9 ms·

While not mentioned in the article, it’s worth mentioning that this also coincided with T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint. Specifically, T-Mobile made assurances

While not mentioned in the article, it’s worth mentioning that this also coincided with T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint. Specifically, T-Mobile made assurances that the acquisition would lower prices. Instead, within a couple years they exercised their newfound market power to increase prices a fair amount. The merger should have never been authorized.

ramesh31 2y ago
>The merger should have never been authorized. So that Verizon could own the entire market along with a few also-rans? It was a choice between the lesser of two evils.
- bsder 2y ago
  If Verizon controlled that much, then it should have been broken apart. You don't fix a monopoly by creating more monopolies.
- ClassyJacket 2y ago
  How is reducing competition good for competition?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > How is reducing competition good for competition? I am not familiar with the telecom market. But blocking mergers doesn’t necessarily increase competition. (For example, breaking up Walmart would reduce competitive pressure on Amazon.)
  - alexsereno 2y ago
    Hacker news is peak contrarian. If your stance was that this merger was incredible, your replies would be entirely about competition lol.
    - adolph 2y ago
      HN has a diverse set of viewpoints. For any assertion one might make, there will be someone with the opposite viewpoint. In addition to out-and-out opposition or agreement that sounds vaguely oppositional, a comment might call for a pedantic annotation, a tangential aside or book recommendation.
      - basil-rash 2y ago
        Don’t forget the unconstructive meta-analysis.
        adolph 2y ago
        sudo !!
      - alexsereno 2y ago
        This is a wonderful example
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Okay, glad you made it impossible to write a comment that disagrees with yours. You know what they say about things that aren't falsifiable, they're definitely correct!!
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
        > You know what they say about things that aren't falsifiable, they're definitely correct!! Ah, the ol' Hitchens's movie night: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with popcorn".
        adolph 2y ago
        That Hitchens quote is pithy and snow-clonable but demonstrated an impoverished and static epistemology. It is circular and self-falsifying by respectively assuming the existence of “evidence” independent of the assertion’s observation bias and not obeying its own assertion.
  - ramesh31 2y ago
    >How is reducing competition good for competition? By creating actual competition. Sprint and T-Mobile separately would always be second tier to Verizon. Combined, their network actually competes.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  What? Verizon's clear benefit died long before the acquisition, even if their market share did not. The best thing to do would be to foster competition, not actively bless its destruction.
overstay8930 2y ago
The end result was inevitable, if the merger was blocked Sprint would have just filed for bankruptcy and the 3 remaining carriers would split it up amongst themselves. Sprint was effectively on life support and the last CEO’s only job was to pump up subscriber numbers as high as possible to make a deal as attractive as possible. That’s why Sprint had so many “free” deals a year before the acquisition was announced. The US government made a massive miscalculation on Dish network, when in reality it really should have been split amongst CableCos who are now stealing customers from the big 3 because they have already done the hard part of building infrastructure, while Dish can’t even get off the ground.
- dangus 2y ago
  I don’t understand why the government couldn’t have done a bankruptcy bailout of Sprint to maintain a vital industry/important competitor in the market. Essentially follow the same playbook as GM and have the government temporarily buy Sprint, rehabilitate it, and sell it back to public investors. What the government did with Sprint was akin to allowing GM to be purchased by Ford. Whether or not that happens in bankruptcy court is almost irrelevant: a huge business in an oligopoly merging into another is generally bad news and the government should be on top of it. (Let me also be clear to people who hated the automotive bailouts: they were easily the best possible outcome and hindsight shows they were great policy. The alternative was essentially the collapse of the American automotive industry, allowing the US to follow the fate of the British industry, and on top of that government made a profit on its investment of taxpayer dollars to carry it out)
  - android521 2y ago
    The bad unintended consequences are gonna be much bigger this way. Think of communism, it started with good intentions but the unintended consequences of absolute power concentration (who can buy or sell what and at which prices ) caused absolute corruption and inefficiency
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      In what way is "communism" a good example of what could happen with the US auto industry bailouts?
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I think the problem is that they’re competing against much bigger players, ATT and Verizon. It’s just not possible to compete against them as a late comer. That’s why there are no new networks, just MVNOs. Starlink maybe can change that. But outside of that technological change, we’re stuck and a smaller player cannot hope to be competitive on coverage against bigger players. Ultimately what we need is much stronger anti-trust legislation against all kinds of companies that are too big, or aren’t in functioning competitive environments.
thayne 2y ago
There really needs to be more accountability for such promises made during acquisitions. Or no credence should be given to such promises. This is not at all surprising, and we've seen this happen over and over. Two big companies merge, promise prices won't go up so the merge gets approved, then within a few years, sure enough prices go up.
- throwup238 2y ago
  > Or no credence should be given to such promises. This should always be the default. The first rule of capitalism is that companies lie. Who’s going to stop them?
napierzaza 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ramesh31 2y ago

>The merger should have never been authorized. So that Verizon could own the entire market along with a few also-rans? It was a choice between the lesser of two evils.

bsder 2y ago
If Verizon controlled that much, then it should have been broken apart. You don't fix a monopoly by creating more monopolies.
ClassyJacket 2y ago
How is reducing competition good for competition?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > How is reducing competition good for competition? I am not familiar with the telecom market. But blocking mergers doesn’t necessarily increase competition. (For example, breaking up Walmart would reduce competitive pressure on Amazon.)
- alexsereno 2y ago
  Hacker news is peak contrarian. If your stance was that this merger was incredible, your replies would be entirely about competition lol.
  - adolph 2y ago
    HN has a diverse set of viewpoints. For any assertion one might make, there will be someone with the opposite viewpoint. In addition to out-and-out opposition or agreement that sounds vaguely oppositional, a comment might call for a pedantic annotation, a tangential aside or book recommendation.
    - basil-rash 2y ago
      Don’t forget the unconstructive meta-analysis.
      - adolph 2y ago
        sudo !!
    - alexsereno 2y ago
      This is a wonderful example
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Okay, glad you made it impossible to write a comment that disagrees with yours. You know what they say about things that aren't falsifiable, they're definitely correct!!
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
        > You know what they say about things that aren't falsifiable, they're definitely correct!! Ah, the ol' Hitchens's movie night: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with popcorn".
        adolph 2y ago
        That Hitchens quote is pithy and snow-clonable but demonstrated an impoverished and static epistemology. It is circular and self-falsifying by respectively assuming the existence of “evidence” independent of the assertion’s observation bias and not obeying its own assertion.
- ramesh31 2y ago
  >How is reducing competition good for competition? By creating actual competition. Sprint and T-Mobile separately would always be second tier to Verizon. Combined, their network actually competes.
darby_nine 2y ago
What? Verizon's clear benefit died long before the acquisition, even if their market share did not. The best thing to do would be to foster competition, not actively bless its destruction.

overstay8930 2y ago

The end result was inevitable, if the merger was blocked Sprint would have just filed for bankruptcy and the 3 remaining carriers would split it up amongst themselves. Sprint was effectively on life support and the last CEO’s only job was to pump up subscriber numbers as high as possible to make a deal as attractive as possible. That’s why Sprint had so many “free” deals a year before the acquisition was announced. The US government made a massive miscalculation on Dish network, when in reality it really should have been split amongst CableCos who are now stealing customers from the big 3 because they have already done the hard part of building infrastructure, while Dish can’t even get off the ground.

dangus 2y ago
I don’t understand why the government couldn’t have done a bankruptcy bailout of Sprint to maintain a vital industry/important competitor in the market. Essentially follow the same playbook as GM and have the government temporarily buy Sprint, rehabilitate it, and sell it back to public investors. What the government did with Sprint was akin to allowing GM to be purchased by Ford. Whether or not that happens in bankruptcy court is almost irrelevant: a huge business in an oligopoly merging into another is generally bad news and the government should be on top of it. (Let me also be clear to people who hated the automotive bailouts: they were easily the best possible outcome and hindsight shows they were great policy. The alternative was essentially the collapse of the American automotive industry, allowing the US to follow the fate of the British industry, and on top of that government made a profit on its investment of taxpayer dollars to carry it out)
- android521 2y ago
  The bad unintended consequences are gonna be much bigger this way. Think of communism, it started with good intentions but the unintended consequences of absolute power concentration (who can buy or sell what and at which prices ) caused absolute corruption and inefficiency
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    In what way is "communism" a good example of what could happen with the US auto industry bailouts?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I think the problem is that they’re competing against much bigger players, ATT and Verizon. It’s just not possible to compete against them as a late comer. That’s why there are no new networks, just MVNOs. Starlink maybe can change that. But outside of that technological change, we’re stuck and a smaller player cannot hope to be competitive on coverage against bigger players. Ultimately what we need is much stronger anti-trust legislation against all kinds of companies that are too big, or aren’t in functioning competitive environments.

thayne 2y ago

There really needs to be more accountability for such promises made during acquisitions. Or no credence should be given to such promises. This is not at all surprising, and we've seen this happen over and over. Two big companies merge, promise prices won't go up so the merge gets approved, then within a few years, sure enough prices go up.

throwup238 2y ago
> Or no credence should be given to such promises. This should always be the default. The first rule of capitalism is that companies lie. Who’s going to stop them?

napierzaza 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]