Prepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
from the merge-ALL-the-things! dept
For much of this year, Sprint and its Japanese owner Softbank have been buttering up the Trump administration in the hopes it will sign off on a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile. Sprint tried the same merger back in 2014, but found the attempt wisely blocked by regulators because it would have killed one of just four major wireless competitors in the space. Said buttering up has involved letting Trump falsely claim responsibility for murky Softbank job creation claims that were originally planned years ago, have nothing to do with the merger, and even less to do with Donald Trump.
Obviously the wireless market is enjoying a bit of a resurgence lately courtesy of T-Mobile, which has been giving bigger competitors fits by simply listening to what consumers want (fewer hidden bullshit fees, no contracts, cheaper international roaming) and providing it. In turn, wireless consumers have seen some notable improvements in the last year or two, including AT&T and Verizon being forced to bring back unlimited data plans they had previously tried to claim consumers didn't want. It's a resurgence that wouldn't have happened if regulators hadn't blocked AT&T's own attempted takeover over T-Mobile back in 2011 (something telecom giants and the "who needs government oversight?" sect would have you forget).
Yet here we are once again. With the Trump administration now acting as little more than a rubber stamp for telecom sector incumbents (see the killing of privacy protections, net neutrality rules, attempts to bring competition to the cable box, efforts to bring broadband to the poor, etc.) most analysts believe the Trump DOJ and FCC will happily approve this deal, the obvious competitive repercussions be damned. To help make sure, Sprint this month hired a lobbyist connected to Trump in the hopes of further greasing the skids for deal approval.
As a result, the proposed superunion between Sprint and T-Mobile appears to be quickly gaining steam, with a deal to be formally announced sometime in October:
"The transaction would significantly consolidate the U.S. telecommunications market and represent the first transformative U.S. merger with significant antitrust risk to be agreed since the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump in January. The progress toward a deal also indicates that T-Mobile and Sprint believe that the U.S. antitrust enforcement environment has become more favorable since the companies abandoned their previous effort to combine in 2014 amid regulatory concerns.
With the deal set to make headlines, you can expect an absolute torrent of pay-to-play editorials to start popping up in newspapers and websites nationwide, all of them trying to insist this deal will be of indisputable benefit to consumers. A wide variety of groups take telecom cash to repeat whatever they're told, whether it's rural Texas school associations, the U.S. Cattlemen's Association or co-opted minority groups, and you can be damn sure the dollar-per-hollar voices paid to support shitty policy will be out in force making a littany of false claims about the supposed perks of this latest, attempted union.
But as John Oliver just got done exploring, history isn't murky on this particular point: the elimination of a major competitor by merger undermines competition in a sector that's already well-known for a lack of it. Removing one of four competitors in the space will drive up prices, and could result in the elimination of unlimited data plans that only just re-appeared on the market. Apparently, this isn't a historical reality many T-Mobile customers are particularly tuned into, if this informal poll is any indication:
T-Mobile customers: Are you okay with @TMobile merging with @Sprint if @JohnLegere stays CEO, and T-Mobile absorbs the Sprint brand?
— Logan Abbott (@loganabbott) September 22, 2017
Many of these looming pay-to-play editorials selling this turd of a deal will try to argue that Sprint needs the deal to remain viable, but under SoftBank Sprint has notably improved its balance sheet and network, and there's a litany of possible suitors that could help Sprint manage its debt load (Comcast, Charter, Dish) that don't involve killing one of four major wireless competitors. Others will try to claim immeasurable job creation from the merger, when history repeatedly indicates that these kinds of mergers are indisputable job killers -- thanks to the elimination of countless redundancies at the acquired company.
The real challenge in selling this merger will fall in the lap of John Legere, the admittedly amusing T-Mobile CEO that has built a reputation for saying fuck a lot on Twitter and for being a consumer ally (even if this dedication has proven skin deep on subjects like net neutrality and the EFF). Leaks suggest Legere will stay on at the freshly-merged company, but may face headwinds in convincing some of the more alert T-Mobile customers that dramatically reducing market competition will somehow, magically, be immeasurably good for them.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
T-Mobile is starting to add 'bloat' even before the merger.
I'm not a math whiz, but I'm pretty sure a $20 price hike and giving me a $10 video streaming option isn't free...
Oh well... we had a good run while it lasted!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: T-Mobile is starting to add 'bloat' even before the merger.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/6/15929574/tmobile-one-plus-unlimited-data-hd-video-tetheri ng-price
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
don't wory
right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: don't wory
We have been doing this for so long, I don't think any of the rules, new or old are being followed. they just read a couple of laws and then twist them to mean what they need them to mean as needed for the situation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't wory
right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: don't wory
If I am not raving in favor of regulation then I am raving for its complete dismantling? This is why the conversation always goes wrong, because of blithering idiots like you. There is far more to this conversation other than sucking regulation dick you dumb-ass.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Do not fault him for following the example you set.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Ah yes, hypocrisy is such a sweet fruit. Are you sure your shit does not stink? I bet you go to the bathrooms and flush it down like everyone else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: don't wory
america great death to regulartos
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: don't wory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't wory
Also, they should get rid of huddles. They are just plain ridiculous. Who in their right mind wants to go to that many meetings in one day?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: don't wory
#1. "Yeah, regulation is the worst! Just this past Sunday I was watching a football game, and the whole thing was ruined by burdensome officials and their stifling oversight."
not even in the same ballpark you silly twit... The NFL can create any rule they want, they are not the government and if I don't like them, I can just go elsewhere for my entertainment.
#2. "Without a doubt the game would be much more exciting and move much faster if you could just rid of those pesky rules and the pin striped regulators dragging the whole game down."
That... might be entertaining to watch, actually. I don't watch football, but would consider watching in this case. Hell, I think it would be great to watch a game of football with 4 teams on a cross shaped field as they risk collision with each other as a way to mix things up.
#3. "Also, they should get rid of huddles."
Why? Sure removing them while coaches have to call plays without any time to think about them could add to even more chaos and fun on the field but whatever.
#4. "Who in their right mind wants to go to that many meetings in one day?"
Work in IT, the only thing a meeting is good for is to serve as a marker for the amount time wasted where work is not getting done.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Welfare Entitlement Junkie Whining
I'm hearing that same, sad old song all over again.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No benefit to consumers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No benefit to consumers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No benefit to consumers.
The two companies use two different cellular technologies that are incompatible with each other. CDMA (Sprint) and GSM (T-Mobile). Some like usatoday are spinning this off as a good thing by falsely claiming that existing customers of one company may suddenly get a boost in service quality / availability. But that's only true if said customer's device is a hybrid model that has two cell radios in it, (One for CDMA the other for GSM), and both have to be activated for use. (Massive battery drain.) Most people won't get any additional benefit.
Worse, as we all know about acquisitions, there will be layoffs. No, I don't mean the people kind. I mean the network kind. As in, eventually the resulting company will tire of maintaining two separate and incompatible networks. Further they will tire of their public perception going down the drain due to people attempting to buy service for use with an incompatible phone and people blaming the company for "poor coverage". Eventually, they will need to pick one or the other. If they choose GSM, the former Sprint customers will get screwed again. (They already had to pay to switch to CDMA previously due to another corporate maneuver.) If they choose CDMA, the only GSM network in the US will be AT&T and it's resellers, making the US cell infrastructure mostly incompatible with international devices. (Tourism just can't get a break can it?) Though I'd imagine they'll play up such a decision by declaring the end of burner phones due to the end of SIM cards....
We get nothing out of this. It's more jobs lost, greater lack of competition, and a cost for us to bare when the inevitable "We're killing X" happens.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No benefit to consumers.
They won't keep both going very long at all.
I am a happy Tmo customer, and am concerned about the deal, but I will say I'm a lot happier now that Tmo is the bigger side of it. When first announced and it was going to be Sprint/Softbank in charge, I was far more concerned.
Sprint has pretty much given up on competing, so this is a best case scenario merger (still not good though).
I think you are over estimating the trouble of merging the networks though.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Ready, Set...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Had me until the end
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
FULL HOUSE!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment