Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The CDMA and GSM standards have already merged. LTE is the official upgrade path for both network systems.

Both Sprint and T-Mobile are already using LTE for the majority of their network infrastructure and will be decommissioning their remaining legacy CDMA and GSM systems soon so they can re-farm the spectrum for use in 5G

Not disagreeing (actually I had no idea that's how it worked), but if that's the case, aren't smartphones still being marketed as either CDMA (Verizon/Sprint) or GSM (ATT/TM) models?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GalileoSeven
LOL! Well, that's reassuring, isn't it? After those three years, the sky's the limit!

I'd expect Verizon-like prices (T-Mobile/Sprint management may be stupid, but I don't think their so stupid as to raise them even higher and cause their customer base to jump ship)
 
This argument hasn't made sense to me. If Sprint failed their spectrum would go back to the US government who could relicense it to someone other than the existing big 3. This was an opportunity to send a message that usage of spectrum is a privilege not a right.

In fact, mergers should invalidate spectrum holding in their entirety. You can consolidate the brand and the hardware, but not the resources of the American people.

If you really think the government would relicense it to someone other than the big 3 then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 
This argument hasn't made sense to me. If Sprint failed their spectrum would go back to the US government who could relicense it to someone other than the existing big 3.

Possible, but unlikely. It would go to auction and unless an external big money player emerged (sort of like Google did last time even though they didn't really want to win), the spectrum would likely end up with ATT and/or VZW. Maybe the FCC would add some stipulations to the auction, but that seems unlikely given the current environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadeTheSwitch
Together, the two companies have committed to building out a nationwide 5G network covering 97 percent of the U.S. population within three years and 99 percent within six years. T-Mobile and Sprint have also promised that they will not raise prices for three years following the completion of the merger.
It's kind of funny how easily I can find the 1 or 3 percent coverage gaps (and not just from TMo), unless I'm just that lucky?
[automerge]1573048575[/automerge]
 
I get it that Sprint customers are thrilled a health company is taking Sprint over. T-mobile customers are hoping the additional frequencies will enhance T-mobile service. Both company customers are hoping for a free lunch. That is, better service lower price. When was the last time less competition led to lower prices? When in doubt think Comcast. Virtual monopoly. They increase price every year and unless you call and threaten to cancel they will continue to fleece you.
What is the real reason the merger is going ahead under Trump when it was rejected under Obama? Mr. Son of Japanese Soft bank bought Sprint at a low price and hoped to make a ton of money by turning it around. He failed to improve the situation and met Trump and boasted he would invest $100 billion in the US. Trump's political hack Mr. Ajit Pai does the rest. All 3 FCC commissioners voted to allow the merger while all 2 Democratic nominated commissioners voted no. Bottom line, this is about crony capitalism nothing more. The Democratic led states are trying to fight this, but will be unable to do anything. Expect 3 clones. You can call each Clone AT&T.
 
Funny.

Except your sarcasm works against you... because landline telephone prices SKYROCKETED after they were broken up.

And also innovation was stifled by it, since all the things Bell Labs did and couldn't patent because they were unrelated to telephony could suddenly be patented. You know, things like UNIX, C, C++, Stereo Sound, Radio Astronomy, finding the evidence of the Big Bang itself, TDMA and CDMA, the transistor, the laser, solar cells, CCDs... you know, things we DEFINITELY don't rely on today and we DEFINITELY don't benefit from the free licenses on.
I think you missed the sarcasm.
 
Two awful companies that are forming a more imperfect union! I hate both of them. Terrible customer service and a complete 'dont give a fwk attitude to their user base. Just like verizon!
 
Now let's see how long it takes for my T-Mobile monthly bill to go up (hoping it doesn't).
 
Like Verizon, CDMA is only used for sub-LTE communications. But more than likely, they'll have to keep the CDMA network running for a few years until a significant portion of its users have replaced their phones.

I'm hoping the merger will improve my T-Mobile coverage presuming there is a way to share the Sprint LTE towers between both T-Mobile and Sprint devices.

Hopefully it's not just one company running what is essentially two entirely separate networks.
When T-Mo bought MetroPCS they were CDMA and they eventually converted everyone to a GSM handset as they sunset the CDMA networks.
This may not be an issue like it used to be now that iPhones are nearly global devices (save for the dual-SIM model in China).
 
That they say this will promote competition is laughable. Competition is what Sprint and T-Mobile did to survive. Obviously, Sprint isn't doing so well and I can see why this makes sense from a business standpoint, but this is a result of other mergers. The more companies merge and take over smaller companies, the harder it is for surviving ones to continue.

The prices will go up, no doubt.
 
If we knew that Sprint and T-Mobile would succumb to AT&T and Verizon and there would only be two carriers left, wouldn’t it be better that this merger happens so they can actually compete against these other two conglomerates?

The reasoning behind the merger being a bad idea does not outweigh the reasons and benefits for them to combine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: progx
I'm a t-mo customer and really happy with their service. I'm skeptical of this merger though. Fewer companies always lead to higher prices. I'm keeping my grandfathered plan as long as possible.

T-Mobile hasn’t pressured me to change to the Magenta plan. Doesn’t mean that in the future they may not try anything. As someone who switched from Verizon, after paying them $110 for service in one month, I have had zero problems with T-Mobile. Except for the inconsistent signal, they’re customer service is pretty damn good. My bill hasn’t seen an increase, except for the $2 Netflix charge which T-Mobile can’t control their rate hikes.

Only time will tell how bad this will effect our bills. I’m shocked that Ajit Pai’s Verizon overlords allowed him to approve this merger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m0sher
As of 3Q18 (the most recent data I could find in a quick search) Verizon had 35% of the US wireless carrier market, AT&T had 34%, T-mobile had 17% and Sprint had 12%. While I generally agree that mergers = less competition = bad for consumers, this case might be an exception. Because the 2 biggest players control nearly 70% of the market, T-mobile and Sprint individually are a distant 3rd and 4th place but combined they would be a close 3rd place. That might actually make them more of a competitor to the big 2.
I think you’re right on the money. With the merger, Verizon and AT&T finally have a viable threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoctorTech
I’m confused as to why some people think this is bad? Neither T-Mobile nor Sprint were competing directly with AT&T or Verizon. They just filled notches far lower down the chain, but above things like MetroPCS. Now they may be able to compete from a less distant third-place while developing infrastructure to truly compete later. Sprint had no coverage in places like Covington or Coffee counties in Alabama, whereas T-Mobile did. Vice versa was true for other counties in the same state. So I see this as a good thing, not bad, in terms of competition.
 

Wow, if $195,000 (of which most very little is profit to the hotel and almost all would been spent at some other nearby hotel had they not stayed or done events there) is all it took to bribe the FCC’s commissioners into approving a merger of two companies who together will still be third (that is how small they are, even after combining, they are still third), it was money well spent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lyngo
Wow, if $195,000 (of which most very little is profit to the hotel and almost all would been spent at some other nearby hotel had they not stayed or done events there) is all it took to bribe the FCC’s commissioners into approving a merger of two companies who together will still be third (that is how small they are, even after combining, they are still third), it was money well spent.
That's what was reported 8 months ago. I wouldn't be surprised to learn more has been spent since then.

My question to you is is this okay? Are you comfortable with any amount of money being spent by corporations at Trump properties when they have something specific to gain from curried favor from the President of the United States? Should this be expected and accepted as normal behavior during this and all future administrations? And if you say yes, what should the limits be to where you say enough is enough?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.