US government approves T-Mobile/Sprint merger

I had the Sprint plan. I liked it. Hard for the average person to get on it though. You would have to pay full price for the phone and then activate it (while switching your old phone number over) and you couldn't do that in store. If you bought say a new Apple phone at full price and wanted to finance it through Apple/Citizen One, Apple would make you activate first which if you chose Sprint would invalidate your BYOD plan. That was a mess to resolve. And it was even more painful if you had multiple lines. So you had to be pretty savvy to get onto that $0 plan... which means those that did are also savvy enough to switch to something else if they are price sensitive.

That being said I expect with the merger that prices will go up. Maybe we could get some MVNO deregulation or something.

Sprint has a pretty solid network in most markets, but they also have a metric crapton of debt.

What it comes down to, is there isnt enough spectrum to have three fully competitive carriers. The merger of T-Mo and Sprint will give them a huge leverage point on spectrum. T-Mo bring 600, AWS bands, as well as 1900 PCS blocks, Sprint brings 2.6, 900 and 1900 PCS blocks.

>To me this makes a lot more sense than the T-Mobile At&t merger that failed to go through.

I'm sure that's true. But public interest is not why the T-Mobile At&T merger was derailed.

And such a law and the agency enforcing it need to be a lot more pro-active. By the time governments decide they need to "break-up a company", the lion's share of the damage has long been done against both small players (or potential entrants that never stood a chance) as well as consumers.

This is why although I'm a bit supporter of GDPR and other such regulations, I think there is some truth in the idea that they also "lock-in" the larger players, because of 2 primary reasons:

1) the fine/punishment is never significant enough to the point that all of the ill-gained wealth is entirely wiped out. However, maybe it can't/shouldn't be fully wiped out anyway, because then we enter into the realm of applying laws retroactively a bit, and that brings all sorts of other dangers with it.

2) they block the newer entrants from using the same unethical tactics to effectively compete. However, I don't think this is a good excuse against not enabling such laws. Getting stuck with a couple of monopolies that can still be further regulated down the road isn't as bad as everyone stealing people's data and abusing it for personal gain, etc. Like we saw recently that US carriers have been selling people's location data to bounty hunters and all sorts of other shady groups -- all in the name of some extra profit. No, I definitely think a strong law against such abuses would be much better than it not existing.

But in an ideal world, the governments would've prevented the unethical behavior way before it starts giving companies billions of dollars in profit every single quarter. And then both the rampant abuses for a decade+ and the monopolies would be prevented from the start.

I've been kind of developing my own "rule of thumb" for noticing which company is a monopoly/makes too much money in some unethical way. When a company reaches this step you start seeing it "invest" into all sorts of crazy and unrelated ideas and markets that have nothing to do with its core business.

When a company has "too much money it doesn't know what to do with" and prefers spending it on completely unrelated markets instead of improving its core products/offering better value (huge red flag if it doesn't here), then you know that company is doing something that makes it way too easy for it to print money. Maybe it's lobbying Congress for locking out competitors, maybe it's it bribing government officials to gain contracts, maybe it's them coercing customers into exclusive deals, and so on. When it gets too easy to make a lot of money and the competition seems to have no way of catching up, it's not just because the product is that good.

I think the laws are intentionally unclear for political purposes. They want a lot of subjectivity in enforcement. A lot of law is written this way.

Coverage mostly and Verizon has better spectrum.

The US is huge. It's hard to cover with mobile phone and data service.

People fear their phones not working on road trips, or when they go visit a different part of town. Verizon and AT&T built trust that they will be good enough, and better than the others. T-Mobile did some great marketing with their 4G launch and follow up campaigns that built a lot of trust. T-Mobile's customer service is also extremely good.

The perception of Sprint is that it just might not be good enough. In fact, it is good enough. A colleague of mine has been using it for the three years I've known him without real issue.

Sprint's recent $25/mo unlimited deal got me to switch from my $70/mo T-Mo deal. I've lost mobile hotspot, but the savings are worth it for now and there's no commitment. I'm only out the $38ish activation fee (both ways) if I want to switch away from them.

> Why do people think Sprint is so bad

Obviously every area is different, even on a block-to-block basis, but Sprint historically had the worst network density (lowest number of sites) in any area, while using the highest-band of spectrum (least propagation), while also having the least amount of backhaul (data speeds from the tower to the wider internet).

This generally resulted in them having the worst performing network in a majority of markets nationwide -- and worse by a wide margin. Think "I can't even get twitter.com to load" levels of bad performance. It was like that, in some places, for the better part of a decade straight. Sprint's cellular performance was so bad for so long, that sometimes callers couldn't even complete a single phone call. Sprint's service was so bad, it would regularly make the local evening news - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_kvT5qsi9c

Add to that, that they were later than all of their competitors in deploying broadband (which they weren't able to do themselves, and had outsourced to Clearwire to redo, who also botched the work and Sprint later aquired them and had to re-redo their work), add in that they completely botched their Nextel acquisition (which ironically had a better network than Sprint in many places -- a network Sprint promptly discarded with zero effort to reuse or recycle), add in that their phones had to have dual or even triple redundant radios for a while to handle all of their incompatible network systems (for a while there, Sprint literally sold phones that had to have CDMA + WiMAX + LTE radios running simultaneously just to get usable coverage -- which murdered battery life), add in that they were tied to legacy CDMA technology which, unlike Verizon, Sprint dragged their feet on modernizing, and you get a recipe for disaster.

The word "Sprint" is basically synonymous with "shit service" in the mind of most semi-involved cellular customer, for many of the reasons above. Even when Sprint finally started to fix some of their problems (around in 2017-2018 or so), so much damage had been done so thoroughly for so long, that the brand was basically toxic, regardless of fixes.

Maybe they won’t bother until a 5G deployment in the future? The merger will probably take at least a year, probably longer, to fully integrate anyway.

Both GSM and CDMA are going away. T-Mobile is a mostly-LTE carrier already. Both Sprint and T-Mobile use LTE and most Sprint customers will already have compatible handsets. Others will be given upgrade offers.

T-Mobile’s network will form the core of the new network because it’s significantly better, most Sprint devices will support GSM and UMTS 2G/3G standards (while the opposite isn’t true), T-Mobile’s network supports voice over LTE, T-Mobile’s network has significantly more cell sites, etc. Some Sprint sites will be added to the network and Sprint’s spectrum will be as well. Other sites will be divested to Dish.

The CDMA vs GSM divide just isn’t that important today given that carriers should be mostly LTE already.

The all new Verizon Chipotle Exxon: Proud to be one of America's 8 Companies

I don't know if Sprint would survive if not for the T-Mobile acquisition. They have a lot of debt. I think the most these states will get is some restrictions on T-Mobile.

"Welcome to AOL Time Warner Taco Bell U. S. Government long distance. Please state the name of the individual you'd like to call"

-Idiocracy (2006)

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ad893407-a612-4158-96da-f75b143...

This merger doesn't reduce total companies though, since Sprint was very clearly going out of business without it.

I agree with the spirit of what you said, however I would upgrade T-Mobile in that analysis. They're a beast of a competitor without Sprint, and they're slow-stomping both AT&T and Verizon. Grinding gains persistently year after year.

They're adding millions of customers per year in the US, nearly all of which are being stolen from the competition. AT&T and Verizon are sitting on stagnant wireless businesses, while T-Mobile keeps getting bigger.

Operating income hit $5.4 billion last year (up 100% in three years).

$72 billion market cap, up from persistently losing money and worth just $10 billion seven years ago.

Without Sprint they're on their way to a $120-$150 billion market cap and $10 billion in operating income in the next five years or so. And there's nothing AT&T & Verizon could do to stop it.

Considering I think the choice is Sprint going out of business, they are at risk of ceasing to be a 'going concern'.

Unless a consolidation of smaller companies helps them to compete against one or two giant ones, who would otherwise dominate the market.

The corruption angle is interesting, but it's got to be better supported than this. Just flatly stating "the goal of the merger is to raise prices" is not enough. Are there mergers not motivated by that, at least in part? If either ATT or VZN disappeared in the near future, then this merger could be part of the chain of events leading to raised prices. Back in the real world, prices might go up but not because of anything the merged company has done. It's still number three. This merger is good for consumers, on balance. Not just for Sprint customers but also for the customers of the hundreds of MVNOs dependent on Sprint's ongoing operation.