Sprint and T-Mobile Extend Merger Deadline to July 29

[zarmanto]

... The Justice Department's antitrust division has been exploring whether the deal would result in a major threat to competition. ...

I would suggest that perhaps this is the wrong question. On the surface, it's pretty obvious that replacing four huge companies with three huge companies in any given industry will result in less competition overall within that industry.

Rather, the real question (and the reason why it's taking so long to come to a decision) revolves around whether or not both Sprint and T-Mobile are going to continue unhindered into the future without the merger. The international parent companies of both respective US based operations have grumbled about the US market and implied at different times that they might just pull out. If a failed merger attempt prompts one or the other to finally make good on that threat, than we're abruptly down to three (or two!) titans anyway, and each of those would then get a chance to vie for some portion of the displaced holdings of the defunct operation(s), including their customer base, antenna infrastructure, bandwidth licenses, etc. That kind of an ending could potentially enable the richest of those remaining to increase their advantage over the other carriers. In contrast, allowing the merger would theoretically push T-Mobile up to near size parity with the other two behemoths.

Bottom line: It's a very complicated gamble with a lot of moving parts, and there really is no way that the DOJ can know for sure which road will lead to the best overall outcome.

 

[4jasontv]

Yeah... no they aren't. Prices fell because of industry consolidation, right in front of our faces, through the 90s all on the same technology. Economies of Scale are at play. The users of the network bear the full weight of the technology improvements, and more people investing in it through their monthly bills means it costs less to do more. More people buying through a single source, given the resources are constrained as tightly as they are by spectrum, lowers prices. More competition raises that cost considerably.
[doublepost=1556633922][/doublepost]

History that I've lived through. You can use google yourself.

Will do. Can I just include the term or do I have to put the word fictional in quotes?
[doublepost=1556650022][/doublepost]

If you have data to support your assertion, please share. Otherwise this is just speculation on your part.

In the United States, you need about 100 million subscribers to have a sustainable, nationwide, cellular network that allows you to continue to re-invest in your infrastructure as new technologies come about. T-Mo and Sprint can’t get there on their own.

As for prices, I suspect that in the mid-term, 3 to 5 years, I suspect that prices will rise as the cellular companies attempt to finance the buildout of 5G.

However, once 5G is built out, I believe that capacity will increase so much that smartphone cellular service will become an afterthought.

I suspect that smartphone cellular service will become bundled in with other broadband services. This is the same thing that has happened through the history of telecommunications services. New technologies are priced at a premium and eventually bundled in with other services as newer technologies come online.

But the prices don't come down.
[doublepost=1556650225][/doublepost]

I would suggest that perhaps this is the wrong question. On the surface, it's pretty obvious that replacing four huge companies with three huge companies in any given industry will result in less competition overall within that industry.

Rather, the real question (and the reason why it's taking so long to come to a decision) revolves around whether or not both Sprint and T-Mobile are going to continue unhindered into the future without the merger. The international parent companies of both respective US based operations have grumbled about the US market and implied at different times that they might just pull out. If a failed merger attempt prompts one or the other to finally make good on that threat, than we're abruptly down to three (or two!) titans anyway, and each of those would then get a chance to vie for some portion of the displaced holdings of the defunct operation(s), including their customer base, antenna infrastructure, bandwidth licenses, etc. That kind of an ending could potentially enable the richest of those remaining to increase their advantage over the other carriers. In contrast, allowing the merger would theoretically push T-Mobile up to near size parity with the other two behemoths.

Bottom line: It's a very complicated gamble with a lot of moving parts, and there really is no way that the DOJ can know for sure which road will lead to the best overall outcome.

This legitimate concern that could be addressed by not refunding payments and not allowing groups with existing nationwide networks from leasing their spectrum.
[doublepost=1556650549][/doublepost]

Do you still pay for long distance by the minute? How much do you currently pay for each minute of voice you use or each text you send?

If I have a cap on Verizon Fios I don't know what it is. I just did a quick Google search and found an article on someone who got a warning after using 7 TB a month for several months straight. Apparently you would have to watch 222 movies per day to use that much data. So I think I'm safe for now.

I’m excited for Verizon to roll out new Fios literally anywhere. In the meantime I get a 1 TB cap with Comcast. It doesn’t matter what my download speed is. For me I frequently upload 5 to 10gb files, and let me tell you my best available 5 mb up doesn’t cut it.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Will do. Can I just include the term or do I have to put the word fictional in quotes?
[doublepost=1556650022][/doublepost]

But the prices don't come down.
[doublepost=1556650225][/doublepost]

This legitimate concern that could be addressed by not refunding payments and not allowing groups with existing nationwide networks from leasing their spectrum.
[doublepost=1556650549][/doublepost]

I’m excited for Verizon to roll out new Fios literally anywhere. In the meantime I get a 1 TB cap with Comcast. It doesn’t matter what my download speed is. For me I frequently upload 5 to 10gb files, and let me tell you my best available 5 mb up doesn’t cut it.

https://www.networkworld.com/articl...espite-industry-consolidation--gao-finds.html

Sorry about your luck.

This decades results will be available next year. Someone has already pointed out family plan prices as we’ve continued to consolidate the past 10 years.

But yeah, go on with your sarcasm. It makes you being wrong even sweeter.

 

[zarmanto]

... For me I frequently upload 5 to 10gb files, and let me tell you my best available 5 mb up doesn’t cut it.

You noted "5 mb" as a speed; did you mean MB/s, or Mbps? There's a very large difference; 5 MB/s (Megabytes per second) is roughly 40 Mbps (Megabits per second); your 5 GB file could theoretically transfer in as little as 18 minutes. 5 Mbps on the other hand would be about 0.625 MB/s; the same transfer could take about 2 1/2 hours or more, depending upon network conditions.

If you mis-typed your speed and it's actually the latter rather than the former, I could certainly see how you might have a good reason to complain -- but most current cable broadband providers (outside of rural deployments and single-provider regions, obviously) are offering 50+ Mbps these days, so I'd be curious as to how exactly you ended up drawing the short-short straw.

(My own FiOS is 100 Mbps both up and down -- that's about 7 minutes to transfer your file.)

 

[S3R6i0]

Except the opposite is true. Consolidation in wireless has led to falling prices.

That's why cable TV is so cheap. Don't be fooled if these people could charge you an arm they would.

 

[bushman4]

Sprint and T-Mobile have announced an agreement to extend the deadline for their proposed $26 billion merger deal to July 29 (via Reuters).

The extension was revealed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and means that the two carriers now have more time to get the proposed merger approved by both the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Justice Department's antitrust division has been exploring whether the deal would result in a major threat to competition. Earlier this month, Justice Department staff members reportedly told Sprint and T-Mobile that their planned merger is unlikely to be approved as it is currently structured.

However, in an interview on CNBC, Justice Department Antitrust Division chief Makan Delrahim said he had not made a decision regarding the T-Mobile and Sprint merger and is waiting for more information from the two companies.
T-Mobile and Sprint first announced plans for a merger in April 2018. If approved, the merger will combine two of the four major wireless carriers in the United States, giving the new company nearly 100 million customers.

With discussions ongoing, Sprint and T-Mobile may be willing to offer concessions that include assets sales to get the government to approve the merger plans.

However, other challenges await the two carriers, with multiple state attorneys prepared to launch lawsuits if the Justice Department doesn't end up challenging the merger, according to sources that spoke to The Wall Street Journal.

Article Link: Sprint and T-Mobile Extend Merger Deadline to July 29

[doublepost=1556682009][/doublepost]SPRINT &TMobile merging is worthless not going to improve anyones experience

 

[Wide opeN]

[doublepost=1556682009][/doublepost]SPRINT &TMobile merging is worthless not going to improve anyones experience

You're kidding right!? I can't think of a luckier bunch than Sprint customers, if the merger was approved.

 

[4jasontv]

https://www.networkworld.com/articl...espite-industry-consolidation--gao-finds.html

Sorry about your luck.

This decades results will be available next year. Someone has already pointed out family plan prices as we’ve continued to consolidate the past 10 years.

But yeah, go on with your sarcasm. It makes you being wrong even sweeter.

This industry newsletter is an opinion piece intending to sell the idea that consolidation is good. This uses the same flawed logic we have heard over and over: wireless carriers are offering more service for lower than what that service would have cost in the past. Let’s be clear that than does not translate into a lower price. The cost per minute has gone down but the cost per month has gone up.
[doublepost=1556702501][/doublepost]

You noted "5 mb" as a speed; did you mean MB/s, or Mbps? There's a very large difference; 5 MB/s (Megabytes per second) is roughly 40 Mbps (Megabits per second); your 5 GB file could theoretically transfer in as little as 18 minutes. 5 Mbps on the other hand would be about 0.625 MB/s; the same transfer could take about 2 1/2 hours or more, depending upon network conditions.

If you mis-typed your speed and it's actually the latter rather than the former, I could certainly see how you might have a good reason to complain -- but most current cable broadband providers (outside of rural deployments and single-provider regions, obviously) are offering 50+ Mbps these days, so I'd be curious as to how exactly you ended up drawing the short-short straw.

(My own FiOS is 100 Mbps both up and down -- that's about 7 minutes to transfer your file.)

5 Mbps up, but of course I can’t use all of it for a single connection.

 

[Alessiot]

On the fence with this merger. On one hand looking at it at a spectrum viewpoint it would create more competition. Generally I don’t view mergers as good thing for the consumer but in this case it might be

 

[BuffaloTF]

This industry newsletter is an opinion piece intending to sell the idea that consolidation is good. This uses the same flawed logic we have heard over and over: wireless carriers are offering more service for lower than what that service would have cost in the past. Let’s be clear that than does not translate into a lower price. The cost per minute has gone down but the cost per month has gone up.
[doublepost=1556702501][/doublepost]

5 Mbps up, but of course I can’t use all of it for a single connection.

What industry newsletter? It's from a Federal Agency! The United States Government tracks it. Prices are literally lower than they were 20 years ago. Literally lower than they were 10 years ago. This is because of consolidation.
[doublepost=1556708511][/doublepost]

That's why cable TV is so cheap. Don't be fooled if these people could charge you an arm they would.

That's what's called a false analogy. You present something that appears to be similar, but in actuality is not an analog. Cable providers are not remotely comparable to wireless providers.

Cable operates legal regional monopolies. They own the lines, they're the only ones that can use the lines. That's not the case with wireless carriers -- not anymore. Not after the industry consolidated and more than 1 company covered your city, then the county, then the state, then the region and then the whole country. That was the 80s and 90s. Going into the 90s, the average *single line* plan cost $150, you were charged 50 cents per minute for local calls, and 'local' was as finite as the city you were in often times before you hit long distance charges. In the 80s, that cost would've been 10x greater and created the image they were only for the wealthy...

 

[jjohnstonjr]

Sprint needs every bit of help they can get at this point. Merging with T-Mobile would help them tremendously but I fear that prices will go higher with Verizon and AT&T.

 

[4jasontv]

What industry newsletter? It's from a Federal Agency! The United States Government tracks it. Prices are literally lower than they were 20 years ago. Literally lower than they were 10 years ago. This is because of consolidation.

Um... no. NetWorkWorld is an industry newsletter. The government didn't write this, a pro-wireless industry newsletter wrote it.

20 years ago I had a Sprint plan that cost $20 a month and that included taxes. Now the best you can do with any carrier is $20 a month if you have 5 lines. That's $100 a month. $100 is more than $20.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Um... no. NetWorkWorld is an industry newsletter. The government didn't write this, a pro-wireless industry newsletter wrote it.

20 years ago I had a Sprint plan that cost $20 a month and that included taxes. Now the best you can do with any carrier is $20 a month if you have 5 lines. That's $100 a month. $100 is more than $20.

They’re summarizing a report that a literal government agency released. The Government Accountability Office. It’s in the first paragraph. It really isn’t this difficult to read. They also pulled direct quotes out of the report. You can read the actual document in a PDF here right on the Feds website: https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10779.pdf - and finally, it also isn’t that difficult to not reply when you’re wrong so you don’t continue looking foolish.

20 years ago you didn’t have a Sprint plan for 20 dollars. I had them too. It was 30 dollars and for 300 minutes. No texting. No data. Their only saving grace was they didn’t charge more for long distance. Since you seem to want to make a false analogy and compare it to a smartphone - I’ll give you a proper analog. If you want a flip phone Verizon charges 30 bucks for it still - but it includes texting and a small data bucket. 30 = 30, and you get more for that 30. You can also get a Tracfone for 200 dollars per year as the most expensive. That’s 16 dollars a month. So, yeah... prices went down a ton... 50%.

 

[zarmanto]

... 20 years ago you didn’t have a Sprint plan for 20 dollars. I had them too. It was 30 dollars and for 300 minutes. No texting. No data. Their only saving grace was they didn’t charge more for long distance. ...

I also remember the $30 price -- but I disagree with that being the only saving grace; they also charged 10 cents per minute for any talk time above the initial 300 minutes. That basically meant that frequent talkers were being charged the same for every minute that they talked, regardless of how long; there were no crazy-high overage fees.

 

[4jasontv]

They’re summarizing a report that a literal government agency released. The Government Accountability Office. It’s in the first paragraph. It really isn’t this difficult to read. They also pulled direct quotes out of the report. You can read the actual document in a PDF here right on the Feds website: https://www.gao.com/new.items/d10779.pdf - and finally, it also isn’t that difficult to not reply when you’re wrong so you don’t continue looking foolish.

20 years ago you didn’t have a Sprint plan for 20 dollars. I had them too. It was 30 dollars and for 300 minutes. No texting. No data. Their only saving grace was they didn’t charge more for long distance. Since you seem to want to make a false analogy and compare it to a smartphone - I’ll give you a proper analog. If you want a flip phone Verizon charges 30 bucks for it still - but it includes texting and a small data bucket. 30 = 30, and you get more for that 30. You can also get a Tracfone for 200 dollars per year as the most expensive. That’s 16 dollars a month. So, yeah... prices went down a ton... 50%.

That’s what an opinion piece is. They take quotes that prove their point. They didn’t just quote entire thing.

Read carefully. I don’t care if it’s unlimited minutes, data and MRIs. If the final cost is more than it was before than it is more expensive. I don’t care what is included.

And yes, it was $20 a month for 500 minutes. I’m sorry if your plan wasn’t as good as mine but that doesn’t change reality.

 

[BuffaloTF]

That’s what an opinion piece is. They take quotes that prove their point. They didn’t just quote entire thing.

Read carefully. I don’t care if it’s unlimited minutes, data and MRIs. If the final cost is more than it was before than it is more expensive. I don’t care what is included.

And yes, it was $20 a month for 500 minutes. I’m sorry if your plan wasn’t as good as mine but that doesn’t change reality.

That's not what an opinion piece is, they aren't reading the report and saying that; the report is saying that... I'm afraid you're grasping at straws, AND lying to boot.

The biggest changes in the wireless industry since 2000 have been consolidation among wireless carriers and increased use of wireless services by consumers. Industry consolidation has made it more difficult for small and regional carriers to be competitive. Difficulties for these carriers include securing subscribers, making network investments, and offering the latest wireless phones necessary to compete in this dynamic industry. Nevertheless, consumers have also seen benefits, such as generally lower prices, which are approximately 50 percent less than 1999 prices, and better coverage.

That isn't an opinion, that's the GAO's literal findings. Verbatim.

The Sprint plan in 1999 was 30 dollars for 300 minutes. You can still find the commercials for them on Youtube. Even using your fictional 20 dollars I've already showed you you're still wrong and it's cheaper now for the same service yet you still felt the need to lie.

Derp more.

 

[4jasontv]

That's not what an opinion piece is, they aren't reading the report and saying that; the report is saying that... I'm afraid you're grasping at straws, AND lying to boot.

That isn't an opinion, that's the GAO's literal findings. Verbatim.

The Sprint plan in 1999 was 30 dollars for 300 minutes. You can still find the commercials for them on Youtube. Even using your fictional 20 dollars I've already showed you you're still wrong and it's cheaper now for the same service yet you still felt the need to lie.

Derp more.

Again, this report from 2010 was paid for by the telecom industry. You really need to stop.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Again, this report from 2010 was paid for by the telecom industry. You really need to stop.

Again, it's a Federal Agency and paid for by taxpayers and the next one will be available next year, something I addressed in my first post on it.

You really need to stop. You're wrong and fail at basic Economics 101 with literally zero comprehension of Economies of Scale.

I asserted a fact then supported it with historical evidence, you've offered nothing but a made up fake Sprint flip phone minutes plan from 1999 and the hyperbolic 'competition good' nonsense that's never been true, ever, as the counter evidence. Just run off into the sunset, you're wrong and have nothing useful to add.

 

[4jasontv]

Again, it's a Federal Agency and paid for by taxpayers and the next one will be available next year, something I addressed in my first post on it.

You really need to stop. You're wrong and fail at basic Economics 101 with literally zero comprehension of Economies of Scale.

I asserted a fact then supported it with historical evidence, you've offered nothing but a made up fake Sprint flip phone minutes plan from 1999 and the hyperbolic 'competition good' nonsense that's never been true, ever, as the counter evidence. Just run off into the sunset, you're wrong and have nothing useful to add.

You are trying hard to defend these criminals, are you involved with them? You keep speaking like you know what you’re talking about and yet clearly you don’t.

Whatever, you are just a troll. You can’t even critically evaluate your one “source” and you insult people who disagree with you.

 

[BuffaloTF]

You are trying hard to defend these criminals, are you involved with them? You keep speaking like you know what you’re talking about and yet clearly you don’t.

Whatever, you are just a troll. You can’t even critically evaluate your one “source” and you insult people who disagree with you.

Yes.. a troll. That provided evidence to their statements. My source is the Federal Government of the United States.

Your source is a made up plan that didn't exist 20 years ago and your 'feelings' and overt ignorance.

Who is the troll again?

 

[4jasontv]

Yes.. a troll. That provided evidence to their statements. My source is the Federal Government of the United States.

Your source is a made up plan that didn't exist 20 years ago and your 'feelings' and overt ignorance.

Who is the troll again?

Your source is Federal Government of the United States... that's kind of my point.

 

[kaielement]

If the merger doesn't go through would Sprint go under int the next few years? And if so where would all those customers end up? I bet Verizon and AT&T would be throwing so many proms at those customers to get them to join them it would be crazy lol.
[doublepost=1556938482][/doublepost]

If it's about coverage and network, then there should be no merger. Just look at what Sprint has to say about their coverage and network

https://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-...etwork-paired-with-best-value-in-wireless.htm

Sprint Launches New Campaign Highlighting Better-than-Ever Network Paired with Best Value in Wireless

November 06, 2018

Sprint continues to make significant progress on its network build, now providing its best coverage ever and up to 2X faster speeds than before with LTE Advanced, all while saving customers nearly $1,000 in the first year over Verizon and AT&T

Yes, the Sprint Network has come a long way! In fact, today Sprint offers 30 percent more LTE coverage and reliability customers can count on. Through its massive Next-Gen Network investment and roaming agreements, Sprint is helping customers connect in more places from coast to coast, with its largest-ever total LTE footprint.

By unleashing its deep spectrum holdings, Sprint is also dramatically enhancing network performance for its customers. Sprint LTE Advanced is now nationwide, offering customers speeds up to TWICE as fast as before for movie, music and game downloads, photo sharing and web surfing when connecting on the latest capable flagship devices.

Sprint Network upgrades helped the company have its best-ever showing with fastest average download speed in 123 cities in the latest quarterly data from Speedtest Intelligence® provided by Ookla®. Sprint also has the most improved network, outpacing competitors with national average download speeds year-over-year up 31.5 percent according to Speedtest Intelligence data5 and up 87 percent in PCMag’s 2018 Fastest Mobile Networks report.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Didn't Sprint submit a coverage map to the FCC to show they had horrible coverage? Marketing fluff lol.
https://9to5mac.com/2018/09/28/sprint-bad-lte-coverage/