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

81–90 of 259 posts

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

#81

Post by Alupis »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #68
Alupis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Visible, your first 50GB of mobile data are not deprioritized. Some people use a lot of mobile data - but I'm on my phone all day/night for business and pleasure, watch a lot of video content etc, but usually am within Wifi range of my home or office. I struggle to use more than 6GB of mobile data per month... Before switching to Visible, I worried a lot about prioritization etc. After switching from Verizon (prop…

Looks like that's only on the nicer plan?

Looks like you're right. I pay $35 a month for my line - there's some $10 monthly credit they applied to my account. With their annual payment option, it's $33 monthly.

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

#82

Post by samtheprogram »

tw04 wrote: post #50
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.

Sprint had outdated technology w.r.t their infrastructure and cell towers, so an outside acquirer didn’t make as much sense. It needed an existing player with more advanced infrastructure to take on the customer base, or a large investment in upgrading it’s own infrastructure.

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

#83

Post by goda90 »

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…

That's what's going to happen with US Cellular: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/report-t-mobile-...

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

#84

Post by ElevenLathe »

bityard wrote: post #75
tw04 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In an infinite universe of possibilities, you're right: a failing brand with a household name being acquired by a competitor is not the only possible outcome. But it is historically far and away the most likely one.

Isn't that circular reasoning? Regulators have to allow the merger because other outcomes are unlikely, but they are unlikely because regulators always allow the merger. If the merger is blocked, the probability of that outcome falls to 0, and the others' increase, no?

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

#86

Post by silisili »

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/

I went from a $15/mo Mint plan to a $0/mo Dish plan. So, worked for me I guess?

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

#87

Post by selimthegrim »

TheAmazingRace wrote: post #25
mchannon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Sprint bankruptcy may have been inevitable, but Verizon and AT&T would have been forced to steer clear (a failed merger having made that inevitable). The private market would have provided a bounty of suitors for Sprint if it couldn't recover from bankruptcy. It may have emerged in a far weaker fourth place, but it would still be around.

The only other possible dark horse that could have emerged was either in US Cellular or Dish Network. However, I believe there were concerns with issues like market capitalization (in the case of US Cellular) or having different priorities (like Dish) that would have jeopardized a proper fourth option for the US. I'm not suggesting the merger was "good" or anything like that. Just that the other options seemed quite…

Dish is already making a hash out of its mobile customers (Ting, etc)

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

#88

Post by jahewson »

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.

“Let’s just abolish capitalism”. Seriously though, a world in which the government runs the economy and picks the winners is a bad one indeed.

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

#90

Post by nradov »

issafram wrote: post #77
hedora wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulators could have forced the big four carriers (now three) into a common carrier model. In that setup, all cell providers would effectively be an MVNO, and the three (then, four) physical networks would be operated at arms length from the consumer facing side. Also, the four networks could be structured so that their financial incentives were to improve cell coverage and bandwidth instead of undermining each…

I mean Sprint was strictly CDMA, so that would be an issue on it's own.

Sprint had started as CDMA. They were in the process of building a 5G network but lacked the capital necessary for competitive nationwide coverage.
Post reply on HN