Final arguments in T-Mobile-Sprint merger trial made today

tmobile-sprint-logos

After delivering their testimonies and breaking for the holidays, the two sides in the T-Mobile-Sprint merger trial met again today to deliver their final arguments.

Glenn Pomerantz, a lawyer for the 14 states suing to block the merger, argued that the trial will impact at least 130 million customers since the deal would reduce the number of major U.S. carriers from four to three. “If this merger goes forward, they’re at risk for paying billions of dollars more every single year for those services,” he said.

Pomerantz added that when T-Mobile and parent company Deutsche Telekom first thought about a Sprint merger in 2010, the companies “expressly and unambiguously admitted that it had potential to reduce price competition.”

The states added that Dish Network is not equipped to become a competitive fourth player in the U.S. wireless market and that Dish lacks experience, scale, and brand recognition in wireless.

As part of a deal to get approval for the merger from the Department of Justice, Dish Network agreed to buy all of Sprint’s prepaid businesses for $1.4 billion as well as Sprint’s portfolio of nationwide 800MHz spectrum for $3.6 billion. T-Mobile and Sprint will also give Dish at least 20,000 cell sites and hundreds of retail locations, and T-Mo must give Dish “robust access” to the T-Mobile network for seven years while Dish builds out its own 5G network.

The states’ arguments also included Pomerantz arguing that Sprint can turn itself around like T-Mobile did years ago. “They’re not in a dire position; they’re in an advantangeous situation and they just need to invest in their business and compete,” he said.

David Gelfand, an attorney representing T-Mobile, argued that the merger will bring cost savings that’ll lead to lower prices for consumers.

T-Mobile has previously said that if it’s allowed to merge with Sprint, it can use that mid-band spectrum to deploy a 5G network that’ll cover 99% of the U.S. population and have 14 times the capacity of T-Mo today. It’s also pledged to offer 5G coverage to 90% of the rural U.S. and to add 11,000 jobs by 2024.

“They’re going to win customers from AT&T and Verizon using it,” Gelfand said of the New T-Mobile’s network. “When a merger brings together two companies — that creates lower costs, better product — that actually makes the transaction procompetitive.”

Judge Victor Marrero is presiding over the merger trial, and he said today that he would make a decision “as promptly as possible”. No exact timeline was given, but previous estimates have said that a decision could come in February.

Sources: Reuters, Bloomberg

Tags: , ,

  • riverhorse

    Someone tell those morons that pricing will actually go down. They will be coming against Verizon prepaid $25 unlimited everything, several satellite companies each blanketing 99% of the planet, etc., etc. ad nauseam.

    • John Doe

      Why would T-Mobile compete with Verizon and AT&T when they will have the same number of customers? Do you see Verizon aggressively competing with AT&T? NO.

      The new T-Mobile would start investing in other areas like home internet and TV to make more money (just like Verizon and AT&T) but the phone prices will never go down, they will go up because they won’t have a national carrier offering a lower price service. Dish’s services have always been priced high with hidden fees and terrible customer service…I don’t expect that to change if they become a carrier.

      • Shaun Michalak

        The only problem with your theory is.. Yes, Verizon and AT&T do not compete.. There is a good reason for that.. When there is only 2 major competitors, then if you think about it, there is not much to compete with.. If you get mad at AT&T, then you go to Verizon.. But they know that one day you will get mad at Verizon, and who else is there to go to but AT&T. If you start adding more companies in there, like T-Mobile, then both of them have a chance at losing customers and not coming back to either one of them. Up until recently, this has been the case because T-Mobile did not have enough coverage to really be a competitor on a nationwide scale..

        But, if say T-Mobile did start raising their prices, then people would start going to other companies more often, and they would lose customers.. This gives T-Mobile incentive to keep their prices lower.

        Also, Verizon is feeling the pressure.. If not, then why did Verizon start up a Metro comparable company a year or so ago?? Verizon started up Visible, which was a lower priced plans to the regular Verizon ones, to compete.. You do not just start up a new lower priced company for no reason.. They obviously were feeling the pressure, and this was their way to respond to it.

        • John Doe

          There are already more companies, there are 4 lmao

          You just argued against this merger lol. What other national carrier companies are there to go to if T-Mobie raises prices? There won’t be any. Verizon has several MVNO’s. These big carriers are not looking for phone customers anymore, they are looking into other businesses to make money like TV and home internet, they even said it themselves. T-Mobile said they would launch home internet and TV only if they are able to merge with Sprint. That is their end game, that is why AT&T and Verizon are buying media content companies like Time Warner because they are not going to compete for phone service.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Not really.. I am talking on past pretense, and on a large scale.. If you go back a few years, then T-Mobile, and Sprint has coverage that only amount to say, 20% of the total area (at most).. If you only have 20%, that means you only have coverage in main towns, and main interstates.. and that is limited at that. In that aspect, anyone that needs service in rural, areas, travels, etc T-Mobile and Sprint would not be a competitor because you can not be a competitor if you have no coverage where you need it. So that leaves only AT&T and Verizon..

          As for the 4, if you are going to say that, back when Sprint and T-Mobile really sucked, then you would have to say 5.. Because in reality, US cellular was not much different in size as either of them were.. Here is the amounts of coverage as of last year for each of them for 4G coverage

          #1: Verizon: 70% 4G coverage
          #2: T-Mobile: 59% 4G coverage
          #3: AT&T: 58% 4G coverage
          #4: Sprint: 27% 4G coverage

          #5: U.S. Cellular: 10.27 4G coverage

          Go back 5 years, and there was very little difference between the worst 3..

        • John Doe

          This is not about coverage. This is about competition, price and customers. Coverage is up to the company they can improve it whenever they feel like as long as they have money to invest and buy spectrum. Sprint has $33 billion in debt and merging with T-Mobile will not get rid of it…the new TMobile customers will be paying that debt and the capacity will be the same since Sprint customers are joining TMobile they are going to use the same towers and spectrum. If Sprint were to go bankrupt they would end up selling the company in pieces at an auction and T-Mobile can then buy the spectrum it needs and the FCC can and has limited how much AT&T and Verizon can buy at an auction. That is how this should play out not allow T-Mobile to merge with Sprint.

        • Shaun Michalak

          This is about competition?? Well, T-Mobile currently has lower total prices then Verizon. So you are saying that somehow, it is OK for Verizon and AT&T to have the same higher prices, but it is not OK for T-Mobile to have those same prices?? That is exactly what you are saying by saying that the company with the lowest prices, is not allowed to match the prices of its competitors..

          This is about customers?? Even if T-Mobile took over ALL of Sprints customers, then they would still have less customers then Verizon or AT&T.. So by that analogy, they are fighting someone from being on 3rd place, to staying in 3rd place??

          The capacity will still be the same?? Not a chance.. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Sprint has very little of its spectrum installed.. The main band that Sprint uses is band 25.. which Sprint only has an average of 37mhz of.. Now, their band 41 which is not barely used or touched, they have 151 Mhz of..

          So you are saying that with T-mobile only having 110 Mhz of both mid, and low band to use, that installing 151 Mhz of additional spectrum is going to be the same?? How does that even make sense??

          Not to mention, that right now, Sprint uses T-Mobile towers when there is no Sprint tower in the area.. So, you go in rural areas, that Sprint has no coverage in, they all run off of T-Mobile.. But T-Mobile installing the 37 Mhz of mid band spectrum that Sprint has, is going to be the same too?? Seems to me that installing and using 40% more spectrum would increase bandwidth and speeds too, not stay the same..

          You do realize that none of what you said actually makes sense, on a scale where you are fair to “all” companies?? You are basically saying, that it is not OK for T-Mobile to have the same competition,. pricing, etc as the other companies, because they are somehow that special that they are the only ones to have special rules and accommodations as to how the run the company.. But AT&T and Verizon do not have to follow any of those same rules.. I hope you understand how bad that sounds right now..

        • John Doe

          No one said they are not allowed but the prices will increase if they merge and the government is not obligated to approve a merger that can harm consumers

        • Shaun Michalak

          People keep saying “but the prices will increase”.. Can you please explain to me where this is fact?? Fact is, there is NO guarantee that prices will go up, down, or stay the same. Unless you have facts that is the case, and there is none since it is NOT a monopoly.. which is where people could “imply” that they would.. Fact is, even if Dish never started up the company, there is still 3 different carriers, 4 in places where US Cellular is in place.. There is no evidence to prove that prices “will” go up.

          Fact is, there was an article out a couple years ago, where it stated that the cable companies were going to raise their prices so that the basic internet plans were going to be close to $100 a month.. A couple years ago, TWC was here, and they had basic plans for $15.. They had plans then that went from $40 and up, depending on the speeds.. Spectrum took over, and now their cheapest plan is now $70, plus if you want WiFi, etc..

          Think about that.. The cheapest priced plan went from $15 to $70.. and there has not been one word said from these AG’s about that.. So if they were truly worried about pricing, and the consumers as they claim, then why are they not saying one word about this?? Personally, I would think that jumping the cheapest plan by 5 times more would be much more of a problem then $2, which is what they said that they are complaining about.

          It is because they are not worried about pricing as they claim.. They have ulterior motives for their lawsuit.. and unless I am proven wrong, it is because of one thing.. Trump.. They are Democrats, and Trump supports this merger.. and it was NOT until they started talking about Trumps administration approving the merger, that they started this lawsuit. June was when the Trump administration approved of it, and July was when the lawsuit was filed. You have facts to say otherwise, I would love to hear them.. But as of right now, this is clearly a partisan thing by Democrats again, and their hatred for Trump, and anything that he supports.

        • John Doe

          You keep on writing bs when you clearly do not know anything that you are talking about.

        • Shaun Michalak

          I think I have you figured out.. Basically, you are someone that tries to change the subject so that you do not have to answer a question, because you do not have an answer.. You keep saying things like that, and yet, have not answered one question that I have posted.. Answer me with facts, not twists to make it sound like someone else does not understand, when you have not give one bit of proof, evidence, or facts to back up why others are wrong.. Why is that?? That is right, it is because you have nothing to say otherwise.. you do not like what was said, so you try to get others to question themselves so that you do not have to prove that your comments are right, or accurate.. It is always easier to accuse to make yourself look like you are the right one, when your big comments are just “it is BS” or “you do not understand”.. But not once have I seen a reasoning, explanation, or facts to back it up.. have a nice day.. i am done with petty discussions with people that can not back what they say up, and somehow think that what they think is right.. no matter how right or wrong they are.. It seems to me the one that has no facts to back themselves up, is the true one that is full of it..

        • John Doe

          I am not changing the subject I just don’t have time to point out all the wrong things you wrote. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about, the Judge will decide against this merger that is why Sprint’s stock is tanking.

      • riverhorse

        Cellular pricing WILL go down. Counting major cableprepaidmvno, there”ll be over 10 other significant competitors factoring also #4 & 5 cellular carriers and the several Low Orbit Satellite Internet providers. The latter can easily offer cellular or Internet+voip-same shiet- because they will blanket the planet plus their latency will be like low single digit ms. AND that means companies in other countries can offer service here, barring government intervention. AND FacebookGoogleAmazonTesla will have the wherewithall andor revenue synergy incentive (ads and product sales plus your mention of other services like TV, etc.) to offer service cheaply.
        Plus, cheap 4G only plans will still abound.
        Further, if 5G has the startup glitches that I think it will…

        • John Doe

          These are ALL assumptions just like assuming Dish is going to succeed especially when John Legere himself said Dish will not exist a few years ago lol

        • riverhorse

          That’s correct, but it’s not the point. They will all exert competitive pressure even while/if they fail.
          There’ll be plenty of consolidation too.
          And i wouldn’t rule out Dish, all they need to do is lease from or partner up with one of the low orbit sat providers. And they don’t even need 5G, they can survive fine at the lower 4G level. Worst case scenario one of the behemoths acquires it- just the brand name itself has plenty value.
          Now let’s just focus on 6/10G and drive each other batty on all the possible permutations. Lol

        • John Doe

          Again assumptions. Let’s focus on the facts in front of us and not make assumptions. And historically speaking dish will not succeed to be come a carrier even John legere has said it himself a few years ago and complained to the FCC that were just hording spectrum to sell themselves and not build a network.

        • riverhorse

          Geez, each of your sentences triggers a huh…
          You’re making assumptions too. But, correct assumptions are good- for investing, career selection, etc.
          So someone buys Dish, so?
          We’re soon gonna have twice the present number of national cellular carriers anyhow. Except… They won’t just be cellular providers: they will “dish” out cell, VoIP, IoT, Internet, TV…and not just broadcasting but content production as well if they’re smart.
          The real smart ones will have Low Orbit Satellites or at least lease agreements so that their service is planetary rather than national.
          And the smartest of all will mint their own crypto and rule the world.
          Governments will be powerless to control such a behemoth unless they become more draconian than China and band together with other countries to persecute the involved executives.
          The world in 2030 will look nothing like what it looks like today.

        • John Doe

          Again making assumptions. That has nothing to do with future competition. We are talking about competition today, There will be less major competitors with one (Dish) being dependent on T-Mobile for success.

        • riverhorse

          I give up.
          Anyhow, TMO not the cheapest anymore.
          But there will always be totally unlimited for very cheap from someone. Even for only a single line. Telephone and internet is almost nothing, as long as you don’t follow the masses.
          Capitalism usually trumps… The only expensive stuff today is unlimited TV.
          Here’s what’s available for monthly total unlimited:
          Cellphone- Visible by Verizon $25
          Tablet- Metro by TMO $15 alone / $5-10 with other lines (each reduced by $5)
          Internet- AT&T (cellular) $20 + taxes
          Voip- tons for free.

          No one will be raising prices, it’s a race to the bottom.. The only high price possibility could be something like a super 5G plan with guaranteed truly unlimited + no throttling / depriorization & bundled TV.

        • John Doe

          Again, you are making assumptions. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. Even if what you are saying is true then it would be better for Sprint to stick around, you are arguing against the merger lol We are not talking about MVNOs here. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about so just give up like you said.

        • riverhorse

          Go couple your mother.

        • John Doe

          Thank, you too.

  • Francisco Peña

    Status Quo: Verizon and ATT stay huge. Don’t bother to adjust much pricing as their PR of better coverage stays 1st and foremost in people’s minds. Sprint continues to whittle down. TMo slowly grows but there is only so much price cutting currently that can be done without affecting service and expansion.

    PAssing the merger: Tmo and Sprint join, and become another behemoth like ATT/VZW. The current culture in Tmo is to be the best, so reaching the grownup table for Cellular Thanksgiving meal should push Tmo to continue to offer better deals (because now they have twice as many people to fund this), and get increased coverage with Sprint’s spectrum. ATT/VZW will adjust their pricing (they did it with Unlimited when they said they wouldn’t) and we all rejoice.

    Short term: Will people be canned? more than likely to deal with overlap
    Longer term: Will people be hired? sure, more people, more CSRs, more stores needing to open, more towers and antennas to be installed. Those need workers.

    • Shaun Michalak

      I would not say that getting Sprints spectrum will increase coverage, because it will not.. What it will do is increase bandwidth on those towers, so people could get acceptable download speeds at all times. You would also get less dropped calls, and less having a problem making calls, due to a lack of bandwidth.

      With any merger, you will always have some loss of employees.. But, what seems to get overlooked is that fact that while there is no need for 2 stores, one T-Mobile, one Sprint right next to each other.. Dish taking over will make up for those store front and jobs since they will have to have service too.

  • Kevin Trammell

    Yet noone says anything about competition and lets AT&T buy all the cable companies they please. I guess AT&T raising Directv prices all the time doesnt matter. U-Verse, Directv, Time Warner, ect. They have no problems buying and merging with other companies to raise prices, yet Tmobile has been trying for almost 2 years to merge with a dying Sprint.

  • Kevin Trammell

    A federal judge ruled Tuesday that AT&T may purchase Time Warner, without any conditions, arguing that the $85 billion deal doesn’t violate antitrust law.

    The six-week trial was a monumental win for corporate interests, likely clearing the way for other potential mergers like Disney and Fox, or T-Mobile and Sprint.

    “A whole bunch of companies are all of a sudden going to get active,” Hal Vogel, CEO of Vogel Capital Management, told Fast Company. “The bankers have been romping around trying to figure out what they should do, if and when. Now that the decision is here, they’re going to move pretty quickly.”

    AT&T argued that it needed Time Warner’s brands to survive in an increasingly competitive and consolidated media landscape.

    This was from an article from June 2018

    • John Doe

      That is not the same at all like this merger. The AT&T and Time warner was a vertical integration, this is horizontal integration.

      • Shaun Michalak

        How so.. AT&T is a cable provider in of itself.. They have fios installed in homes in different areas.. So in that aspect, they are buying a movie and TV station, and they are broadcasting it on their own network to customers.. They are getting services that can expand their own network and capabilities.. T-Mobile is buying sprint for the same reason.. To expand their capacity so that they can expand into cable and internet service to homes, etc.. Seem like they more closely resemble each other more then you like to admit.. and since they are going to be working with dish to get their own network up, that will not eliminate a competitor, but actually make a better one since dish has the resources to expand into places that Sprint did not.

        • John Doe

          AT&T bought Time Warner not Time Warner Cable lol those are two different companies. They were not competing with each other.

        • Shaun Michalak

          and Time warner is a company that has their own “cable channels”..

          “Time Warner’s collection of sports, entertainment, and news TV networks and sites – including CNN, Adult Swim, Cartoon Network, Bleacher Report, TNT, truTV, and TBS, among others – falls under its Turner division. Turner operates more than 170 channels worldwide.”

          So lets think about this.. Dish is a company that resells these channels to customers.. So does Verizon, and if T-Mobile gets into the field, they will too.. So you are saying that one company buying a company that you know that your competitors rely on for fair pricing, but you can raise them up so your competitors have to pay higher prices, that is not unfair competition, or being able to take advantage of your competitors in an unfair way?? But I guess that to you, this is OK if AT&T does it, but T-Mobile is not allowed to do anything.. Really??

          What AT&T bought wasn’t some no name company that had no affiliation with its competitors.. What they bought was a company that they “knew” that their competitors relied on for service. If you somehow can not understand that.. Well, more power to you..

        • John Doe

          They were not direct competitors. AT&T did not own cable channels.

          You really need to look up what vertical integration is vs horizontal because clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

          T-Mobile and Sprint are direct competitors.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Then ask me this.. Is AT&T a cable provider?? Yes.. Is Verizon a Cable provider?? Yes.. Is Dish a cable provider?? Yes.. Did AT&T just buy the channels that their competitors are using for service?? Explain to me how your competitor is now able to set the prices for their competitors service, does not go against competition?? They can now clearly jack up the prices of their competitors to the point that they will have to remove those channels, or charge higher prices so that people will leave them and go with AT&T for service.. You are telling me that this means nothing?? Explain to me how someone being able to control your competitions prices is not a factor??

        • John Doe

          You don’t know anything you are talking about. AT&T and Time warner are not direct competitor. Stop making a fool of yourself

        • Shaun Michalak

          “Explain to me how someone being able to control your competitions prices is not a factor??”

          Blah blah blah.. I still have not seen one fact to back your side up, nor have you explained this question that I posted.

        • John Doe

          The attorneys General have produced those facts and will win the trial :)

  • Shaun Michalak

    It always amazes me on how much the AG’s and their lawyer say such stupid things trying to make themselves look better.. “will impact at least 130 million customers” “they’re at risk for paying billions of dollars more every single year”

    For prices to go up to “billions” as they say, T-Mobile would have to increase their prices by what?? $20 per line, each line.. On their Magenta plan, with 4 lines, they would have to increase their prices by 60% for this to be true.. Or 80% on their essentials plan. Since T-Mobiles and Verizons are comparable right now, these idiots actually think that they are going to almost double their prices? You would have to be a complete idiot to do that.. Yet this is their justification??

    “it had potential to reduce price competition”.. This is supposed to be a deal closer?? At any time, any company has the potential to raise or reduce prices at a whim.. Potential means nothing unless it happens.. There is still just as much potential for them to lower prices as it does raise them.

    “Dish lacks experience”.. Did they have experience when they started up Dish network?? Nope.. But they sure made a run of that.. You somehow think that they can not do it with a cell carrier why?? People start up new companies, and make them work good and profitable every day, without any experience.. This is just a cop out excuse with no actual facts to back it up that it will fail.

    “Sprint can turn itself around like T-Mobile did years ago.” This one is the one that I think is the biggest joke. Sprint has little to no low band, very limited mid band, and the only thing that they have a lot of is 2.5ghz band 41.. They think that you can turn a company around with little to none of the essential bands needed for “good” coverage? do they think that a ton of low band is magically fall in their lap? AT&T and Verizon made 700mhz their backbone for a reason. It is the most reliable for coverage. Since Sprint has none, and there is no real way for them to get any unless there is more government auctions, then how do they expect them to suddenly “change” things around without being able to get the essential frequencies that they need.. Heck, where I live, I got a hotspot device from Sprint, and the speeds on their limited amount of band 25 here are so bad, that half the time, I can not even do a speed test. How are you supposed to just “turn” the company around when these are your resources to use??

    • John Doe

      They keep on marking my reply as spam for some reason. But your comment is filled with inaccuracies.

      • Shaun Michalak

        Partly right.. I added the cost per month, forgetting to divide it per year.. and in that case, it still sounds just as stupid.. Because they are saying that they are complaining that the price went up by less then $2 a month.. I do not see that as a “big” factor.. But that is the only thing I can find “holes” in..

        • John Doe

          That is a big factor because they are looking at the market as a whole not just TMobile customers but also Sprint customer. And a lot of customers have different plans on both carriers and are grandfathered in. Any price increase even just $2 will change the whole market because smaller regional carriers will then have to opportunity to increase costs and MVNOs will have to increase prices so the whole market will pay more for the same service.

        • Shaun Michalak

          That is a “possibility”.. But then again, it is a possibility of that happening even without the merger.. With T-Mobile, they do not just start changing the prices because they feel like it.. I have read so many comments about people signing up for a plan, and T-Mobile has changed prices, and plans, multiple times since then, and the people never had any kind of change on their plan.. They kept the same old plan at the same price.. They were never forced to change it in any way.

          But lets just say that they did raise the price by $2.. They would still be lower then Verizon.. for 4 lines, both T-Mobile and Verizon both charge $35 a line.. Thing is, that is “with tax” for T-Mobile, and “plus tax” for Verizon.. So criticizing a company for charging what their competitors are charging?? I do not see them Criticizing AT&T or Verizon for not coming down to T-Mobiles prices, and considering that T-Mobiles coverage is very close to both of them..

          Here is the thing.. I live where they have Spectrum.. Spectrum just raised their prices for internet service by $5 a month, and they are in both, NY and PA.. These AG’s have said nothing.. But if T-Mobile raises it prices by $2, to be more comparable to the prices of its competitors, they have a problem with that?? Explain to me why they should not be able to charge as much as their competitors?? and yet a monopoly, like Spectrum raises their prices by over double that, and nothing is said..

        • John Doe

          I don’t think you understand how changing pricing of a plan is not the same as changing prices that effect the whole market.

        • Shaun Michalak

          That is true.. But at the same time, you can not hold just one out of many companies responsible for setting the pace.. Here, they are holding only T-Mobile responsible for the prices in the industry.. If T-Mobile raises their prices, it would be horrible for the low income and such.. Yet, they completely ignore the fact that Verizon and AT&T have higher prices, and talk like it would be only T-Mobiles fault of prices went up.. When T-Mobile had lowered their prices to gain customers, they were small like Sprint was back then.. Not as much coverage but cheaper prices to account for it.. Just like Sprint.. But, then T-Mobile greatly expanded. As they expanded and became comparable in coverage to AT&T and Verizon, and left Sprint way behind, now the AG’s expect them to keep the same prices as when they were small like Sprint.. But also expect them to keep their current coverage, and expand at the same time. They are not holding all the cell companies to the same standard, and that is where my problem is.

        • John Doe

          It is called competition.

        • Shaun Michalak

          You seem to keep saying things like that.. But the fact is, you have never given one good reason as to why “T-Mobile” and only T-mobile is being held to these standards.. You state competition, but in your comments, you basically agree with the AG’s in this situation, and have not given one reason as to why T-Mobile is not allowed to have the same prices as their competitors.. Competition is where “everyone” can compete, but by the AG’s standards, T-Mobile is not allowed to price their service the same as AT&T or Verzion, they have to keep it lower.. Why is it that you are avoiding answering these things?? and why is it that Verizon or AT&T are not being held to the same standards as T-Mobile?? Why is that.. and again, another question that seems to get avoided..

        • John Doe

          Sprint should succeed or fall on their own, which will create better competition then with T-Mobile merger with them. Which is why the Judge will decide against the merger :)

        • Shaun Michalak

          You do realize that you just stated exactly against what the AG’s are using for a defense.. They should succeed or fall.. But if they fall, then there will be 3 network players, which is what they are against.. Do you remember most of them saying, “we need better rural coverage and speeds for the rural communities”?? Well, if they merge, then T-Mobile will have the bandwidth to meet that goal, yet the AG are against that too.. So if they succeed, there is no guarantee that they will go into rural areas.. in fact, facts show otherwise. and if they fail, then exactly what they are complaining about will happen too. Either way, the AG’s are not going to get what they are asking for.

          But, in your terminology, they should succeed or fall on their own.. Funny how they did not feel the same way when AT&T acquired TW.. It just shows their double faced comments.. Because in that case, they should have fought it the same as here.. because AT&T could very well succeed on their own.. Ironic how they pick and chose who they pick on.

        • John Doe

          No if they fall market will decide what happens the FCC will most likely have an auction for Sprints customers, spectrum, etc. and then the bidders would COMPETE with each other not have it given to Dish and T-Mobile on a silver platter.

        • Shaun Michalak

          and if AT&T or Verizon takes it all over??? Would that not make them even more of a “monopoly”?? and this is fine?? Letting a monopoly by more of little companies, but not OK for a little company to buy another little company?? After all, T-Mobile has the least amount of mid and low band spectrum of the 3 main companies.. T-Mobile.. 110 mhz total.. AT&T 178mhz total.. So in your version, it is “let the larger company with more of a monopoly, get more, so it can be fair, which would create an even bigger monopoly”??

          Say Dish did want to get into the market.. They are not going to jump into the market, with no network to run off of.. so this will eliminate Dish from going as a new competitor, because they will have no way to get service to their customers from the start.. Still goes down to 3 competitors, exactly what the AG’s are stating that they do not want..

          But the fact is, Sprint will most likely not go under.. It is like they said.. What will most likely happen is they will rethink which markets that they compete in.. which means, low money makers (aka rural areas) will be dropped.. This will bring them down into the teens for coverage, and no one will get that extra frequency, and it will continue to go unused, and customers speeds and access will suffer for it.. nor will their be any more competition..

        • John Doe

          Dude you are mental. You have no argument. The judge will rule against it.

        • Shaun Michalak

          First, T-Mobile does not change the prices for grandfathered in plans.. So that is just a cop out.. Second, Explain to me how it is fair that you only hold one company responsible for this, out of many?? Oh, T-mobile raised their prices, so the whole industry is going to raise their prices.. Let just ignore the fact that AT&T and Verizons prices are higher, but lets blame T-Mobile for the whole thing.. They are the only ones responsible.. And T-mobile is so special, that they are the only ones that are not allowed to have the same prices as their competitors.. Do you realize just how stupid that actually sounds??

        • John Doe

          You don’t know how competition works.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Last I checked, competition is where different companies compete to get customers.. Some will throw in extras, some will lower prices, some will do it by enticing customers to go there way.. Is that not correct?? So, T-Mobile is set to a standard that they have to give stuff away, include taxes in the price, and have lower prices, and to improve service.. This is the standard that the AG’s have set for T-Mobile.. What are the standards set for AT&T or Verizon?? Do they have lower their prices?? Nope.. Give incentives?? Nope.. Improve coverage?? Nope.. Explain to me why this is.. I do not want a generic comment like, but you do not understand, or that is what this is.. Give me ONE good reason why T-Mobile is held to these standards, and not allowed to have the same prices as their competitors.. If T-Mobile lowed their prices by choice, then they should be able to raise them to the same as their competitors.. No different then a sale at the store.. But for some reason, T-Mobile is not allowed.. Give me “reasons” for this, not some kind of half baked answer that does not answer anything.

        • John Doe

          So the more companies, the more competition, Having sprint a separate entity is better for competition. Yes they are having difficulty if they go bankrupt then we should let the market decide what happens to them not let T-Mobile buy them and create another “carrier” with Dish hoping that will save competition.

        • Shaun Michalak

          How is it better for competition? If Sprint decides to downsize, on their what?? 27% 4G coverage?? How are they then considered competition? Even if say, they stay where they are at, then they are “only” competition for “cities”.. Because that is the only place, other then main highways, that they really have good, and reliable coverage. You do realize that this is the exact thing that the AG’s were complaining about if Dish took over.. They stated it themselves.. If Dish takes over, there is no guarantee that they will increase coverage outside of cities.. Yet, this is exactly where Sprints coverage is at. So then wouldn’t it be, competition for cities, and not for all people?? Because lets be hones.. You can not say that with 27% 4G coverage, that they have that much coverage in rural areas..

        • John Doe

          Having Sprint as a competitors is better than not having it there at all.

        • Shaun Michalak

          But you seem to be ignoring the fact that sprint is “not” there in 73% of the country.. and that 73% is exactly where the AG’s are saying that they need the competition.. Rural areas..

        • John Doe

          The judge will rule against this, enjoy your day :)

  • John Doe

    The Judge is going to deny the merger and if he doesn’t, the states said they would appeal so Sprint and T-Mobile will not merge anytime soon. It will be delayed so much that they will end up calling it off or worse it will be 2021 with a democratic government that blocks the merger.

    • Timbo1

      Same can be said about TMobile appealing if the dumb liberal judge does block it. This will be going on for years, as it has been.

      • John Doe

        Yeah but T-Mobile does not have time on their side, the AGs do though.

        • Timbo1

          TMobile has all the time in the world, it’s Sprint that doesn’t and these moronic liberal state AGs keep wasting their states tax dollars in stupid lawsuits. They are gonna feel real dumb (even though it’s hard for a dummy to feel dumb) when Sprint goes under and there are three competitors anyway and the spread of 5G really slows down for those in rural areas.

        • John Doe

          T-Mobile does not have all the time in the world. They have to start investing in 5G or they will be behind the competition. They have to get more spectrum and if they can’t get it from Sprint in time then they will get it from somewhere else and end the sprint merger.

          It will actually be better if Sprint is allowed to go under because then it would be sold in pieces in an auction and T-Mobile’s customers will not be burdened with Sprint’s $33 billion debt.

          Also, True 5G will never reach rural areas. It barely reach a few city blocks things like a tree can get in the way lol so if you think you are going to get gigabit internet speeds with low latency in rural areas…think again.

        • Timbo1

          TMobile can still invest in 5G while fighting to merge and fight for Sprints midband 5G because they could still buy C band in June or July while waiting for the appeals process to go through and hopefully in November some of these AGs will go the way of the dodo, even though it’s more likely that the merger would go through if that happens. The plus with Tmobiles plan is focusing on low band and midband 5G and not the useless mmWave except for what they already have.

        • John Doe

          T-Mobile does not have a lot of money, They can spend it on spectrum in the auction or spend it on merging with Sprint. Also most of these AGs are democratic in a very blue states so they are not going anywhere and most likely Trump will lose which means you can kiss the merger goodbye for good.

        • Timbo1

          Nah Trump isn’t losing to the current crop of idiots that are running on the other side.

        • John Doe

          That is funny.

        • Timbo1

          It was funny to say he would beat that wench Clinton in 2016 too.

        • John Doe

          He lost though the popular vote though lol

        • Timbo1

          Oh come on, don’t tell me you are one of those idiots who thinks we should get rid of the electoral college.

        • John Doe

          Yes I am one of those idiots that believe in a democracy lol but regardless if I was going to place any bets on who will win it would be any democrat because people hated Hillary and she still won the popular vote imagine what will happen when someone who is not hated is running against him.

        • Timbo1

          Thankfully we don’t live in a democracy!

        • John Doe

          Thankfully we have the power to change that and give the people more of a voice. Our constitution is not set in stone and can be modified and hopefully it will be.

        • Timbo1

          Lol it’s takes 2/3s of the country to change anything about the Constitution and that won’t happen.

        • John Doe

          It has happened before several times actually haha

        • Timbo1

          I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if a second civil war doesn’t start because of what is happening in Virginia.

        • John Doe

          Why do you want to lose again? California alone has the world’s 5th largest economy lol

        • Timbo1

          Only because they have the highest tax rate in the country and so many people are leaving the state they are losing house seats! California sucks!!

        • John Doe

          Lol doesn’t change that they are the biggest and most powerful state.

        • Timbo1

          Why do I want to lose? Last time I checked it was primarily Democrats that owned slaves. By the way I’m not a Republican either.

        • John Doe

          Well if there is a civil war it would be against red and blue states or conservatives and liberals. If that is the case then whichever side the North East and West are on is the winning side lol and you just said you oppose liberals and Democrats so it means you would be on the losing side again.

        • Timbo1

          Everyone hates socialism, except those who want freebies and lazy people. That’s what this election will come down to, socialism and eroding our rights, starting with the 2nd amendment and due process.
          I’m sorry but select counties in the U.S. should not decide a presidential election. Only reason why Hilary won popular vote was because she won the 5 counties of NYC and L.A. County, some of the most populous counties in America. That’s exactly why we aren’t a democracy but a Democratic Republic. Huge difference. Democracies just like socialism fail.

        • John Doe

          You clearly do not understand what a popular vote is. The electoral college is where only select states get to decide who wins. The popular vote is the majority of citizens of the U.S. That is democracy. That is listening to the people. That is allowing your people to influence the government not just corporations and rich people. That is giving a voice to everyday working Americans. We are not a democratic republic, we are a representative republic.

    • Capt CD

      Where did the States say they will appeal if it does not go there way?

      • John Doe

        In Fierce wireless and WSJ, they said that either party could appeal and that T-Mobile and Sprint’s deal have expired so either of them can walk away after the trial. Obviously the states have more incentive and time to appeal while T-Mobile and Sprint do not. They are also facing another court in DC.

        • Capt CD

          “Could” is not equal to “will”.
          I do believe that all States that are part of the legal action are Dem AGs. (You can debate all day if the State is Blue or Red or Purple.)

        • John Doe

          Do you want to bet money that NY and California will appeal if they lose? They literally have nothing to lose by appealing lol

          So what if they are democratic? The people of the state voted for them including red states. The Texas attorney general was part of it put dropped out and he is as conservative as they get.

        • Timbo1

          He dropped it. That’s the point.

        • John Doe

          But he was apart of it, that says something even if he dropped out later

        • Timbo1

          Still dropped out. Saw the error of his ways.

        • John Doe

          No he dropped out because he settled with T-Mobile not because he was wrong if TMobile breaks there settlement then he can sue them again.

        • slybacon

          You are correct that the only ones suing to stop the merger are Democrat Generals Attorney.

      • Timbo1

        They haven’t yet.

    • White_Mamba

      Stupid fucking liberals

      • John Doe

        There are red states in the trial.

        • White_Mamba

          The only real states that have power are the two most liberal states, New York and California. The deal will go through, remember this post

        • John Doe

          That does not change the fact that is not all “liberal”. There are red and purple states part of the trial.

        • slybacon

          There are no republican Generals Attorney suing to stop the merger; they are all Democrats.

        • John Doe

          There were but they settled including the Texas AG. And I never said anything about the AG I said red States.

        • JG

          There are red states in the trial

          False… Pennsylvania is opposed to the merger (18th to join the opposition) and is part of Team Trump.

          AG Shapiro is a democrat… But the state is red…

        • John Doe

          Mississippi
          Michigan
          Wisconsin

          and Texas was part of and settled these are all states that voted for Trump aka red states. I never said the AGs were republicans

        • JG

          Ah, my bad… Re-read your comment… Totally misread what you were trying to say…

  • Corey Kohler

    no one argued on all the mergers that help form AT&T and VZW. Look what’s happen in the past 15 years. We used to have 5 carriers per market? That’s when competition was best, 99-01. Break up. VZW and AT&T

    • JG

      Break up. VZW and AT&T

      T-Mobile vs Sprint vs AT&T-1 vs AT&T-2 vs Verizon-1 vs Verizon-2…

      That would make 6 carriers. I know I’m no maths major, but last time I checked, 6 > 4 > 3. So using the AG’s logic, breaking up AT&T and Verizon into smaller companies would be even better…

      Either way, splitting AT&T and Verizon or merging Sprint and T-Mobile could put all of the carriers on equal footing…. Right now Sprint and T-Mobile both have 70 million subscribers while AT&T and Verizon have 130. We could either have three with 130 each or 6 with 70 each.

      • Lin Nakamura

        Because T-Mobile (and not the DoJ
        Or FCC) selected Dish as a company to acquire spectrum, retail locations and customers, this merger as it stands today, creates a severely weaker VZ and AT&T.

        And like it or not, the number of AT&T + Verizon customers is greater than “New” T-Mobile as well:

        Ideally, the spectrum, customers and infrastructure (including Sprint’s ISP and fiber optic business) would NOT have been ASSIGNED to Dish, instead, they would have been AUCTIONED in an asset sale. The downstream effects to AT&T and VZW customers will be felt for decades…

        More importantly, if apparoved, this merger creates new legal prescedent for mergers that in the past would have been considered “Presumptively Illegal” under Herfindahl-Hirschman Index market concentration metrics.

        You’d only be “for” this merger if you like big, ugly, angry companies.

      • I know that you’re just trying to make a point but your numbers are way off lol

        • JG

          I was in the ballpark at least.

          AT&T Mobility: 162.3 million (Q3 2019)
          Verizon Wireless: 118.7 million (Q3 2019)
          T-Mobile US: 83.1 million (Q2 2019)
          Sprint Corporation: 54.5 million (Q1 2019)

          T-Mo/Sprint will have 137.6 million if merged (assuming no one jumps ship of course). That’d put them almost exactly halfway between AT&T and Verizon (2.9 million too few).

          81.15 if AT&T were to be split in half. 59.35 million to dissect Verizon. So it wouldn’t make 6 equals. But AT&Ts and T-Mo would be in a rough tie for top tier while the Verizons and Sprint were roughly tied for the second tier.

          Of course it would ultimately depend on how the network gets divided. That’s probably why AT&T has twice the number of subscribers as T-Mobile and Verizon twice Sprint’s (interesting they follow GSM and CDMA pairings). Together AT&T and Verizon hold far more spectrum [70-80% of the sub 1Ghz I believe the figure is] (and probably have more towers to broadcast it from) than T-Mobile and Sprint.

        • Where did you get those numbers? Those aren’t correct either. Verizon is #1 and both AT&T and Verizon are bigger than Sprint and T-Mobile combined, which is the main reason the merger wasn’t flat-out rejected.

        • JG

          en.m wikipedia org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers

          When I googled to see how many subscribers Verizon has it gave me 158 million as an answer above the search results. But none of the other carriers resulted in a direct answer. Found that article when I was searching for T-Mo’s

        • Yeah, there’s something weird going on. Verizon must have pulled some kind of trick last year to avoid any risk of being broken up.

          Either way, how would breaking up work in terms of spectrum and towers? How could it be done without ruining coverage for everyone unless the government buys all of the towers and spectrum and leases them?

        • Okay, I’m having an existential crisis right now because none of this makes any sense and I don’t know what’s going on. There was never that big of a difference between the big two. For those numbers to be right, Verizon had to have lost over 35 million subs at some point. Unless they split something off themselves this makes no sense.

  • George B

    Can T-Mobile buy Sprint 2.6 GHz BRS licenses in states not opposed to the merger, giving Sprint an infusion of cash and T-Mobile an infusion of spectrum? T-Mobile gets to start building a 5G network on the less encumbered half of Sprint’s Band 41 spectrum while renting wholesale access back to Sprint. Sprint continues to exist as a somewhat smaller competitor with an actual network deployed today.

    • slybacon

      I like the idea of T-Mobile buying these licenses and building their 5G network in states that haven’t opposed the merger (that would mean red states, as blue states’ generals attorney are the only ones opposing it).

      • JG

        Not entirely correct… Pennsylvania’s AG is one of the dozen against it, yet PA, save a small enclave in Pittsburgh (or was it Philadelphia) went Team Trump.

        • slybacon

          Okay true. But the AG’s are all Democrats last I looked a month or so ago. Maybe T-Mobile can leave Pittsburg and/or Philly out of it? In the end they’ll want to support their customers wherever they may be.

    • Lin Nakamura

      Well, the problem as I see it, is that Sprint doesn’t have an effective social media strategy and also the way customer service occurs is still stuck in the 1980s.

      Sprint takes every customer interaction (even when I call to get information) as an upsell opportunity. Not every customer calls in to Sprint customer service has to be sold another plan, phone, or feature. It’s almost like Sprint has a quota for this.

      For me, Sprint is just fine. I pay $15/month for a grandfathered rateplan with unlimited service and it includes 100-200 minutes a month for roaming when I need it and the speed I get is 90-100Megs/second.

  • psiclone

    I’ve been on both networks. Sprint is not very good, but with both networks, I stand to gain as a customer. I get access to both networks, better coverage and maybe a wider selection of phones. Having Verizon and AT&T being bigger networks already, and gaining a third larger competitor is good for competition. I would rather have 3 big competitors than 2 big and 2 small. We already see that smaller spin-offs like Boost, etc., provide enough competition on the smaller scale. I could care less if the cost went up much anyway. Why wouldn’t you pay more for a better network? People already claim to be doing this with Verizon and AT&T. I’ve been on Verizon, good network, when you’re call doesn’t drop between locations, but I see that on every network. The customer service is crap on Verizon and Sprint. The fact that we don’t, in most cases, have universal broadband access, or even municipality-controlled broadband wired networks in 2020 should tell you something about how these states run the place. I want T-Mo and Sprint to merge. Heck we’re already wasting crap-tons of money on Representatives and Senators to act like children all day every day as it is. If Dish gets hold of a fourth, I can’t see that as a positive. Those punks wouldn’t let me cancel my satellite service for months…charging me even though we asked them to cancel and they said they would.