Several U.S. senators ask FCC and DOJ to begin investigating potential T-Mobile-Sprint merger

fcclogoofficial

Hot on the heels of a report that claimed that T-Mobile and Sprint are hammering out the final details of a merger, several senators have penned a letter asking for an investigation into the two carriers.

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN), and seven other senators have written a letter urging the FCC and DOJ to investigate the potential impact of a T-Mobile-Sprint merger. “A combination of T-Mobile and Sprint could raise significant antitrust issues and could harm consumers,” Klobuchar explains. “Competition among four major cell phone carriers has benefited consumers with lower prices, better service, and more innovation. We are concerned that consolidation will thwart those goals.”

Klobuchar says that while no deal has been officially announced, T-Mo and Sprint have tried to merge in the past, and reports suggest that they’re close to a deal. Starting an investigation now, Klobuchar argues, will help the FCC and DOJ to quickly and fully review the agreement between T-Mobile and Sprint if one is announced.

This letter was also signed by Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR).

Reports have suggested that T-Mobile and Sprint are nearing the final stretch of their merger talks and that a deal could be announced by the end of October. Such a deal would be subject to regulatory approval, and while some have suggested that the current administration would be more favorable to a T-Mobile-Sprint merger than the previous one, it looks like this group of senators wants to make sure that the agreement and its potential effects are fully considered.

You can read the senators’ full letter at the link below.

Source: U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar

Tags: , , , , ,

  • John Doe

    All democrats LoL looks like this merger is going to go through folks.

    • dcmanryan

      Die hard Republican here and this deal is good for no one. Less competition is never a good thing.

      • gg555

        Then you need to call your Republican representatives in Congress and the White House, if you want to see this deal die. Because without Republicans expressing concern about the deal, it probably will go through.

      • tendoboy1984

        Look at the smartphone industry. Everyone is focused on Apple and Samsung while all other OEM’s are left fighting for scraps. Most consumers don’t care about non-Apple or Samsung devices. All this competition is proving fruitless when the two top players make all the profit.

        • dcmanryan

          Then the other manufacturers have no one to.blame but their selves. Make a better product then Apple or Samsung and you become King. It’s that simple.

  • STARK11

    Nicely written. I agree with everything they said. I don’t like libs but this I agree with

  • HM

    This deal will screw all current tmobile customers as well as half sprint customers. It needs to be stopped.

    • Mike

      How will this screw current customers when you’re grandfathered in your plan. If anything it will help current customers with better coverage.

      • STARK11

        People leave sprint cause of their crappy coverage. It won’t get better.

  • jj201367

    Nooooo

  • Joe2050

    The sad thing is the GOP controls both chambers of congress through gerrymandering, so this deal may happen as much as we don’t want it to, the odds are stacked against the consumer.

    • Mike Thaler

      No consumer protection left. Net neutrality is going. The new FCC chairman is buddies w. Sprint’s main owner.

      • marque2

        Net neutrality was Orwellian speak that sounded good to the masses but really allowed Google, Netflix, Facebook and Amazon screw local end point providers instead of paying their fair share for bandwitdth. But all the stupid millenials think it saved their little home web pages with a small cat video. ATT didn’t give a dam about those, there is no money in going after your cat video. You were duped.

        • bakgwailo

          Net neutrality is one of the single most important things we have, especially for our startup sector, and for protecting consumers. Not to mention it stops ISPs from double dipping – you do realize that businesses already pay a shit ton for their connection to the back bone and for hosting, too, just as a consumer pays for their access via their ISPs – why should an ISP then be able to hold their consumers ransom to access services on the network for more money on both sides? That isn’t how the internet is designed and it makes no sense other than an attempt at pure greed and to close the internet. But what do I know – I have only worked in industry for decades.

    • DHar Harr

      Well, they obviously can’t get a healthcare bill passed, so…

      Who will be the McCain for the carrier industry?

      • John Doe

        This is up to the FCC and DOJ not congress so congress can whine all they want if the FCC and DOJ say yes then it is done.

        • Nearmsp

          FCC chair is not a Democrat appointee. He is a political hack for Trump – Commissioner Pai. He will give some intellectual cover for the merger. Mr. Son of Softbank has already paid his to Trump at his towers and showered praise on Trump.

        • STARK11

          That’s policitics. Just like hillarys would have been in there. Nobody really cares about us. It’s all about dollars and votes

      • marque2

        Oh lord how bad it would be if McCain got involved.

    • marque2

      And when in was growing up the Dems controlled both through heavy gerrymandering and No one complained – because it was the “righteous” democrats who were doing it.

      Besides GOP is not exactlybanti consumer and Dems not pro consumer. Obama did quite a lot of damage to the middle class with his laws and regulation. As as example from the year prior to Obama care until Obama care my family insurance cost dpubled for similar insurance.

      • MindFog2287

        Before Obamacare, my company-provided health insurance was going up 10 percent year-over-year from 2005 to 2010. It was insane. I remember it well because it hit my family’s finances hard. So don’t pretend this was Obama’s fault. It wasn’t “his laws and regulation” that caused the economic recovery to not reach the middle class. Real wages started to climb (finally) just as he left office. You forget we had banks failing, millions losing their jobs, TWO auto manufacturers on the verge of collapse, etc. when he entered office? I remember thinking why the hell would he even WANT this job? But let’s see how another round of tax cuts on the credit card work out for all of us.

  • StankyChikin

    My question is who is dumping what? DT dumping T-Mobile? or is Soft Bank dumping Sprint?

    • Captain Insano

      I don’t think dt would get rid of tmo now that it’s making them better money. Soft bank messed up by helping sprint not sink. Sprint is the worst company I’ve seen in a long time.

    • dcmanryan

      It’s been said in countless articles T-Mobile would own the majority stake and it will stay T-Mobile.

      • StankyChikin

        We’ve been reading these countless articles for years. I’ll believe it when it happens.

        • dcmanryan

          Hopefully it’s shutdown and we never find out.

    • Nearmsp

      Sprint is merging with T-mobile and German DT (parent of T-mobile USA) will be the majority owner. Japanese Soft Bank also gets some cash from T-mobile for giving up control. End result one less competitor and T-mobile will not need to give that deep discounts and all 3 (AT&T, Verizon, T-mobile) will make good money.

      • tendoboy1984

        T-Mobile never focuses on Sprint when they bash the competition. It’s always Verizon this Verizon that. I don’t think T-Mobile will change anytime soon.

        • marque2

          Legare had made some incredible zingers towards Sprint and only mellowed when he thought there could be a merger – which is why you haven’t heard much the last year.

  • riverhorse

    Notice it’s only the Far, Far Left that’s concerned about the potential Sprint-T-Mobile merger.
    It claims it wants to protect the public.
    Yet it is not worried that the second most inexpensive carrier is in danger of going under.
    And it does not want to make things easy for the most inexpensive carrier to continue its business model AND allow offering it to larger segment of the population. Because the only other logical way T-Mobile can overcome its lack of coverage WHILE not getting its stock price hammered(and thus go out of business), is to simply raise prices as needed for the expensive tower build out.
    Don’t forget that the two other large carriers, entrenched former Ma / Baby Bells that don’t suffer T-Mobile’s extensive coverage gaps, are also in the process of enabling other bands.
    It would not take much for something to happen where T-Mobile bleeds customers to the Other Two, then for the kiss of death Wall Street hammers its stock price.
    Presto, only Verizon and AT&T left.
    But this has always been Liberal’s main problem. They have no desire, or clue how to run a business, not even basic accountancy principles…and businesses are evil. So let the discounts and giveaways generate out of thin air…and eventually out of the pockets of the very consumers they were claiming to protect.

    • Jerry Rich

      Your incoherent diatribe make less sense than Trump’s tweets.

      • riverhorse

        1. Spellcheck your post.
        2. Take a Miss Manners course.

        • Dummy Up Meathead

          Yet, Jerry is correct.

    • Nearmsp

      An open and competitive market is the basis of a capitalistic system – a market economy. A monopoly or a duo poly or concentrated market is either a communist system or a crony capitalistic system. So this is not about the left or right. It is plain and simple Crony capitalism at work. Mr. Son is being bailed up for making a lemon of investment in Sprint. This is to make soft bank whole, nothing more.

      • tendoboy1984

        The entire smartphone industry is basically a duopoly between Apple and Samsung, with everyone else fighting for scraps.

      • marque2

        We used to have 1000 mini cell phone carriers. It was a nightmare. Having three strong companies capable of maintaining a good nationwide network is betterntham having 1000 midgets who can barely fund their back yard. Part of capitalism is that the strong survive and a new industry naturally consolidates

        • bakgwailo

          What are you even talking about? None of that is true. Want real competition? Look at European nations and Asia where there is real competition and its dirt cheap. Monopolies and oligopolies are the enemy of capitalism and should be busted as needed, as we have always done to ensure and force competition for the betterment of consumers and innovation.

        • marque2

          You are probably too young to remember the wild west analog days. I forgive you for calling me a liar.

          Europe – in most countries is very government controlled and technology comes later. You also need to consider the USA has about twice the land mass of western Europe and half the people. The much lower population density makes costs higher. Since you still need to cover all the territory more towers are needed and fewer people cover the costs.

        • bakgwailo

          Analog cell phones/AMPS isn’t comparible to the standards we have today. Europe works because spectrum is standardized – but perhaps you are too young to remember CDMA vs GSM. Luckily now phone manufacturers have picked up the slack with supporting all GSM bands under the sun to stop phone vendor lock in and allow better roaming.

  • NardVa

    Wouldn’t be surprised if these politicians have a history of receiving donations from AT&T and Verizon. When has politicians ever cared about the interest of the consumer? There’s a lot more important things for politicians to worry about than my cell phone bill. How about these same politicians show an interest in protecting the public from price gauging by the medical industry.

    • Nearmsp

      Verizon would love it if there are less number of competitors. Likewise AT&T. Democrats care for the poor and consumers. Republicans care for the 1%. See the tax cut plan of the Republicans. Removing estate duty for those with over $5.5 million when they die. How many Americans would have that kind of money?

      • Trevnerdio

        You actually believe that either one cares for the lil guy? Lol not a chance.

      • Reagan1

        Ha, what a bunch of hogwash. I see the politicians have you believing exactly what THEY want. For instance, what right does the govt have to your money when you die…money you actually already paid taxes on? Doesn’t matter if it’s $20 bucks or $20mm.

  • Kenneth Warner

    I believe this would bring even better competition as it would make att & Verizon be even more competitive and really have good low priced plans

    • dcmanryan

      ….Or it would make TMobile less competitive and we would not see the deals we’ve seen in the past. Competition is always in the consumers, AKA you and I’s, best interest. Look at how aggressive Sprint has been with plans and phone deals. You can bet 100% that will be gone with the merger. Look at the competition in the streaming market right now. There’s so many choices that DirecTV and Comcast have changed their entire business model and have been forced to offer other options or slowly sink.

    • Nearmsp

      AT&T and Verizon are lying low only due to T-mobile. Once T-mobile merges with Sprint you can bet that all the 3 majors will make money. Less competition always means more prices for consumers.

  • gg555

    Given that all of the objecting Senators are Democrats and that we now have an extremely anti-regulation pro-business Republican administration that only cares about corporate profits and not consumers and given that the FCC and the DOJ are being run by people who are corrupt and incompetent, I think this deal has a much better chance of getting approved than past attempts. I won’t be surprised to see it go through.

    People who live in states with Republican Senators need to start calling them up and complaining about this deal, if they want to see is quashed. If you don’t like this deal and you vote Republican, call the White House too.

    • Nearmsp

      I would not call Republicans Pro-business. I would say they are crony capitalists doing the bidding for those with cash to fund their election funds.

    • Joe

      You are really gullible aren’t you. Republicans and democrats these days are for the most part very similar in their principle beliefs. When it comes to businesses both have are crony capitalists especially the democrats. Why do you think most large corporations support democrat’s?

      • gg55592

        You’re really ignorant, aren’t you. Democrats have a long record, including recently, of being more willing to pursue anti-trust issues than Republicans. There’s a reason a lot of these deals got killed during the Obama administration and before him a lot of them went through under Bush. Just because Democrats also take money from many of the same businesses, does not mean they are identical in their policies to Republicans. It is precisely this sort of nihilistic false equivalence (they’re all the same!) that makes ignorant people unable to make judgments about the differences between politicians. Indeed, large corporations and wealthy individuals give far far more money to Repubicans than Democrats, because they know they will get more favorable policies from them. They just also give some money to Democrats (playing both sides) because if the Democrats win an election they still want to have access (better to have some say with a politican you do not prefer, than no say). Anyway, I don’t expect nihilistic people who love to say everything is the same, everyone is equally corrupt, to understand these sorts of complexities and nuances.

        • MindFog2287

          Amen gg55592. This “all the same” talk was also responsible for getting Bush in the White House, and we all know how that went. Most of us Democrats can continue to point out the shortcomings of the Democratic Party (and there are MANY) while also acknowledging that they for sure are much more on the side of protecting the consumer and the individual. It’s possible to hold those two thoughts at the same time. But when you compare the two parties, perhaps neither are exactly “on our side,” but it’s clear that ONE party certainly is against us.

      • Haze1nut

        You are really either gullible, ignorant, or naive, aren’t you. Unfortunately im betting it’s all 3 in 1.

    • Or just save time and switch carriers

      • gg55592

        How does that help? Less competition will raise prices and lower quality on all carriers. That’s how markets work. For example, it was only after the T-Mobile/AT&T merger was killed that T-Mobile started all of it’s uncarrier strategies–because they desparately needed more customers. They drove down prices on all carriers and single handedly killed the contract. The whole point of anti-trust is that once an industry becomes too consolidated and lacks competition, you can’t get a good deal from any company. So changing carriers won’t help this situation at all.

        • Sprint is not competitive at all they are at the point of no return there parent company is no longer interested in sinking money in that hole. This is sprint last hope to stay in business. Sprint needs this and tmobile needs the spectrum to compete more effectively with Verizon

        • gg555

          That’s what the said about T-Mobile, before the merger with AT&T was killed, and T-Mobile, as I explain above, has transformed the industry since then. You don’t have to be the biggest player to do well or to have an affect on the market. This is part of the economics of competition that seems to be beyond your comprehension. I suggest taking a course in economics.

        • Beyond my comprehension haha I laughed at that… and economics hmmm took that course during undergrad and passed. So you comment is mute have a nice day.
          Tell me something I don’t know fat jack

        • You actually think tmobile is going to become less competitive??? Are you crazy and second without the break up fee tmobile would have not did any uncarrier things

        • gg555

          I don’t think you really understand what “competition” means and how it works in economics.

        • I absolutely know what it means obviously you don’t now bless your little heart and have a nice day

  • samsung freud

    I’m praying that they bring Carly back

  • andrew bayne

    All this talk of less competition I get, but the fact is there will soon be 3 major carriers left regardless. Sprint is on the verge of bankruptcy. I believe it’s better that T-Mobile gets Sprint and all their assets now then to have Sprint go bankrupt and their assets go to AT&T and Verizon. So regardless if they merge or not, Sprint’s demise is coming. Son has been trying to sell off Sprint all year to different cable companies and only T-Mobile has shown real interest. Legere has changed the wireless market for the better for we the customers and I don’t see him stopping once he has Sprint under his control. T-Mobile’s competition has always been “Dumb & Dumber” AKA AT&T & Verizon.

    • Joe

      OMG we found someone with a brain that understands the potential of sprint going bankrupt and we will anyway end up with three carriers anyway. Why not atleast get 3 good carriers that can compete.

      • Acdc1a

        Equally important, the FCC will require enough spectrum be divested that there should be an auction dedicated to non carriers that may just create a 4th again eventually.

        • marque2

          Cable companies are already sitting on so much spectrum we could have 4 or 5 more carriers.

    • moonoverparma

      I agree. This is the best thing for Sprint.

    • (J²)

      I’m sure they’d prefer smaller carrier or another entity acquire one of the major 4 carriers to avoid further consolidation. Because eventually, the industry will be driven by the major 3 and if T-Mobile decides to change its tune, we will be screwed as consumers… forever.

      Remember, Sprint has ALWAYS played both sides… This is part of the reason they are failing now! They have failed to pick a direction and a customer base and stick with it.

  • jetscreamer01

    We know Ajit “lap dog” Pai has already gave two thumbs up in a circle to this merger.

    • Jay Holm

      “Ajit Pai”?????? Huh???

      • Haze1nut

        Chairman of the FCC? Never heard of him?

  • tendoboy1984

    I consider myself a Democrat and I’m fine with this merger. T-Mobile will get Sprints’ customers, spectrum, and large phone selection; customers will get more devices to buy instead of just the usual Apple/Samsung/LG.

    • MagicMiguel

      However, there may be less incentive for all three to compete. In a country this size, each one could be fine with 1/3rd of the pie. The disruption we’re enjoying right now, mainly driven by T-Mobile’s desire to attract customers, will likely slow down or stop once they acquire all of Sprint’s customers. Search for a study that was done in Canada (which also has only 3 wireless carriers). Their findings were that Canada has some of the highest wireless rates in the world and is one of the slowest countries to deploy the latest technologies.

      • MindFog2287

        Not looking forward to the “uncarrier” concept disappearing. In the end, T-Mobile is a corporation, and it’s end goal is to generate profits. We’ve had it pretty good with Legere at the helm, giving us excellent service and benefits for a good price. But really, in the past year or so, the rates have only gone up. If I was signing up for T-Mobile now, my costs would be significantly higher than the six lines of unlimited I get for $180 with taxes right now. It will get worse with one less carrier.

    • (J²)

      T-Mobile and Sprint are in the bottom half and T-Mobile forced Verizon and AT&T to compete by fighting for customers by offering a better value. If (more like when) T-Mobile becomes the top carrier, perhaps the direction may change. Then the carriers will be having a contest to determine who can offer less for more. There will literally be NO ALTERNATIVES then… Almost all the MNVO’s are run by the 4 carriers… So NONE will fill the void. The only possible contender is just TOO SMALL.

      Yes, I can foresee this being a benefit for the short term but 5 to 10 years from now, DT and John Legere may no longer be affiliated with T-Mobile. There’s just no way to predict the direction of the company. We know T-Mobile has a positive impact and good intentions for customers but we also know that leadership changes within companies every so often with success or failure.

      I truly think may people are not considering the fact that companies change.

      Charter Communications (a decent company) acquired Time Warner Cable (a bad company) to form Spectrum which is hands down worse than Time Warner Cable. How? They got what they wanted and now they are essentially unstoppable.

      • tendoboy1984

        What about all the prepaid carriers that aren’t run by the big 4? They offer alternatives to the big carriers so they still count.

        And T-Mobile will still be competing for ATT and Verizon customers.

        • (J²)

          How about naming some examples of prepaid carriers that are actual contenders that are not run by the 4 carriers?

          By contenders, I mean actually have the means to battle the 3 carriers assuming this merger is approved.

        • tendoboy1984

          Let’s see:
          StraightTalk
          Walmart Family Mobile
          Net10
          Tracfone
          Ting

          There may be more I’m forgetting.

          There’s also Google Fi, Xfinity Mobile, and US Cellular that compete with the “big 4”.

          So no, T-Mobile merging with Sprint won’t cause a monopoly because all those other options will still exist.

      • tendoboy1984

        Charter and Time Warner Cable aren’t as notable as Comcast or even the satellite companies. They’re all regional while Dish and Direct TV operate nationwide.

        • (J²)

          Have you looked at a paid TV service map? That is definitely not true. They are all “technically” regional.

        • tendoboy1984

          Dish and Direct TV are nationwide.

        • (J²)

          But we are talking about Comcast – Time Warner Cable – Charter specifically.

      • tendoboy1984

        There are no other options?

        StraightTalk
        Walmart Family Mobile
        Xfinity Mobile
        Google Fi
        US Cellular
        Ting

        All of those are still options. The prepaid carriers that are owned by the big 4 are Cricket (ATT), Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile (Sprint), MetroPCS (T-Mobile).

        • (J²)

          You can verify these things with a little research.

        • (J²)

          Straight Talk uses all 4 carriers
          Walmart Family Mobile uses T-Mobile
          Xfinity Mobile uses Verizon
          Google Fi uses Sprint and T-Mobile
          US Cellular is the 5th largest carrier very far behind Sprint.
          Ting uses T-Mobile.

          Regardless if they are wholly owned or not is irrelevant, these MNVO’s are factored into the big 4’s total subscribers and revenue ultimately.

  • deepdebt

    I am a Republican and want this merger blocked. We need four competitors to narrow the “digital divide.” With only three national carriers, prices will rise and more people will be unable to access the internet. Even now, more people are going cellular only for their access. With only three carriers, the cable monopoly will no longer fear cellular ISP competition. We will enter into a race to the bottom with higher prices and lower quality service.

    • Jason

      You are spot on

    • marque2

      Nah if prices go too high cable companies that are sitting on spectrum and have bandwidth will jump in. Tmobile needs this deal to compete effectively and for once have enough spectrum to do so.

      • deepdebt

        Possibly, but at a much higher price point.

        • marque2

          Why would it end up a much higher price point? I am still not convinced a merger means higher prices overall. With Verizon and ATT finally getting true competition from Tmo which will finally have a comparable network I suspect Tmo prices to go up a bit and there two to go down significantly for a net gain for the consumer. Having almost bankrupt Sprint hanging around doesn’t do much for anybody.

    • tendoboy1984

      But there are still options like Google Fi, Xfinity Mobile, and US Cellular. Not to mention all the prepaid options that aren’t owned by the “big 4”.

      StraightTalk
      Walmart Family Mobile
      Ting
      Net10
      Tracfone

      • MindFog2287

        Most of those are using the networks from the Big 4, no? If there are suddenly Big 3, don’t you think that will encourage them to raise the rates they charge the MVNO’s like Walmart & Straight Talk?

    • Jeff G

      US Cellular would move to 4th carrier place ,Viaero wireless would be 5th

  • Jason

    I can’t think of a single moment in the past decade where I agreed with Democrats, but Im with them on this one. It is a tangible reduction in competition. The FCC and Justice Dept Antitrust Division should block it. Still would never vote Democrat again for anything though

    • MindFog2287

      The only ones standing up for consumer rights these days are Democrats (and with increased corporate contributions to both parties, the differences are getting smaller, but they’re still there). It’s not just in regard to cellular competition.

  • I’d rather have 3 carriers then 4. I’m so tired of people complaining about good coverage for cheap prices there is no logical way for any carrier to do anything like that. Tmobile needs this merger to make a better national network I can’t count a day that has went by someone is complaining about tmobile network in one way or another. So you guys who’s going against this happening need to find something better do with your time. Espically republicans

    • deepdebt

      Move to Canada then, they only have three there.

      • Or you can just switch carriers I bet that won’t happen though.

        • deepdebt

          If the merger is approved I will switch to AT$T. Verizon will not get my money, especially since they now throttle video.

    • bakgwailo

      That makes no sense. If anything we should want (and encourage) more carriers – not encourage further consolidation and an even smaller set of players in the oligopoly. Consumer choice and competition is what is needed, not near monopoly.

      • Joseph Cathey

        Not in a case where there are limited resources. There is only so much spectrum available to carriers, this is exaggerated by the fact that the US is massive compared to most European countries. You want reliable nationwide service? You want an affordable price? You want it to have fast data? Cool, pick two right now because thanks to 4 nationwide networks plus all the smaller ones means there is only so much spectrum and there WILL be places that are spectrum starved on at lease ONE of the networks.

        • bakgwailo

          That is completely not true – with the 600mhz additions T-Mobile is right up there. Plus phones nowadays support all bands – what is needed is more join roaming agreements across all carriers. Because you are right – the spectrum is owned by the public and the public domain and is only leased out to companies so they can use it. If you are talking about natural monopolies (such as water/sewer/electricity), then they need to be highly regulated at worst, if not straight up public utilities.

    • vinnyjr

      U R wrong, more Carriers the better. Only people complaining about T-Mobile are those not on T-Mobile or those that complain because they were with T-Mobile years ago. T-Mobile is gaining millions of new customers every year because they are a very good Carrier. Sprint merger worries me, if merger goes through I hope to hell John Legere is the BOSS. In my area, Suburb of Boston, T-Mobile has the fastest & strongest Network, the best part is they are constantly upgrading their towers. My service just keeps getting better. Thank You T-Mobile, Thank You John Legere.

      • Obviously you haven’t read anything about the merger go do your homework then come back

      • MindFog2287

        Things have changed since the first merger rumors. T-Mobile is the big dog in this deal now, and they’ll be calling the shots. No need to worry about T-Mo going away. Only thing going away would be the increased competition of having four major carriers.

      • Obviously you didn’t do your homework before responding to me. So go do your homework on how the merger is planning to go down then come back.

        Thanks, management

    • Jason

      It doesnt matter what youd ‘rather have’. The law is clear and precise. You can reference the Clayton Act. Any mergers resulting in substantial reduction in competition are illegal. Bottom line. 15 US Code 18.

      • It’s not reducing competition significantly because the U.S. still has like 10 Carriers plus Sprint is a sinking ship if they go bankrupt because they didn’t merge with tmobile it’ll be the government’s fault. At the minimum find a different investor that’s going to turn sprint around into a competitive carrier. Right now they are closing stores and not pulling good numbers. So until these problems are fixed the merger needs to be pushed through

      • Clearly they don’t care about the law and this deal still may go through so just deal with it. Let it go

      • Julio

        I wouldn’t call taking Sprint off the board a “substantial reduction in competition.” I wouldn’t use the word substantial and Sprint in the same sentence unless I was telling how insignificant Sprint really is as a player in the cellular world. Still plenty of cellular competition. I’d like to think that the dead areas that I and I’m sure every other user experiences with TMobile will fill in once the merger goes through. Assuming it goes through. Do you people not want better coverage?! LOL

  • PeterGaluska

    Hey,

    I just started the petition “Federal Trade Commission: Stop Tmobile merger with Sprint” and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

    My goal is to reach 100 signatures and I need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:

    http://chn.ge/2ycj86A

    Thanks!

    Peter

    • Jason

      Signed. Though I would wait until it is announced and then petition the Justice Department instead of the FTC. That is where the critical determination will come from. The Antitrust Division of the Justice Dept will open up a comment period and a web site. Thats where everyone should comment. This is how we blocked the ATT Tmo merger

  • scruff317

    Everyone complaining about three carriers. What happens if the merger doesn’t happen? Does Sprint fold? Would we end up with 3 anyways? Why not try to make the best of the situation?

    • tendoboy1984

      But there’s more than 3 carriers. Do Google Fi, Xfinity Mobile, and US Cellular not count? What about all the prepaid options?

      • dcmanryan

        Those are all MVNO carriers using someone else’s network.

        • yochanan

          Not quite. US Cellular is a separate carrier and is the fifth largest in the US. Project Fi uses them as well as Sprint and T-Mobile. Xfinity Mobile uses Verizon.

  • tendoboy1984

    If Sprint and T-Mobile merge, it won’t create a monopoly because there are still other options to choose from. ATT and Verizon will still exist, and there’s smaller players like Google Fi, Xfinity Mobile, and US Cellular.

    Not to mention all the prepaid options that aren’t owned by the “big 4”.

    • Jason

      Whether or not it results in a monopoly or an oligopoly is irrelevant in antitrust law. Any consolidation with a substantial reduction in competition, and there are clear determinable metrics on a market level, is illegal under Antitrust law.

  • tendoboy1984

    Speaking of T-Mobile, when are they bringing out the higher end Revvl phones?

  • MindFog2287

    The FCC has no teeth right now. Ajit Pai is a corporate pawn. He’ll do whatever is good for corporate America, consumers be damned.

  • ldshark

    I am indifferent on this. On one hand if the merger goes through T-mo will have a crap load of spectrum in both the high and low specs as sprint is sitting on the most amount of spectrum of any carrier. Making it so now could over take the coverage of VZ and ATT etc. But on the other hand maybe this could be sorta a deal that sprint will still operate independently but alll the profits will go to T-Mo and T-Mo will get what ever spectrum they need like the Metro deal.

    I still think T-mo would be better off merging with a Dish Network that has a shit load of spectrum as well but not a direct competitor.

    • Clifton K. Morris

      The longer rumors of merger talks occur, the more likely that legal teams at Verizon and AT&T will be able to build their own case/s against a combined company holding so much spectrum on a nationwide basis. Verizon and AT&T legal teams are the best in the industry.

      MetroPCS had about 1/10th of the spectrum TMobile and Sprint would have so that isn’t an adequate comparison.

      Dish is still very interesting option- Dish offered Legere the CEO position if they merged with Dish but he also wanted a controlling interest; at minimum 51%. That news article was buried a day later with news of an Un-Carrier event, so very few people likey saw that news article. In that news article, Charlie Ergen appeared to leave that option open and on the table. I gained additional respect for Charlie Ergen.

      However, Merging with Sprint accomplishes one additional goal that Dish did not- it results in a net reduction of the number of online carriers.