Live data from Hacker News

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

techdirt.com

211–220 of 259 posts

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

#211
post #63
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

iPhones (and probably Androids too) support up to 10 eSIMs with 2 active at the same time, if I'm not mistaken. And you can buy data eSIMs before even leaving the country in an app like Airalo.

Yes, it's much easier to buy ahead of time in the app and have it automatically activate upon arrival, instead of having to find a kiosk in the airport.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radio Shack was a major retail channel for Sprint since the 90s. By the mid-00s, I would wager most of Radio Shack's gross profit came from wireless retail. They were already more or less Sprint stores with some overpriced PCs and stereos by then.

Why would it be a prudent move to take on the corporate real estate costs associated with RS if it was already a profitable retail channel? What does that change other than increasing overhead for Sprint? And if RS was working, why would converting them to solely cell phone stores make things any better?

Because the choice presumably wasn't {Radio Shack business-as-usual} vs {acquire Radio Shack stores}, but rather {Radio Shack disappears as a retail entity and channel for Sprint} vs {acquire Radio Shack stores}.

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to resolve these issues is never "force the bad guys to do good things" but rather destroy the walls which enable their rent seeking. Regulators can work to make it extremely simple for new techs in this space to come up so there is real competition for ATT etc.

> The best way to resolve these issues is never "force the bad guys to do good things" but rather destroy the walls which enable their rent seeking. The walls here are defined by physics. There's only so much spectrum to go around. You can't have more than 3-4 large cell phone operators working in the same area. Decoupling the radio part and forcing everyone to play as MVNOs is a way to work around this.

Or as I once heard by way of explanation: the capacity of an early analog cellular ~30km AMPS cell was ~60 simultaneous calls.

Modern protocols do magic things with spectrum efficiency, but there's only so much you can do.

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We the People should own infrastructure. Want to start a new shipping company to compete with UPS? You don't have to build roads, We the People provide those to you. So, do the same with wireless.

This is the biggest solution to the problem that many people seem to ignore. If you want your communities to prosper, then the public needs to own the infrastructure that companies provide services for. Full stop. Anything less is giving companies control over something they should not have control over.

I think there's an argument to be had on 'owned by the public, but operated by private industry.'

Another on 'built by private industry, but owned by the public.'

Government ownership isn't a panacea and has historically faultered when faced with innovative and expert requirements.

But I do think anything that trends towards monopoly makes sense as 'let the public own the simplest level, exposed via standards, and innovation happen above and/or below that.'

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

#215

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.

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 price…

Replying to myself to add a bit of thought.

Deprioritization has no effect on your radio signal. What it means is that your radio has connected just fine, its just waiting for everyone else to talk before you can talk.

If you really were getting a bad signal, then... that's a Radio module problem. So I'd check to see if your radio was below par (ex: Pixel 6/7/8, or the myriad of midrange phones like Samsung A(whatever)). Qualcomm quality radios cost a lot extra these days, unfortunately.

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

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Qualcomm is basically raising prices behind the scenes > 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. If it's truly a shame that they went to a lower-performing competitor then maybe Qualcomm thinks that their modem is worth more than they were charging because they provide a superior product.

True but it’s unclear how much the performance difference is from Qualcomm delivering value vs. Qualcomm destroying competitors’ value through blatant patent trolling.

I admit that it seems to be an abuse of the patent system in some regards.

But its not patent trolling. Qualcomm is making a real product and truly selling it. Anyone who wants that product is allowed to buy from Qualcomm or even license it for their own use.

A "Patent Troll" is someone who has no intention of even making the product, sitting on the patents suing everyone. Its far worse than what Qualcomm is doing here. In effect, a "Patent Troll" kills the technology. The "troll" has no ability (or intention) to actually make the tech, yet still prevents everyone else from making the tech.

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

#217

A government condition of the merger was that T-Mobile had to offer low-cost prepaid plans without an MVNO. The program is called T-Mobile Connect, https://clark.com/cell-phones/connect-by-t-mobile/ & https://coveragecritic.com/t-mobile-connect-review/ & https://prepaid.t-mobile.com/connect/phone-plans Monthly price for USA-only unlimited talk/text + 5G/LTE data, is $15/5GB, $25/8GB, $35/12GB + taxes/fees. Outside US…

IIRC, Connect was proposed as a 5 year solution, I fully expect T-Mobile to discontinue Connect as soon as possible.

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

#218
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 (most…

Yeah network vision was a disaster. I think in the market I helped built our average number of site touches was like 21 or 22 from construction complete to on-air. All the funds gathered from the high interest junk bond sale to fund NV was used very inefficiency because sprint lacked the expertise to not get taken for a ride by their vendors.

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

#219
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (most…

Yeah network vision was a disaster. I think in the market I helped built our average number of site touches was like 21 or 22 from construction complete to on-air. All the funds gathered from the high interest junk bond sale to fund NV was used very inefficiency because sprint lacked the expertise to not get taken for a ride by their vendors.

It was a shitshow, you'd have GD tell us a site was complete and show up and find no equipment or equipment on pallets. GD rather than the equipment vendors were the villains, it was subcontractor-o-rama, and no one was responsible for anything. There was one site I went to like six times to inventory non-existent equipment - never mind when they decided to preload the inventory but used the barcodes on the samsung gear that didnt match anything.. I escalated that to Ericsson and then Sprint directly (it mattered for ericsson, because they'd have failed ATLAS audits), about two weeks later all that vanished, and we got a tranche of tickets to go reinventory everything.

I also saw at least half a dozen sites, cut and in service still sitting on their pallets, such a mess.

Imagine for a moment you go off to the crusades, leave the barn to one group, the fields to another group, and leave the house to a third group, then gleave no one in charge and give them no way to communicate beyond the most informal means - and you're surprised everything is on fire upon your return?

In the end it did work once it was done, but it was only hell for the customer during deployment because it was deployed and cut in a hopscotch fashion, which would be fine, if you could roam from new back to old - there was a one way roam, from old to new, once on new, there was no path to roam back.

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

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it more about the device than the network? I used mobile WiMax from Clear for years until it ended its service. For what it was, it worked great. It wasn't necessarily a speed demon, but it was reliable. I used it to avoid public WiFi congestion, as a backup when my home network was down, and in 'bring your own infrastructure' situations.

Yeah it depends on the market you were in. I helped build the WiMax network but it was built very quickly and in places it was built by people who didn't care very much. It was all microwave back hauled so rain fade in stormy weather was absolutely a thing. Most of those were FCC licensed or should have been but I know of at least 1 market where they just never filed the paperwork to get the licenses and built it any…

The clearwire side of things was wildly oversubscribed on backhaul, often totally saturated 10m circuits.
Post reply on HN