WSJ: Sprint looking at T-Mobile purchase

[BenChase7]

Good points. However, just the speculation about Bieber anything now makes me against the merger.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

What's a bieber?

[GinaDee]

Oh good, I am glad that "GinaDee," my spokeswoman, is here to articulate clearly my views on various technical and regulatory matters.

 

AJ

 

Well at least nobody can say you aren't arrogant old man.  

 

T-Mobile and the US industry would be better suited if they tied themselves to DISH.  I'm almost positive we have not heard the last from Dish.  

 

T-Mobile should run from clutches of Sprint at least until they get their stocks up high enough.  

 

You can't demonize AT&T for trying to purchase T-Mobile then turn a blind eye to this.  Sprint paraded for government pity and welfare citing the former would lessen competition with a competitor gone.  Suddenly their tune changes.  

 

Let's see this for what it is:  T-Mobile is kicking @zz right now and Sprint is flopping around like a fish out of water.  Sprint needs nothing more than to kill a competitor. 

[S4GRU]

Size wise you may have a point and I think I mention in my original post that the physical size differences between the US and European nations make the return to scale a totally different animal, but this is some what off set by the larger US market. As far as comparing Europe as a whole to the US as a whole this is no where near comparing apples to apples. There are not barriers to trade or language barriers or vast differences in law codes with in the US and there is in Europe. While the union and common currency do a great deal to make Europe more integrated it is in no way comparable to the integration of the US. My main point is you are taking an industry that until metro and leap where gobbled up, there where 5-6 firms serving most markets and nearly all major markets down to 2-3 after a tmobile sprint merge ( some rural markets are serviced by one Regional and one national carrier). 5-6 where probably to many three will be to few. Tmobile is the disrupters in the industry right now, they are the ones making the moves that are changing the industry and all the other carriers, including sprint are following their lead. Take them out and I think we will see the industry petrify (pr at lest slow) which would be sad I such a dynamic industry.

Tmo is a disrupter now. But so is SoftBank. SoftBank may be interested in Tmo because of these actions. SoftBank does not fear Tmo. They may even adopt a lot of these strategies and can now implement them on a much larger scale. It may allow them to take uncarrier directly to the duopoly in a much larger and more impacting way.

 

I think all of our attempts to try to parallel our market to Canada or Europe is problematic. It's very different in so many ways.

 

Let me be clear, I am not for this buyout. I am not even close to making up my mind. And I do think a buyout needs to be properly vetted and the government needs to be make sure competition would be vibrant post purchase close. Everyone's competition concerns are valid. But SoftBank deserves the right to make their case. And we all have to admit that there are scenarios where it's possible that if Sprint buys Tmo that it could even bring more competition against the duopoly. If anything Sprint and Tmo are competing against each other. They need to compete with the duopoly.

 

But I don't think the Feds are against a triopoly. They never said that with ATT/Tmo. They were concerned that there would now be a new mega carrier and a weakened third carrier. If ATT/Tmo merger would have created a triopoly of equals, it probably would have been approved.

 

I'm actually concerned that this could get approved without the appropriate safeguards for competition being required. I really want to see the regionals getting some ability to compete via guaranteed LTE roaming access at reasonable rates, regionals getting better access to devices by de-boutiquing subset bands and probably even getting some spectrum. I think this has a good chance of rubber stamping from regulators. I don't share the sentiment that this will be flatly denied outright.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[rjw]

Post Sprint and T-Mobile would have a lot of debt. I'm least worried about the network integration. But the prices will most definitely go up don't care what anyone says.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

 

[rjw]

Well at least nobody can say you aren't arrogant old man.

 

T-Mobile and the US industry would be better suited if they tied themselves to DISH. I'm almost positive we have not heard the last from Dish.

 

T-Mobile should run from clutches of Sprint at least until they get their stocks up high enough.

 

You can't demonize AT&T for trying to purchase T-Mobile then turn a blind eye to this. Sprint paraded for government pity and welfare citing the former would lessen competition with a competitor gone. Suddenly their tune changes.

 

Let's see this for what it is: T-Mobile is kicking @zz right now and Sprint is flopping around like a fish out of water. Sprint needs nothing more than to kill a competitor.

 

Well at least nobody can say you aren't arrogant old man.

 

T-Mobile and the US industry would be better suited if they tied themselves to DISH. I'm almost positive we have not heard the last from Dish.

 

T-Mobile should run from clutches of Sprint at least until they get their stocks up high enough.

 

You can't demonize AT&T for trying to purchase T-Mobile then turn a blind eye to this. Sprint paraded for government pity and welfare citing the former would lessen competition with a competitor gone. Suddenly their tune changes.

 

Let's see this for what it is: T-Mobile is kicking @zz right now and Sprint is flopping around like a fish out of water. Sprint needs nothing more than to kill a competitor.

Agreed. It's only a matter of time before T-Mobile is tied with Sprint subscriber count.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

 

[S4GRU]

Well at least nobody can say you aren't arrogant old man.

 

T-Mobile and the US industry would be better suited if they tied themselves to DISH. I'm almost positive we have not heard the last from Dish.

 

T-Mobile should run from clutches of Sprint at least until they get their stocks up high enough.

 

You can't demonize AT&T for trying to purchase T-Mobile then turn a blind eye to this. Sprint paraded for government pity and welfare citing the former would lessen competition with a competitor gone. Suddenly their tune changes.

 

Let's see this for what it is: T-Mobile is kicking @zz right now and Sprint is flopping around like a fish out of water. Sprint needs nothing more than to kill a competitor.

Someone can be against the ATT buyout of Tmo and for the Sprint buyout of Tmo. The difference is night and day. Also, AJ has not said he is for the buyout at all.

 

Personally, I think Sprint is on the right path to compete already on their own. They will be in a good position in 12 months and will be able to grow organically from there pretty well. They don't need to take Tmo to complete their plans. However, the problem for them is kind of like Alltel. You can't let someone else scoop them up either. We know that ATT nor Verizon can buy Tmo...now. But the Obama Admin ends in

 

Also, I think SoftBank really would love to have a GSM/WCDMA ecosystem.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[richy]

Post Sprint and T-Mobile would have a lot of debt. I'm least worried about the network integration. But the prices will most definitely go up don't care what anyone says.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

Perhaps, but its relative to size and income. Vzw just paid $130bn to buy 45% of itself from vodafone. That's one very large chunk of money. My opinion was that sprints prices would always go up marginally as NV completed (at least the first few stages) as their network would usurp value as their main selling point. Tmo's price would always have to go up anyway, they need a network to last and their marketing dept is writing checks their sites can't cash in the long run. 

[richy]

Tmo is a disrupter now. But so is SoftBank. SoftBank may be interested in Tmo because of these actions. SoftBank does not fear Tmo. They may even adopt a lot of these strategies and can now implement them on a much larger scale. It may allow them to take uncarrier directly to the duopoly in a much larger and more impacting way.

 

I think all of our attempts to try to parallel our market to Canada or Europe is problematic. It's very different in so many ways.

 

Let me be clear, I am not for this buyout. I am not even close to making up my mind. And I do think a buyout needs to be properly vetted and the government needs to be make sure competition would be vibrant post purchase close. Everyone's competition concerns are valid. But SoftBank deserves the right to make their case. And we all have to admit that there are scenarios where it's possible that if Sprint buys Tmo that it could even bring more competition against the duopoly. If anything Sprint and Tmo are competing against each other. They need to compete with the duopoly.

 

But I don't think the Feds are against a triopoly. They never said that with ATT/Tmo. They were concerned that there would now be a new mega carrier and a weakened third carrier. If ATT/Tmo merger would have created a triopoly of equals, it probably would have been approved.

 

I'm actually concerned that this could get approved without the appropriate safeguards for competition being required. I really want to see the regionals getting some ability to compete via guaranteed LTE roaming access at reasonable rates, regionals getting better access to devices by de-boutiquing subset bands and probably even getting some spectrum. I think this has a good chance of rubber stamping from regulators. I don't share the sentiment that this will be flatly denied outright.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Do you think it's possible to structure a deal and regulate in a manner which would see a combined company take the hurt to the big two and not predominately to regional carriers? Not saying they can't, just curious if its possible and how

[rjw]

Perhaps, but its relative to size and income. Vzw just paid $130bn to buy 45% of itself from vodafone. That's one very large chunk of money. My opinion was that sprints prices would always go up marginally as NV completed (at least the first few stages) as their network would usurp value as their main selling point. Tmo's price would always have to go up anyway, they need a network to last and their marketing dept is writing checks their sites can't cash in the long run. 

 

Verizon Wireless earns a healthy profit though Sprint doesn't. I am not sure I agree with your statement on the Marketing dept. side of things my opinion is that thus far at least in my area South Florida T-Mobile will be more than able to compete with Sprint if they deploy 20x20 network here next year. 

[richy]

Verizon Wireless earns a healthy profit though Sprint doesn't. I am not sure I agree with your statement on the Marketing dept. side of things my opinion is that thus far at least in my area South Florida T-Mobile will be more than able to compete with Sprint if they deploy 20x20 network here next year. 

Tmo earns a profit and sprint will in the near future. 

 

As regards networks, if you look at how sprint sells unlimited vs tmo you will see a difference. Sprint has a more measured approach with a view to maintaining a decent level of service, i.e. caps on streaming where it would otherwise slow the network vs tmo's stream all you want all day long approach. Tmo's profit is coming from adding subs, as that network fills, even with 20x20 in some markets then unmitigated unlimited will start to bite back. They need a next plan, what to do when their current network hits capacity, Sprint has a 'what to do next', tmo currently is vague and a lot of it would take time and lots of money to roll out (the 600MHz auction). Tmo is sitting pretty if you look in a short term context, long term the party will have to come to an end. 

As I mentioned I expected sprints arpu to rise as NV 1 completes and the overlay etc gets going. Over the coming years they are going to have one hell of a network to sell and they won't have to be as price concious. Not saying they will gouge, but they will have room to bring in cash and they will bring in more subs and then you will have profit. 

Plenty of Euro cable companies ran huge losses (in every sense, even net cash) for a long time and still found money to expand \ merge \ go quadplay etc. 

[Destroyallcubes]

Because they don't have low band spectrum. Give TMO 10x10 600 MHz and watch the duopoly crumble.

They would be good in city still, but would still leave quite a bit of edge. I believe it was backhaul that is killing T-mobile. They are very limited on a number of their sites

[MacinJosh]

One thing that people keep forgetting. AT&T and T-Mobile are both GSM/W-CDMA carriers. If they were to merge, then there would be a monopoly in this country for a national GSM/W-CDMA network. The smaller regionals who operate on similar networks would be forced to close down because AT&T would raise the rates on roaming agreements until no one can afford access. Then it would be anticompetitive. That's the key reason the at&t-mobile merger failed.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Fraydog]

Sounds like GinaDee needs a crash course on what dealing with Charlie Ergen is like. 

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-02/dish-network-the-meanest-company-in-america

[JeffDTD]

No carrier can be everything begged of it by naysayers. The day that sprint and tmo independently sell a network as expansive as the duopoly and desired over the duopoly's offerings, prices will adjust across all carriers. To oppose a merger that could truly challenge the duopoly is embracing the most popular shortcomings flung at sprint and tmo by us.

 

And btw, unlimited survived only because of sprint. Had sprint ditched unlimited in favor of buckets and throttling , tmo would not have needed to bring it back. Its easy to applaud the "low price no contract service+ come finance your device" lip service, but lip service is what it is. One may argue "but it forced the others to compete". So, now we have verizon financing devices on top of the subsidy and Randall Stephenson predicting the end of device subsidies after unveiling new "value plans" that will increase revenue for att in almost all scenarios.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[rjw]

Tmo earns a profit and sprint will in the near future. 

 

As regards networks, if you look at how sprint sells unlimited vs tmo you will see a difference. Sprint has a more measured approach with a view to maintaining a decent level of service, i.e. caps on streaming where it would otherwise slow the network vs tmo's stream all you want all day long approach. Tmo's profit is coming from adding subs, as that network fills, even with 20x20 in some markets then unmitigated unlimited will start to bite back. They need a next plan, what to do when their current network hits capacity, Sprint has a 'what to do next', tmo currently is vague and a lot of it would take time and lots of money to roll out (the 600MHz auction). Tmo is sitting pretty if you look in a short term context, long term the party will have to come to an end. 

As I mentioned I expected sprints arpu to rise as NV 1 completes and the overlay etc gets going. Over the coming years they are going to have one hell of a network to sell and they won't have to be as price concious. Not saying they will gouge, but they will have room to bring in cash and they will bring in more subs and then you will have profit. 

Plenty of Euro cable companies ran huge losses (in every sense, even net cash) for a long time and still found money to expand \ merge \ go quadplay etc. 

 

Again I disagree on your assessment of the network side of things. It's quite obvious T-Mobile went back to offering unlimited plans solely to compete with Sprint for new subscribers. It'll be gone once they see that it's no longer feasible. Please also keep in mind that T-Mobile does throttle all of their other lower priced plans. We all know unlimited doesn't mean unlimited and it isn't here to stay because the carrier wants it but rather just as a means of competing to capture more subscribers. Verizon and AT&T got away from it cause they knew they could do away with unlimited without affecting the bottom line. 

[WiWavelength]

Well at least nobody can say you aren't arrogant old man.

Damn, you got me. But I make no bones about my personality, record, and identity. How about you? 

 

You can't demonize AT&T for trying to purchase T-Mobile then turn a blind eye to this.  Sprint paraded for government pity and welfare citing the former would lessen competition with a competitor gone.  Suddenly their tune changes.

If you think that you can rightly equivocate AT&T-T-Mobile with Sprint-T-Mobile, well, keep swinging.  You might eventually make contact on one of these pitches.

 

AJ

[richy]

Again I disagree on your assessment of the network side of things. It's quite obvious T-Mobile went back to offering unlimited plans solely to compete with Sprint for new subscribers. It'll be gone once they see that it's no longer feasible. Please also keep in mind that T-Mobile does throttle all of their other lower priced plans. We all know unlimited doesn't mean unlimited and it isn't here to stay because the carrier wants it but rather just as a means of competing to capture more subscribers. Verizon and AT&T got away from it cause they knew they could do away with unlimited without affecting the bottom line.

Actually the reverse is true, tmo give the $X per GB plans priority on the network (at least until you hit your limit), at least above the 2GB level so in effect contention based throttling is used, but only when they are capacity limited. Will tmo bin unlimited plans? Honestly I have no idea, I don't see it being viable long term which was my point. If they keep it their network suffers and they suffer, if they get rid they lose customers and suffer. Whats the long term plan? Sell Legere's extensive baseball cap collection? They will have to upturn a lot of breakout room sofa's to find the cash they need. IF they manage to buy up a chunk of spectrum they still have to find the cash to build it out and there is a chance that if it is a non at&t band their costs will go up because right now their better handsets basically share costs with at&t, they are the same bar the branding. Not a deal breaker but another cost to consider. I love tmo right now, it's a great experience (at least off peak, although this varies market to market like most cellcos) for a great price barring building penetration and backwoods coverage. Unfortunately it won't get much better, and if their offering keeps bringing in subs the fun will be short lived.

However, I respect and understand your well articulated position, no issue with us both having differing expectations Short term I prefer tmo in my market, long term I see sprint as the better bet. Other markets will be different and other people will have differing opinions.

[GinaDee]

Damn, you got me. But I make no bones about my personality, record, and identity. How about you? 

 

If you think that you can rightly equivocate AT&T-T-Mobile with Sprint-T-Mobile, well, keep swinging.  You might eventually make contact on one of these pitches.

 

AJ

 

 

Sprint would have no reason to keep unlimited data and lower prices if it had the scaleable size, bulk and network size of AT&T or Verizon.  They only do it because they have to right now.  

 

It's obvious that Sprint was never really against "reducing competition," in the AT&T-T-Mo deal despite their pretense.  They were just afraid of being in last place among the top four.  Screw the customer.  

[Terrell352]

I agree that Sprint had too keep unlimited because there network was in shambles compared to the big 2 and there is no reason to stay other wise

Sprint would have no reason to keep unlimited data and lower prices if it had the scaleable size, bulk and network size of AT&T or Verizon. They only do it because they have to right now.

 

It's obvious that Sprint was never really against "reducing competition," in the AT&T-T-Mo deal despite their pretense. They were just afraid of being in last place among the top four. Screw the customer.

[Sonic13]

I think it would actually provide better competition to the top carriers, now that Sprint would actually be a serious competitor.

I don't, I fear a merger would just create another AT&T/Verizon monster, and there'd be no real competition.

 

I like how T-Mobile and Sprint kind of keep each other in check, and while they're not as strong as the "big 2", they're both serious competition, as evidenced by the way little ol' T-Mobile has been shaking up the industry for the past year or so.

[Destroyallcubes]

Sprint would have no reason to keep unlimited data and lower prices if it had the scaleable size, bulk and network size of AT&T or Verizon.  They only do it because they have to right now.  

 

It's obvious that Sprint was never really against "reducing competition," in the AT&T-T-Mo deal despite their pretense.  They were just afraid of being in last place among the top four.  Screw the customer.

 

No they didn't want it because it would of been one super giant, another giant and then sprint would have little left to compete with, it could of led to the collapse of sprint leaving 2 giant's. If sprint and T-Mobile combine it levels it to 3 giants, and then regional carrier. It would allow the customer a 3rd better option instead of 2 solid expensive choices, and 2 lesser, with less coverage. The two differences of possible mergers are on two different levels

[GinaDee]

No they didn't want it because it would of been one super giant, another giant and then sprint would have little left to compete with, it could of led to the collapse of sprint leaving 2 giant's. If sprint and T-Mobile combine it levels it to 3 giants, and then regional carrier. It would allow the customer a 3rd better option instead of 2 solid expensive choices, and 2 lesser, with less coverage. The two differences of possible mergers are on two different levels

 

Wasn't that the point of an all American carrier being swallowed and bowing down to a foreign Japanese billionaire?  Wasn't that the reason they had to buyout Clearwire?  Sprint has a sugar daddy with money  They have all the spectrum in the world; more than any other US carrier.  The only thing holding them back is themselves.  They don't need T-Mobile to compete with AT&T.  That is a poor excuse.

 

A few weeks ago Sprint was the savior.  The untouchable.  Network Vision was going to rule the day in 2012, or 2013 or 2014.  Verizon was supposed to be quaking in her boots because Mr. Son was going to create the best network on earth.  

 

I hope any planned buyout by the Japanese is stopped.  

[dnicekid]

Wasn't that the point of an all American carrier being swallowed and bowing down to a foreign Japanese billionaire?  Wasn't that the reason they had to buyout Clearwire?  Sprint has a sugar daddy with money  They have all the spectrum in the world; more than any other US carrier.  The only thing holding them back is themselves.  They don't need T-Mobile to compete with AT&T.  That is a poor excuse.

 

A few weeks ago Sprint was the savior.  The untouchable.  Network Vision was going to rule the day in 2012, or 2013 or 2014.  Verizon was supposed to be quaking in her boots because Mr. Son was going to create the best network on earth.  

 

I hope any planned buyout by the Japanese is stopped.  

 

 

Sprint can never make vzw or att quake in their boots. Not until their numbers get close, sprint could have the best network but lets be honest are 25 mil  att and 25 mil vzw customers gonna leave in the next 4 years???  Without sprint dropping its price to a $45 unlimited plan?!! Of course not, the only way ANYONE can compete with att or vzw is through the amount of subs - there is strength in numbers. As well as tmo and sprint would like to think they are doing its only a drop in the bucket - most of their numbers come from each other- not from vzw/att. Tmo/Sprint will sink billions into networks to try and keep up with the big 2. Those guys have all the power and money, while sprint/tmo will always struggle at some point because they arent making the same profit. This was shown recently in how much sprint has to pay apple just for the iphone.

The japanese ow most of sprint now and tmo isnt american owned either..  I wish it wasnt that way either, but obviously no one in our country wanted sprint the last 10 years lol 

[dnicekid]

I think it's more a case of does Sprint need it anyway with NV and the 600mhz auction it could find itself sitting pretty without tmo in a few years time anyway. I think  Tmo needs this more than Sprint does. If the price reflects that then maybe it makes sense for Sprint, still not sure it makes sense for customers. Dtelekom needs to get serious about tmobile USA. It's like they got bored of it for 5 years and now they are making an effort but you get the feeling it's only enough to make it attractive enough to sell. Sprint would love the spectrum and the customers, but there is a price AND the effort of merging. 20bn would buy a lot of sites and spectrum and the customers would come anyway. 

Isnt 20 billion pretty cheap for 45 mil customers and their spectrum?

I do agree tmo knows down the road sprints network will be much improved and on par with the big2 and tmo will be looking to play catch up and that will cost $$$$$$

whats funny though is 20 billion...  That alone is probably why sprint is moving forward.... 20 billion for 45 mil subs which will put you right where you wanna be.....

[bigsnake49]

Also remember that even if T-Mobile and Sprint merge, they will only have around 53M postpaid customers (per WSJ). That a lot less than Verizon's 95M postpaid and AT&T's 72M.