In some ways I view this merger as a good thing for the US. Wireless costs in the US are much higher than they are in most of rest of the world. In my travel experience it is almost double the cost in the US. Luckily, by world standards, most people in the US are pretty well off and can afford the higher costs.
I believe these high cost in the US are mainly caused by having to pay for multiple competing systems. There is a reason that most utilities are regulated monopolies, and it has to do with the cost of installing and maintaining infrastructure and the inefficiencies of overlapping service.
Until we get to the point wireless is a regulated monopoly, fewer more competitive companies makes sense. In the short run we might get faster technology upgrades and lower prices as long as we have competition and not collusion.
2
Great ruling on approving the T-Mobile Sprint Merger! Now the worst of the 4 major mobile service providers will merge with the 3rd worst. Isn’t that terrific?
Trust me, the new company will sell out most jobs still filled by Americans and replace them with Filipinos, Vietnamese, and South Americans who lack cell service experience, don’t know their jobs as well as the experienced Americans they replaced, and will work for only $3-4/hr.
American consumers will get inferior service, especially customer service from less qualified workers who don’t speak English well enough to do their jobs.
Reducing 4 major mobile phone companies to just 3 is not/was not in the best interests of American Consumers. Will prices go down from the “increased efficiencies” of the newly combined companies? No! They will go up as a result of the decrease in competition!
Yes - Let’s Make American Great Again!
@civardi.....if you believe this to be the case then you will pick another carrier that meets your specifications. Market will correct itself, where your predictions come true, many customers will move away to the better solutions. In many ways this has already happened which is why these two, Sprint and tmobile are the weakest and hoping together things will improve where they can really compete against others.
3
I used Sprint once recently and had to “sprint for the hills” as soon as my contract was over due to its horrible customer care. Nobody knows anything at Sprint -be at the stores or on the phone or online. Uninterested personnel, useless. I moved to T-Mobile and so far so good. Much better. I only hope the new merger takes on T-Mobile.
It has long been accepted antitrust doctrine that, in industries dominated by giant and dominant firms, smaller and weaker firms may lawfully combine if the effect will be to create or maintain a competitor to the dominant firms.
I think the evidence in this case meets that test for approval.
Just another another example of the huge lie we are force fed about market capitalism. The end game of capitalism is always monopoly.
3
Democrats would do well to make Antitrust campaign issue this year.
2
@Andy
Andy, you know how many American voters care about antitrust - about 100. Not enough for a campaign slogan.
3
Perhaps they should when you consider the negative hit to our budgets. Of course there is never collusion......we are all turning into serfs to corporate America. Vote this year because much is at risk......our judiciary has been in the crosshairs for a long time.
Trump, Inc. a podcast that is a collaboration between ProPublica and WNYC has done extensive coverage about how much money T-Mobile has spent at Trump's Washington DC hotel. But I'm sure that is just a coincidence!
6
Isn’t it great to have NO choices...explains why Customer Service is non-existent and prices go up. “Winning”
2
I would love an in-depth piece analyzing previous mergers a year or two out: which led to lower prices for consumers, if any? Ditto for analysis of promised jobs created vs actual for businesses paid off to locate in new state X.
4
These mergers always give one the impression, customers will benefit. Promising, stable or no price increase. After the merger, once they settle down, it becomes a different story. It has all to do with money and profits.
When you have a cable tv account, it is unclear what you are paying for. With so many advertisements crowding the channels, you get this frustrated feeling that you are paying to watch advertisements, rather than the real content on the channel. This whole system needs a change.
3
How about some basic reporting - the article states that a combined Sprint and T-Mobile will have 100 million customers, making it competitive with AT&T and Verizon. Yet, no where do I see how many customers each of those two companies have.
1
@Common Sense
Sometimes Google is your friend
2
I've had a good experience as a T-Mobile customer. I have no problem with this merger. How can small companies compete with giants? They can't match the resources of the big ones, and they will go under, without the merger. This merger was needed
@Sue Pearlative
Break up the the big ones and induce some competition. I guess you don't remember the original ATT.
4
@chongo....not the same. Bell(aka ATT) was a monopoly up to 1984. You have a dozen choices now.
1
I've used 3/4 of these carriers. They all had terrible service, but hey there's no one to compete with so they win anyway.
We need more cell networks, not less.
4
What I want to see are laws which require all cell phones to work with all cell phone carriers so when you switch companies you can use your old phone, the one with all of your contacts, the one you're used to, on your new carrier.
You know what else I'd like to see? 2-line cell phones.
6
@MIKEinNYC
We don't need new laws for that. LTE technology pretty much blurred the lines between GSM (AT&T/T-Mobile) and CDMA (Verizon/Sprint).
LTE enabled phones today will work on all of the major carriers. They may not be optimized with all LTE bands, but they'll work for 99% of the use cases.
3
@Jason W : The LTE phone has to "fully" unlocked to work on all carriers. I tried taking an unlocked Verizon phone to T-Mobile and it would not work. I had to turn to the secondary market and paid $100.00 to get it done.
Cell phone service has become a commodity item. You hook up with the company that gives you the best deal. As far a service goes, they're all about the same.
2
As a long time T-mobile customer I feel more and more disappointed by the company's shortchanging of existing customers. Most discounts are only available to customers signing up from other carriers. I, as a long term customer, have to subsidize these newcomers, and often have to deal with confusing new plans that chip away at the benefits of my initial contract. This is different for customers of Deutsche Telekom of Germany, T-mobile's parent company. All discounts are automatically available to all Telekom customers, both newcomers and current. With only 3 major carriers left, I am concerned T-mobile will become just like AT&T and Verizon that I left due to their horrible customer service. Retention of customers should be first priority.
5
@Eric Sorkin
It's basic math. T-Mobile is saving you a lot of money on your monthly bill. If you want to funnel those savings back into buying a new phone, then you can do that yourself.
It's hard to complain when you're saving $50/monthly on a family plan and STILL want more discounts on new phones.
I live in Germany and Deutsche Telekom is terrible, horrible service and iron clad contracts with the worst calling terms. T-Mobile is much better, and when I was in the us it was by far the best of the options. that may have changed, but almost all companies in the USA will give you the same benifits as a new customer when contract time comes up.
1
I am--or at least am currently--a T-mobile customer, having come there after terrible experiences with both AT&T and Verizon. What I fear now is T-mobile becoming too Verizon- or AT&T-like. The basic rule seems to be "The larger the company, the poorer the customer service," a rule the big cell providers display. With the end of public telephones, we are totally reliant on the now-three carriers to provide this essential service. It's difficult to be optimistic.
8
Another dagger in the heart of a comprehensive 5g network, or rural expansion of high speed service. The incentive for expanding better service, in hopes of attracting new customers is moot. It's much more profitable and much less expensive to have a quasi-monopoly position. This in combination with no oversight to force expanded service (deregulation) the US is falling ever behind a world driven by it's data networks.
2
I disagree with those who criticize T-Mobile. I have been a customer for over 12 years, have never paid more than $85 for 2 lines plus the insurance on two phones with unlimited talk. text and data in the US, Canada, and Mexico with no roaming charges, no fee to take my phone abroad, and unlimited text and data outside North America. I have looked as the possibility of using Verizon or AT&T but neither could match what I've got now. And the customer service and help for one who is technologically illiterate, in both stores and online is terrific.
6
Compare cellular plans in Europe to the US. They get way more data (Gigabits) for a much much lower cost.
6
@Sutter
Most European countries are tiny compared to the US and therefore building out a nationwide network (and maintaining) is far cheaper.
People really need to stop comparing wireless costs in Austria or Switzerland versus the large mass that is the United States. The comparison is lazy.
4
Phone bill about to go up...
3
This is disgusting. T-Mobile is foreign-owned, totally unethical and dishonest company. No way should they be allowed to expand here. They shouldn't even be allowed to do business the way they do. When we are exploring monopoly charges against tech companies, allowing this makes no sense. It creates the same situation as we have with computer operating systems.
1
@Plank We've been with T-Mobile for 20 years (Voice Stream as it was called at the beginning) and I do NOT believe your accusations have any merits. Unethical, dishonest in what ways? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do business here? If anything, I give them credits for successfully challenging the two giants! My only wish is that they continue to do so alone but alas, that is not to be.
3
@Plank- what are you talking about? T-Mobile is the best company I had.
1
i have used Sprint here in Las Vegas for years. Their nework is under utilized so I have virtually no overloaded network issues.This merger is a win win for Sprint and TMobile. I think NY was against it was for strictly political reasons. NY is getting a reputtion as being anti business which is just the opposite of Nevada.
The two worst companies merge to form one terrible company.
4
In the days of Trumps Government, does supporting creation of Monopolies really surprise anyone?
3
It will be interesting how monopolies of soon to be outdated media communication platforms actually prepare for the future in socially useful manners
Consolidation within an an existing oligopoly means higher prices. Yet Sprint was deteriorating and becomming irrelevant. Prices have stabilized and long-term indentured contracts have dropped off because of very aggresive targeting of AT&T/Verizon marketing claims and service plus open bounties of $500 (and up) for new subscribers to pay off Verizon and AT&T contracts by T-Mobile. Legere was the aggressive and irreverent driver of these strategies. Concurrently T-Mobile executed an strong push to retain customers by building an efficient and smart customer service team based in the US. But the US lacks the competitive fluidity and blocks innovative competition because Verizon has built a monopoly around CDMA technology which is fundamentally different from the GSM tech standard in Europe. By anology, as if you needed a specific CBS TV to watch that network. The effect is that manufacturers have had to make different phone models for different US networks unless the manufacturer, as Apple has done, includes both, reducing their model count to 1 or 2 worldwide while Samsung has 10 or so. Consumers need a unified network but FCC abrogates their responsibility to make this happen, not surprising given their political ideology and membership stuffed with industry execs rather than advocates for consumers. FCC should drive to unify this mess under a single GSM standard, but with Pai's Verizon past and Qualcomm's CDMA ownership (yep!) who's left to defend consumers?
4
@marksjc Regulatory standards have hampered wireless development in the U.S . There are countries that have had 5G for years now, meanwhile here in the U.S we are just beginning our journey into 5G technology. As someone that works in the industry, it's hard for me to see T mobile moving into a either the #1 or #2 spots. AT&T and Verizon have shored up a lot of government contracts (FirstNet) that bring in a ton of profits. Not to mention the entertainment offerings that AT&T offers (Turner, DirectV, AT&T TV, etc) and also IoT services for business (connected car). The top two carriers have diversified their business, and have a headstart.
Whatever happened to laws against monopolies> Pretty soon we will not have consumer choices as the large corporations who have all the tax loopholes stop financing the government and consumers will be able to afford less and less of what the large corporations control. This is capitalism run amok.
5
I'm a T-Mobile customer and I like the deal. Yes, it heads in the direction of three mega-communication companies, but the alternative is to let two companies--AT&T and Verizon--dominate instead of three, and to condemn T-mobile and Sprint customers to more limited service. That makes even less sense.
4
Maybe now I will have better service. I have been with Sprint several years but without internet wifi calling I would have no service from Sprint from my apartment.
I don't expect this to end well. As soon as fcc and doj approved the merger, my data speed on Sprint in Grand Central Terminal slowed to dialup modem speed and hasn't recovered. Prior to that it was perfectly fine. The bogus fees (not govt mandated, non-tax) on the bill also keep increasing.
3
Great news. We needed the competition. Look how expensive our wireless charges are for how slow they are compared to other countries.
4
T-mobile's coverage in rural areas is not very good, but their customer service is great, which is why I have stayed with them. I hope this deal gives them the coverage, but doesn't damage the customer service.
8
Sprint is garbage and I’ve been carrying it since 2001. I don’t know what that says about me.
7
@Carey Don't feel bad. I was the same for years. Then one day I realized I had to go. That was 10 years ago. Verizon has the best service by far. I work over the road a lot and they have proven to be the better service provider. ATT is decent and clearly better than TMOBILE or Sprint. Take it from a truck driver...you get what you pay for.
1
Forgot to add that this is the same T-Mobile trying to trademark the color pink. Seriously.
3
Its pink is not the standard pink. I doubt they want to own every pink imaginable.
This is why I have a prepaid off brand SIM card for $20 a month and a unlocked, cheap phone.
2
Those who object this merger do not have any sound or valid reason for objection except that they do not like it. The merger is likely to create a company that can better compete with the two giants.
It's another matter what should be the market share that creates 'monopoly' or 'oligopoly'. Right now, none of that is happening, according to the existing laws. Is 3 mega-companies too few? That's the question to which the government should provide an answer.
4
Is there really any doubt that fewer competitors will lead to higher prices?
Or that oligopoly status will stifle innovation?
How is it that other advanced countries have much better digital services, generally, and their plans cost less?
Keep squeezing the American consumer and who knows, maybe he/she will wake up.
By then, when people reach for the pitchforks, it will be too late. The socialism label will be futile.
And Bernie will be remembered as a moderate incrementalist....
5
@MT It's not always the number of competitors that is important but the level of competition. Sprint and T-Mobile were not effective long-term competition for ATT and Verizon. A combination of the two could very well be.
7
@John Madison Have any thoughts on why Americans are being price gauged with at best, less than superior service vs. most developed countries?
3
The judge literally ruled that because T-Mobile is good at making money, they should be allowed to merge with Sprint. He says we should just trust T-Mobile to be good to its customers because um… what, they said they would?
One set of rules for the poor, one set of rulers to rule them.
12
I hope and pray that my most loved T-Mobile does not deteriorate into my most hated Sprint.
14
And this was approved 'why' exactly??
More money in the pockets of the 1%, and, just when you thought 'customer service' couldn't get any worse, it can and it certainly will!
8
Why not break up AT&T again? It worked well last time, ushering in the information Age.
7
I can't prove it, but I suspect that Sprint was unlikely to survive as a standalone. I tested their service a couple of years ago, and found enough concerns that I felt compelled to bail before their 30 grace period was up. Mustering the resources to implement decent 5G nationwide coverage just seemed like a bridge too far for a company with spotty coverage that struggled to get VoLTE working. I figured they'd have to either merge or be sold off in pieces. The merger is reducing competition, but market forces probably would have led to a similar result. At least this merger leaves us with three major companies that can compete on reasonably equal terms. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to eventually see one unified national network with a larger variety of carriers granted access to it.
10
@Derek Martin I've been on sprint for something like four years now, never had any issues.
3
So where is the market competition with all these mergers?
3
Looks like the paid shills are now active in the comments section, questioning the "whining". The objection is the monopolization and consolidation of industry, resulting in lesser choice, poorer service and higher prices. The regular consumer is always the one who loses out in these deals.
Remember broadband? In my area, we have a duopoly which colludes on pricing (highest prices for internet in the industrialized world).
Remember the airlines? We were promised "cost savings" and better savings. Now, even "economy" has been partitioned into "basic economy", "economy" and "premium economy". Sounds like a joke, if it were actually funny.
20
@newton
There are plenty of choices, you just haven't looked.
MVNOs exist for a reason. No one said you had to go for one of the existing four national carriers
For the people already on a T-Mobile plan this will be a plus--improving coverage where Sprint had the towers (like Southern Oregon) and T-Mobile did not. T-Mobile has a great plan for seniors--$60 (I am grandfathered--I think it is $70 now) for two lines of unlimited everything. T-Mobile also works in Canada with no roaming. Not sure what all the whining is about.
6
@Jonathan my issue comes where I've had sprint for about four years and have been paying $36/mo for unlimited.
2
Wireless service should be nationalized like the electrical grid.
21
I'd be curious how many people whining about this actually are Sprint or T-Mobile customers? I've been a Sprint customer more than a decade. Overall, my service has been good but there are times I've had weak coverage. I welcome this merger because it will mean better coverage and my plan won't change for 3 years, which by then, 5G will be fully deployed. Sprint was in trouble without the merger, so if they went under, then what?
6
@chris s
I agree! I have been on Sprint since 2000. Depends on where you live, but I've had lots of coverage issues In Las Vegas. Got much better Sprint coverage in Midwest and Los Angeles. I'm sure prices will rise at some point, but I welcome have the additional (better) coverage of T-Mobile. Sprint was woefully behind in trying to roll 5G. I generally do not like big mergers, but as an actual Sprint customer I think it's for the best.
1
@FilmFan Here in Anthem part of Las Vegas Sprint is fine. Zero problems.
While I dislike the idea of fewer cellphone providers that this merger will result in, I also wonder why few to none of the plaintiffs weren't suing to break up AT&T or Verizon? Both companies have essentially strangleholds over data access by millions of people, and make billions of dollars every year from their quasi-monopolies.
9
@Pete in Downtown I agree with not liking fewer cellphone providers. As a person who worked decades in the industry and a casualty of mergers, downsizing and restructuring required for the call to simply "break up At&T or Verizon,"the human cost is astronomical.
Respectfully, to all who casually make that statement and as someone who has been there, the costs to the consumer don't go down, they go up.
Unfortunately, the same process happens when companies merge. They consolidate departments along functional lines, draw an arbitrary performance line (they will call it "raising the bar") and fire everyone perceived as below the line. Since American workers have little to no contractual protection (as unions would provide) they take a hike.
3
Why not just monopolize every industry? Then we'll be totally vulnerable. We already have national security vulnerabilities because of sole sourcing. This is the perfect way to give the 1% total control.
2
@apparatchick a monopoly is where there is only one provider of a specific good or service. Cellular networks are actually an oligopoly, which is a market with only limited competition.
3
@apparatchick , there are many wireless providers out there in additional to the Big 3 or 4. Google "wireless providers" - there were 39 that popped up when I did. In addition to the Big 3 or 4, there are myriad smaller carriers, there are prepaid carriers and there are cable companies that are in the mix now. Now if Verizon or AT&T put everyone else out of business you'd have a monopoly. Right now there is plenty of competition.
Total disaster. T-Mobile has great customer service and prices. They have contract-free plans and they help you unlock their phones. They have a convenient and free plan when roaming overseas. Many of these things they implemented in the U.S. after their last attempt to merge was *denied* by the Obama Administration. In other words, forced to compete, T-Mobile did what you're supposed to do in a well-regulated market economy: They provided a better service. Now there is far less reason for them to do so. Get ready for prices to go up and service to suffer.
Oh, and PS, to get this deal through, they at one point retained the services of ex-Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski's lobbying firm. That'd be the Corey Lewandowski who, when told the story of a 10-year-old girl with Down's Syndrome being separated from her family at the border, mockingly replied "Womp womp." Beyond the disgusting fact that companies like this lay out millions to ex-politician consultants to sway white house policy, that they'd retain *this* guy is beyond the pale. I cancelled my T-Mobile subscription when they decided to get in bed with him. Now I have even more reason not to go back.
13
I am a former T-mobile customer. Left them for AT&T years ago because they welshed on a deal and promotion, after several fruitless calls with T-mobile Customer Service, and the retailer who had activated my phone. T-mobile kept passing the buck. Claimed the deal was in their name, but implemented by some agent. Their internal processes and vendor relationships are irrelevant to me. What the customer sees is what he or she gets. If the deal was advertised under the T-mobile name, it's a T-mobile deal to me, and if they do not live up to it, it's false advertising, and I will walk.
10
Instead of breaking up and downsizing these corporate behemoths, the people who are supposed to be enforcing our laws are letting them run amok.
11
This is so ridicules, it is so obvious that the big three will be in position to fix prices, if you think this will not happen you have not been paying attention. These three big companies control prices simply by the fact of their existence.
Cut your bill in half, go Consumer Cellular, I did. And while we're here, move your banking to a local credit union, cancel cable TV, and I guess it's too late to boycott VW after the emissions fraud, but I'll never buy another. Vote with your wallet.
15
@The Iconoclast I am a Consumer Cellular customer and have no problem with the service except that AT&T owns/runs them.
2
@Malcolm Stallons
No, that is incorrect. Consumer Cellular is a private company but is a reseller of AT&T and T-Mobile bandwidth.
You can make the point that you're indirectly paying AT&T with your money, but the company is definitely not "owned" by AT&T.
1
Future oligarchs of America unite! I am hoping that now that real laws don't exist these corporate overlords will turn to private armies and violent overthrow of their competitor companies. It would be a more honest America where at least the serfs know who they fight and die for.
5
The Courts and the government have made a complete joke of US anti-trust laws.
15
I hope this merger means that Sprint/T-Mobile are going to pay more attention to rural areas which now have next to NO cell coverage and, when I am in a rural area, I will not to have to climb to the third floor attic of a building, hold my cellphone out the window, and hope it's a slightly overcast day so that I might --- maybe --- get one bar of signal on my phone.
All of these companies have forsaken rural areas because --- wouldn't you know --- "the profits aren't large enough."
It boggles the mind. "The profits aren't large enough," yet they're raking in billions and the CEO's are taking home millions.
This is becoming the way of the world.
Did anyone ever read about the French Revolution???
12
@Chief Six Floors Walking Up I am well versed in the french revolution. We humans have a very short thresh hold for abuse. The fact that we are living in uncertain times, it wouldn't be surprising to see a major conflagration happening sooner rather than latter.
1
Thre big question was never whether T- mobile and sprint needed to merge to be able to compete, it was why Verizon and AT&t were allowed to get so big. Allow this merger and then legislate so all three have to allow startups, or even each other, to compete by price over their networks
11
I am a former Sprint and T-mobile customer. Both had good support and terrible coverage. I moved to Spectrum (using Verizon lines). Much better although far from perfect.
@PaulN It is dependent on where you live which service will work better. In our area Verizon gets 1 bar or sometimes no service, where T-Mobile is 4g full bars.
1
T Mobile has always been a metro area focused serviced. When you are smaller player, you cannot afford to be great everywhere. They provided roaming service through ATT, but it was not great. Given technology of 5G, faster speed, shorter range, expensive to install, I don’t think this merger solves any issues for rural areas.
Here's hoping the nation's third and fourth-largest wireless carriers can combine forces to keep me from having to stand in my backyard when I want to make a call from my house.
7
Finally some common sense out of a liberal (Clinton) judge. All of the "resistance" anti-trust enforcers have been purged from the Administration, leaving self-promoting State AGs to waste taxpayer money fighting sensible deals. Verizon and AT&T better watch out, because T-Mobile is coming, and they are hungry. Congrats to T-Mobile and Sprint for fighting the good fight and delivering the 5G network we will need.
4
Neither of them has delivered anything yet and you’re getting waaaay ahead of yourself congratulating them for a 5G network that doesn’t exist
3
RE: "By combining with Sprint, T-Mobile has said it would be able to accelerate its development of 5G, the next generation of cellular networks."
Don't forget that developers will tell you what you want to hear in order to get what they want.
What they want is more profit. That's hat they say, they need more profit to stay in business. More profit comes from you. Us. The subscribers. More profit comes from higher prices and cutting costs (i.e., jobs).
15
Too many comments are exactly backward on this.
The merger is a good thing for consumers. Neither Sprint nor T-Mobile by themselves are able to compete with AT&T or Verizon. AT&T and Verizon have far more money, which means they can afford to purchase the best and the most bandwidth during government auctions, leaving Sprint and T-Mobile the scraps. We saw that with 3G, 4G bandwidth auctions, in the past, and now again with 5G auctions. That is not good for consumers.
Now that a combined T-Mobile/Sprint (still far smaller than AT&T and roughly equal to Verizon in size) will have the power to compete on bandwidth, they will be able to offer much better service. There's no reason to think that the new T-Mobile won't also compete aggressively on price in the future, like they have been. They still need to try to gain market share, and lower prices is the obvious way to do that.
10
@Dave K.
Because we already have dystopian problems with monopoly in the worst place possible, most people's main connection to information, we will get better if we only force another equally large monopoly into the fray?
Reminds me of Abe Lincoln's old speech about restricting slavery: "If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I may seize the nearest stick and kill it. But if I found that snake in bed with my children that would be another question. I might hurt the children more than the snake, and it might bite them...But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the children were to be taken, and it was proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with them, I take it no man would say there was any question how I ought to decide."
This new merger is just a batch of young snakes.
3
@Dave K. Then let’s break up AT&T and Verizon.
2
@Rocky a monopoly is where there is only one provider of a specific good or service. Cellular networks are actually an oligopoly, which is a market with only limited competition.
1
It is pretty easy to forecast the result. Look at the difference between the ads for Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.
As you watch TV you see all these ads for great deals on services and phones and you wonder, why doesn't my carrier offer that? That's because you carrier already No. 1 or No. 2 and they don't have to.
Right now more means more competition. Fewer companies means less. Get those deals now while you can.
10
What about AT&T? They're actually No. 2 behind Verizon. Besides, you're looking ONLY at today's market; this merger is about TOMORROW'S market. Sprint, in particular, wouldn't have the capital to deploy significant 5G coverage without T-Mobile, and T-Mobile wouldn't have the spectrum to fully compete with Verizon and AT&T without Sprint.
1
I'm old enough to remember Reagan's breakup of Ma Bell back in 1984.
8
@Tony Reagan didn't do it; it just happened while he was president.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Harold H. Greene did it in his January 1982 ruling which led to the break-up on 01 JAN 1984.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/30/nyregion/harold-h-greene-judge-who-oversaw-the-breakup-of-the-at-t-colossus-dies-at-76.html
3
However much economies of scale would favor mergers, I remain skeptical of any real benefits for the public. In brief, the lack of healthy competition in their respective fields may lead to avarice...by raising prices and cutting down quality and advances in technology. Inequities in 'our' capitalistic system are to be expected...but why tempt capital to deny the value of labor, and us consumers guaranteeing corporate survival?
7
People citing anti-trust concerns need to understand that there are 2 perspectives that economists consider. One is the supplier perspective and the second is the consumer.
Consumers have clearly benefited from mobile technology consolidation over the last decade. Long distance billing isn't a thing anymore, and cell phones can replace land lines which lower overall consumer spending. The consumer surplus is large.
From a supplier perspective, there is still a fierce competitive marketplace. To invest in 5G, Sprint and T-Mobile need to merge to achieve the minimum effective scale.
5
A merger is the "... get rich quick ..." solution for management and the shareholders. As competition is reduced, profits and prices go up while innovation and customer experience go down. Banks are bursting with cash and stuffing the ears of politicians. With the plethora of opportunities for generating capital, from loans to issuing stock, I am eager to learn why a subsidiary of Deutsche Telecom gets to drive a stake through competition in the US.
8
@Shirley
Sorry you feel that way.
I love T Mobil. Having suffered through the colossal failure of both Verizon and A T & T, I'm delighted that Sprint merges with T Mobil to duke it out with the other 2 losers.
Nothing like wasting hours on the phone while a barely speaking English " troubleshoots" my computer problem to no avail. Finally an IT guy at my company came to my house and fixed it in 2 minutes.
The Verizon troubleshooter told me I had to buy a new computer.
That's typical of experience with both but not so with T Mobil. And that's after many, many years.
10
Is Deutsche Telekom buying Verizon or AT&T along with Sprint? Nope. Still have three independent carriers, plus potentially a fourth if Dish finally builds out its spectrum. And T-Mobile needs a key piece of Sprint spectrum to carry out its plan to provide both mobile & home Internet via 5G to rural America, where current options for both are extremely limited.
1
The logical conclusion of such mergers is to eventually merge all corporations on the planet into one global megacartel.
It could be called, say, "Big Brother."
14
@Alex Cody,
Is similar to the “One World Order” that has been pushed for several years by .....
I want to know how this will affect Boost Mobile subscribers, like me. Boost runs on Sprint's network. I recently left T-Mobile after many years for Boost Mobile and have been happy with the switch. I left, because T-Mobile's pricing structure primarily benefits multi-line plans. As a single line subscriber, I get more benefits and better features through Boost.
4
As has been reported in the past, Sprint's prepaid brands (including Boost) will be sold to Dish, but will continue to have access to the combined T-Mobile/Sprint network in the short term. As part of the deal, Dish will get to keep its unbuilt spectrum assets; it is likely that Boost customers will eventually end up on Dish's spectrum, though it will likely require several years and new phones before that takes place. That transition will likely be similar to those of MetroPCS when it was bought by T-Mobile (now Metro by T-Mobile), or Cricket when it was bought by AT&T (still a competitor; I'm currently a Cricket customer and it works well for me).
Make Oligopoly Great Again !
Welcome to limited choices and higher prices for your phone service.
The Great American Rip-Off continues unabated.
Some more gold with your tea, my Republican Robber Baron overlords ?
34
@Socrates,
You can vote your solution (not mine) this November with Bernie, than all your problems will vanish.
1
Any familiarity with this market would connect with the dozen options you have for your mobile services, anywhere from a la carta for $25 to as high as $70 for bundled solution......in some circles this is referenced as competition !
1
Instead of merging two smaller companies, the largest two should've been broken up. But I suppose this is the next best option for customers. T-Mobile seems hellbent on taking down Verizon and AT&T, which I'm all for.
20
Can you hear me now? The trust busting days are gone. The big boys get bigger, the market place gets smaller and competition is reduced to ashes.
22
I suppose this is good news that we'll not have 3 choices instead of just 2.
Maybe I'm dreaming that it would be nice to see something closer to 5-10 choices for mobile providers, but I suppose the cost of the digital infrastructure is just too high for brand-new players to step into the game.
17
@Nick
3 instead of 2? Right now you have 4 instead of 3, and that doesn't count the many smaller companies that compete.
5
@Nick
This merger might have been approved, in part, because new competition is on the horizon from the likes of Elon Musk and others who are launching satellite constellations to provide high-speed internet globally. When those systems go live, users will be able to make phone calls using Voice over IP from anywhere in the world.
1
Actually you have way more, for some reason all are focused on the three , use to be four, owners of frequencies.....there are a dozen options to choose from with an amazing range of cost options.
1
This is a great thing, since both Sprint and Tmobile are not viable on their own. Together they have a chance at taking Verizon and ATT to task. Excellent news.
34
TMobile has proven to be viable on its own. You are wrong they aren't.
Sprint may be struggling but both helped drive competition and forced Verizon and ATT to do things differently. And Sprint affected TMobile too.
Rest assured, you'll eventually realize how bad of an idea this was.
29
@Brooklyn OG Not viable? That's propaganda from the corporate elitists.
22
@999999-9 The only thing that was not viable were hefty increases in our monthly bills. Now, those are entirely viable as they will all fix prices and have regular increases.
11
Much as I hate the developing oligopoly in telecom, it would likely get worse if this merger had been blocked. Neither Sprint or T-Mobile were big enough to compete effectively with AT&T or Verizon. Eventually their market share would dwindle to the point that most folks would only have two choices anyway.
After they merge (and work out a lot of technical stuff) they should be able to compete effectively and at least give us three choices.
70
@Robert Ullman That's propaganda from the corporate elitists. Companies of their size can and do make money in every market.
25
@Robert Ullman I wish I could tell the future as you can. In any case, mergers benefit consumers about as often as tax cuts trickle down.
16
@Robert Ullman
So rather than break up businesses that are too big, we should be trying to make more of them?
I don't know why people say T-Mobile and Sprint couldn't compete with AT&T or Verizon (they never have to prove their argument, you'll notice), but even if it were true, the solution is to break up AT&T and Verizon.
It's really weird when people use anti-trust language to try to build more, bigger trusts.
6
How about someone offer a phone that can actually fit in my pocket. Long live the iPhone 5..
5
When did judges and regulators forget where antitrust law applies? I'm getting really tired of these huge public companies that don't innovate or invest in their products/infrastructure merging with other, similarly stagnant companies. They always brand it as "increasing consumer choices". Too many of us fall for that Jedi mind trick, and don't wake up until much later that we're left paying higher prices, with no choices, to receive products that innovate at a snail's pace, if they're not outright declining in their utility.
13
This was about redeploying the spectrum assets of a dying Sprint to a living T-Mobile, especially so that rural America has a chance of keeping up with the rest of us on 5G.
3
Let's just hope this will bring back Carly Foulkes aka "The T-Mobile Girl".
1
and with the stroke of a pen, the nation's largest constantly one bar network was born
4
This will actually help...T-Mobile is running out of wireless spectrum for its number of users, and Sprint doesn’t have enough cash flow to invest in a robust 5G network rollout. Combined, investment will be more efficient and the spectrum should greatly help the bottlenecks for T-Mobile customers. Normally, I’d be against this on basis of market concentration (US mobile is now close to a triopoly), but the nature of the wireless business requires a ton of investment for networks and radio frequency spectrum to support the traffic. If this deal doesn’t go through, Sprint may go out of business and be sold off in chunks.
10
Firstly, I'll admit to being a greedy capitalist. I was a T-Mobile shareholder (and customer) about ten years ago and stood to profit from its planned merger with AT&T. Obama-era lobbyists and regulators intervened, and the deal was scuppered. I accepted the risk, so water under the bridge.
Sometimes merger increase competition, which I believe will happen in this instance. Where competition is sorely needed is in Cable TV. Time Warner/Spectrum has recently morphed from merely a bad cable company to also a bad mobile phone company.
In an era where all communications are just zeroes and ones, we all stand to benefit from three healthy competitors with the capital, technology, and economies of scale to offer customers a choice of modern telecom services.
3
As it turns out, T-Mobile's golden parachute from the AT&T deal -- large swaths of 700 MHz spectrum -- has proven critical to T-Mobile's rise ahead of Sprint, especially in rural areas. Sprint's own spectrum is critical not only for additional T-Mobile capacity today, but also for rural America to have ANY chance of keeping up with 5G.
1
@Neil - The scuppered Obama-era deal of which you speak was followed about a year later by T-Mobile offering U.S. subscribers almost everything they'd wanted from other providers for years: Contract-free plans, unlocked phones, simple free/low-cost plans when roaming abroad. Their service improved because they were forced to compete. Almost, gee, the way capitalism is *supposed* to work! What reason do they have to continue providing any of that now?
3
@Neil
Seems to love competition unless it stands in the way of making a buck.
This is great news. There will now be three big carriers - Verizon, AT&T and a new T Mobile - and plenty of Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO) based on cable providers like Comcast, Charter, Altice and others like Consumer Cellular etc. Dish could be yet another disruptive wireless provider. Recently as a consumer I was able to save considerable monthly charge moving from one of the big carriers to a cable based MVNO. Consumers will benefit with more choices and competition for Verizon, AT&T and the new T Mobile.
4
@nat , thank you! Finally a common sense comment!! I know that the Big 4 dominate the TV airwaves but you'd think by the comments that we only have one carrier left now in the US (apparently "monopoly" now means a few/several and not one) and we'll all be paying $250 per line for wireless service.
This is an industry that hasn’t yet solved call spoofing and the unprecedented number of marketing calls. Reports show that HALF of all cell phone calls are spam. Now imagine the costs involved in building and maintaining the network of cell sites, backhaul lines and switching equipment needed to handle all these added junk calls. Not to mention the millions of hours of lost productivity of customers. They should not be permitted to do anything until the industry fixes this huge fundamental problem.
14
@RVP they don't want to solve the problem. Every call made is money for them.
Once again the system protects the providers of goods and services, not the public. Consumers are out of luck. Just will pay more for the same service.
23
Whatever happened to antitrust law which focused on maintaining competition as the best route to innovation, fair trade, market efficiency and protecting and serving consumers?
Corporations aren't people.
Money isn't speech.
Greed is bad.
Big is evil.
41
Cell service in rural areas is still very weak and spotty because none of the companies want to even try to have universal coverage. Dead spots are found even in cities, and none of the companies care. Merger is not going to change any of this; it will make it worse.
15
@George,
Did you read the agreement?
1
My Cell carrier is Boosst Mobile who is owned by Sprint and uses the Sprint network. They provide decent service and their are no contracts. I pay $30/ month plus $7 insurance that covers repairs and replacement for lost phones.
The original article on the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint merger months ago was a stipulation that Sprint had to sell off Boost Mobile.
Now what for Boost Moblie customers ??
6
@bsh1707
Dish will take over. They might create a new company to replace Boost.
2
Amazing that this comes a week after Harry’s razors was denied acquisition by Schick/Edgewell for a measly $1.4B. Not surprisingly, I still have more affordable razor options than I do affordable cell phone plans.
7
I recall reports of T-Mobile's CEO booking over a month of rooms at Trump's DC hotel while meeting with Federal officials to argue his case. I wonder what influence this may have placed on the Justice Department to approve this merger.
Teddy Roosevelt the great Republican trust buster of Standard Oil , where are your present day protectors of the American public ?
63
@Frank Heneghan They died out after President Eisenhower
2
@Frank Heneghan,
Now we are even .... Obama administration protected ATT and Verizon
Another "great thing" that we have to thank bernie and his followers for. This merger is undoubtedly going to cause layoffs and hurt consumers. But in their short minded bernie or bust mentality, we, democrats, are ripping the effects of our purity mentality towards our politicians. Hope we can stop the bleeding soon.
2
It was said and believed at one time that "What's good for GM is good for America !" Under the Republicans and especially under Trump we're back to that attitude. Business First! even before America First! especially when the big businessmen are the main donors to the politicians. As more competition hurts the big guy and only helps the small consumer---then Trump's deregulation will do its utmost to strangle competition. Unions , on the other hand, have to be kept weak---they only help the worker---and hurt the bottom line.
16
You'd think these learned jurists would deny the merger that every 5th grader recognizes would form a monopoly. And when they don't reach the obvious conclusion, you have to wonder about corruption.
20
@Joe How does consolidation of #3 and #4 in an industry create a 'monopoly' when there are still a very strong #1 and #2?
2
@Peter Technically, monopoly means one, mono, but in effect, no matter what the industry, consolidation is a trend toward monopoly and as in an oligarchy in which there is a small ruling class of elites, the dominance of a few companies are an effective monopoly. They are not interested in competition, but instead work toward maximizing their profit through anti-competitive practices. The more players in a market, the better for consumers.
11
Your analysis is flawed because it ignores changes in technology and technology-based markets, as well as the capital investment needed to remain in those markets. Sprint has spectrum, but no capital to improve on it and is bleeding customers (especially postpaid). T-Mobile has ample capital and is gaining customers, but not enough spectrum to carry out its ambitions to challenge AT&T and Verizon, especially in rural America where 5G (for home Internet as well as mobile) may be T-Mobile's best shot at breaking the T/VZ oligopoly. Dish has spectrum, but without current customers it can't raise the capital to build a network. By sending Sprint's spectrum to T-Mobile and its still-solid prepaid customer base to Dish (either of which has more capital than Sprint), this deal actually enhances REAL competition in wireless and Internet services.
4
These mergers are monopolization, plain and simple
42
But, Jeff ~
. . . another perspective is that after watching two smaller, scrappier boys named Sprint and T-Mobile getting beat up when each was alone, the playground referee has now allowed these two to "gang up on" the much larger and much nastier bullies named AT&T and Verizon to finally give these two larger, nastier bullies the drubbing they deserve.
And after all, all the other kids on this playground (communication customers including you and me) have also been suffering under the domination of bullies AT&T and Verizon—every time we open a Verizon or AT&T bill and every time we try to get customer service out of those hired by these two large and nasty bullies to do their (bullying) bidding.
It makea since anyway they both were weak by themselves. Sprint was falling behind like T- Mobile it was bound to happen anyway. If you want to compete with the big dogs merge.
1
We need more companies competing to create competition, not fewer. Tri-opoly isn't that different from monopoly or duopoly. Not enough different, anyway.
14
@Robert Post , you have a lot of choices. There are start-ups, there are cable companies offering wireless, there are the big national carriers. You can get your wireless through WalMart and pay $75 for a phone and get a cheap plan. Do some research and you will find plenty of options that clearly support the notion that competition is alive and well in the wireless market.
Earlier articles in the Times told much more about Dish. It will receive a great deal of bandwidth, which it is likely to hoard, perhaps for years, pending a huge move – meanwhile blocking smaller companies who might better use the bandwidth
1
Remember when AT&T was broken up by the government in 1984 into eight different companies? I worked at Bell Labs at the time, and the war cry was the refrain, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, from the song NO MORE TEARS by Barbra Streisand and Donna Summer. Today, almost all those companies are once again part of AT&T. And the company is more than twice the size it was before with a massive cellular network. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
60
Competition is a wonderful thing! MCI breaking up the Bell Monopoly resulted in amazing results here and internationally. 1984 not only changed landscape in USA, but changed the world over with competition everywhere. There were probably 100 countries around the world where you could only get a phone line only by placing your name on a wait list and hoping for an existing customer to give up a phone line, usually by passing away!
4
T-Mobile has done a lot to woo customers with pricing, T-Mobile Tuesday app, etc. Hopefully their experience doesn't degrade with the addition of Sprint. I have not heard of good things from their service. With the T-Mobile CEO leaving, I'm worried what that would look like post John Legere.
5
@Cal Actually it hasn't. TMobile's $70 all-you-can-eat plan isn't competitive at all. Not everyone needs unlimited data or four lines. My wife and I chose Verizon because they were cheaper. Why should customers be punished for using less?
1
Verizon, ATT and Tmobile/Sprint are premium solutions. There are so many more for way less, especially where you can get a la Carte services and not bundled. Boost, Cricket, Google Fi......and many more and all use the big three networks.
3
@Brooklyn OG
Cricket may say it uses AT&T network but rest assured, it's coverage is awful enough outside the big metro areas that you come running back to the "premium" solution.
Choice on paper only.
1
Just trying to figure out when EVERY industry is controlled by just one monopolistic corporation. Based on where we have come over the past several decades, I could see it happening within the next 10 years or so.
31
When Bernie Sanders becomes President and the Communist/Socialist business model is deployed. The one owner will be the government !
3
@Brooklyn OG Then we'll all be able to afford to see a doctor. I'm eager for it!
8
This is great news. The attorney generals have no right to oversee the experts at the Justice Department and FCC. Who do they think they are? Dish will provide plenty of competition. The Judge made the right decision.
6
@NVHustler Your handle says it all...the hustle of big corporations above the good of the public.
7
@NVHustler Sort of like the airlines and freight companies when they were unregulated. Prices sure improved along with service, right?
3
What exactly is the "Justice Department's" purpose again? I thought it was suppose to enforce antitrust laws.
131
@Kristin -- Exactly.
There is no "Justice Department" until current AG Barr is impeached.
He is just there now to protect Trump and investigate Trump's rivals and conspiracy theories. A Trump pawn who has sold his soul.
28
@Kristin They closed the Anti-Trust division down a while back, early Bush II administration.
They've outsourced that work to one Saul Goodman, esq.
5
@Kristin
They've redefined "anti-trust" to mean "pro-trust". I mean they're saying that in order to prevent monopolization, we have to allow companies to monopolize us!
They redefined "corruption" to mean "explicit, quid pro quo bribery, with documentary evidence, in which money changes hands".
They redefined "public interest" to mean "in the personal interest of a Republican president".
It's practically the Ministry of Truth. And there's no resistance to it. Well, people are against it, but when it comes time to do something, they just go, "Eh, wait till the election."
2
Wonderful! I was hoping that we would create “a new telecommunications giant to take on rivals AT&T and Verizon.”
Whenever I look at the increases in my phone bill that I expect in the next few months, I will think of it as a small sacrifice, my contribution to the battle between massive corporations that would have been broken up years ago in a country that took anti-trust issues seriously.
Come back Ma Bell, all is forgiven!
87
There are many choices besides ATT, Verizon and now Tmobile-Sprint if you are looking to save. Granted, all are either brands of the same, or resellers/MVNO types, but many offer way lower costs, free phones and ease of access to international. These three are the Premium peoviders.
11
The MVNOs though, don't own the bandwidths (frequencies) and antennas. They have to buy access from one of the 4 (soon 3) carriers. That's what makes this oligopoly seem otherwise. Collusion on minutes and data access to the network and radios isn't required because the carriers can easily know what contract rates the others are quoting. This drivers down cost for MVNOs and consumers, but puts an artificial floor on prices for everyone. Since RF and antennas everywhere create a natural monopoly because of entry price and costs the FCC auctions new frequencies when available. Eliminating the dual technology problem of GSM vs TDMA would help lower prices and benefit consumers as Verizon knows and fights at every opportunity.
2
This is great timing for those of us teaching Economics and going over, Monopoly, Oligopoly, and Monopolistic Competition. I'm anxious to see how this plays out in competitiveness in the market for the consumer!
33
#Stephen You can expect higher bills with increasing fees and higher hidden charges. What do you expect with this oligopoly?
1