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.
T-Mobile and Sprint 'Close' to Finalizing Merger Deal, John Legere Said to Lead Combined Company
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Google already does this with Google Fi. So the technology already exists in some Android smartphones and the cellular networks of T-mobile and Sprint. I can't believe it would be too hard for Apple to develop a model of iPhone that will allow a smartphone to switch between networks depending on signal strength.
I'm not going to say that this means everything will be rainbows and cupcakes for consumers. Right now this could go either way. I think the big thing will be how many conditions anti-trust regulators and the FCC require for this to go through.
But this does have the potential to be a big win for U.S. consumers. It also has the potential to turn the U.S. cellular market into a larger version of the Canadian market, good for cellular companies but bad for consumers.
At the end of the day what I really think it comes to is that I think you need to have a minimum subscriber base of somewhere around 100 million in order to have a profitable nationwide cellular carrier in the United States. Neither T-mobile nor Sprint have it by themselves. But combined they make it. I think I'd rather take my chances on an oligopoly of three profitable companies rather than an oligopoly of two and two smaller companies that are always on the verge of going out of business.
Last edited:
It clearly says T-Mobile management will be the lead. And I’ve never had Sprint but they can’t be worse support than every single piece of scum that work at verizon.
I find their customer support to be comical. They are well aware of how bad their service is. They’ll also turn on each other when one representative screws up.
But the article says clearly that T-Mobile is taking charge, not Sprint.
Doesn't matter. Sprint already raised the price of their plans compared to their old 2-year contract plans, and Claude and team mentioned they were interested in returning to profitability (which seems clear now that they have higher plan rates, ignoring their "get a year free" and other limited time promos).
The only cheap plans are MVNO's now.
[doublepost=1506093861][/doublepost]
Oh... yes they can.
The last time I had a helpful person on the phone I thought, "how long before they quit?"
Sounds like a fair number of T-Mobile and Sprint employees will be looking for work if this deal goes through.
But so long as the CEOs make disgustingly high salaries, it's worth it.
A Best Buy rep told me their customer service is third-party. I worked at a call center that was third-party and you get a bunch of employees working in terrible, high-pressure conditions for little pay. These people DGAF.
Sprint is hardly competition. The Big 2 smirk at its desperation promotions rather than ape them. If anything this merger will make TMob a more capable rival to the Big 2 with additional frequencies and towers thereby increasing competition, esp when 5G rolls out. Sometimes less is more.
As a T-Mobile customer who switched from Sprint, I have mixed feelings about this. I doubt it will help my service here since Sprint sucks here and always has in the Mid-Atlantic region for as long as I can remember. I guess it would help in other parts of the US.
My biggest fear is the rise in prices.
My biggest fear is the rise in prices.
I drove from Ohio to NC and the Appalachia was a dead zone. They have said they have plans to remedy that but it’s a long term plan.
How is T Mobile for you? I had them for my iPad and couldn't get a signal indoors in DC area.
Regarding coverage and competition:
I’m generally opposed to government managed services, but communications is one utility that a singular entity would make sense. Like the federal highway system, the network could be funded by a use tax. The fed would fund the bulk of the network, ensuring coverage even in the least populated areas. States and cities would pay for expanded capacity relative to their populations. Again, it would be paid for with a use tax; however—like federal highways—our defense budget should contribute to it too. After all, communication is vital to our security.
There are some caveats, of course. The government could monitor private communications more easily. Also, network improvements are likely to take decades.
Cellular services suffer from the same challenges as cable companies. Unless they have an adequate subscriber base in a given location, they can’t provide affordable service. Like cable companies, they aquire territory rights by virtue of the radio spectrums they buy. Roaming partnerships guarantee travel coverage somewhat, but not the degree seen in Europe. Mergers like this one are good for the customer, but will surely drive costs up, even if it’s artificial.
I’m generally opposed to government managed services, but communications is one utility that a singular entity would make sense. Like the federal highway system, the network could be funded by a use tax. The fed would fund the bulk of the network, ensuring coverage even in the least populated areas. States and cities would pay for expanded capacity relative to their populations. Again, it would be paid for with a use tax; however—like federal highways—our defense budget should contribute to it too. After all, communication is vital to our security.
There are some caveats, of course. The government could monitor private communications more easily. Also, network improvements are likely to take decades.
Cellular services suffer from the same challenges as cable companies. Unless they have an adequate subscriber base in a given location, they can’t provide affordable service. Like cable companies, they aquire territory rights by virtue of the radio spectrums they buy. Roaming partnerships guarantee travel coverage somewhat, but not the degree seen in Europe. Mergers like this one are good for the customer, but will surely drive costs up, even if it’s artificial.
Last edited:
The only thing that would bother me about this, aside from the almost certain rise in prices, is possibly having to buy a new phone. I've got an iPhone 6 with Sprint and throughout the last 4 upgrade cycles (6S, 7, 7S and now 8), have been more than satisfied with it.
I would imagine that part of the agreement to allow the merger would be that current phones continue to work for xx years.
I too am of two minds on this. But contrary to many people's justified concerns, something tells me that this could be a positive change for consumers in the long term.
As things are now, if Sprint were to disappear in a few years due to their weak market position and fierce competitive pressures, currently mostly from T-Mobile, depending on who of the remaining three main players would be able to scoop up their spectrum, this could potentially leave T-Mob in an even weaker position due to their already very slim margins, with virtually no cash left for network improvements, and for tackling the two remaining behemoths. And that could spell their demise not long after, leaving us with the gloomy prospect of two titans lapping up the crumbs, and very little incentive to change the comfortable status quo.
However, if T-Mob and Sprint were to get the regulatory go-ahead to merge, with their combined Spectrum and customer base, they would end up being a larger, stronger alternative to VER and AT&T than each could hope to become individually, leaving us with three large providers and the more permanent and resilient dynamism necessary for a healthy and competitive marketplace.
The combined newly merged entity's biggest challenge might actually be a conversion of Sprint's network to GSM, a costly and daunting undertaking, but one that would pay off long-term in increased efficiencies.
As an aside, upon reflection, the reversal of the relative market positions of T-Mob and Sprint in regards to who would acquire whom may have been Deutsche Telekom's overriding motive with their aggressive discounting policies of the last few years, rather than putting the squeeze on the two frontrunners who had a virtually unassailable market position lead.
But such a potential merger could still go awry however, from a consumer point of view, if the new entity can not realize the significant savings from infrastructure and workforce efficiencies needed to have a positive cashflow, continue to improve the new network (which will be key to attracting new customers), and fund the above mentioned transition of the old Sprint's network from CDMA to GSM.
It will be interesting to see how all the variables of this process play out in the coming months and years.
They did it successfully when they bought metro pcs so I'm sure they can do it again
So YOU’RE the one!
[doublepost=1506102392][/doublepost]
Don’t text while driving.
My bill is $40 cheaper than it was a few years ago with VZW, and I’m getting much more than I used to.START to rise? Goodness please tell me AT&T can't get more expensive at a faster rate.
Yeah, maybe 2-3 years, and by 2020/1 every former Sprint customer will have to upgrade to a compatible phone.