T-Mobile Reaches Divestiture Deal With Dish in Hopes of Gaining Approval for Sprint Merger

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jul 2, 2019.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    T-Mobile has reached a divestiture deal with Dish Network that perhaps brings it one step closer to earning government approval for its planned merger with Sprint, reports CNBC.

    Dish Network and T-Mobile had been discussing a deal for Sprint's Boost Mobile brand and some wireless spectrum to ease antitrust concerns over the merger.


    Though the two companies have much of the divestiture deal in place, sources that spoke to CNBC said that there are still issues that the Justice Department is "actively focused on" before it would allow a deal.

    The government continues to be concerned that the agreement between Dish and T-Mobile isn't enough to make sure that Dish would provide meaningful competition in the U.S. cellular market.

    The DoJ wants Sprint and T-Mobile to ensure that there continues to be a fourth major carrier in the United States following their merger. The combination of Sprint and T-Mobile, which would be called T-Mobile and would be led by John Legere, would leave the U.S. with three major carriers: T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon.

    T-Mobile wants to limit Dish's spectrum capacity to 12.5 percent, while T-Mobile parent company Deutsche Telekom wants to limit any strategic Dish investor to five percent, restrictions the DoJ may not be happy with.

    Sprint and T-Mobile first announced a merger agreement in April 2018, but the completion of the deal continues to require government approval. As of May, U.S. regulators were said to be "leaning against" approving the merger unless some of T-Mobile and Sprint's assets were sold off, and T-Mobile and Sprint have been working toward that goal.

    Article Link: T-Mobile Reaches Divestiture Deal With Dish in Hopes of Gaining Approval for Sprint Merger
  2. JetTester macrumors 6502

    Feb 12, 2014
    I wasn’t aware that Dish provided cellular service. Certainly an agreement between them and T-Mobile would not result in a fourth major competitor.
  3. genovelle macrumors 6502a

    May 8, 2008
    They clearly have no idea what makes sense. Sprint will fail and cease to exist. Then there will be 3 anyway. The problem is Sprint failing and having its pieces chopped and liquidated means T-Mobile will still not be in a position to aggressively deploy 5G and will miss a once in long time opportunity to be on a level playing field. Not to mention all the jobs losses
  4. btrach144 macrumors 68000


    Aug 28, 2015
    Perfectly summed up. We all know Verizon and AT&T would enter into a bidding war for the liquidation sale of Sprint. T-Mobile doesn't have that kind of money to keep up.
  5. UnusedLoginID macrumors regular

    Feb 28, 2012
    I don’t get it! Disinvesting or selling Dish or Boost or Virgin mobile won’t change the landscape a bit. It’s about the postpaid market. Why are they (the government and the carriers) concerned about that? Especially as it was mentioned on this thread earlier, that Sprint will die a slow death anyway. They’re just trying to keep the ship afloat with freebies and low cost unlimited plans - and as I say, why pay unlimited when you can’t get service at all or decent speed service! -, a strategy which is not sustainable from a business perspective which is about “making money”.
    If I were the government I’d be more concerned about a company like Comcast who has a cable monopoly in many regions, who just started offering cellular service, who owns or is affiliated with big TV and movie production studios, who basically has a stronghold of everything now (from creation to distribution) in a non-competitive environment!
  6. tongxinshe macrumors 6502a

    Feb 24, 2008
    DOJ's real intention is to make sure none of T-Mobile or Sprint gain enough competition power in the US, as they are owned by German and Japanese companies respectively. The real power of our country always carefully guarantees that Anglo-Saxons keeps the ownership of the whole country.
  7. siddavis macrumors regular

    Feb 23, 2009
    I have no idea what their current partnership with Dish entails, but it seems a bit crazy that this needs to be done to make the deal more palatable to regulators when AT&T has DirecTV and many other tentacles.
  8. siddavis macrumors regular

    Feb 23, 2009
    I am mostly a fan of bureaucrats staying out of things myself, but this post is gross. There are countless examples of approvals where foreign companies take majority control. Enough with the identity crap.

    Also, it is a bit ironic that the term defines a people who first originated from Germany among other areas.
  9. itr81 macrumors regular

    Jul 12, 2010
    Dish has been trying to sell its self to AT&T/Directv for last decade or so. I’m kinda wondering if the boost buy is only a barging chip for a much bigger deal.
    Can you imagine if Dish buys Boost to only sell everything to AT&T say 5 years down the road.
  10. BuffaloTF macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2008
    They don't... but they keep buying wireless spectrum at every auction and they have a build-out requirement they're up against or they start getting penalized and ultimately may have to forfeit it all.

    Moving them a brand and providing them a network hosting service makes a ton of sense. Sprint's upgrades a decade ago (I think it was that long ago?) called Network Vision put in place tower systems that were marketed as able to host any other network/spectrum/technology. So this seems like it's the perfect partner for this.
  11. Victor Mortimer macrumors regular

    Victor Mortimer

    Apr 17, 2016
    Ugh. The LAST thing we need is more consolidation of cell carriers. This merger (and ANY merger of ANY cell phone company) should be blocked.

    What needs to happen instead are breakups of Verizon and AT&T.
  12. jakeuten macrumors member


    Apr 5, 2016
    How do you suggest we break them up in the era of modern telecom, where people are used to having a national network, and in an era where the 5G mmW buildout will cost way more money than that of the 2G, 3G, and 4G? This makes no sense to me.
  13. Victor Mortimer macrumors regular

    Victor Mortimer

    Apr 17, 2016
    Simple enough, split them everywhere, not by territory. Or force roaming agreements on the carriers since the systems are finally compatible again with LTE. Did you know you actually frequently get better coverage from the 'regional' carriers today? Their phones frequently can use whatever signal is stronger, not just their own towers.

    And 5G is going to happen on smaller, cheaper hardware than the earlier networks. There's no way it's going to be more expensive than 1G/2G/3G was. I suspect it's not going to happen any time soon in most places anyway, it's just not as useful as the lower frequencies given that those gigahertz bands can't penetrate most walls.

    And the reality is that 4G is good enough for most purposes anyway.

    (Yes, compatible again. Back in the analog days, you could use your cell phone on any carrier. No service on the A band, just switch to B band. In another city without your carrier? Phone still works, on A and B, because the carriers allowed roaming. Carrier locking hadn't been invented yet.)
  14. jakeuten macrumors member


    Apr 5, 2016
    This doesn't seem simple to me. How will site hardware be divided? Spectrum licenses? You do realize that today currently, Verizon has about the same amount of spectrum as T-Mobile under 6 GHz? But the argument for this merger is T-Mobile doesn't have enough spectrum? Make it make sense.

    This sort of does exist already. Sprint customers can roam on AT&T, T-Mobile, and USCC LTE networks... not to mention regional. T-Mobile customers can roam on USCC as well. AT&T has some LTE roaming agreements with regional carriers as well, and Verizon has LTEiRA.

    I did know that. That isn't the case where I live and probably 90% of where Americans live.

    So you're meaning to tell me that overbuilding all existing infrastructure AND building hyper dense urban networks is going to cost less than previous networks? Call me and every analyst shocked. 5G will be EXPENSIVE.


    Mark my words, majority of AT&T's network will have 5G by EOY 2020, via Sub 6 GHz spectrum. 700/850 MHz. T-Mobile will likely have a large portion of their network on 5G with or without merger... via 600 MHz spectrum.

    Sub 6 GHz 5G is just as real as mmW 5G.

    So was 56k at one point...

    We will likely see more of this as time goes on, especially with both AT&T and T-Mobile expanding their rural footprints.
  15. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    Sprint merges or Sprint folds, thats what is so maddening about this, is that literally if the deal doesn't happen, we will have two major carriers Verizon and AT&T and very weakened T-Mobile after Verizon and AT&T buy the pieces from Sprint's death. T-Mobile can't win a bidding war for sprint pieces with Verizon and AT&T, so we will still only have 3 only T-Mobile will be smaller and less able to compete.

Share This Page

14 July 2, 2019