4 ms·

Don't know why you were down-voted. Consolidation in the (relatively expensive) US mobile market is likely to hurt consumers, especially as T-Mobile has been th

Don't know why you were down-voted. Consolidation in the (relatively expensive) US mobile market is likely to hurt consumers, especially as T-Mobile has been the cheaper option for most people. And it's no secret that US anti-trust regulation is limp-wristed nowadays. EDIT: I'm down-voted as well? Are my observations incorrect?

bestnameever 9y ago
Sprint has been cheaper than Tmobile AFAIK but your point remains.
shmerl 9y ago
I guess there are some monopoly proponents here.
- scarface74 9y ago
  T-mobile and Sprint combined still won't have the power of AT&T and Verizon. Sprint has been struggling for years. I'm not sure how much longer it would last as an independent entity.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    It will reduce overall competition, thus harming their own users. Instead of competing and building out their networks, they'll start raising prices. It's a very clear case that should be forbidden by anti-trust. But as I said, current anti-trust regulation is toothless and does almost nothing to prevent such market degradation.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      They can only "build out networks" so much based on the available spectrum. Since they communicate in different spectrums, once they combine, the network coverage should improve.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        FCC can revoke licenses from spectrum hoarders. They aren't supposed to sit on it without using. But spectrum shortage and current messed up system of spectrum selling is a problem in itself.
jessriedel 9y ago
I think he's downvoted because his comment doesn't really contribute to an interesting discussion. It just raises a perennial political issue where commenters could have the same fight they've always had on this topic, without anything specific to this stage of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger. I would welcome specific detailed thoughts about anti-trust in this specific context, but rehashing the same arguments about anti-trust isn't that useful.
scarface74 9y ago
How much should cellular service cost that covers an area as wide as the U.S.? I currently pay $220 a month on T-mobile all taxes and fees included for unlimited data and voice on 5 phones and an iPad. 2G roaming in most of the world and faster roaming in Mexico. I also get 10GB of 4G tethering on one line and unlimited 512mbps tethering on all devices. We also get a family Netflix plan included.
- veridies 9y ago
  Width isn’t really the right measurement. Yeah, a carrier has to blanket the US, but any given user only uses a small fraction of that, and they have users all over the country. Density seems like a better standard.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    But it does make difference in rural areas. I have a family member that does social work in south ga. When I go down there, I don't get a signal outside of the city center with T-mobile. She travels a lot and she needs a good signal. Verizon has a good signal everywhere. T-mobile signal is also infamously bad within buildings. When I'm at work it's not a big deal - I just use WiFi calling but if I were frequently visiting clients' sites it would be a big deal. People are willing to pay Verizon prices for that guaranteed coverage. There are also places in north ga with bad coverage by T-mobile. They just happen to go out of their way to have coverage in college towns, but once you veer to far away - nothing. The trade off is worth it for me, but not to other people.
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    It doesn't sound like you travel very much. Or at least not to anywhere interesting. The conventional wisdom is that Verizon has the best coverage, followed by AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint. But coverage is like politics -- everything is local. Or in this case, hyper-local. For example, T-Mobile has outstanding coverage in the middle of the country thanks to its early acquisitions of PrimeCo and VoiceStream. But I know a resort on the west coast where there is no Verizon, no AT&T, and no T-Mobile coverage. The only thing that connects is Sprint, because of an old Nextel tower in the middle of nowhere that was put in for the Forest Service back in push-to-talk days.
adventured 9y ago
> Are my observations incorrect? I didn't downvote you, but your observations are incorrect. Sprint is going bankrupt, nothing is going to stop that as things are now for the independent entity. They're incapable of earning a profit, and are drowning in so much debt that it now is larger than their market cap - a classic inflection point that practically guarantees their business is going under. The public shareholders are being wiped out by the debt. That inevitable bankruptcy guarantees consolidation. Sprint's annual debt interest expense: 2015: $2 billion 2016: $2.2 billion 2017: $2.5 billion While they simultaneously bleed immense red ink year after year and their top line sales show zero growth for years. They're gradually being put down by the other three carriers. It was bad enough competing with AT&T and Verizon, now T-Mobile is kicking their ass too. This is happening in a market with near zero growth (ie heavily saturated), it's a near zero-sum outcome competition. For T-Mobile to keep growing like it has been, that growth has to come out of the pocket of competitors; Sprint loses, it's that simple. In more realistic terms Sprint is already a failed business. Softbank is willing to sell into a minority position because they're very desperate, which should tell you everything you need to know about just how bad Sprint's situation is. Consolidation is coming no matter what. The only actual choice is in how that looks. Here are the choices: Merge with T-Mobile. Consolidation. Sprint goes bankrupt and its pieces are sold off to competitors. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile emerge that much stronger. Consolidation. Sprint is acquired by a very financially rich, massive company in the telecom space (ie Comcast, AT&T, Verizon). Few have shown an interest in buying them, where consolidation wouldn't be involved. There's a reason for that: they're a horrific money pit, which Masayoshi Son has discovered as everyone else before him did as well. Comcast is the sole hope outside of T-Mobile (AT&T and Verizon would not receive anti-trust approval to buy them), and that's a really terrible outcome. Comcast buying Sprint would be a consumer outcome far worse than consolidation with T-Mobile.

bestnameever 9y ago

Sprint has been cheaper than Tmobile AFAIK but your point remains.

shmerl 9y ago

I guess there are some monopoly proponents here.

scarface74 9y ago
T-mobile and Sprint combined still won't have the power of AT&T and Verizon. Sprint has been struggling for years. I'm not sure how much longer it would last as an independent entity.
- shmerl 9y ago
  It will reduce overall competition, thus harming their own users. Instead of competing and building out their networks, they'll start raising prices. It's a very clear case that should be forbidden by anti-trust. But as I said, current anti-trust regulation is toothless and does almost nothing to prevent such market degradation.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    They can only "build out networks" so much based on the available spectrum. Since they communicate in different spectrums, once they combine, the network coverage should improve.
    - shmerl 9y ago
      FCC can revoke licenses from spectrum hoarders. They aren't supposed to sit on it without using. But spectrum shortage and current messed up system of spectrum selling is a problem in itself.

jessriedel 9y ago

I think he's downvoted because his comment doesn't really contribute to an interesting discussion. It just raises a perennial political issue where commenters could have the same fight they've always had on this topic, without anything specific to this stage of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger. I would welcome specific detailed thoughts about anti-trust in this specific context, but rehashing the same arguments about anti-trust isn't that useful.

scarface74 9y ago

How much should cellular service cost that covers an area as wide as the U.S.? I currently pay $220 a month on T-mobile all taxes and fees included for unlimited data and voice on 5 phones and an iPad. 2G roaming in most of the world and faster roaming in Mexico. I also get 10GB of 4G tethering on one line and unlimited 512mbps tethering on all devices. We also get a family Netflix plan included.

veridies 9y ago
Width isn’t really the right measurement. Yeah, a carrier has to blanket the US, but any given user only uses a small fraction of that, and they have users all over the country. Density seems like a better standard.
- scarface74 9y ago
  But it does make difference in rural areas. I have a family member that does social work in south ga. When I go down there, I don't get a signal outside of the city center with T-mobile. She travels a lot and she needs a good signal. Verizon has a good signal everywhere. T-mobile signal is also infamously bad within buildings. When I'm at work it's not a big deal - I just use WiFi calling but if I were frequently visiting clients' sites it would be a big deal. People are willing to pay Verizon prices for that guaranteed coverage. There are also places in north ga with bad coverage by T-mobile. They just happen to go out of their way to have coverage in college towns, but once you veer to far away - nothing. The trade off is worth it for me, but not to other people.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  It doesn't sound like you travel very much. Or at least not to anywhere interesting. The conventional wisdom is that Verizon has the best coverage, followed by AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint. But coverage is like politics -- everything is local. Or in this case, hyper-local. For example, T-Mobile has outstanding coverage in the middle of the country thanks to its early acquisitions of PrimeCo and VoiceStream. But I know a resort on the west coast where there is no Verizon, no AT&T, and no T-Mobile coverage. The only thing that connects is Sprint, because of an old Nextel tower in the middle of nowhere that was put in for the Forest Service back in push-to-talk days.

adventured 9y ago

> Are my observations incorrect? I didn't downvote you, but your observations are incorrect. Sprint is going bankrupt, nothing is going to stop that as things are now for the independent entity. They're incapable of earning a profit, and are drowning in so much debt that it now is larger than their market cap - a classic inflection point that practically guarantees their business is going under. The public shareholders are being wiped out by the debt. That inevitable bankruptcy guarantees consolidation. Sprint's annual debt interest expense: 2015: $2 billion 2016: $2.2 billion 2017: $2.5 billion While they simultaneously bleed immense red ink year after year and their top line sales show zero growth for years. They're gradually being put down by the other three carriers. It was bad enough competing with AT&T and Verizon, now T-Mobile is kicking their ass too. This is happening in a market with near zero growth (ie heavily saturated), it's a near zero-sum outcome competition. For T-Mobile to keep growing like it has been, that growth has to come out of the pocket of competitors; Sprint loses, it's that simple. In more realistic terms Sprint is already a failed business. Softbank is willing to sell into a minority position because they're very desperate, which should tell you everything you need to know about just how bad Sprint's situation is. Consolidation is coming no matter what. The only actual choice is in how that looks. Here are the choices: Merge with T-Mobile. Consolidation. Sprint goes bankrupt and its pieces are sold off to competitors. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile emerge that much stronger. Consolidation. Sprint is acquired by a very financially rich, massive company in the telecom space (ie Comcast, AT&T, Verizon). Few have shown an interest in buying them, where consolidation wouldn't be involved. There's a reason for that: they're a horrific money pit, which Masayoshi Son has discovered as everyone else before him did as well. Comcast is the sole hope outside of T-Mobile (AT&T and Verizon would not receive anti-trust approval to buy them), and that's a really terrible outcome. Comcast buying Sprint would be a consumer outcome far worse than consolidation with T-Mobile.