they suddenly changed direction and shrunk their footprint, having about the same status today as any of these second tier carriers who use the major carriers' infrastructure? It seems to me they had a real shot at replacing a carrier like Sprint, for a long time.

Re:Not much left to lose here.....

[starblazer]

I'd still like to know what ever happened to U.S. Cellular though? I had them years ago and thought they were a pretty respectable regional carrier. As far as I know, they owned their own towers and all that ... just not nationwide. But it seems like they suddenly changed direction and shrunk their footprint, having about the same status today as any of these second tier carriers who use the major carriers' infrastructure? It seems to me they had a real shot at replacing a carrier like Sprint, for a long time.

USCC is just resting on their laurels. They just rolled out VoLTE quietly. It doesn't even work on all their handsets. They rolled out "Unlimited" data... if your version of "Unlimited' is a T1. (1.5Mbit/sec). Even with the speed cap, they had the 22GB usage cap that knocked you down to 1X speeds. I'd be with T-mobile right now if it wasn't for the massive discount I have with USCC and the coverage that USCC has.

Re: WRONG!

[SirSlud]

The United States is a capitalist economy with a free market.

It has free markets that are a regulated. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Try dealing with the world the way it is, not the super simple world you wish it was (for no other reason than you're emtionally incapable of handling it.)

What is the real reason for the merge?

[tuxrulz]

While I understand a merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, cannot see why T-Mobile and Sprint want to join. T-Mobile use GSM networks, while Sprint uses CDMA. Is not like the two networks can magically get together into a bigger one, or fill missing spots. And the customer list, well they got in Sprint for one reason and probably was they were not happy with the other carriers. https://www.pcmag.com/article2...

Re:WRONG!

[MoarSauce123]

So how come the government controls the airwaves and auctions off frequencies to the highest bidder? There is no free market in the US! Having less competitors for whatever reason is always bad for consumers and especially for the 30,000 employees.There will also be impacts on those companies that sell the CDMA radios. After a merger I am sure CDMA will be phased out in favor of GSM. There is no point for T-Mobile to support two tech stacks.

Merge or break up

[spinitch]

T-mint would be similar scale to the big 2. If regulators block then should evaluate splitting the big 2 which are currently about 2X the #3 & #4 carriers. Sprints debt and cash flow challenges pushes it Towards the auction block with few other willing and capable suitors. It will be interesting to see how the regulators respond since if they block it, expect T-Mobile and Sprint to turn tables and point at the big 2. So expect the big 2 to not oppose the merger of 3+4.

The argument for the merger

[sqorbit]

The can simply use the scare tactic of "if we don't merge, we're lose to the big players". Sprint and T-Mobile take the stance that if they don't merge AT&T and Verizon will be the only major options left as they fold. The fear of those two corporate giants will be enough to convince many that this is a good idea.

Re:WRONG!

[JackieBrown]

Sprint isn't doing that great and is in allot of debt. Not allowing the merger doesn't mean we won't lose Sprint anyways.

Oligarchy

[CanEHdian]

The less players in the oligarchy, the easier it is to have "informal understandings" among the Oligarchs and aside from that, the less choice consumers have. So it's a double-whammy. The ONLY circumstance this would be beneficial if a number of very large new players entered the market and played the long game of pricing the incumbents out (at severe losses), THEN tightening the noose and start raising prices, etc.

Re:WRONG!

[rickb928]

The impact on CDMA is already underway, and has nothing to do with this or any other proposed merger

Clearly, AT&T forgot their lesson.

[CyberKender]

Time for them, and Verizon, T-mobile, and even Sprint, to be broken up into smaller companies. Cable companies too. Plus loss of their protectionism.

Spectrum availability

[joshuaf]

As a long time happy Tmobile customer, I'm looking forward to their increased spectrum availability with this merger. It puts them on more even ground with Verizon and AT&T.

Re:WRONG!

[quintus_horatius]

A long term contract exchanging sexual intimacy for financial support is known as a "marriage"

There are millions of so-called "dead bedrooms" that would like you to re-examine your assumptions, mate

This *is* a rhetorical question, right?

[whitroth]

Of *course* it will. They'll raise rates to pay for the costs of the merger, just to start.

Time to roll back the Telecom Deregulation Act of 1996, and reregulate the industry, to improve costs for those of us not running the companies.

And for the ignorant, governments don't put in regulation because some legislators were sitting in their offices, feet on desk, and decide to regulate. They create regulations and laws because us, their constituents, yell at them to do something about things like price gouging.

Re:Yes, merge them all into one!

[whitroth]

Ah, a brainwashed ignorant idiot.

Quick, what was the tax rate on the top tax bracket in the US under (Republican) President Eisenhower in the mid-fifties?

Next: nice of you to write as though the only tax was a flat tax, so you can claim that's everyone's taxes.

How 'bout:
1. Double the corporate tax rate... so that it's 23% of the US federal revenue stream... 1% *less* than the US in 1972.
2. Eliminate capital gains and dividends and interest, and Schedules B and D. ROLL IT ALL INTO INCOME, which will, for example, triple Mitt Romney's taxes.
3. Make a tax bracket for incomes of $20M/year... and make that tax rate 90% (and deductions cannot get it down below 75%. Note that most of that money does *NOT* create jobs, it goes into the market, aka the "legal" Ponzi scheme... or else it goes to buy the government.
4. Then you can cut the rate for folks earning under 6 figures.

I'm *sure* this would hurt you, personally. I mean, of *course* millionaires post to slashdot.....

Re:WRONG!

[Martin Blank]

This is exactly my thought. If Sprint were in a better position, I'd be happier seeing them stay apart. Sprint will go away at some point, and the merger allows this to happen in a controlled fashion with the remains going to the smallest of the remaining three instead of potentially getting parceled out among all three. If the merger fails for whatever reason, Sprint is likely to wind up in bankruptcy in the next few years unless there's a very large breakup fee, as happened with the AT&T/T-mobile attempt. If there is, that might allow Sprint room to pull off a miracle, but I doubt T-mobile and its parent are that certain of the outcome.

Free

[junkgoof]

The government auctions off spectrum because it belongs to all citizens and they try to have it used properly and to have someone pay the citizens for the use. A vicious circle of people who don't want to govern and people who don't want government has corrupted the process in the US somewhat, but that's how it works in most western democracies.

A free market should be free from the powerful not free from regulation. Government is supposed to be by the people for the people. In the US both have abdicated.

More complex than it sounds...

[XSportSeeker]

At first, the answer is "obviously", but in this particular case things might be more complex than it looks.
Why? Because both companies are smaller than the competition.
It is a bad thing that companies like those need to merge to compete in the first place, no question about that.
Then again, this means a closer to 3rd player will result from this merger. Which could potentially bring closer competition against Verizon and AT&T. Which could bring benefits to costumers.

On the other hand it'll probably be shitty for the people working there, and the scenario for closer competition with benefits to costumers is only a possibility. Given the records, it might be a distant possibility. The other possibility is the merger resulting in yet another giant joining the mob, oligopoly to adopt the exact same shitty practices because now they have dominance over several regions.
I'm not familiar on how the current services of these companies are, but if they are as crappy as some say, I have a hard time imagining it'll get any better.

For the most part, corporations always gets shittier towards costumers the bigger they grow.