utiz4321

You and are not the market. The market isn't even a person or persons. It is the aggrogation of millions of decisions being made everyday. You price argument points to only one of the relavent factors, the elimination of a competitor. It doesn't look at the returns to scales and cost reduction invovled in merging the two carriers. What happens to price will be determined by all these factors together not just one.

The problem is the market doesnt. And the market is alot smarter than you and I. We should probably weight it's opinions higher than our own. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

The decision isnt in the hands of the DOJ staff. It is in the hands of a trump DOJ appointee that is a completely "hands-off" free marketer. I doubt it gets blocked.

I dont think so. Masa was talking up being an home ISP competitor the first time he floated this merge idea. Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Well, I would have expected AT&T to have raised prices after both Verizon and T-Mobile did, yet they did not. A combined T-Mobile/sprint would have the spectrum resources to offer unlimited data for a long time to come as well as being a home ISP. Price is going to depend of where profit maximizations occurs. Upward pressure in this formula would come from less competition but downward pressure is going to come from scale, synergies and spectrum resources being more highly concentrated.

Maybe. That argument doesn't take into account returns to scale. The industry is still relatively competitive and with the push to 5g, MIMO, IoT, the rising cost of handsets etc... Who knows what prices are going to do.

I don't know why people think that have two weaker competitors to the duopoly is better than a third really strong competitor? Or why they think a player like dish might not jump into the market if it consolidates. These are all assumptions and ones not based on any facts.

The new company will have the debt of both companies.

I read that there is not going to be a break up fee. At least that is the rumor.

I don't think the DOJ or the FCC will block the merger. If you look at the attitudes of the decision makers in both agencies, they are both free market guys, it seems very unlikily it will get blocked.

True but I assume Canadians travel and any national carrier their would have to cover at least the major road ways. In any case their population is less than a tenth of the US. If the average national US carrier has 60000 macro sites and holding everything else constant, for the vost of operating the networks to be the same that would imply the average national Canadian carrier would be runing at about 6000 macro sites. But everything else isnt the same. So they have less leverage with network and handset vendors. I don't know why anyone would think prices in Canada would be the same as here.

There is no “magic number” that is good in every country on earth. That is just magical thinking. Each country is different in many key ways: number of pops, land mass, regulations, etc... all that goes into determining the proper size of the market, Canada probably has too many players.

Yes, but that is an extra 5 billion in addition to what sprint was spending.

I dont know if that is true. They have blue print for that in project fi but I dont know if they will make this available before the merger is approved. Besides, the really exciting stuff is massive mimo on Sprint's side and 600 on t mobile. If those two things are delay I will be kind of bummed.

If memory serves, 5 billion of the 22 billion ended up being a capital investment in the business itself. The Japanese did invest into the network.

They did invest in the network.

Yup, this is my biggest concern. 1 yr for the merger to get approved and 1 yr to integrate the two companies before they start building the network out would be annoying.

You must be in favor of backwardness imposed by the government because muh feels. Look, you are claiming to know the perfect size of the wireless industry and that it would be a bad deal for consumers if the industry had fewer players. I am asking you to give some kind of facts for that claim, to which you replied "mergers are bad". I pointed out that if that were true then the mergers that occurred in the mid 2000s would have been a bad thing so you should be able to make the case that the market size should be 7. You cant do it. It is a perfectly valid strain of thought.

Funny thing that doesnt actual answer my question, nor does it help your case. Why would 7 carriers be better that 4 in 2017? On a spectrum consolidation bases alone it wouldn't makes sense. If your arguement is "muh IDEN", look thank the fates IDEN is dead. It was a dead end technology and the spectrum would be a wast in today's data Centric world.

How does a sprint/t mobile tie up eleminated competition? There are still three nation wide players and a couple regionals. The fact is in most case mergers are good for consumers, that is the logic, even from a corporation's point of view. Companies merge because it makes the more able to deliver goods and services competitively. The wireless industry is a perfect example of where mergers were of great benifits to the consumer. Unless you can argue that 7 players would have been able to create a better wireless industry than we have know. Go on, I am willing to listen to a case. I just dont see it.

Markets are not zero sum games. If something is good for a company it doesn't follow that it is bad for the consumer. That is particularly true in industries with high fixed cost as there are benifits to both consumers and companies to scale. If mergers are always bad for consumers then make the case for 7 national wireless providers and why thatvwoyld be better than what we have now. Ill give you a hint, it wouldnt be better: no 3f, no fake 4g and no LTE.

Generally speaking, if john Oliver is against it, I am for it. The manbis lucky he has good writters.

If t mobile won't go for sprint at market value than t mobile doesn't think sprint can make it as an independent company and believes the value of sprint will fall in the near future.

No.

The have 8 billion in debt maturing over the next 3 years and have 7 billion in cash. If you can explain to me how the math works at their current free cash flow ill agree with you. Otherwise, their guidance isnt worth much.