Sprint just announced a new offer that bundles together the iPhone and iPad and waives the monthly cost of a 16GB iPad mini 3 when both are leased through the iPhone/iPad for Life program and a 2GB data plan is purchased for the tablet.
So: A 16GB iPhone 6 on Sprint’s $50 Simply Unlimited plan and a 16GB iPad mini 3 with a $30 2GB data plan will run $100 per month after the iPad’s monthly lease rate is erased in the form of a $17 monthly service credit.
The bundle deal is fully customizable with the iPhone 6 Plus and iPad Air 2, as well as 64GB and 128GB models of all four Apple devices, available at an incrementally higher cost.
So, we all know about the lovely iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus User thread, and there are many different device focused threads across S4GRU, but there are none for us older iPhone users. So, why should they get to have all the fun? This thread is dedicated to anything and everything about our beautiful (Spark-less) iPhone 5's and 5S's.
Discuss anything like jailbreaks, hardware problems, how much you love your device, how great it is to have at least one LTE band compared to the folks who still have 4's and 4S's, ask questions and maybe you can get some answers, etc. etc.
The other thing I found in his video presentation was the clear lack of anything "Sprint". John jabbed at AT&T and Verizon but nothing on or against Sprint. Also, I don't know if you guys noticed, but the word "Duopoly" is the power word of late and is being used with more frequency! (no pun intended).... I think it's about conditioning the FCC and DOJ by hearing it.
The DOJ reviews potential antitrust issues in mergers. The FCC is supposed to look at whether the merger is in the public interest, which includes reduced competition. So the FCC could reject the merger on the grounds that the reduced competition is not in the public interest. I do not, however, see Chairman Pai doing that because he is so pro-business.
From the FCC's FAQ about merger reviews: Q: What is the FCC’s public interest standard/test?
A: Under section 310(d) of the Communications Act, we determine whether a proposed transaction will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. First, we determine if the application complies with provisions of the Act and our Commission rules. If it does, then we consider whether granting the application could result in public interest harms by substantially frustrating or impairing the objectives or implementation of the Communications Act or related statutes. Competition, diversity, localism, and encouraging the provision of advanced services to all Americans are among the principle objectives of the Act. We also consider what potential public benefits might occur because of the transaction.
We balance the potential public interest harms against the potential benefits. The Applicants bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed transaction, on balance, will serve the public interest.
Before we jump to this conclusion we need to see sustained financial growth over a period of time and a much larger increase in net additions to the network. Sprint is still offering the best deals in wireless and their growth is lagging the competition. This is not sustainable over the long term. Honestly, I see a merger as inevitable as the larger providers will have much more flexible cash for network enhancements in the near future, which they can then leverage to gain more customers.