Sprint and T-Mobile Merger Back on the Table as SoftBank Agrees to Cede Control of Sprint

[atomic.flip]

These 2 merging companies having 2 crappy services feels like the crappiness is twice as much. I know it doesn't sound logical but that's how I feel like. I'm on T-Mobile right now as much as Legere wants to believe that his network is on par with Verizon is not even close to AT&T. I believe competition is been working really well for us consumers lately and Sprint need to be aggressive. Being on the 4th place (used to be 3rd) has to counter every offer given by competitor. If T-Mobile can offer $160 for 4 lines tax included, I don't think it would hurt them to offer $150. It's the only way T-Mobile tactics has been saying all along. There's no secret on what Legere is been saying publicly. Better offering that consumer wants hear cheaper plan and discounted phones or maybe easy payments. T-Mobile is throwing some gimmicky benefits as well and that dude knows how to market his product. He got me!

I'm sorry but you're misinformed. T-mobile's GSM/LTE network is impeccable and on par with Verizon's for both coverage and reliability. They've been spending money wisely on infrastructure and again this is why they are able to dictate market terms now.

 

[Michael Goff]

It's not a poor network. But if you're in certain areas it will be weak, just like every network (even Verizon) has it's weak areas. There are even places where Sprint is far superior.

For example, most of Montana will have to wait until later in the year to have good T-Mobile coverage.

You're obviously in a rural or semi-rural area if the nearest stores are 15 miles away. I'm in the suburbs, and I have 4 different T-Mobile corporate stores I go to - three within 5 miles of me. T-Mobile has to go with the numbers, and they've done an excellent job over the years, always being the fastest at rolling out new network technology, with seemingly little bureaucracy holding them up. A lot of people not only have T-Mobile coverage - they have the best coverage available because they're on T-Mobile.

Balderdash.

If TMo has bad coverage in rural or semi rural areas, and the US is primarily made of those, then they have a bad network. It might change some day, but right now it's bad.

 

[DrewDaHilp1]

T-Mobile bought MetroPCS, which was CDMA - same story here. They'd have a planned schedule to shut down CDMA and migrate to GSM.
[doublepost=1487365852][/doublepost]

Other way around. T-Mobile would be buying Sprint.

Ah, my bad. Well if it happens hopefully Sprint doesn't rub off on T-Mobile.

 

[JustThinkin']

Balderdash.

If TMo has bad coverage in rural or semi rural areas, and the US is primarily made of those, then they have a bad network. It might change some day, but right now it's bad.

Congratulations - you just figured out the United States' infrastructure challenge! Lots of territory that's sparsely populated. I honestly don't think Deutsche Telekom fully comprehended this back when they entered the US market.

But most people who live in rural areas want to be rural, so they know to expect such tradeoffs.

Even if where you live is not that rural (or even rural at all) I think you should be glad to have 3 solid carriers! Not bad at all, if you ask me.

Someone has to pay the costs of covering sparsely populated areas. Verizon trades capacity for coverage (territory) by spacing their antennas farther apart, but this causes problems in metro areas, where they're more likely to get overloaded. They have a solid network, but are slow to update it. T-Mobile has generally taken an ~opposite approach, quickly implementing the latest technologies in higher and medium population centers, and in a very cost effective way that works well with their necessarily lower budget. AT&T is a compromise between the two, but they've sent so much of their infrastructure budget to Mexico lately that their US network has measurably fallen behind. Sprint has made so many poor decisions over the years that they're lucky to be doing as well as they are.

 

[east85]

The only reason why we're getting okay deals is due to competition. This reduces competition. No thanks. I hope this effort crashes and burns.

 

[Art Mark]

I think it's funny how they always stress how much companies have to spend for some future technology. Like that is unexpected or something that is slightly wrong. They forget to give equal weight to the billions of dollars of income these companies bring in. The pieces are usually a bit slanted to point out how a company investing money INTO THEIR OWN COMPANY is something special. Of course they don't have to spend more money to improve their products, no one is forcing them unless they want to stay in business. It is too bad you can't just build a telegraph system and profit from it forever. I think this is a key difference from even industrial revolution economic and the new economies. Technology speeds up everything. Getting 50 years service out of a device isn't really a business model anymore.

 

[Dwalls90]

Merging two bad networks sounds like a wonderful idea.

Maybe you haven't seen recent news? T-Mobile is on par with Verizon, beating AT&T and Sprint.

 

[joueboy]

I'm sorry but you're misinformed. T-mobile's GSM/LTE network is impeccable and on par with Verizon's for both coverage and reliability. They've been spending money wisely on infrastructure and again this is why they are able to dictate market terms now.

Keep telling that to yourself it's either you're Legere's puppet or just one of his fanboy. I've been a previous customers of those carriers. Although I want to save some money that's how I ended up with T-Mobile. I have a friends with Sprint so I have an idea how they feel. If you live and stayed in one place and T-Mobile has a good coverage then yeah brag as much as you want. Try traveling around US and maybe just go camping at least 50 miles from your home. Good news you'll enjoy the nature. I'm not saying T-Mobile is not investing on their infrastructure but have you been paying attention to their ads lately. Yup they spend too much in advertising than their infrastructure.

 

[ronntaylor]

I was against the merger of these two weaklings years ago. So much has changed and it would be an acquisition of Sprint which has deteriorated since the merger talks. So I'm all for it now. Son has basically given up on Sprint and wants out. AT&T and Verizon need capable competition. T-Mobile and Sprint are not worthy opponents on their own, so there needs to be a concerted effort to truly compete and push the other two.

I can see the requirement to shed some properties/tech to give smaller, regional companies a leg up. But in the end, I see the FCC under the current administration ultimately agreeing with this merger.

 

[T5BRICK]

My local T-Mobile network is great. Another comment from someone who isn't an customer.

Cool. Let me know when T-Mobile offers something better than 3G where I live. AT&T, Verizon and Sprint all offer LTE here, and they still work when I leave town. T-Mobile doesn't.

 

[JustThinkin']

I'm sorry but you're misinformed. T-mobile's GSM/LTE network is impeccable and on par with Verizon's for both coverage and reliability. They've been spending money wisely on infrastructure and again this is why they are able to dictate market terms now.

Impressive - yes. Impeccable - no.

You just have to try it in the areas you will need it. It's impressive because they're often the fastest while being (just barely) the 3rd largest of the 4 major carriers.

If you've experienced as many Verizon problems as I have, you understand that matching Verizon is not a high enough standard. Verizon's impressive too, when you consider their coverage area and network load - but hardly impeccable.

 

[tmiw]

I was against the merger of these two weaklings years ago. So much has changed and it would be an acquisition of Sprint which has deteriorated since the merger talks. So I'm all for it now. Son has basically given up on Sprint and wants out. AT&T and Verizon need capable competition. T-Mobile and Sprint are not worthy opponents on their own, so there needs to be a concerted effort to truly compete and push the other two.

I can see the requirement to shed some properties/tech to give smaller, regional companies a leg up. But in the end, I see the FCC under the current administration ultimately agreeing with this merger.

T-Mobile seems to be able to make the other carriers compete all on their own without Sprint's help. Not sure what a merger would add here other than being able to charge more for the same service.

 

[Makosuke]

I'm always in favor of more competition, but as a T-Mobile customer who knows Sprint customers I can say I'd be one huge heck of a lot happier about T-Mobile buying Sprint than Sprint buying T-Mobile. I'm pretty sure the Sprint customers I know would be, too.

Although on the competition front, how much longer will Sprint even be a viable company? Look at their profit margins for the last 12 years:

https://ycharts.com/companies/S/profit_margin

The last quarter they didn't lose money was Q2 2014, and prior to that there wasn't a profitable quarter since 2007. On an annual basis, they literally haven't made any profit in over a decade. I've got to think the only reason the company is even still in business is that SoftBank is propping it up in hopes maybe it'll actually be worth something some day. I've got to think SoftBank is looking to jettison the dead weight at this point.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Congratulations - you just figured out the United States' infrastructure challenge! Lots of territory that's sparsely populated. I honestly don't think Deutsche Telekom fully comprehended this back when they entered the US market.

Judging by some of the comments European members here make regarding US pricing I think that is very likely. European countries have vast rural areas but European countries are like Texas or California. That is just one state and still 49 to go that have to be wired up. On top of that each of those 50 states has their own regulations and county and cities in those states might have their own zoning laws. That's a very different marketplace than what cellcos in Europe have to tend with.

As for this merger, I think on the face of it it's not a bad situation. The U.S. needs a strong 3rd option. TMob is almost there, but not quite. Sprint is an also-ran at this point. They can't keep up and Softbank isn't going to pour $ in like TMob did. This merger might do it. But it really needs to be a buyout not a true merger. Softbank has to be a silent partner and let TMob keep doing what it's been doing to shake the market up. A true win for consumers.

 

[Michael Goff]

Maybe you haven't seen recent news? T-Mobile is on par with Verizon, beating AT&T and Sprint.

Awesome. I'm sure all of the people without TMo coverage are thrilled. Also, no. They are supposedly on par with LTE coverage.

 

[bpeeps]

I agree with what you are saying, but without the merger, T-Mobile is still the spending lots on improving their coverage. Aquiring Sprint will help with their coverage issues and in the end will actually make them stronger to compete against AT&T and Verizon. The thing is no matter what there will be competition and consumers will go to the best bang for their buck and that's how he market will be controlled. Although you may be right, I think this merger will be more beneficial than having negative consequences.

How will acquiring Sprint help with coverage issues when TMO and SPR operate with two different technologies, GSM and CDMA respectively?

 

[gim]

Merging two bad networks sounds like a wonderful idea.

Haha, no.

A similar merger has happened in Germany in 2013, also with the two worst networks.
Long story short - in regard to network quality, it is a gigantic mess. Coverage only got slightly better, but network speed in the big cities is still awful today - four years later! Two bad networks surely don't automatically make one good network, that I can assure you.

 

[ohio.emt]

I'm sorry but you're misinformed. T-mobile's GSM/LTE network is impeccable and on par with Verizon's for both coverage and reliability. They've been spending money wisely on infrastructure and again this is why they are able to dictate market terms now.

I hope your not going off an article based off the open signal report. Almost all the articles made it sound like T-mobile had almost the exact nationwide coverage of LTE as Verizon. If you actually read the report by open signal it only stated that T-mobile customers spent the same amount of time connect to LTE as a Verizon customer. Open signal no longer compares nationwide coverage between carriers. Which is why you see all most all the carries close in terms with their report. If say T-mobile or Verizon has no coverage or only 2G covarge where I spend 90% of my time why would I bother with them as a carrier. Which is why it show each carrier having LTE coverage in the 80's.

 

[gotluck]

How will acquiring Sprint help with coverage issues when TMO and SPR operate with two different technologies, GSM and CDMA respectively?

They both use lte too though, but different bands

 

[Michael Goff]

They both use lte too though, but different bands

I could easily see that being the selling point for the new TMo.

 

[solace]

For everyone still ripping on T-Mobile...

 

[JustThinkin']

Judging by some of the comments European members here make regarding US pricing I think that is very likely. European countries have vast rural areas but European countries are like Texas or California. That is just one state and still 49 to go that have to be wired up. On top of that each of those 50 states has their own regulations and county and cities in those states might have their own zoning laws. That's a very different marketplace than what cellcos in Europe have to tend with.

As for this merger, I think on the face of it it's not a bad situation. The U.S. needs a strong 3rd option. TMob is almost there, but not quite. Sprint is an also-ran at this point. They can't keep up and Softbank isn't going to pour $ in like TMob did. This merger might do it. But it really needs to be a buyout not a true merger. Softbank has to be a silent partner and let TMob keep doing what it's been doing to shake the market up. A true win for consumers.

I think so. The governments are different as well, and (although I don't know) I wouldn't be shocked to find out that there are effectively subsidies or network sharing agreements that also make a difference.

But population density alone could be the answer. 3/4 of the countries in the world have a more dense population than the US. The only less dense countries that are anywhere near the US' population are Russia and Brazil. Russia is so different it doesn't count (that's the nice way to put it ). Brazil has vast amounts of territory that won't soon be inhabited by many technological people. Likewise Canada and Australia - the only other two less-dense countries that stand out.

Most of the people that complain about US telecom prices live in the top 1/4 of the world's most dense countries. Perhaps that's why their expectations are so dense .

(If you look at the actual numbers, the difference is even more dramatic. The countries you usually hear such remarks from have between 6 and 15 times more people per square km than the US does!!! (so don't listen to these ignorant folks ). Therefore I conclude that if they're paying more than US$7/mo for unlimited data they're getting ripped off!).

In the US, EVERYONE expects to live in a technological country. This leaves us with by far the largest amount of rural territory that has high expectations for its infrastructure quality.

 

[btrach144]

How would this even work? T-Mobile uses GSM and Sprint uses CDMA. I thought the two couldn't work together?

 

[Zaft]

Hey I have Sprint in NYC and have no issues.

 

[ronntaylor]

T-Mobile seems to be able to make the other carriers compete all on their own without Sprint's help. Not sure what a merger would add here other than being able to charge more for the same service.

You're referring to the here and now. This is a long-term play. Sprint is dead. Son is throwing in the towel and T-Mobile will need help if it wants to continue to compete. Getting that help sooner rather than later is key to it's long-term survival. AT&T and Verizon can match anything T-Mo throws at them (witness the latest rush to reimplement unlimited plans). I'm not sure it can continue to try to top those two.
[doublepost=1487374949][/doublepost]

I'm sorry but you're misinformed. T-mobile's GSM/LTE network is impeccable and on par with Verizon's for both coverage and reliability. They've been spending money wisely on infrastructure and again this is why they are able to dictate market terms now.

I'm sorry, not even close. Here in NYC they are slightly better than Sprint which I abandoned a few years ago due to horrible coverage and service. I experience dead spots all over. I travel to central Virginia 3-5 times a year. I've resigned myself to not having coverage and using my iPad on wifi to communicate with others as T-MO coverage is non-existent. I'm not exaggerating. It's absolutely atrocious. When I complained CS checked their coverage area and basically said I'm SOL. So impeccable my a--!