Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Sprint Working on Potential T-Mobile US Purchase

mikefla said:
Huh? Where exactly is this far superior LTE network you speak of? I went searching for it but didn't find much. Maybe you are talking about their new 20+ LTE network which is available almost nowhere yet.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Tmobile has managed to hit 300 LTE markets in less than a year while Sprint is still "rolling" out their LTE network over the past couple years and has been relegated to #4 in terms of LTE markets. Tmobile has basically made a mockery of Sprint with their ultra-quick wide rollout.

Nevermind that speeds on Sprint are the SLOWEST of all 4 carriers; 3G & LTE.
 
Sprint and T-Mobile should be allowed to merge if they want to. Anti-trust laws are ridiculous to begin with, imo. Running a network is not a public service, it's a business.

A business is always looking for ways to bring down costs so they can be more efficient and productive, so they can compete better and gain more customers and market share. But they also are going to charge as much as people are willing to pay, which makes some people with a sense of entitlement unhappy. But over time, even though one or two companies can be very dominant during a certain time period, prices will always come down when free competition is allowed. This is very evident now for example, when T-Mobile has finally shaken up the mobile landscape in the US with their new lower cost plans. You can be sure that both AT&T and Verizon will soon lower their prices as well, especially if T-Mobile can expand their network, which is the only advantage Verizon has now for example that let's them charge more.

If anyone is interested in learning the truth about anti-trust laws and monopolies, here's a great article about the classic example, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company of the late 1800s:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/deta...r-barons-the-standard-oil-story#axzz2aZpoOovN

P.S. I just switched 5 family lines to T-Mobile from AT&T, and lowered my monthly bill by half. But when I called to cancel, AT&T offered to lower my monthly bill by $20. So they are already feeling the pressure.
 
Col Ronson said:
Tmobile has managed to hit 300 LTE markets in less than a year while Sprint is still "rolling" out their LTE network over the past couple years and has been relegated to #4 in terms of LTE markets. Tmobile has basically made a mockery of Sprint with their ultra-quick wide rollout.

Nevermind that speeds on Sprint are the SLOWEST of all 4 carriers; 3G & LTE.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Sprint's customer service stinks on ice.

Keep them separate.
 
Doc69 said:
P.S. I just switched 5 family lines to T-Mobile from AT&T, and lowered my monthly bill by half. But when I called to cancel, AT&T offered to lower my monthly bill by $20. So they are already feeling the pressure.
Click to expand...

AT&T only offer $20 in saving in order to retain 5 lines? Ouch.

I can see why your monthly bill is lowered by half:

5 family plans on T-Mobile = $50 + $30 + $10 + $10 + $10 = $110.
That's $110 / 5 = $22 for each line.

And every line have unlimited talk, unlimited text and 500MB LTE (each).
 
Wilfredo Martinez wrote this at TMONews

Not really, 3 big companies means less completion Freddy. They will have fixed pricing that may vary very little compared to the options we have now thanks to T-Mobile's aggressiveness.

Let's analyze this, Verizon has about 120 million customers, AT&T has about 108 million customers, the new Sprint and T-Mobile combined would have about 54 + 44 = 98 million customers. 3 top dogs with very little gaps in customers, do you think that they are going to compete after all 3 having about the same market power?


------------------------------------------

Consumers benefit when there is an active competitor. Look at France. 3 Major Carriers. Prices were very high. the 4th carrier began operation a few years ago and competed heavily. Prices went down across the board because the other 3 carriers were forced to lower the prices in order to retain their customers who were fleeing.

Which carriers is actively competing in the USA?

AT&T? no
Verizon? no
Sprint? no

Only T-Mobile is. Best way to get rid of a competitor that is driving down wireless prices? Buy it out and get rid of it.

T-Mobile is gaining about 4 million customers a year (2.1 million in the 6 months of 2Q and 3Q). It is putting pressure on the other 3 carriers. They can do nothing and see their customers switch to T-Mobile, or they will have to lower their prices in order to compete.
 
bedifferent said:
No. We need more competition, not less. AT&T should not have been allowed to purchase the only other GSM carrier in the U.S., thankfully the days of "Ma Bell" taught us a lesson. I certainly hope this lesson sticks.
Click to expand...

Right now, T Mobile and Sprint are hardly "competition" to AT&T and Verizon. Combined, they are. This wouldn't create less competition.
 
mikefla said:
GSM is out the door, what? Have you traveled outside of the USA? Most of the rest of the World runs on GSM networks not crap CDMA!
Click to expand...

GSM is still around in most countries for legacy reasons, but it's a 2G technology that is rapidly being replaced by 3G and 4G technologies: W-CDMA (aka UMTS) and LTE.

Americans tend to say "GSM" to refer to certain types of 3G/4G networks, but it's technically incorrect to do so. GSM = 2G.
 
EbookReader said:
I can see why your monthly bill is lowered by half: 5 family plans on T-Mobile = $50 + $30 + $10 + $10 + $10 = $110.
That's $110 / 5 = $22 for each line.
And every line have unlimited talk, unlimited text and 500MB LTE (each).
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an amazing deal. Especially for people who already have an iPhone they're happy with. With Verizon and AT&T you really need to get a new phone every two years to at least get some of your money's worth. And if you're like me, and you like to get a new iPhone every year and sell the old one yourself, then the T-Mobile deal still works out better there overall as well.
 
EbookReader said:
5 family plans on T-Mobile = $50 + $30 + $10 + $10 + $10 = $110.
That's $110 / 5 = $22 for each line.
Click to expand...
They still screw you if you're single. That's more like $50 per line then. You have to go MVNO to get a good deal, but then you won't get LTE.
 
I hope this goes forward but ultimately falls through and T-mobile just gets a bunch of free stuff like in the AT&T merger.
 
cocky jeremy said:
Right now, T Mobile and Sprint are hardly "competition" to AT&T and Verizon. Combined, they are. This wouldn't create less competition.
Click to expand...

True, I just hate the idea of three "major" carriers in the U.S. instead of four. AT&T and T-Mobile are the only GSM networks, right? Leaving Sprint and Verizon on CDMA/LTE/whatever. It seemed prices began to fall a bit as carriers pushed out new programs after the fallout from the courts denial of AT&T's acquisition of Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile, perhaps a result of T-Mobile having no recourse other than to push their U.S. business further. Whatever the reason(s), keeping a fourth carrier to compete alongside Verizon and AT&T (especially the only other GSM based network), is a good thing. I'd hate to have Verizon and AT&T become the only two major U.S. mobile providers.
 
bedifferent said:
True, I just hate the idea of three "major" carriers in the U.S. instead of four. AT&T and T-Mobile are the only GSM networks, right? Leaving Sprint and Verizon on CDMA/LTE/whatever. It seemed prices began to fall a bit as carriers pushed out new programs after the fallout from the courts denial of AT&T's acquisition of Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile, perhaps a result of T-Mobile having no recourse other than to push their U.S. business further. Whatever the reason(s), keeping a fourth carrier to compete alongside Verizon and AT&T (especially the only other GSM based network), is a good thing. I'd hate to have Verizon and AT&T become the only two major U.S. mobile providers.
Click to expand...

Once LTE gets bigger, I'd say it'll be the only thing available. When something newer comes along, LTE will become the new GSM/CDMA. It's a never ending process.
 
WhackyNinja said:
What? But...What? WHAT?! No.

Image
Click to expand...

Don't know why, but, somehow, I have this felling you are a Doctor Who fan.

tumblr_lr6x3ohxgV1qknbv6.gif
 
Terrin said:
It is funny the same people are not criticising companies like Nokia, HTC, or Microsoft. Perhaps, they just want Samsung to compete by not using Apple for its R & D.

Out of the four carriers, T-Mobile is the only one innovating in terms of the plans its offers. As a long time T-Mobile customer, I would be really unhappy with such a merger. It would also be costly for T-Mobile because lots of people on its no contract plans would jump ship. I would go to Straight Talk or AIO. No way I am going to Sprint, AT&T or Verizon.
Click to expand...

They aren't criticizing those companies because they don't sell as well. Nearly as well.

And why are you telling me why I shouldn't want the merger? I don't want the merger.

----------
Solomani said:
And you must be in bliss all the time.
Click to expand...

I am not, because unlike most of the people here, I have no blind allegiance to any one brand.
 
Four carriers seems to be required for good competition, especially when it comes to keeping prices from skyrocketing. With the recent strategy used by T-Mobile, they've forced AT&T to lower their shared data pricing. If absorbed by Sprint, customers will be the first to be hit with higher prices, a very real scenario. Given that T-Mobile is GSM & Sprint is not, it would be a real mess.
 
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428392,00.asp
Prepare for the Sprint/T-Mobile Merger Lies

AT&T/T-Mobile

Promise: AT&T would only build out about 80 percent of the country if it didn't merge with T-Mobile. (source: AT&T FCC filing).
Reality: After the merger failed, AT&T announced a plan to build out an LTE network covering 97 percent of the country.

Promise: "T-Mobile's parent company, Deutsche Telekom, has made it clear that it will not invest the billions needed to build next-generation high-speed networks in the U.S. That means no path to LTE 4G high speed wireless broadband for T-Mobile customers." (source: AT&T FCC filing and AT&T press release)
Reality: T-Mobile's new LTE network now covers more than 200 million people. T-Mobile launched faster 20+20 LTE before AT&T did.

Promise: The merger would create jobs by investing an additional $8 billion. (source: AT&T press release, above).
Reality: AT&T told investors that synergies would result in $10 billion less investment (source: DSLReports.com).

----------

http://www.techhive.com/article/208...a-sprint/t-mobile-merger-but-they-should.html

Moffett believes all the wireless companies would benefit from a merger, and for a simple reason. "A Sprint/T-Mobile deal would also be good news for Verizon and AT&T . . . After all, industry consolidation is almost always good news for the industry."
Click to expand...

it's much easier for 3 carriers to have tacit collusion rather than 4 carriers, especially when 1 of the 4 carriers is being aggressive.

Tacit collusion occurs where firms undergo actions that are likely to minimise a response from another firm, e.g. avoiding the opportunity to price cut an opposition. Put another way, two firms agree to play a certain strategy without explicitly saying so. Oligopolists usually try not to engage in price cutting, excessive advertising or other forms of competition. Thus, there may be unwritten rules of collusive behavior such as price leadership (tacit collusion). A price leader will then emerge and sets the general industry price, with other firms following suit.


sound familiar? AT&T and Verizon are very cozy with each others. Do we want AT&T, Verizon and Sprint to be cozy together after they got rid of T-Mobile?
 
EbookReader said:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428392,00.asp
Prepare for the Sprint/T-Mobile Merger Lies

it's much easier for 3 carriers to have tacit collusion rather than 4 carriers, especially when 1 of the 4 carriers is being aggressive.

Tacit collusion occurs where firms undergo actions that are likely to minimise a response from another firm, e.g. avoiding the opportunity to price cut an opposition. Put another way, two firms agree to play a certain strategy without explicitly saying so. Oligopolists usually try not to engage in price cutting, excessive advertising or other forms of competition. Thus, there may be unwritten rules of collusive behavior such as price leadership (tacit collusion). A price leader will then emerge and sets the general industry price, with other firms following suit.


sound familiar? AT&T and Verizon are very cozy with each others. Do we want AT&T, Verizon and Sprint to be cozy together after they got rid of T-Mobile?
Click to expand...

God yes! On the money. From the infamous "Street Car Collusion" between GM and the oil and gas company's in the 1920's-30's to MaBell in the 80's, people really need to understand the machinations of the corporate system. It's all about money, money, money, and having a moral compass is frowned upon.
 
bedifferent said:
God yes! On the money. From the infamous "Street Car Collusion" between GM and the oil and gas company's in the 1920's-30's to MaBell in the 80's, people really need to understand the machinations of the corporate system. It's all about money, money, money, and having a moral compass is frowned upon.
Click to expand...

Yes, running a business, and especially a public company, is always going to be about money and making profits for the shareholders. But in a free society, where competition is free as well, you can't make profits without also giving your customers value for their money. And whether we pay $25, 50 or even $100 per month for our smart phones, never forget that this really is an incredible value we're getting here. I'm very happy that these corporations decided to invest and risk billions of dollars in order for me to be able to call, text and browse the web wherever I am.

Most people only have to work for a few hours a month to make enough money to pay their cell phone bill. In my book, that's incredibly cheap.

I also would rather not see the merger go through. But if T-Mobile and Sprint wants to do it, then so be it. And even if there are only 3 companies left standing, you can be pretty sure that Sprint/T-Mobile with it's smaller network would still compete for customers with lower prices, since that's their only edge right now.
 
Hmmm.... Lots of BS in this article.

EbookReader said:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428392,00.asp
Prepare for the Sprint/T-Mobile Merger Lies

AT&T/T-Mobile

Promise: AT&T would only build out about 80 percent of the country if it didn't merge with T-Mobile. (source: AT&T FCC filing).
Reality: After the merger failed, AT&T announced a plan to build out an LTE network covering 97 percent of the country.
Click to expand...

AT&T was correct when the original FCC filings went through. They did not buy 700 spectrum everywhere. They were not able to secure it in every area (VT for example.) AT&T was able to expand the LTE rollout by buying spectrum from VZW and some smaller carriers, POST merger fail. The original plan was to launch on 700 only. Now they've gotten more creative and have started to lower the amount of used spectrum for EDGE and use it for LTE. VT now has LTE on 850. NYC has a 2x5 layer of PCS LTE on top of the 2x10 700 spectrum.

If anything, TMobile is screwing around with all the spectrum they own. They own nationwide PCS and AWS spectrum. With all this spectrum, why have they not launched HSPA everywhere? They've been building their HSPA network for almost 5 years now and their majority data network is STILL EDGE and GPRS. They have the spectrum to launch LTE nationwide on AWS. They aren't doing it. The reason why AT&T wanted to merge with TMobile was because of all underutilized AWS they have.

and no, the "higher-bands in rural areas" excuse doesn't work here. Sprint has made it clear that their PCS spectrum will have LTE nationwide.

Promise: "T-Mobile's parent company, Deutsche Telekom, has made it clear that it will not invest the billions needed to build next-generation high-speed networks in the U.S. That means no path to LTE 4G high speed wireless broadband for T-Mobile customers." (source: AT&T FCC filing and AT&T press release)
Reality: T-Mobile's new LTE network now covers more than 200 million people. T-Mobile launched faster 20+20 LTE before AT&T did.
Click to expand...
Testing a couple towers in Dallas ≠ launching 2x20 LTE. If anything, VZW gets the recognition for doing it right. In a matter of weeks, NYC is pretty much already blanketed with their new 2x20 AWS LTE network.

While the big 3 carriers are spending their time and money laying fiber nationwide to their towers, T-Mobile is only throwing up LTE in the areas with backhaul. They also have the audacity to blatantly lie that they have a nationwide 4G network.

----------
Col Ronson said:
Tmobile has managed to hit 300 LTE markets in less than a year while Sprint is still "rolling" out their LTE network over the past couple years and has been relegated to #4 in terms of LTE markets. Tmobile has basically made a mockery of Sprint with their ultra-quick wide rollout.

Nevermind that speeds on Sprint are the SLOWEST of all 4 carriers; 3G & LTE.
Click to expand...

And AT&T/VZW have more LTE than TMobile has HSPA (something they've been deploying for almost 5 years.) They were able to do it in about 2 years. Sprint has nationwide EVDO.

Spare me the BS of their "ultra-quick rollout"

The only thing TMobile has claim is that they have a nationwide EDGE network. That's it.

As usual, TMobile is last to the party (3G and LTE) and they've half-assed both so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back