3 ms·
The EU did a lot of analysis about this between member states. It concluded that markets with 4 or more providers were far better served (price, quality, cover
by martinald 9y ago
The EU did a lot of analysis about this between member states.
It concluded that markets with 4 or more providers were far better served (price, quality, coverage, etc) than those with 3 (which effectively is what the US will have now).
The UK blocked the merger of 3 and O2 on these grounds, as it would leave only 3 providers.
- chrischen 9y agoDoes sprint even count as a provider? The size of the players must matter? If you have 4 players and 3 are there in name only, surely that can't still be true?
- kennethologist 9y agoDo you have some source for the EU analysis would love to read this in depth? Googling doesn't turn up anything related.
- martinald 9y agohttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1705_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1705_en.htm is a starting point, but I can't find the EUs own source.
- kelnos 9y agoFrom the looks of it, Sprint will be bankrupt in a few years anyway, and then we'll still end up with 3 providers, but likely Verizon and AT&T (in addition to T-Mobile) will buy up parts of its carcass. I'd rather T-Mo gets it all, now, rather than have all three companies fight over the scraps, later.