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

[Macaholic868]

This is a rare instance where I am for a large merger. They need each other to truly compete against the big two.

Agreed but only if it truly expands their coverage area in a big way. I love T Mobile in theory. In practice if you drive 30 minutes in certain directions from where I live the coverage sucks! If a merger changes that then I'm all for it. Plus let's face it, in the Trump administration's regulatory environment this merger won't face opposition. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that it's the reality of the situation now.

 

[Zaft]

My cousin has T-mobile and there have been times where I have service on Sprint but he does not on T-mobile and vice versa. So I think it makes sense as it will fill the gaps.

 

[dan110]

Sprint is the worst of the big four carriers. If T-Mobile even hints at adopting Sprint's policies and procedures, I'll never use them.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Plus let's face it, in the Trump administration's regulatory environment this merger won't face opposition. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that it's the reality of the situation now.

Based on what facts? The Admin (or Trump himself) has hardly given thumbs up on the TW/ATT merger. In fact Trump has said on the face of it he's not in favor of it. Steve Bannon has said he is against it as well.

Concerning TMob and Sprint you have two companys with majority foreign ownership. Give Trump's "America First" platform it's well possible that could be a concern for the Admin. Whether there is a justifiable market concern there I can't say. But I haven't seen anything other than mere speculation to suggest all merger proposals will not get the usual government vetting only because Trump might be more pro-business than his predecessor.

Reduction of regulations and mergers are two separate isssues.
[doublepost=1487437031][/doublepost]

Sprint is the worst of the big four carriers. If T-Mobile even hints at adopting Sprint's policies and procedures, I'll never use them.

I don't think that would be the case since it seems Softbank is the one that is giving up control. TMobile (parent company) has no reason to fire Legere and put Claure in as CEO. Claure's performance, or lack thereof -- though not all his fault -- is the reason Softbank is waiving the white flag. Legere OTOH has turned TMob around in an amazing fashion and judging by its 2017 road map should be a real force to reckon with by year's end once it's finished rolling out Band 12 coverage. On top of that it looks like TMob is not asleep at the switch regarding 5G like it was with 4G.

 

[JM]

How about no? The past few years have shown how good it is that we've had lots of competition between wireless carriers. We need MORE competition, not less.

The most recent example is everyone offering unlimited plans again right after Verizon decided to do so.

Sprint has done nothing to inspire competitive actions from Verizon or ATT: T-Mobile has done it all, so selling to T-Mobile sounds great to me.
[doublepost=1487437924][/doublepost]

This merger won't be good for consumers, I like T-Mobile I really do, but having four carriers competing is better than three.

No it doesn't. It's giving Verizon and ATT an excuse to charge a lot more for their clearly superior service. If everyone has superior service (no Sprint) then they'll have to compete on price and customer service. Sprint is a ****ing drain on the US cell provider options.

 

[Zaft]

My god whats up with the Sprint hate? Some of you are like sheep just following what others say...
Have some of you even used Sprint recently? or just spouting nonsense because its "cool"

Unless you go to rural areas often all the carriers are fine now days.

 

[tmiw]

My god whats up with the Sprint hate? Some of you are like sheep just following what others say...
Have some of you even used Sprint recently? or just spouting nonsense because its "cool"

Unless you go to rural areas often all the carriers are fine now days.

Eh, Sprint is pretty bad in San Diego but it's not completely their fault. (You can blame the Mexican government for the lack of low-band LTE here.)

That said, they probably should have participated in the 600MHz auction if only so that rural areas aren't restricted to 5MHz LTE on their existing 800MHz holdings.

 

[mellofello]

I am a big TMo fan. However I can't say no to the VZ deal. We will be switching. As it stands right now, VZ is much more robust.

The only tough part is how expensive the international plans are, however the slow free tmobile service is pretty painful at times.

 

[monkeybear0145]

How about no? The past few years have shown how good it is that we've had lots of competition between wireless carriers. We need MORE competition, not less.

The most recent example is everyone offering unlimited plans again right after Verizon decided to do so.

You do realize T-Mobile was the catalyst to all the companies offering unlimited plans again, right? Not Verizon. And can you really say that Sprint is "competing"?

 

[jujufreeze]

Gee, wonder why they try (sans ATT) to 1-up eachother with great unlimited deals ? Reduce competition, higher price, less choice. The best outcome is for TMO AND Sprint to invest in more spectrum with the potential for 4 super strong carriers.

 

[Solomani]

Why does there even need to be a merger? T-Mobile seems to be doing well, it's marketing is aggressive, and tactics are very competitive.

A for Sprint, step up your game, or fall off the cliff. If you lose and go bankrupt, don't expect someone successful (like T-Mo) to come in and "rescue" you through a merger.

 

[dampfnudel]

As long as Legere is at the helm

And it's in T-Mobile/Deutsche Telekom's best interest to buy Sprint without any negative consequences for the company and its current customers of which I'm one of. No buyer's remorse like in previous situations with other companies (like SoftBank). Sure T-Mobile would like to become a 100M+ network sooner rather than later, but as long as it doesn't come with a catch.

 

[mellofello]

Why does there even need to be a merger? T-Mobile seems to be doing well, it's marketing is aggressive, and tactics are very competitive.

A for Sprint, step up your game, or fall off the cliff. If you lose and go bankrupt, don't expect someone successful (like T-Mo) to come in and "rescue" you through a merger.

Sprints brand is totally dead. They failed to invest in LTE fast enough, and customers are rightly fleeing in droves.

The only value they have left is their infrastructure. Rolling all their spectrum into T-Mobile could make them a world class carrier.

I personally think the money would be better spent just upgrading T-Mobiles network, and letting sprint die. However there are a bunch of benefits to acquiring all those rural sites, spectrum, and customers with one stroke of a pen.

 

[Solomani]

Sprints brand is totally dead. They failed to invest in LTE fast enough, and customers are rightly fleeing in droves.
The only value they have left is their infrastructure. Rolling all their spectrum into T-Mobile could make them a world class carrier.

If Sprint's spectrum was fully compatible with T-Mobile's, then yes I agree it makes sense to acquire Sprint's infrastructure. But if not…. then I'd wager it might be cheaper (in the long run) and more efficient for T-Mobile to simply keep expanding and upgrading their existing network that they are familiar with.

Acquisitions are never cheap these days. T-Mo would not only be acquiring infrastructure, it would also inherit thousands of Sprint employees. What to do with those?? It's a logistical headache that T-Mobile knows it would have to lay off thousands of them eventually. And then pay them all severance pay? That's some millions and millions of dollars more that T-Mo would have to pay out.

 

[Michael Goff]

If Sprint's spectrum was fully compatible with T-Mobile's, then yes I agree it makes sense to acquire Sprint's infrastructure. But if not…. then I'd wager it might be cheaper (in the long run) and more efficient for T-Mobile to simply keep expanding and upgrading their existing network that they are familiar with.

Acquisitions are never cheap these days. T-Mo would not only be acquiring infrastructure, it would also inherit thousands of Sprint employees. What to do with those?? It's a logistical headache that T-Mobile knows it would have to lay off thousands of them eventually. And then pay them all severance pay? That's some millions and millions of dollars more that T-Mo would have to pay out.

And if they just let Sprint die, Verizon or AT&T buys the LTE spectrum and TMo gets screwed.

 

[Breaking Good]

They all need to be broken up into smaller pieces. There needs to be a minimum 10-20 carriers in the US, with forced interoperability requirements, for actual competition and real free market capitalism. This is econ 101 stuff. Until we have this we will continue to pay 5x what regions of the world with real competition pay.

SAY NO TO OLIGOPOLY!!

This was tried once already. It didn't work out all that well. Go read about the breakup of Bell Telephone Company.

My understanding is that Sprint has leases for spectrum that they aren't using because they don't have the money to invest in the infrastructure. My hope in this would be that the acquisition would be part of a larger plan be T-Mobile to phase out old technologies and move to all LTE.

In the interim, the Google Nexus and Pixel phones can already switch between T-mo and Sprint networks on Google's Project Fi. So the capability to switch between the two networks already exist. And since certain iPads work on Google's Project Fi data plans, it's not hard to see future iPhones being able to switch.

This may help Apple push e-SIM technology forward.

 

[smirking]

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.

In my area, here's the breakdown of most reliable to least: Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T. When I travel, I always use my own hotspot instead of using other people's WiFi and I keep my phone on Verizon, but have an iPad on T-Mobile as a backup for data if the place I'm at has terrible Verizon data coverage. If Verizon sucks there, I can usually count on T-Mobile or vice versa.

 

[Praesto]

How about no? The past few years have shown how good it is that we've had lots of competition between wireless carriers. We need MORE competition, not less.

The most recent example is everyone offering unlimited plans again right after Verizon decided to do so.

You do realize that the other carriers all already had unlimited plans.. Verizon was LAST to the table of the top for carriers. Sprint was first with the only truly unlimited plan. Just wanted to point that out, I wholly agree with the rest of your comment.

 

[cocky jeremy]

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

Funny how that works. T-Mobile isn't good where he is, so T-Mobile is bad overall. Totally makes sense.

 

[joy.757]

But they operate different kinds of networks iirc. So, they'll probably keep the operations separate even after merging, at least for some time.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Sprint wisely knows it's now the Age of Trump! Quickly my pets! Merge into monopolies quickly while you still can!!!! Screw the consumer! Make the Corporate States of America a reality once and for all time! Oligarchy forever!

 

[Zaft]

Sprint wisely knows it's now the Age of Trump! Quickly my pets! Merge into monopolies quickly while you still can!!!! Screw the consumer! Make the Corporate States of America a reality once and for all time! Oligarchy forever!

You can't blame SoftBank for wanting to sell sprint, it's simply not making the impact SoftBank envisioned.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You can't blame SoftBank for wanting to sell sprint, it's simply not making the impact SoftBank envisioned.

They should have to sell it to another company not already vested in the cell phone business. Mergers kill competition and drive up prices (exactly the opposite of what Capitalism is supposed to do).

Just an anecdotal personal story that comes to mind....

When I moved to my current location, I signed up with a trash company. They were shortly bought out by Waste Management. Every single quarter (their billing cycle around here), it would go up a bit. After 6 years, it went from $15 a month to $23 a month. I called Republic up and they were $24 a month. Fortunately for me, there was a local trash place around here still and they were still $15 a month and had been for 8 years. In the past 5 years since switching, they went up $1. The funny thing is that Waste Management wouldn't let me off the phone when I told them I was canceling. The lady eventually got her supervisor. I honestly think she was in danger of losing her job for losing a customer. They offered me 8 months free trash removal and lowering the bill back to $15.50. I told them they would just start raising it again 4 months later and they finally canceled it. Then I read this report from the CEO on a news site about how Waste Management was going to jack up all the rates all over the country and that they might lose some customers, but they knew in most areas, they were the ONLY disposal service so people would have no choice and their overall profits would go through the roof. It did. The CEO was praised for raising profits and stock values. Waste Management is DESPISED by consumers from the things I read and it's not hard to see why. Sadly, they have a monopoly in large swath of the country. How long until they convince someone at my current trash company to sell it to them?

It's like wanting another cable service for Internet but there is nothing available. DSL isn't the same. But every time someone suggests a regulation or enforcing anti-trust laws, certain political groups have a CRAP FIT. The problem is that Capitalism doesn't work without regulation because people never do the 'right' (moral) thing. They only do what makes them the most money. Screw everyone else. They can all go to hell. It's a dog eat dog world and only the strongest (or luckiest as in where and to whom your born) survive.

 

[mellofello]

They should have to sell it to another company not already vested in the cell phone business. Mergers kill competition and drive up prices (exactly the opposite of what Capitalism is supposed to do).

Just an anecdotal personal story that comes to mind....

When I moved to my current location, I signed up with a trash company. They were shortly bought out by Waste Management. Every single quarter (their billing cycle around here), it would go up a bit. After 6 years, it went from $15 a month to $23 a month. I called Republic up and they were $24 a month. Fortunately for me, there was a local trash place around here still and they were still $15 a month and had been for 8 years. In the past 5 years since switching, they went up $1. The funny thing is that Waste Management wouldn't let me off the phone when I told them I was canceling. The lady eventually got her supervisor. I honestly think she was in danger of losing her job for losing a customer. They offered me 8 months free trash removal and lowering the bill back to $15.50. I told them they would just start raising it again 4 months later and they finally canceled it. Then I read this report from the CEO on a news site about how Waste Management was going to jack up all the rates all over the country and that they might lose some customers, but they knew in most areas, they were the ONLY disposal service so people would have no choice and their overall profits would go through the roof. It did. The CEO was praised for raising profits and stock values. Waste Management is DESPISED by consumers from the things I read and it's not hard to see why. Sadly, they have a monopoly in large swath of the country. How long until they convince someone at my current trash company to sell it to them?

It's like wanting another cable service for Internet but there is nothing available. DSL isn't the same. But every time someone suggests a regulation or enforcing anti-trust laws, certain political groups have a CRAP FIT. The problem is that Capitalism doesn't work without regulation because people never do the 'right' (moral) thing. They only do what makes them the most money. Screw everyone else. They can all go to hell. It's a dog eat dog world and only the strongest (or luckiest as in where and to whom your born) survive.

 

[tizeye]

I normally go to US for 2 to 4 days job trips, and I liked that T-Mobile had this prepaid thing in which you could pay just for internet one day, in my case 4 days of internet, last time I went this year I just went for 2 days and I couldn't get to use my phone, does T-Mobile still has this offers?
So far I only see 30 days plans, and it is a waste since I only get to stay there a couple of days.
If the merge happens, will we get more options???

I am just the opposite. I go to Europe for a month each year and travel extensively when there. With their policy of 'free' internet, email and text to your account data limit blows ATT and Verizon out the water. I don't have to search for a café with free wifi, but use the local phone company's system without their charging me or having to purchase a supplemental package. I can actually use maps to find and live track my way around and back to the hotel. My ATT and Verizon friends as amazed as they see me texting and checking email. I don't do voice calls and voicemail, which cost to check, has special message to text or email. If voice is necessary...text to coordinate FaceTime/Skype depending on their system. Stateside, coverage is improving with LTE expansion and less reliance on public wifi override of cellular to expand coverage.