And it's never going to happen in rural areas, so the newly merged partners will ignore rural needs while trying, with extreme difficulty, to build out their fabulous 5G network.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sprint and T-Mobile Reach Merger Agreement, Plan for 'World's Best' 5G Network
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And it's never going to happen in rural areas, so the newly merged partners will ignore rural needs while trying, with extreme difficulty, to build out their fabulous 5G network.
All the carriers screw one-line customers on postpaid. If you have one line you should be using one of the in-house prepaid divisions or an MVNO. The real deals on postpaid are family plans with 4+ lines, that's who the carriers really want on postpaid.
[doublepost=1525062433][/doublepost]
If that's actually true, then Verizon and AT&T won't oppose this merger. Why would they if T-Mobile gives them the gift of being able to raise prices?
The sad thing about all this is not the technical side, but the human side. Anytime 2 companies merge, there is always a large layoff; they will not need 2 payroll depts, 2 legal, 2 HR, and lots fewer people working as they close the redundant stores. The only questions I could see would be if the regulatory agencies allow it, which under Trump is almost a done deal, and how many people will lose their jobs.
I do hope one thing from the regulators, to force T-Mobile/Sprint to have their phones unlocked out of the box, just like Verizon. Sprint is notorious in not willing to unlock phones.
Let’s get real here, this is all about T-Mo getting the snail’s customers and no longer sitting at the kid’s table while the “grownups” laugh at the big table. Anything else is a bonus.
The customers and the spectrum for 5G development. Sprint has a gold mine of spectrum and can't take advantage because they're already in debt up to their eyeballs.
Interesting you think people living below poverty level have a phone.
Especially iPhones although not everyone on T-Mobile have iPhones. Regardless there is a huge amount of people on T-Mobile using iPhones myself included.
This sounds horrendous.
It’s not so much about consumer choice because 3 is a good number but that often the choice is already less than three in rural areas. And that be snake oil if you think rural areas are gonna now get coverage.
The US is the only place to use these weird frequencies and old tech, shifting away from them is about the only advantage here.
It’s not so much about consumer choice because 3 is a good number but that often the choice is already less than three in rural areas. And that be snake oil if you think rural areas are gonna now get coverage.
The US is the only place to use these weird frequencies and old tech, shifting away from them is about the only advantage here.
Excerpt from microwavenews.com below:
“Clear Evidence” of Cell Phone Cancer Risk, Say Leading Pathologists
Why Peer Review Panel and NTP Interpreted the Same Animal Data Differently
Monday, April 9, 2018
“You had it right the first time.” That was the implicit message to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) from an expert panel after a point-by-point review of NTP’s draft reports on its $25 million study of cancer risks of cell phone radiation in mice and rats.
Two years ago, with the results in hand, the NTP had rushed to warn the public about the dangers of cell phones. It issued an interim report pointing to higher rates of tumors in the hearts and brains of male rats exposed to two different kinds of phone radiation. Then early this February with the release of the formal draft reports, the NTP made a U-turn, saying that using a cell phone “is not a high-risk situation.”
Now a peer review panel —11 pathologists and toxicologists from academia and industry and one statistician— has concluded that there is “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in those male rats.
[doublepost=1525081059][/doublepost]
“Clear Evidence” of Cell Phone Cancer Risk, Say Leading Pathologists
Why Peer Review Panel and NTP Interpreted the Same Animal Data Differently
Monday, April 9, 2018
“You had it right the first time.” That was the implicit message to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) from an expert panel after a point-by-point review of NTP’s draft reports on its $25 million study of cancer risks of cell phone radiation in mice and rats.
Two years ago, with the results in hand, the NTP had rushed to warn the public about the dangers of cell phones. It issued an interim report pointing to higher rates of tumors in the hearts and brains of male rats exposed to two different kinds of phone radiation. Then early this February with the release of the formal draft reports, the NTP made a U-turn, saying that using a cell phone “is not a high-risk situation.”
Now a peer review panel —11 pathologists and toxicologists from academia and industry and one statistician— has concluded that there is “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in those male rats.
[doublepost=1525081059][/doublepost]
Sprint and T-Mobile have finally reached a merger agreement, which means if approved by regulators, two of the four major carriers in the United States will combine into one entity in an all-stock deal worth billions.
The new combined company will be named T-Mobile and current T-Mobile CEO John Legere will serve as the Chief Executive Officer. Sprint and T-Mobile say the company will be a "force for positive change" in the U.S. wireless, video, and broadband industries, supercharging T-Mobile's Un-carrier strategy and allowing the new company to "lead in the 5G era."
According to the terms of the deal, T-Mobile plans to exchange 9.75 Sprint shares for each T-Mobile share. Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile's parent company, will own 42 percent of the combined company and SoftBank, Sprint's parent company, will own 27 percent. Deutsche Telekom will have voting rights over 69 percent of the new company and will appoint nine of its 14 directors, while Sprint will appoint four.
T-Mobile CEO John Legere said that the combined company will "create a fierce competitor" that's able to "deliver more for consumers and businesses in the form of lower prices, more innovation, and a second-to-none network experience," while current Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure, who will serve on the board of the new company, said that the merger will make the U.S. a "hotbed for innovation."Along with the faster rollout of 5G technology, Sprint and T-Mobile say the merger will lead to job creation, lower prices for consumers, improved coverage, and "unprecedented network capacity."
The deal between Sprint and T-Mobile still needs to be approved by antitrust regulators in the United States, but if it goes through, the U.S. will have three major carriers rather four. The combined Sprint and T-Mobile company will have nearly 100 million customers, putting it second only to Verizon.
Sprint and T-Mobile are aiming to close the deal "no later" than first half of 2019. More information about the merger can be found in the press release and in a new "All for 5G" website the two companies have created.
Article Link: Sprint and T-Mobile Reach Merger Agreement, Plan for 'World's Best' 5G Network
In the US if you are getting government assistance you can get a free phone with limited minutes and no or limited data.
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enrollment/Safelink/en/NewPublic/index.html
My favorite thing is that they said the merger will create jobs...... Hmmmm how many thousands will be redundant and be pink slipped?
Somewhere along the way I read ATT has the highest iPhone penetration while TMobile has the lowest. Tmobile is over 2/3 Android.
I think it might be more the carier lock in thsn cdma vs gsm, when you have a system (to my knowlage) only being deployed only in the US, you have limited bracket for handsets and mobile chipsets, so guess what gets more r&d spending. On top of it all, if you get into an area with no/limited CDMA coverage there might not be seamless or indeed any seamless roaming to a gsm network, which adds up tons rather poor customer experience. And since all or at least most carriers of scumbags anyway people tend to blame the one thing that separates them so CDMA gets a bad rep. These are my 2 cents, I am almost certainly wrong in at least one of my assumptions (if I'm lucky) so corrections will be aprecuated
I used to work for T-Mobile and they do cater to people of lower income, higher churn, worse credit. I your main message is about your price what do you expect, and ATT & Verizon may cost more but they have superior service. You may not notice it if you don't really travel out side metro circles.
I'm so stoked for this. I can't wait to ditch AT&T and actually have coverage with T-Mobile.
At least... that's my hope.
At least... that's my hope.
Splitting up att and Verizon is a better solution to foster competition and innovation than allowing T-Mobile and sprint to combine.
I think it's great that people can regurgitate headlines from lazy science reporting. The actual study shows the exact opposite of what you are mindlessly regurgitating. After blasting these rats with high cellular radiation all day, every day of their lives they found NO statistical significance in cancer occurance and found a minor non-corrolating blip in only the male rat population.
You left out the part about how your monthly bill never decreased after the carrier had recouped the cost of the subsidized phone.
Also keep in mind that there haven't been CDMA-only phones for quite some time now; any phone with LTE capability also has GSM capability, so 90% of Sprint's customers should be able to move to T-Mobile's network just fine. Offer enticing upgrade deals for the remaining 10%, and once everyone is off the CDMA network it can be nuked and the frequency bands repurposed for LTE or 5G.
Two different things going on here and you don't seem to understand.
Anyone with any background or even general knowledge of economics will tell you that more competition is always better for the consumer. The most brands have to compete, the more they drive better products, advancements, and value (price) for the consumer. So loss of competition is bad for consumers as brands don't have as much reason to compete when they have more control of the market.
Why are Verizon and AT&T against this? It means a bigger competitor. While competition is good for the consumer, it's not something any company wants. They'd all love to own their market and not have to compete. It's always cheaper for a company to operate in a monopoly or market where they're the dominant force. Less requirement to advance and easier to rest on your laurels. Cheaper to operate.
You are correct, except poor people don't have very many lobbyists nor do the MVNOs that cater to them.
I'd say this merger has better than 50% odds of going through, but not much better.
Personally, I'm conflicted.
One the one hand, from a technical standpoint and provided there is competent well-intentioned leadership, the merged company would be well situated to really improve their combined wireless infrastructure. In theory, one of the big promises of 5G isn't so much increased speed (though there is that too) but it is longer range and more capacity. This means more coverage in rural areas and fewer drops from overcrowding (don't you love it when you have 5 bars of LTE at a baseball game and nothing loads?). The combined company would have a ton of spectrum and incentive to roll out 5G as soon as possible.
One the other hand, the above statement has a lot of caveats. Notably competent and well-intentioned leadership. Even though I think Legere fits both those, I'm not sure his vision will be perfectly implemented given the board and the general trend in the telecom industry of investing the bear minimum, breaking contracts, lying, and milking what little infrastructure they do manage to build for all it's worth.
It is pretty much impossible to start a wholly new wireless telecom company today. That might be reason alone to block this deal.
I'm a bit ambivalent about this deal, but it certainly bothers me a lot less than the idea of AT&T buying out Sprint or T-Mobile.
Sprint is a bit of a bit player in the cel provider market; they have the smallest customer base and have never been particularly strong coverage-wise compared to the other companies.
T-Mobile is bigger than Sprint, but they have also been considered weaker than the big juggernauts AT&T and Verizon. You often hear of people switching from T-Mobile to AT&T or Verizon due to coverage weakness; my own mother did. (AT&T)
I think that combined, T-Mobile and Sprint will provide stronger competition to AT&T and Verizon. It'll be "the big three", rather than "the big two and the smaller cousins."
So it may be good, or it may be bad, depending on the new company's leadership. I just feel bad for the inevitably laid off employees.
Sprint is a bit of a bit player in the cel provider market; they have the smallest customer base and have never been particularly strong coverage-wise compared to the other companies.
T-Mobile is bigger than Sprint, but they have also been considered weaker than the big juggernauts AT&T and Verizon. You often hear of people switching from T-Mobile to AT&T or Verizon due to coverage weakness; my own mother did. (AT&T)
I think that combined, T-Mobile and Sprint will provide stronger competition to AT&T and Verizon. It'll be "the big three", rather than "the big two and the smaller cousins."
So it may be good, or it may be bad, depending on the new company's leadership. I just feel bad for the inevitably laid off employees.