So if this doesn’t go through, T-Mobile will probably still get a significant chunk of Sprint customers after it goes under.
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.
U.S. Justice Department 'Leaning Against' Approving T-Mobile/Sprint Merger
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Five Biggest Companies in any market segment should NEVER be allowed to Merge with one another !
I used to think there was no service difference in AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile. I finally traveled outside of a major metro area and had no service almost for a week. Everyone there had AT&T or Verizon.
movies are crap, no one NEEDs it. mobile INFRASTRUCTURE is a whole other story
[doublepost=1558423909][/doublepost]
what holds them to co-operate? no merger - no nothing needed. share infrastructure and stores. theres a wide range of cooperation nowadays
Yeah, T-Mobile's service sounds like a disaster around here. IMO there's no reason to think one service is a better value than any other; if you pay less, you get less. Nobody innovates in anything except their pricing models. But my opinion is biased because I'm already against T-Mobile for fighting against net neutrality.
I agree. Merging two lightweights will not result in a single uber-telecom juggernaut (like AT&T is). Both Verizon and AT&T will still be much larger than a merged T-Mobile-Sprint.
I think people are just being hysterical about this merger.
Will the merger be good for existing T-Mobile and Sprint customers? One would have to ask the customers how their cell service is and do they think combining the cell towers would improve it. If the merger does go through, will it make the prices more competitive as we know the company's goal is always to make more money which does not benefit the customers.
Cell service is almost a personal thing depending on where you live and visit. If you live in the northeast VZ was the only reliable option for a very long time because they had right aways for towers from years prior. I live in the south and my neighbors moved from a city in the northeast. Their VZ service is comically bad (stand outside to make calls, VZ sent them a cell point for their house, but it barely works), but ATT and TMO work fine around here.
If you do any international travel, TMO is the only option IMO.
and how was their at&t service? i know vz has better service outside of metro areas, but do not know that about at&t.
also a coworker of mine lives in long island and gets terrible service with vz... w/e vz does have better service usually, but they are just a terrible company for other reasons. what makes at&t superior to t-mo is what i'm trying to understand.
The wireless market was different then. Sprint/Nextel was stronger and was better competition, Verizon and Alltel hadn't yet merged, Cricket was an independent company, etc. There were more cooks in the kitchen back when Cingular bought AT&T.
Today there are 4 national carriers, will be only 3 if this deal goes through.
Sprint is doomed if this merger doesn't go through. Then you will have random spectrum up for sale and Verizon will capitalize on it(I know that is not how it works exactly but long story less long it does).
Last edited:
An anecdote in response to the possibility of a merger:
I had AT&T for 20+ years, and I was mostly happy with their coverage. When smartphones became ubiquitous, 90% of the time, I had faster speed than anyone who wasn't on AT&T. My work offered to pay for my phone about two years ago, so to save money, I took them up on it. The catch: I had to switch to Sprint. No big deal, I thought.
Stab me in the eyeballs. I have never been more frustrated over tech not working. Little to no coverage outside of the DC Metro area, and my wife (on Verizon) almost always had signal when I didn't. "Do you want to just use my phone?" became an almost-daily inevitable question when I would start throwing a tech tantrum. If I was on a call, I couldn't text, type in an address to navigate, or use the internet (unless connected to wifi, of course). When someone beeped in on a call, none of the iOS "end current call/hold/end" features worked; no matter what button I tapped, both calls would end (on that note, I'm surprised Apple would even let a company w/o VOLTE represent the iPhone when the features of the phone were so limiting or simply did not work).
Three weeks ago, my workplace got a new boss, and he didn't want to switch from Verizon, so the powers that be decided to give us a stipend instead of having us on the group Sprint plan. I couldn't get to Verizon fast enough. The end of our contract with Sprint came, and I drove like a madman to Verizon. The transition was seamless. Since switching, all of the frustrations I experienced on a daily basis have gone away. Done. I've got much better coverage, good speeds (mostly), and all the call handling/texting/VOLTE features work. I can't yet say if it's as good as AT&T, but so far, I feel like a new man.
Alllll that to say... If Sprint and T-Mobile merge, perhaps the resulting combined forces could create a product that would be comparable to, if not better than, AT&T and Verizon. Certainly, their coverage would increase, right? As for our monthly phone bills going up as a result? None of us can say with certainty either way, but my guess is that the competition could be better for our wallets in the short term. Over the long haul, however, with or without this merger, we're going to continue to see phone and phone service prices rise. It's the nature of the beast when the companies who provide us with modern necessities like phones are run by focusing on the bottom line, rather than providing quality, both in product and customer service. I can get angry over it, or, as with most things I can't control (90% of everything in life), I can accept it, plan accordingly, and decide for myself what I'm willing to endure and at what cost.
For now, I am elated to be in the grips of Verizon; I may even keep my eyeballs.
I had AT&T for 20+ years, and I was mostly happy with their coverage. When smartphones became ubiquitous, 90% of the time, I had faster speed than anyone who wasn't on AT&T. My work offered to pay for my phone about two years ago, so to save money, I took them up on it. The catch: I had to switch to Sprint. No big deal, I thought.
Stab me in the eyeballs. I have never been more frustrated over tech not working. Little to no coverage outside of the DC Metro area, and my wife (on Verizon) almost always had signal when I didn't. "Do you want to just use my phone?" became an almost-daily inevitable question when I would start throwing a tech tantrum. If I was on a call, I couldn't text, type in an address to navigate, or use the internet (unless connected to wifi, of course). When someone beeped in on a call, none of the iOS "end current call/hold/end" features worked; no matter what button I tapped, both calls would end (on that note, I'm surprised Apple would even let a company w/o VOLTE represent the iPhone when the features of the phone were so limiting or simply did not work).
Three weeks ago, my workplace got a new boss, and he didn't want to switch from Verizon, so the powers that be decided to give us a stipend instead of having us on the group Sprint plan. I couldn't get to Verizon fast enough. The end of our contract with Sprint came, and I drove like a madman to Verizon. The transition was seamless. Since switching, all of the frustrations I experienced on a daily basis have gone away. Done. I've got much better coverage, good speeds (mostly), and all the call handling/texting/VOLTE features work. I can't yet say if it's as good as AT&T, but so far, I feel like a new man.
Alllll that to say... If Sprint and T-Mobile merge, perhaps the resulting combined forces could create a product that would be comparable to, if not better than, AT&T and Verizon. Certainly, their coverage would increase, right? As for our monthly phone bills going up as a result? None of us can say with certainty either way, but my guess is that the competition could be better for our wallets in the short term. Over the long haul, however, with or without this merger, we're going to continue to see phone and phone service prices rise. It's the nature of the beast when the companies who provide us with modern necessities like phones are run by focusing on the bottom line, rather than providing quality, both in product and customer service. I can get angry over it, or, as with most things I can't control (90% of everything in life), I can accept it, plan accordingly, and decide for myself what I'm willing to endure and at what cost.
For now, I am elated to be in the grips of Verizon; I may even keep my eyeballs.
I don’t even know why sprint is considered a national carrier. They barely cover half the people, and they won’t cover anyone at all with 5G, they will just go bankrupt. I hope this merger goes through. It would create more competition in a lot of markets. Me don’t give me that less competition argument. None of the other carriers even think twice about Sprint. At least at Verizon we didn’t. All T-Mobile needs is their spectrum. After they merge, the New T-Mobile would still have 20 million less subscribers than AT&T.
Actually, that's often not the case. Profits are what provide the money needed for improvements and 5G, so we're told, will be a big improvement.
Then you don’t understand the merger. They explain it pretty well on their website. I definitely recommend checking it out. It helps clear up some stuff.
[doublepost=1558456371][/doublepost]
Yep. Exactly. Most people don’t realize just how big AT&T and Verizon are.
Last edited:
Disney is slowly buying up the competition. They just erased one of the longest running studios from competition and they gobbled up Hulu entirely. They own Marvel, they own Fox, they own Lucasfilm, and they own Pixar. These are not good things even though there is still competition.
[doublepost=1558458665][/doublepost]
wireless smartphones are crap, no one NEEDS it. We functioned just fine without them for hundreds of years.
"The merger might not be approved because the two companies "don't go far enough" to resolve antitrust concerns raised by the U.S. government."
Makes sense... It's like rushing into things before resolving anything.
It the merger did happen, they'd still be in the same boat with "not going far enough", or someone thinks merging will "solve" this.
Makes sense... It's like rushing into things before resolving anything.
It the merger did happen, they'd still be in the same boat with "not going far enough", or someone thinks merging will "solve" this.
Last edited:
Yes, portions of profits should go towards improvements, however, it still comes down to the CEO's decision as far as where it goes. Will T-Mobile invest more into improvements or do they think taking over Sprints existing system is sufficient? Maybe, maybe not.
Sprint was already failing before SoftBank took over. Now SoftBank just needs to get rid of the debt.
Except the most competitive markets globally almost always have 3 carriers.
If this merger is denied, Sprint will fail, AT&T and Verizon will sweep in and buy the assets and you'll end up with 2 dominant and one weakened carriers and a worse situation than if this was allowed to proceed. That MVNO you're so fond of might find it re-negotiating rates with the newly empowered carriers and you paying nearly the same rate or higher.
Do you have T-Mobile? I do, and I travel all over the US for work, and over the last 5 years of having T-Mobile, I have to say their service is def on par with AT&T (friend who traveled with has AT&T)