AT&T: “No Basis” for T-Mobile or Sprint to be given special treatment at auction

att-sign-building

With 9 days to go until the FCC makes a final decision on plans to restrict spectrum auctions, AT&T has once again voiced its opinion that it’s not right to give preferential treatment to the smaller carriers. If they go through, the changes would reserve a percentage of available low-band airwaves for carriers who currently don’t own large amounts. This would obviously make it easier for carriers like Sprint and T-Mobile to acquire more quality spectrum. Verizon and AT&T wouldn’t be able use their financial position to grab as much spectrum as they please, leaving little for any other carrier.

In a filing with the FCC last week, AT&T argues that most of its low-band spectrum was won through auctions and secondary market transactions. Stating also that because T-mobile and Sprint have made decisions to repurpose or buy low-band spectrum means they shouldn’t be given any leg up at auction.

As reported by Fierce Wireless:

“Since that time, Sprint and T-Mobile have placed a higher value on gaining the efficiencies of building larger blocks of compatible spectrum, and thus they have focused on adding to their stores of high-frequency spectrum,” AT&T wrote. “In pursuing this strategy, they have freely declined opportunities to pursue low-frequency spectrum–the most prominent example being the decision by both companies not to participate in the 700 MHz auctions.”

It went on to mention T-Mobile’s recent acquisition of Verizon’s A-block 700MHz spectrum, covering 158 million people in 21 of the top 30 metro areas. As T-Mo itself has stated openly, this spectrum will give better quality coverage to a good percentage of its existing customers.

“In short, there is simply no basis to give Sprint and T-Mobile special treatment in this auction,” AT&T wrote. “When Sprint entered the 1995 auctions for PCS spectrum, it was the highest bidder of all wireless providers, and acquired the most spectrum. Similarly, when T-Mobile entered the 2006 AWS-1 auction, it was the highest bidder of all wireless providers, and acquired the most spectrum. SoftBank and Deutsche Telekom, the current parent companies of Sprint and T-Mobile, are major global corporations that have the wherewithal to participate in this auction on a full and fair basis, and giving these companies a leg up is unfair and without justification.”

The auction in question isn’t likely to happen before the end of the year, but, the decision on whether to allow these restrictions is set to be made on May 15th. Until then, you can guarantee we’re going to hear a lot more kicking and screaming from the top 2 U.S. carriers.

Source: Fierce Wireless, FCC

Tags: , , , ,

  • TBN27

    There is no basis for AT&T and Verizon to hog up all the bleeding spectrum.

    • besweeet

      At least in AT&T’s defense, they’re really struggling in many cities (in terms of data speeds), and basically need more spectrum.

      • Mirad77

        Now with high demands in data they are running to the higher blocksspectrum seeing the limitations of the lower blocks spectrum .
        For these guys enough is not enough. To them, they’ll be the only two in the game. Everyone has to eat, give em the chance to hustle.

        • besweeet

          I think you mean block? :)

        • Mirad77

          Yea, thanks.

      • Mirad77

        Now with high demands in data they are running to the higher blocksspectrum seeing the limitations of the lower blocks spectrum .
        For these guys enough is not enough. To them, they’ll be the only two in the game. Everyone has to eat, give em the chance to hustle.

      • DDLAR

        Mid or high frequency spectrum is what is mostly needed in cities. They only need low frequencies for building penetration in cities. They have plenty of low frequency spectrum for this purpose.
        The FCC is only trying to ration the low frequency spectrum so that every carrier can have a reasonable amount of it. Without this rationing we are guaranteed that there will not any real nationwide carrier competition from any company other than AT&T or Verizon.

      • DDLAR

        Mid or high frequency spectrum is what is mostly needed in cities. They only need low frequencies for building penetration in cities. They have plenty of low frequency spectrum for this purpose.
        The FCC is only trying to ration the low frequency spectrum so that every carrier can have a reasonable amount of it. Without this rationing we are guaranteed that there will not any real nationwide carrier competition from any company other than AT&T or Verizon.

      • TBN27

        I understand. However, they shouldn’t take almost all of it and leave the smaller carriers with none. They will good enough amount to do what they need to do.

        • besweeet

          Agreed. Everyone knows that, without limits, AT&T will gobble up as much as they can afford, which is probably everything.

      • Evan Lam

        However, from what I can remember, I have seen that AT&T and Verizon still have a lot of spectrum stockpiled, they just need to put it into use.

      • Omar Boyer

        That was 2009ish-2010 att was bad back then, it’s a lot better now.I have tmobile now but if I had a better paying job I would deff go back to at&t. In LA and even san Francisco which supposedly it was one of atts bad areas it works just as good as tmobile Lte, dropped calls I had zero yes zero and data was FINE And I had signal deep in buildings were tmobile has nada.Att just has the bad reputation from back in the day but from what I saw from when I had em 2 months ago it deff improved ALOT works just as good as tmobile in the city and outside the city were tmobile is edge only att has at least hspa 3G.I just couldnt afford it and got tmobile which is okay I just hate that I cant call or log in to fb deep in stores some have wifi which helps me but others dont so im screwed when I had att I didnt have that problem cuZ att lte came tru deep in the buildings and I was able to call too.

      • Omar Boyer

        That was 2009ish-2010 att was bad back then, it’s a lot better now.I have tmobile now but if I had a better paying job I would deff go back to at&t. In LA and even san Francisco which supposedly it was one of atts bad areas it works just as good as tmobile Lte, dropped calls I had zero yes zero and data was FINE And I had signal deep in buildings were tmobile has nada.Att just has the bad reputation from back in the day but from what I saw from when I had em 2 months ago it deff improved ALOT works just as good as tmobile in the city and outside the city were tmobile is edge only att has at least hspa 3G.I just couldnt afford it and got tmobile which is okay I just hate that I cant call or log in to fb deep in stores some have wifi which helps me but others dont so im screwed when I had att I didnt have that problem cuZ att lte came tru deep in the buildings and I was able to call too.

    • Mirad77

      And that’s the problem, they using their money and lobby to buy what they want then turn around and call it free market. Then the blinds will follow the wagon saying ” YES IT’S FREE MARKET “. Free market my a$$.

  • Mirad77

    Yea like they have anything else to say.

  • Derrick

    Verizon and At&T are threatened by Sprint and T-Mobile. See this is why Sprint and T-Mobile needs to stick together (not merging) and bring down the big two. All these Sprint T-Mobile fighting about who is better needs to stop and direct it towards Verizon and AT&T. Cause honestly #3 and #4 in in the same boat.

    • dtam

      haha, no! verizon and at&t are threatened by T-mobile, not sprint. if you want a low cost carrier you go to tmobile, if you want coverage you go to verizon, if you want coverage and not have a locked down phone you go to at&t. nobody ever says I’m going to sprint

      but your major point is accurate

    • dtam

      haha, no! verizon and at&t are threatened by T-mobile, not sprint. if you want a low cost carrier you go to tmobile, if you want coverage you go to verizon, if you want coverage and not have a locked down phone you go to at&t. nobody ever says I’m going to sprint

      but your major point is accurate

  • gpt2010

    I would agree to not help TMO or Sprint with the auction, but the FCC and DoJ should not block the merger then. Heak, the FCC should have never blocked the merger with AT&T. If they are concerned in keeping four major carriers, then the auctions should be leveled out to help the smaller carriers like TMO and Sprint compete against the big boys. If you can’t even out the playing field in the auctions, let TMO merge with Sprint to better compete. I hate to see them merge, but the FCC and DoJ can’t have it both ways.

  • Deadeye37

    All because T-mobile & Sprint went after the higher frequency bands ~8-10 years ago doesn’t mean that they should stay with those bands and leave the bidding unrestricted. AT&T wants this low band spectrum as much as everyone else. The problem is that they have a lot more $$$ than T-mobile & Sprint, so there is a really good chance that AT&T (and Verizon) will make out like bandits.

    Basically, its like a couple 6th grade boys that hit puberty early saying to a couple of 2nd graders “You want to play ball with us? Come and get it.”

    BTW, their argument of T-mobile repurposing their bands so that they are more efficient is not an excuse to allow AT&T to hog most of the low frequency bandwidth. If anything, AT&T should go into their hoards of bandwidth and do their own repurposing instead of just buying more bandwidth.

  • Davey Jones

    FRUCK YOU AT&T, scumbag company!

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    Both AT&T and Verizon got a leg up and preferential treatment when they got huge swaths of AMPS spectrum for free, thanks to their financial positions and lobby. It’d be just fair that, in order to promote competing offers to consumers, no one or two companies may get most of the spectrum up for auction.

  • mjfadaway

    Verizon and at&t will always have the upper hand until T-Mobile & Sprint are able to team up and go back at em.

    • TheVorlon

      No, the issue is that AT&T and Verizon are the old broken up Ma Bell properties reassembled into a duopoloy that controls the marketplace.

  • Francisco Rivera

    Quit crying Verizon and At&t u both suck u should charge people the same as the other company tmobile and u wouldn’t be crying u crybabies!!!

  • Francisco Rivera

    Quit crying Verizon and At&t u both suck u should charge people the same as the other company tmobile and u wouldn’t be crying u crybabies!!!

  • Stefan Naumowicz

    T-mobile didn’t participate in the 700mhz auction because they spent so much money in the AWS Auction and hadn’t even begun the rollout of those bands yet- they were not in position to spend any more money on spectrum, it came at a bad time for them. Also, AT&T and Verizon could have easily bought some of that AWS spectrum that T-Mobile bought most of if they wanted to, but they didn’t knowing that it was inferior spectrum compared to the low band they were about to buy huge swaths of. I’m not sure what’s Sprint ‘s story is, but tmos story is not that they simply decided not to buy any 700 spectrum. On a side note, At&t has all the low band they need. The only issue they have is congestion in high traffic areas, and adding more low band spectrum is an inefficient way to remedy that problem. This is nothing more than AT&T wanting to be able to keep the spectrum out of their smaller competitors hands so that they can’t effectively compete with them.

    • Paul

      I hope magenta sees this and uses it to help push back against the butt-hurt bigger carriers.
      Throw a hashtag in there for T-Mobile and Legere.

    • Paul

      I hope magenta sees this and uses it to help push back against the butt-hurt bigger carriers.
      Throw a hashtag in there for T-Mobile and Legere.

  • Stefan Naumowicz

    T-mobile didn’t participate in the 700mhz auction because they spent so much money in the AWS Auction and hadn’t even begun the rollout of those bands yet- they were not in position to spend any more money on spectrum, it came at a bad time for them. Also, AT&T and Verizon could have easily bought some of that AWS spectrum that T-Mobile bought most of if they wanted to, but they didn’t knowing that it was inferior spectrum compared to the low band they were about to buy huge swaths of. I’m not sure what’s Sprint ‘s story is, but tmos story is not that they simply decided not to buy any 700 spectrum. On a side note, At&t has all the low band they need. The only issue they have is congestion in high traffic areas, and adding more low band spectrum is an inefficient way to remedy that problem. This is nothing more than AT&T wanting to be able to keep the spectrum out of their smaller competitors hands so that they can’t effectively compete with them.

  • mountaindewboy1

    All I know is I just drove from Tennessee to new York and the only service i was getting was att. In my opinion, tmo needs to buy as much spectrum as possible. No matter if they over spend.

  • mountaindewboy1

    All I know is I just drove from Tennessee to new York and the only service i was getting was att. In my opinion, tmo needs to buy as much spectrum as possible. No matter if they over spend.

  • Adrayven

    Where can we express our concern about ATT/Verizon’s ability to hamstring competition and our support for FCC’s imposed auction rules?

    • Justin Merithew

      I’d like to know where we can do that too

  • Adrayven

    Where can we express our concern about ATT/Verizon’s ability to hamstring competition and our support for FCC’s imposed auction rules?

  • Paul

    It provides a better set of tools to increase compitition, even for the smaller guys.
    Suck on that Big Red and Blue.

  • David Thoren

    Wait… what?

    “In pursuing this strategy, they have freely declined opportunities to pursue low-frequency spectrum–the most prominent example being the decision by both companies not to participate in the 700 MHz auctions.”

    and

    “went on to mention T-Mobile’s recent acquisition of Verizon’s A-block 700MHz spectrum, covering 158 million people in 21 of the top 30 metro areas”

    Someone needs to proofread these press releases before they make themselves look stupid.

    • Paul

      I saw that too, and figured AT&T wasn’t quick enough to put 2 & 2 together.

    • Paul

      I saw that too, and figured AT&T wasn’t quick enough to put 2 & 2 together.

    • 21stNow

      The first paragraph referred to an auction while the second statement referred to a non-auction acquisition.

    • Third_Eye

      As much as I have issues with ATT, it is 100% right here.

      What it stated was TMo and Sprint did not participate in the public auction of 700 MHz.

      Then TMo went out and purchased the 700MHz from Verizon in 2014. It was TMo’s & Sprint’s problem that they sat out the last time. They should not now tell the FCC that ATT and VZN should be disallowed this time.

      • Justin Merithew

        Tmo sat out because they broke the bank on buying high MHz frequency shortly before the 700 MHz. Can’t speak for Sprint, but since Tmo is smaller they could only spend so much on spectrum in such a short period.

      • Justin Merithew

        Tmo sat out because they broke the bank on buying high MHz frequency shortly before the 700 MHz. Can’t speak for Sprint, but since Tmo is smaller they could only spend so much on spectrum in such a short period.

    • Third_Eye

      As much as I have issues with ATT, it is 100% right here.

      What it stated was TMo and Sprint did not participate in the public auction of 700 MHz.

      Then TMo went out and purchased the 700MHz from Verizon in 2014. It was TMo’s & Sprint’s problem that they sat out the last time. They should not now tell the FCC that ATT and VZN should be disallowed this time.

  • David Thoren

    Wait… what?

    “In pursuing this strategy, they have freely declined opportunities to pursue low-frequency spectrum–the most prominent example being the decision by both companies not to participate in the 700 MHz auctions.”

    and

    “went on to mention T-Mobile’s recent acquisition of Verizon’s A-block 700MHz spectrum, covering 158 million people in 21 of the top 30 metro areas”

    Someone needs to proofread these press releases before they make themselves look stupid.

  • Nick Gonzalez

    Go to hell AT&T

  • Nick Gonzalez

    Go to hell AT&T

  • Alexxinos

    There biggest concern is not only the spectrum but the biggest of them all is that once T-Mobile gains a lot of spectrum next yr is the FCC stays with those rules is that Verizon and att will loss many more customers. That is what they are crying about because T-Mobile will have more than an advantage of taking costumers away and cover more people.

  • Alexxinos

    There biggest concern is not only the spectrum but the biggest of them all is that once T-Mobile gains a lot of spectrum next yr is the FCC stays with those rules is that Verizon and att will loss many more customers. That is what they are crying about because T-Mobile will have more than an advantage of taking costumers away and cover more people.

  • Eric Blackman

    I just had to click out of five ads on my laptop to read this article. I’ve stopped trying on mobile.

    • IhateAds

      adaway or adblock would cure above problems :)

    • randomnerd_number38

      I don’t have any ad blockers or anything turned on, and browse this site daily from the Android version of Chrome in mobile mode. I have to click out of a single ad maybe once out of ten times I load this page. Not saying your experience is made up or anything, but that’s really strange that the ads can vary so much from user to user.

    • randomnerd_number38

      I don’t have any ad blockers or anything turned on, and browse this site daily from the Android version of Chrome in mobile mode. I have to click out of a single ad maybe once out of ten times I load this page. Not saying your experience is made up or anything, but that’s really strange that the ads can vary so much from user to user.

    • Bklynman

      What really odd to me,is I am using a tablet,even few time I use my phone,no popups,
      at all. None while using my tablet.

  • http://about.me/daylondeon Deacon

    it’d be one thing if ATT or VZ were doing anything to improve their networks with this spectrum but all they’re doing is hording it so TMO or Sprint don’t get it … stupid f’rs.

    • Romdude

      Exactly, either they use it or lose it and that goes with anything they are hoarding now.

  • http://about.me/daylondeon Deacon

    it’d be one thing if ATT or VZ were doing anything to improve their networks with this spectrum but all they’re doing is hording it so TMO or Sprint don’t get it … stupid f’rs.

  • GinaDee

    I’m torn here. I’ve never been a fan of giving preferential treatment to any company regardless of stature.

    I do like T-Mobile but of course the controversy that AT&T is pointing out is the US government giving preferential treatment to companies with large foreign interests above our own. Sprint has a majority interest in Japanese investors and last time I checked TMUS is still majority owned by the Germans.

    I want T-Mobile to gain low band spectrum for their own needs. Sprint can kiss my @ss.

    At the same time I don’t think it’s fair to limit AT&T to small 5 x 5 blocks either. They are a massive company with over 100 million subscribers and they need to be able to buy contiguous 10 x `10 chunks in order to provide the kind of speeds that Verizon and T-Mobile will be offering this year.

    I say reserve some spectrum for T-Mobile but don’t limit the allocation of LTE to only small 5 x 5 slices. OR: Limit AT&T on the 600 MHz auction but allow them to buy as much high band spectrum at the AWS auction so they can add the speed they need to remain competitive.

    • dtam

      It’s probably easier to just do this. Have limits on how long you can hold unused spectrum, force the companies to give it back to the FCC for nothing, also don’t allow them to sell it either. this will make att and verizon actually use their spectrum and not hoard all of it.

    • dtam

      It’s probably easier to just do this. Have limits on how long you can hold unused spectrum, force the companies to give it back to the FCC for nothing, also don’t allow them to sell it either. this will make att and verizon actually use their spectrum and not hoard all of it.

      • Third_Eye

        He!He! Say that to Dish Network…..

      • Rand0m3

        This will make them use it for random things so they can hold onto it versus being able to identify easily that it’s unused. Its like telling a kid if they don’t use a toy they will have to throw it away, they’ll start playing with it JUST enough to keep it because they feel pressured but not actually because they want to.

  • GinaDee

    I’m torn here. I’ve never been a fan of giving preferential treatment to any company regardless of stature.

    I do like T-Mobile but of course the controversy that AT&T is pointing out is the US government giving preferential treatment to companies with large foreign interests above our own. Sprint has a majority interest in Japanese investors and last time I checked TMUS is still majority owned by the Germans.

    I want T-Mobile to gain low band spectrum for their own needs. Sprint can kiss my @ss.

    At the same time I don’t think it’s fair to limit AT&T to small 5 x 5 blocks either. They are a massive company with over 100 million subscribers and they need to be able to buy contiguous 10 x `10 chunks in order to provide the kind of speeds that Verizon and T-Mobile will be offering this year.

    I say reserve some spectrum for T-Mobile but don’t limit the allocation of LTE to only small 5 x 5 slices. OR: Limit AT&T on the 600 MHz auction but allow them to buy as much high band spectrum at the AWS auction so they can add the speed they need to remain competitive.

  • sushimane

    Att should just chill out T-Mobile,and sprint only have so much money to buy spectrum why are their so worried about. Yes T-Mobile and sprint do have parent company but that doesn’t mean that the parent company are going to dump a butt load of cash on spectrum their gonna go reasonable and get as much as they can and the rest att and Verizon are bound to grab it anyway.

  • sushimane

    Att should just chill out T-Mobile,and sprint only have so much money to buy spectrum why are their so worried about. Yes T-Mobile and sprint do have parent company but that doesn’t mean that the parent company are going to dump a butt load of cash on spectrum their gonna go reasonable and get as much as they can and the rest att and Verizon are bound to grab it anyway.

  • DirkDigg1er

    VZ/T are making billions and cherry picking the best spectrum. I agree the FCC should implement bid restrictions. VZ/T have enough money and spectrum to buy or swap market for market post auction. Maybe this would stop spectrum hoarding of the Big 2. This auction doesn’t level the playing field but it gives smaller carriers a chance.

    Off topic, After watching the Dan Hesse interview on bloomberg, he sort of admitted that he wouldn’t get the CEO job of combined companies.

    John Legere is a genius. He bashes sprint and applies for the CEO position at the same time.

  • Nick

    Awww do you need a hug AT&T?

  • Nick

    Awww do you need a hug AT&T?

  • S-Mobile/T-Sprint Fan

    Why would Sprint & T-Mobile get special treatment both companies have access to more cash investment. I don’t blame VZ & ATT for calling the FCC out on special treatment for two multi billion dollar companies. If I can’t afford a Lamborghini they are not gonna lower the price for me. Sprint & T-Mobile need to get their check books ready and step up to the plate for some spectrum.

    • bob90210

      Why should the spectrum be sold to the highest bidder? Since the people own the spectrum and license the spectrum to companies for the benefit of the people, then the auction should be conducted in such a way to provide the maximum benefit to the people. Maximum benefit may not necessary be the same as maximum dollar, especially if it means reduced competition.

      • Cj

        Maximum benefit of the people could still mean AT&T. AT&T has more than twice the subscribers. Those subscribers would benefit from the low band spectrum as well.

        • bob90210

          No, maximum benefit for the people does not mean benefit to the most number of customers. It means the most benefit to the American people as a whole. It the largest two carriers is able to acquire most of the low bandwidth spectrum, then it ensure a duopoly since no else will be able to compete. That does not benefit the people at all; it will lead to higher prices and less innovation.

        • Tim Engen

          Thats only because, att has better coveage. if tmobile and, sprint has just as good of coverage as at&t and, verzion. v and a would have less customers. Im sure at somepoint softbank will build sprint’s network to allmost every corner of the country cause thats what they want. att and verzion dont want that. they make alot of money out of overage charges. t-mobile has no overages sprint has a small amount of overages.

      • Tim Engen

        att and verzion just want the spectrum for themselves cause if they had it there way they would be the only two carriers. Thats why sprint and, T-mobile have very limited coverage in north and south dakota and montana and also wyoming. you need low band spectrum which at&t verzion have alot in the past sprint and, T-mobile didnt have any. They do now sprint has 800mhz which there working on now. t-mobile has the 700mhz but, that hasnt bee rolled out YET.

  • jdubb

    AT&T, I used to know people like you…I grew up with people like you, it’s got to be your way or you’re just going to kick and scream and cause a scene. What’s the big deal anyway?

    No basis? How about competition? Fair competition at that…I think that about solves the basis for which you seek regulating an auction like this so that carriers that don’t necessarily have your budget but would like to be able to compete with you being able to do so during these imperative auctions.

    The government is tasked with the overseeing that the public interest is always in mind and to me that is all the FCC can stand accused of; making it so the smaller companies can compete too. It really is too bad that you want to remain at the top without really working for it while stepping all over the 3rd and 4th place carrier however the industry is changing and you need to ride that wave of change. Adaptation should be your new found mantra. Then you should go put together a plan to improve what really needs improving…your customer service.

    No basis…that is an interesting thought, it really is too bad that there is basis, for AT&T I mean.

    • 21stNow

      I disagree with AT&T and VZW not working for their positions as the top carriers. In order to get to where they are today, there was a lot of planning, investing and building out of the networks stretching back for decades.

      I see both sides of this issue and haven’t picked which “side” I’m on. Either way, none of the carriers should be demonized for their positions. They all have the same goal of doing business to earn profit, whether it is AT&T or T-Mobile.

      • Nurdface Gamerhandz

        To be fair, ATT wireless as we know it is one of the youngest carriers out there, even T-Mobile goes back far further than ATT (and previously, Cingular)

  • Jason Crumbley

    It’s not fair that T-mobile gets the same preferential treatment that AT&T gets all the time?

  • notyourbusiness

    Boo f’n whoo, AT&T. You just can’t stand not having everything handed right over to you on a silver platter, no? Most evil of all the US major wireless carriers – even more so than Verizon.

    • Spanky

      Just out of curiosity, what specifically makes AT&T the most evil carrier?

      • notyourbusiness

        I read an absolute horror story about how they treat their their employees from someone who worked for them a few years back. They used to pay really well back when and then cut salaries back to less than half of that per hour. Eventually, most jobs ended up being lost and given to people working for agencies. It all made my head spin.

      • achusaysblessyou

        Their customer support is horrendous for one, prices are ridiculous and actual service is bad. And that’s just their DSL service.

    • Tim Engen

      I agree Notyourbusiness

  • Klaus

    I am no fan of either Verizon or At&T but as an attorney I can say that the FCC is probably walking a thin line but oh well they can get away with it probably!
    Now I agree with AT&T that the parent companies of both Sprint and Tmobile have resources to compete for spectrum but not the will. Deustche Telekom has been trying to get rid of Tmobile for years now. Maybe just may be this time they should listen to AT&T and put a little effort on Tmobile and help the company to compete!

  • Justin Merithew

    I think it’s kinda funny AT&T and VZW are throwing a huge fit and lobbying over the ability to monopolize the auction, because it will take a long time for the smaller carriers to catch up even if they make out well at the auction. If they get what they want now it’s going to be near impossible for them to stop a Sprint/Tmo merger, and that’s a much bigger more imminent threat than someone getting a bit of spectrum. Sprint/Tmo would have a pretty solid spectrum range and a big enough customer base to justify mass spending at auctions and other bolder moves. I’d prefer Sprint and Tmo to stay separate, but it’s pretty fun seeing the big 2 doom themselves.

  • Nearmsp

    One of the main reasons, that the US wireless market is ruled by the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon consisting of some 80% is because they cornered all the low frequency bandwidth. Bandwidth is a taxpayer asset. It should be sold to encourage competition and maintain a competitive market place. This will require the FCC to make sure that spectrum is not gobbled up by those who already own a duopoly status. Let the smaller one’s not have to fight with one hand behind their back.