Carrier Verizon signaling that it favors Sprint takeover of T-Mobile

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by EbookReader, Apr 24, 2014.

  1. EbookReader, Apr 24, 2014
    Last edited: May 22, 2014

    EbookReader macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #1
    http://www.fiercewireless.com/story...dish-about-any-deals/2014-05-20#ixzz32GnzeUg6

    Why 3 players mean less competition and more profits for the 3 players:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-softbank-son-oligopoly-20140423,0,2375556.story
    Japan attack on wireless 'oligopoly' awkward for SoftBank's U.S. plans



    Canadian regulators probably say the same thing since its market is another classic example of three-company oligopoly. High prices for customers and high profits for the 3 dominant carriers (Telus, Rogers and Bell).

    No actual competition = higher profits.



    An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). Oligopolies can result from various forms of collusion which reduce competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.

    With few sellers, each oligopolist is likely to be aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm therefore influence and are influenced by the decisions of other firms.Strategic planning by oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other market participants.



    Example of three-company oligopoly from Canada

    http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/rogers-telus-bell-price-hikes/
    March 17th, 2014

    Nothing the government can do about it since they can't prove that these 3 companies colluded together to bring about this $5 price hike. Tacit collusion at its best.

    Manitoba and Saskatchewan are two provinces in Canada where these 3 carriers didn't raise the $5/month. That is because that these 2 provinces has strong regional competitors in SaskTel and MTS. Raising the $5 will make these 3 national carriers less competitive there.
     
  2. EbookReader thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #2
  3. EbookReader, May 22, 2014
    Last edited: May 22, 2014

    EbookReader thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #3
    http://www.fiercewireless.com/story...dish-about-any-deals/2014-05-20#ixzz32GnzeUg6

    For wireless carriers, the less is better since there is much more profits in being three-company oligopoly.

    Why compete by lowering prices when you don't compete and get higher profits through charging customers higher prices.



    Canadian version of DOJ has this to say about its 3-company oligopoly:

    http://benklass.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/wireless-carriers-high-flying-prices/comment-page-1/

    If 3-company oligopoly becomes a reality in the USA, the stock prices of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint will increase by a good margin.
     
  4. CEmajr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2012
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #4
    Of course Verizon favors the merger, as AT&T likely does as well. It eliminates their most annoying competitor and leaves a combined Sprint/TMO that would be an uncompetitive, indebted, mess or various incompatible frequencies and phone technologies. Sprint already has a ton of debt and would be taking on upwards of $30 billion more in order to acquire T-Mobile. Then AT&T/VZW can get back to business as usual and laugh at Sprint all the way to the bank.

    People forgot that when Sprint merged with Nextel it was already about the same size as Cingular (AT&T) and Verizon. Due to how poorly that played out, fast forward to today and they each are about twice the size of Sprint/Nextel. This T-Mobile thing would likely play out the same way.

    What makes it even worse is that the combined carrier would own so much spectrum that Sprint would be forced to sell some to Verizon/AT&T and also face restrictions in the 600mhz auction next year. It's just an all around disaster waiting to happen. I don't see who would benefit from it other than the telcos themselves in terms of profits.

    At the end of the day whether or not they're allowed to merge likely depends on politics. The vote would be along party lines with the Dems voting against and and GOP in favor.
     
  5. EbookReader thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #5
    Even if the FCC is in favor of it (which is not the case), the DOJ can sue to block it like it did with AT&T/T-Mobile.



    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/10/us-deutsche-telekom-idUSBREA4900M20140510

    Could be an easy $1 billion for T-Mobile if Sprint decides to go ahead.
     
  6. AutoUnion39, May 22, 2014
    Last edited: May 22, 2014

    AutoUnion39 macrumors 601

    AutoUnion39

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    #6
    Of course, they're in favor of it. A Sprint/TMo merger would be a colossal mess when it comes to network integration.

    AT&T and VZW already provide networks that are leagues superior to Sprint and T-Mobile. Integrating the two worst networks in the business won't magically make them a VZW/AT&T killer
     
  7. Applejuiced macrumors Westmere

    Applejuiced

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    At the iPhone hacks section.
    #7
    Hope it never goes through.
    We need more competition and more carriers for opportunities to serve the consumer better and provide better prices and service.
    Not less options so the 2-3 carriers can charge whatever they want.
     
  8. CEmajr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2012
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #8
    For once I totally agree with you.
     
  9. yeah macrumors 6502a

    yeah

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    #9
    And do you know why AT&T's and Verizon's networks are "vastly superior"?

    One reason: Low-frequency spectrum.

    Well I have news for you: The two "worst networks" are going to get a ton of 600 MHz spectrum (aside from Sprint's 800 MHz SMR and T-Mobile's 700A MHz) and kick the duopoly's a**.

    By the way, T-Mobile beat your precious AT&T to VoLTE. ;)
     
  10. eyoungren, May 22, 2014
    Last edited: May 22, 2014

    eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Phoenix • 85037
    #10
    People forget that companies aren't looking out for the customer. Companies exist solely to make profit. Either for the owner(s) or for the shareholders. Granted, customer relations and service can boost the bottom line and improve profit margins, but ultimately it's not about the customer.

    Let's not forget that when Masayoshi Son bought Sprint there was no mention of also buying T-Mobile. The whole plan as presented was that Softbank would further fund an already paid for upgrade of the network. Sprint had already paid for the upgrades so Softbank was only bringing in improved cash flow. In this plan, T-Mobile was not even a consideration.

    So, going after T-Mobile is a later plan, or at least a plan that was revealed AFTER the Softbank/Sprint merger.

    None of this benefits T-Mobile or Sprint customers. But again, that isn't the point. It's all about profit for the stockholders. It's already been mentioned that less competition benefits the carriers and not the customer and this is exactly what a SprinT-Mobile merger would do.

    I'm sure somewhere in there is probably a certain satisfaction of gaining back all the customers Sprint has lost to T-Mobile as well.
     
  11. scaredpoet macrumors 604

    scaredpoet

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    #11
    This, exactly. Sprint and AT&T aren't interested in having three competitors... they want two, and ONLY because having two (seemingly) prevents an outright, blatant monopoly and all the unwanted scrutiny that goes with that.

    Let's face it: Sprint bought Nextel, destroyed any chance that network had of being viable, and nearly ruined themselves in the process. Now Softbank proposes to make Sprint buy another incompatible carrier which is doing quite fine on its own... to what end? I don't think either network will survive this, and we'll see a failed combined Sprint/T-Mobile in five years or less, leaving just AT&T, Verizon, and a handful of regionals that probably won't last too long either.

    My bigger question is, what the heck is going through Masayoshi Son's head right now? He's the CEO at Softbank who is spearheading this, and I don't get how he can possibly think this will be good in any way.
     
  12. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Phoenix • 85037
    #12
    Honestly, I think he's finding out the enormity of what he's bought into.

    The neurotic CYA culture at Sprint is deeply rooted and I don't think he either saw that or had any idea about how deep it runs. Historically, as well, Sprint has an inability to execute. I also don't think he anticipated just how much of a cluster he got. If Sprint can find any way to fail and snatch defeat from victory, Sprint will. It's automatic, no one even has to think about it – it just happens.

    I believe he's dealing with it, but it's kind of like bringing a garden hose to a firestorm. You knew there was going to be a fire, you just weren't anticipating it to be a wildfire requiring hundreds of people to fight that you weren't prepared to bring.
     
  13. AutoUnion39 macrumors 601

    AutoUnion39

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    #13
    Ahh, this excuse again. How typical...

    VZW/AT&T are running far denser networks across the US. Not to mention, they actually have service that works in most shopping centers, stadiums, etc because they're willing to pay to get on the DAS systems. T-Mobile/Sprint aren't. Celtics/Bruins games here, only VZW/AT&T have usable service.

    If low-freq was the reason for their superior networks, then why are VZW/AT&T doing so well in areas where they don't own enough sub-1ghz spectrum? (PHX, parts of NH, etc.) They kick Sprint/TMo's ass, even in high-freq areas.

    Keep dreaming. The restrictions are in place only for certain areas. Where there are no restrictions, watch VZW/AT&T outbid Sprint-Mobile by a good margin.

    Cool. They beat AT&T by one whole day! The horror. AT&T has deployed VoLTE in far more areas (Seattle is the only TMo market right now) and LTE-A is already up.

    T-Mobile needs to worry about densifying their network. Not deploying VoLTE. TMo's HD Voice is already fantastic.
     
  14. scaredpoet macrumors 604

    scaredpoet

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    #14
    That's nice. Except: Sprint has had "low" frequency allocations every since they bought Nextel, and even more "low" frequency allocations since they bought Velocita Wireless. Only, they failed for a very long time to do absolutely anything meaningful with that spectrum.

    That's nice. Oh, except for: when I was traveling last week from Philly to Raleigh-Durham North Carolina, most of my drive wasn't in LTE. It wasn't even in 3G/fake 4G. My T-Mobile device was on EDGE the whole time, while my AT&T iPhone had LTE the majority of the trip and fake 4G in the rare non-LTE spots.

    So, good luck making USE of that VoLTE. On a phone which the carrier hasn't implemented support yet for it, no less.

    Look, I want lesser-tier carriers to succeed. I hate the current duopoly situation. But sitting like a fanboy and giddily talking about how X-carrier is gonna kick Y-carrier's a** is outright childish, and totally blind to the reality of the current situation. It actually hurts consumers, because the Big 2 can now point to fanboys like you and say "See? Everything is just fine. The consumer wants things to be the way they're going." And then idiotic mergers like Sprint/T-Mobile can go forward, killing both. And then we'll see who's a** is really kicked. (Spoiler alert: ours, the consumers who pay the phone bills.)

    T-Mobile is not your friend. Neither is Sprint, nor Verizon, nor AT&T. All of them have profit motives; some are a little less competent in making that happen than the others. None of them are actually looking out for you, the customer, so they really don't deserve your chest-thumping. It's time to wake up to that fact and stop being a cheerleader for any of them; and seriously and cynically look at their actions and the motives behind those actions.
     
  15. CEmajr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2012
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #15
    I think Son would've been better off buying T-Mobile first. That way it would've been easier for him to prove that Sprint would be near insolvent without him also purchasing them.

    I guess looking at the market when he initially purchased Sprint, I could see why he may have thought it to be the better starting point. They had more customers and far more spectrum holdings. In hindsight he's probably kicking himself right about now. It's an uphill climb trying to convince regulators that a carrier who's outpacing the Big 2 in subscriber growth needs to be purchased by him in order to compete.
     
  16. Newtons Apple macrumors G5

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
  17. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Phoenix • 85037
    #17
    Don't feel too bad. Deutsche-Telekom, which is the German cell carrier, that owns T-Mobile is demanding a $1 billion breakup fee.

    If Masayoshi Son agrees to that and the merger doesn't happen T-Mobile can cry all the way to the bank.
     
  18. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #18
    Not necessarily.....take the Comcast-Time Warner merger for instance. Comcast execs have been HUGE supporters of Dems including Obama. That likely makes it through....

    Not all of corporate america panders to the GOP. Plenty of pandering to Dems too...
     
  19. yeah macrumors 6502a

    yeah

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    #19
    I do understand that these companies are looking for profits, but do you know why I am rooting for T-Mobile?

    Because they are actually CAUSING industry change in the wireless industry.

    Just look at their past Un-Carrier moves and tell me that they are not changing the crippled wireless industry.

    Consumers are going to T-Mobile in droves, and that's a drastic turn-around for the [now #3] carrier in the US.
     
  20. CEmajr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2012
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #20
    T-Mobile isn't number 3 yet. That article was about them being #3 in terms of smartphone subscribers. Sprint still has more overall customers.

    T-Mobile could be number 3 by late 2014 or early 2015 if current trends continue though.
     
  21. scaredpoet macrumors 604

    scaredpoet

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    #21
    A temporary blip if the Sprint/T-Mobile merger goes through, sadly.
     
  22. EbookReader thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #22
    I believe T-Mobile is about 4-5 million behind Sprint.

    But T-Mobile is growing very fast:

    T-Mobile

    1Q of 2013: 0.6 million net customers
    2Q of 2013: 1.1 million net customers
    3Q of 2013: 1 million net customers
    4Q of 2013: 1.65 million net customers
    1Q of 2014: 2.4 million net customers


    Total: 6.75 net customers in the last 15 months

    T-Mobile could surpass Sprint in about 2-3 quarters.
     
  23. I7guy macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    What Exit?/Saguaro Country
    #23
    If they(tmobile) continue to lose money, their operation will be unsustainable.
     
  24. EbookReader thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #24
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/business/sprint-and-t-mobile-say-deal-adds-competition.html


     

Share This Page