Jump to content
Nextel49

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

Actually, the Alcatel Go Flip 3 uses the Snapdragon 210 and fully supports TMobile and Sprint.  

  • GSM: 850/900/1800/1900MHz
  • UMTS: 2/4/5
  • LTE: 2/4/5/12/25/26/41 (Support HPUE)/66/71
  • CDMA: BC 0/1/10/ 1xRTT Call
  • VoLTE: Yes

Once the merger goes through, it'll be interesting to see how soon a non-Sprint phone could be added to a Sprint account. 

But it still has CDMA :). I have no doubt that such phones will start appearing shortly. 

Sprint has a problem with SIMs. There are too many different types because they don't have a sophisticated back end so they put a lot of info on the cards that should be part of the back end business logic. They have neglected that part of the infrastructure so T-Mobile will try to move Sprint accounts over to the T-Mobile system as soon as they possibly can. They can let the two subscriber groups roam on each other's networks for a little while but moving Sprint subscribers over quickly is critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure that the chip makers (Qualcomm) can make a chipset/RF front end that has all the bands that the combined company supports without cdma. The problem would be if there is a loss of voice roaming for Sprint if CDMA voice went away and all voice was over LTE.
Pretty much all phones sold in the US do now. They're just firmware locked to each carrier sometimes. Samsung phones and Pixels for example work on all carriers and support all the bands.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ingenium said:

Pretty much all phones sold in the US do now. They're just firmware locked to each carrier sometimes. Samsung phones and Pixels for example work on all carriers and support all the bands.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

Yes, LG and Motorola have several phones that can do all of bands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ingenium said:

Pretty much all phones sold in the US do now. They're just firmware locked to each carrier sometimes. Samsung phones and Pixels for example work on all carriers and support all the bands.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

I know my S10+ is unlocked and it's a lease which makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these promises being made makes me excited for the 5G coverage that they're going to deploy post-merger. I'm still not excited about prices inevitably increasing to finance the buildout though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

I'm still not excited about prices inevitably increasing to finance the buildout though. 

I'm hoping the few millions of new customers they can grab offering service in new areas offsets this some.

Plus the FCC loves giving away money lately for rural build outs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more down!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to hear.  Even though this doesn't mean anything is guaranteed... it may make the court case shorter/easier??  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

Glad to hear.  Even though this doesn't mean anything is guaranteed... it may make the court case shorter/easier??  

These states are really into extortion.  Do "this" or else.  Kinda a quid pro quo  and I did not mean this in  a political way to stir up something.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the whole thing is dumb!  Let em Merge!     This is garbage and is dragging this out soooo long!!!   I could have already been enjoying better coverage and planning my next phone purchase!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice (which has already ruled in favor of the merger) and the Federal Trade Commission (which has never sought to be involved).  All of the remaining states are basically trying to extort New T-Mobile into giving away perks, so that states will drop out like Texas and Nevada did. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tommym65 said:

The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice (which has already ruled in favor of the merger) and the Federal Trade Commission (which has never sought to be involved).  All of the remaining states are basically trying to extort New T-Mobile into giving away perks, so that states will drop out like Texas and Nevada did. 

They just want money out of it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tommym65 said:

The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice (which has already ruled in favor of the merger) and the Federal Trade Commission (which has never sought to be involved).  All of the remaining states are basically trying to extort New T-Mobile into giving away perks, so that states will drop out like Texas and Nevada did. 

So what happens when NY and CA don't drop? Won't the long legal battle essentially kill the merger at that point? Not the actual outcome of the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tommym65 said:

The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice (which has already ruled in favor of the merger) and the Federal Trade Commission (which has never sought to be involved).  All of the remaining states are basically trying to extort New T-Mobile into giving away perks, so that states will drop out like Texas and Nevada did. 

Like I posted earlier.  Extortion.  I wonder if T-Mobile and/or Sprint could sue the Attorney Generals in these states after this is settled. Sue them for Billions.  What has T-mobile or Sprint done that is illegal?  Nothing.  They just asked politely to join forces. These are National companies regulated by the Federal Government.  I see no state or Federal laws being broken.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, tommym65 said:

The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice...

This is simply not true. State attorneys general can play an important role in antitrust enforcement on matters of particular concern to local businesses or consumers. States AGs actually have quite a rich history in antitrust. State Attorneys General often investigate antitrust violations – ranging from price fixing to anticompetitive mergers – in conjunction with the federal antitrust enforcement agencies (the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission).  But recently the nation’s AGs have more frequently taken the lead, conducting their own investigations and initiating independent enforcement actions.

They went after the AT&T / T-Mobile merger in 2011, Verizon / Alltel in 2008, AT&T /Cingular in 2004 for example.

More supporting evidence:

Over the past year, State Attorneys General have stepped into what they describe as a void of antitrust enforcement at the federal level.  AGs have commenced investigations and brought antitrust actions across industry segments, including financial services, healthcare, telecommunications, technology and others.  The substance of the actions cover the waterfront of antitrust including price-fixing, merger enforcement and unfair trade practices. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 11:25 PM, SuzieTuesday said:

This is simply not true. State attorneys general can play an important role in antitrust enforcement on matters of particular concern to local businesses or consumers. States AGs actually have quite a rich history in antitrust. State Attorneys General often investigate antitrust violations – ranging from price fixing to anticompetitive mergers – in conjunction with the federal antitrust enforcement agencies (the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission).  But recently the nation’s AGs have more frequently taken the lead, conducting their own investigations and initiating independent enforcement actions.

They went after the AT&T / T-Mobile merger in 2011, Verizon / Alltel in 2008, AT&T /Cingular in 2004 for example.

More supporting evidence:

Over the past year, State Attorneys General have stepped into what they describe as a void of antitrust enforcement at the federal level.  AGs have commenced investigations and brought antitrust actions across industry segments, including financial services, healthcare, telecommunications, technology and others.  The substance of the actions cover the waterfront of antitrust including price-fixing, merger enforcement and unfair trade practices. 

 

The Federal government was the one that did not approve the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, Verizon did merge with Alltel and AT&T merged with Cingular. So what exactly did the SAGs accomplish? A big fat nothing! Stay in your lane SAGs! You have plenty of things to worry about within your state like the opiod crisis. See if you can make a difference there!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

...  So what exactly did the SAGs accomplish? A big fat nothing! ...

Frankly that question and statement illustrate that you're likely uninformed regarding what state AGs do and have done, not only in the 3 cases referenced but in 100's if not 1000's of others. The info is out there it just requires some time and effort to discover.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SuzieTuesday said:

Frankly that question and statement illustrate that you're likely uninformed regarding what state AGs do and have done, not only in the 3 cases referenced but in 100's if not 1000's of others. The info is out there it just requires some time and effort to discover.

Since you made the claim and called me uninformed then back up your claim by proving that they were big cogs in all of those mergers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 3:10 PM, bigsnake49 said:

Since you made the claim and called me uninformed then back up your claim by proving that they were big cogs in all of those mergers.

Yeah nice try, I provided plenty of info to start with. It's clear to me you didn't read it. I'm not gonna waste any more  of my time.

So how about answering this question.

You made the assertion, "The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice..."

If your assertion is true why isn't the merger proceeding? I mean according to BS49 state AGs have no legal merit and the DOJ has exclusive purview.  What are they waiting for?  I mean lets merge - BS49 says it's A-OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda something many of us were talking about and wondering.   My handset should work without any issues with no real need to upgrade.  (Samsung 9+)

The new T-Mobile will offer an incentive program to ease the transition from Sprint Handsets to T Mobile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

Kinda something many of us were talking about and wondering.   My handset should work without any issues with no real need to upgrade.  (Samsung 9+)

The new T-Mobile will offer an incentive program to ease the transition from Sprint Handsets to T Mobile

Considering I don't care about 5G right now I'd be happy just using my 10+ until I upgrade to the S11.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... what do you all think if the merger actually doesn't happen?   Do you think T Mobile and Sprint will enter into a network sharing situation or???   Just say'in.    The investment analysts are saying it has a little over a 50% chance of getting cancelled as the state's attorney's generals have a pretty good case...   Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

So... what do you all think if the merger actually doesn't happen?   Do you think T Mobile and Sprint will enter into a network sharing situation or???   Just say'in.    The investment analysts are saying it has a little over a 50% chance of getting cancelled as the state's attorney's generals have a pretty good case...   Thoughts?

If the merger doesn't happen I am going to T-Mobile maybe even Verizon, Sprint is a sinking ship.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...