Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 259 posts

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#41

Post by bearjaws »

candiddevmike wrote: post #36
toast0 wrote: post #11

Post merger I went from a $25/month t-mobile plan to a $15/month t-mobile plan. Not entirely apples to apples, but close. My spouse went from $30/month to $25/month on Verizon for more data. And there's lots of options at https://prepaidcompare.net/

The problem with MVNOs, at least that I'm noticing as a Google Fi subscriber, is I believe MVNOs are deprioritized. In a congested area, folks who have direct service with Verizon or T-Mobile seem to have better reception and bandwidth than I do.

Google Fi is not deprioritized AFAIK and it's been discussed in the MVNO subreddit a bit.

That being said, most ARE and they are damn near unusable now in places that are growing.

Here in Orlando, Mint mobile can't even stream Spotify if you are stuck in traffic, that's how bad it has gotten. Forget being downtown or at an event of any kind.

I use Google fi specifically because its not lower priority.

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#42

Post by dragontamer »

candiddevmike wrote: post #36
toast0 wrote: post #11

Post merger I went from a $25/month t-mobile plan to a $15/month t-mobile plan. Not entirely apples to apples, but close. My spouse went from $30/month to $25/month on Verizon for more data. And there's lots of options at https://prepaidcompare.net/

The problem with MVNOs, at least that I'm noticing as a Google Fi subscriber, is I believe MVNOs are deprioritized. In a congested area, folks who have direct service with Verizon or T-Mobile seem to have better reception and bandwidth than I do.

Are you using a Google Pixel 6/7/8 ?

Its widely accepted that Google Pixel's radio is weaker than the competition. Google stopped using Qualcomm chipsets on Google Pixel 6. (Or the last time Google used a Qualcomm radio in its phones was in Pixel 5 generation).

I'm sure Google is working on making its radio better, but it still a shame that of all the things they decided to cut to make it cheaper / hit the $600 pricepoint (instead of the $800+ flagship tier) is... the radio.

On the other hand, I hear that Qualcomm is basically raising prices behind the scenes, which is what's causing all of this in the first place.

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#43

Post by bearjaws »

res0nat0r wrote: post #33
Schnitz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prepaid sounds great unless you ever want roaming, it’s either straight up not possible or priced in a way that makes it impractical.

I'm looking to switch to Visible here soon after being on Google Fi for many years. Just looks like a cheaper rebranded Verizon to me, and has all the features I would need for a cheap price. https://www.visible.com/

Visible is really good, only reason not to use them is when you have to travel internationally a lot.

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#44

Post by soylentcola »

ciabattabread wrote: post #27
Schnitz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prepaid sounds great unless you ever want roaming, it’s either straight up not possible or priced in a way that makes it impractical.

What keeps me on a postpaid plan is that I like not having to worry about my phone plan when I go abroad on vacation.

Haven't done that in a year and a half, but when I spent a few weeks out of the country it was a simple matter of buying a $30 prepaid SIM from a vending machine at the airport and having more data than I had time to use. Honestly, no contracts or carrier locks has always made it easier to deal with travel compared to friends who occasionally have issues just swapping SIMs.

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#46

Post by sgerenser »

candiddevmike wrote: post #36
toast0 wrote: post #11

Post merger I went from a $25/month t-mobile plan to a $15/month t-mobile plan. Not entirely apples to apples, but close. My spouse went from $30/month to $25/month on Verizon for more data. And there's lots of options at https://prepaidcompare.net/

The problem with MVNOs, at least that I'm noticing as a Google Fi subscriber, is I believe MVNOs are deprioritized. In a congested area, folks who have direct service with Verizon or T-Mobile seem to have better reception and bandwidth than I do.

MVNOs are definitely often deprioritized, as I experienced with Visible wireless where I'd often have no data access despite having 2-3 bars of service. Switched a year or two ago to US Mobile which is apparently one of the few that is not deprioritized on the Verizon network (bizarrely as long as your phone is 5G capable, even when only using 4G). So there's options out there without paying $70/mo for Verizon postpaid.

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#47

Post by ndiddy »

soylentcola wrote: post #44
ciabattabread wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What keeps me on a postpaid plan is that I like not having to worry about my phone plan when I go abroad on vacation.

Haven't done that in a year and a half, but when I spent a few weeks out of the country it was a simple matter of buying a $30 prepaid SIM from a vending machine at the airport and having more data than I had time to use. Honestly, no contracts or carrier locks has always made it easier to deal with travel compared to friends who occasionally have issues just swapping SIMs.

Unfortunately, the increasing prevalence of eSIMs in new phones makes temporarily switching to a foreign carrier far more inconvenient than "just buy a SIM at a vending machine".

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#48

Post by lolinder »

exabrial wrote: post #4

DOE needs to stop approving mergers and acquisitions over $150 mil or so. Every such merger: Facebook/Instagram, Google/Youtube, etc has been a disaster.

> Google/Youtube

Just a reminder that Google purchased YouTube in October 2006, about 18 months after it launched. Google already owned YouTube when "Charlie Bit My Finger" went viral in 2007. Google owned YouTube before they launched Chrome, back when they were still the heroes of the internet.

There might be some people who are still nostalgic for a pre-Google YouTube, but for most people the better times that they're remembering were still part of the Google era. The acquisition didn't ruin YouTube, Google ruined YouTube about 10 years later when Google as a whole pivoted for the worse.

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#49

Post by sgerenser »

res0nat0r wrote: post #33
Schnitz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prepaid sounds great unless you ever want roaming, it’s either straight up not possible or priced in a way that makes it impractical.

I'm looking to switch to Visible here soon after being on Google Fi for many years. Just looks like a cheaper rebranded Verizon to me, and has all the features I would need for a cheap price. https://www.visible.com/

I switched away from Visible to US Mobile due to deprioritization. I believe they now offer a non-deprioritized plan for $40/mo though, but U.S. mobile is less expensive for a non-deprio plan.

Re: Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Killed Wireless Price Competition in U.S.

#50

Post by tw04 »

TheAmazingRace wrote: post #5

I will say, I'm not terribly fond of mergers on principle. However, based on my insight as a former customer and shareholder of the company, Sprint's goose was most definitely cooked to a crisp. If this merger had not happened, I could have seen Sprint file for bankruptcy, with Verizon and AT&T picking the carcass clean. I think folks forget how dire Sprint's straits were at the time, and this specific merger truly w…

What makes you think someone else wouldn’t have picked up the pieces? Whether that be dish/comcast/google, or just some private equity.

Being acquired by a competitor wasn’t their only exit option, and pretty much anything else would’ve resulted in more competition.

Post reply on HN