Live data from Hacker News

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

techdirt.com

141–150 of 259 posts

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

#141

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…

Sprint was cooked for one specific reason: parent company QWEST refused to do the prism-split of fiber cables into secret NSA colocation rooms like AT&T did.

Hmmm - interesting!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

EDIT: more info here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished...

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

#142
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that why they are absurdly expensive compared to all of their competitors?

They're paying out an excessive dividend that completely empties their cash reserves and makes operating the company unsustainable https://www.opb.org/article/2022/11/12/oregon-ag-files-court...

I don’t have a real strong view on this specific situation one way or the other but it’s relevant that the appeals courts pretty quickly threw out this suit and allowed Albertsons to pay the dividend.

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

#143
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're assuming anybody else would have wanted to acquire a debt-laden company with an enormous infrastructure deficit as they mismanaged the move to 4/5g. Sprint essentially was only valuable to a company with a better LTE/5G network already in existence that users could me moved to and then Sprint's old spectrum repurposed. Anyone else would have been left with many tens of billions in network upgrade costs.

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

#144

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…

[deleted]

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

#145
post #6

and they acquired Mint, which almost certainly means my $30/mo prepaid plan will disappear soon.

I don't know how long it will last, but Mint advised their rates were staying the same.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/t-mobile-closes-mint-mobile...

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

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 postpa…

For anyone wondering, voice/data on Visible's entry-level $25/mo plan is deprioritized in times of congestion, and their $45/mo plan is not. Hotspot usage is throttled on both, differently. You can read the full details on their plans page [0] by pressing the "Get all the details" buttons.

Visible $25/mo:

> Typical 4G LTE & 5G download speeds are 9-149 Mbps. Video streams in SD. In times of traffic, your data may be temporarily slower than other traffic.

> Visible includes mobile hotspot with unlimited data at speeds up to 5 Mbps. Video streams in SD. While more than 1 device may be connected to your Hotspot at one time, a single connected device will experience optimal speeds. Performance will be reduced if multiple devices access data through the Hotspot simultaneously. Actual data speed, availability and coverage will vary based on device capabilities, usage, your location and network availability. Service is not available while roaming.

Visible $45/mo:

> Visible+ gives you unlimited premium data on Verizon’s 5G Ultra Wideband network, the fastest 5G network access we offer — up to 10X faster than median 4G LTE speeds. Premium data means no data slowdowns due to prioritization. Download apps, games, entire playlists and TV series in seconds.

> Visible+ also gives you 50 GB/mo of premium data on Verizon's award-winning 5G & 4G LTE networks when 5G Ultra Wideband is unavailable. Premium data means no data slowdowns due to prioritization.

> Typical 4G LTE & 5G download speeds are 9-149Mbps. Video streams in SD. After 50 GB, in times of traffic, your data may be temporarily slower than other traffic.

[0] https://www.visible.com/plans/

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

#147
post #72
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're paying out an excessive dividend that completely empties their cash reserves and makes operating the company unsustainable https://www.opb.org/article/2022/11/12/oregon-ag-files-court...

Corporate bankruptcy is a scam. Any merger on auction should acquire existing debts, and execs should be a lien against wealth and future income.

Counter-argument, moneylenders shouldn't loan money to companies doing this. And secured lenders have their protections.

Anyways, they knew the game. Bankruptcy auctions are essentially debtors recouping as many of their costs as possible before writing off the rest (further minimizing future taxes).

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

#148

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…

>Sprint's goose was most definitely cooked The reason their goose was cooked is because they previously were planning to acquire T Mobile, but SoftBank got back-channel info that it would never be approved by the anti-trust regulators. At the time they had Marcelo Claure running Sprint, basically a corporate "fixer" guy for SoftBank. So he ran the company into the dirt in order to make the merge feasible to regulator…

I don't think that materially really had anything to do with it.

Sprint was dying - with extraordinarily high debt, in 2007, well before Softbank bought them, and indeed they lost money every year from 2008 forward - https://www.statista.com/statistics/481739/sprint-corporatio...

The Merger with Nextel managed to kill what was great about Nextel, and what was good about Sprint, and they lost customers in droves (mostly former Nextel ones). In reality Sprint bought Nextel's OAM equipment and their customers, and moved all the legacy Sprint customers onto the surviving billing and network management platforms (Nextel). The iDEN turndown also lost even more customers, most of whom who realized they didnt need PTToC after all (which is too bad, because on dedicated CDMA hardware, it worked really great).

Then they needed to start rolling out LTE (Network Vision) - and NV didnt start in earnest until 2012/13 - and as someone who was on the field end of it, was very very very poorly managed. Sprint some years prior had outsourced all their engineering expertise to Ericsson, which means they had no one in house with any knowledge. They only realized that 18 months in, and then scrambled to get people back from Ericsson (who I will note, they did not contract any of the deployment management to).

I only know this because I was in the middle of the deployment as a field resource in Seattle.

My guess is only half the sites in the network (in Seattle Market) had enough customers to pay their fixed costs.

I concluded while I worked there that there was no way for four carriers to be viable, there isnt enough spectrum allocated, and you pay the same fixed costs over and over again.

I'll go further, Sprint had a massive switch facility for the LD operations with room for like 4 DMS250's in Tacoma, but that's not where they put the SPCS 5ESS, that was in Kirkland in a rented building (and interestingly enough, it's still part of T-Mobiles operations today), there was also another Motorola iDEN switch also in Kirkland.

Post merger they never really made any effort to reduce their fixed costs (sites, switching centers, et al), because that would have cost money - they also got bled dry by having to foot the entire bill for rebanding the SMR band, which was on the order of 2.5 billion dollars. They did close stores (and RS was a major outlet for Sprint Sales, before it went belly up) which contributed to problems later.

So I don't know where you got your info, but I think its hooey - before Softbank bought Sprint, they didn't have the capital to upgrade their 2G/3G network to LTE, much less consider a merger with T-Mobile.

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

#150

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…

Sprint was cooked for one specific reason: parent company QWEST refused to do the prism-split of fiber cables into secret NSA colocation rooms like AT&T did.

Qwest never owned Sprint.
Post reply on HN