3 ms·

> But Verizon and AT&T customers are also pissed, and are part of a new lawsuit against T-Mobile arguing that the merger raised prices for everybody due to the

by tzs 3y ago

> But Verizon and AT&T customers are also pissed, and are part of a new lawsuit against T-Mobile arguing that the merger raised prices for everybody due to the reduction in overall wireless market competition. But did it reduce competition compared to where we'd be if there had not been a merger? Sprint was on the way out. They were likely to go bankrupt and have their assets sold off to AT&T or Verizon. The result would be 3 national carries (just like we got with the merger) but with T-Mobile a distant third. With the merger, T-Mobile got Sprint's spectrum and became much more viable to many more people as an alternative to Verizon and AT&T. T-Mobile is now the #2 carrier, a little bit ahead of AT&T.

jboydyhacker 3y ago
If Sprint had gone bankrupt you would have had the same effect- the assets including licenses sold to Tmobile. That said, I don't think Sprint would have gone bankrupt but it def was underinvesting.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
If T-Mobile isn't allowed to buy Sprint then AT&T and Verizon shouldn't be allowed to buy their spectrum. There are any number of companies that would pay money for a cellular network and spectrum allocation, and those companies might have continued to operate a fourth carrier. For example, Sprint's assets could have been sold to Google (which already operates an MVNO), or Comcast, Cisco, Amazon, Samsung, etc. These are all companies that could afford to buy it, and doing so would complement their existing business, but they don't already operate a major wireless carrier and so wouldn't reduce competition.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Starting up a mobile carrier is insanely capital expensive. We're seeing this here in Germany with 1&1 as a fourth provider - they got the licenses in 2019, but still have no network of their own up and running, mostly due to issues getting Rakuten OpenRAN deployed, and even the network they're planning will take years and years to get full coverage across Germany (they're planning on a roaming agreement with Vodafone for the meantime). Getting a fourth carrier established from scratch would be a serious financial challenge even for companies like Google and Apple.
  - patmorgan23 3y ago
    Which is why buying a bankrupt one makes sense

by tzs 3y ago

jboydyhacker 3y ago

If Sprint had gone bankrupt you would have had the same effect- the assets including licenses sold to Tmobile. That said, I don't think Sprint would have gone bankrupt but it def was underinvesting.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

If T-Mobile isn't allowed to buy Sprint then AT&T and Verizon shouldn't be allowed to buy their spectrum. There are any number of companies that would pay money for a cellular network and spectrum allocation, and those companies might have continued to operate a fourth carrier. For example, Sprint's assets could have been sold to Google (which already operates an MVNO), or Comcast, Cisco, Amazon, Samsung, etc. These are all companies that could afford to buy it, and doing so would complement their existing business, but they don't already operate a major wireless carrier and so wouldn't reduce competition.

mschuster91 3y ago
Starting up a mobile carrier is insanely capital expensive. We're seeing this here in Germany with 1&1 as a fourth provider - they got the licenses in 2019, but still have no network of their own up and running, mostly due to issues getting Rakuten OpenRAN deployed, and even the network they're planning will take years and years to get full coverage across Germany (they're planning on a roaming agreement with Vodafone for the meantime). Getting a fourth carrier established from scratch would be a serious financial challenge even for companies like Google and Apple.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Which is why buying a bankrupt one makes sense