3 ms·
Eh, it is never good for a customer to have less real choices. I honestly don't get why antitrust laws are not enforced these days at all. For the record, I ac
by A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
Eh, it is never good for a customer to have less real choices. I honestly don't get why antitrust laws are not enforced these days at all.
For the record, I actually have T-Mobile and it is acceptable. I can't wait for service to get worse as it inevitably does after such mergers.
- _-david-_ 7y agoIt can be good to have less choices if T-Mobile/Sprint can become more competitive than they were separately. I am not sure if they are actually going to become more competitive but there is a possibility.
- noahtallen 7y agoSprint has competed by giving stuff away for free. My wife and I have free (latest) iPhones and are on a plan that’s cheaper than anything their competitors offer. Everything else about them is objectively worse (features, reliability, service coverage). I definitely believe they would not be in business much longer, which is why I’m excited about the merger. If they had a chance of surviving in a meaningful, competitive way, then I’d definitely disagree with a merger, but I’ve not seen a strong argument that they would.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 7y agoAs I understand it, in the U.S. a business has to actually engage in anti-competitive practices in order to be punished, while Europe doesn't really have the concept of a benevolent monopoly, which is why lots of corporations get hit by antitrust laws in Europe for doing the same things they get away with in America.