Home  ›  News  ›

FCC Chief Glad Sprint Ditching T-Mobile Bid

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 24 replies

This Says It All.....

Slammer

Aug 6, 2014, 11:09 AM
....."Wheeler's statement sends a clear signal that the FCC likes things the way they are, with AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless all competing with one another."

I'm quite sure AT&T and VZW feel the same way.

John B.
...
msteven3

Aug 6, 2014, 11:59 AM
I don't know what Wheeler's motivations are, but I at least agree with his statement. Where we may differ is that I think that, instead of trying to buy a competitor, Sprint needs to get its own house in order and actually provide a service that people want. T-Mobile seems to be doing a good job at adding subs, while Sprint is bleeding subs and money.

If DT wants to sell T-Mobile, it needs to sell it to a company that isn't already involved in the wireless business in this country. We need to keep at least four national carriers.

But, to go a bit offtopic, my opinion of why Sprint and T-Mobile lag behind AT&T and Verizon is mainly because the two smaller carriers have refused to expand their coverage outside of major metro areas and...
(continues)
...
Slammer

Aug 6, 2014, 1:01 PM
We need to look at what type of subs T-Mobile is gaining. While we don't have conclusive facts on this, many are going to be what Sprint didn't need in the first place and what VZW and AT&T found least profitable.

Why do so many people feel extensive coverage is so important. I have concluded in so many mathmatical figuring that most don't need the kind of extensive coverage AT&T and VZW have successfully marketed to the consumers. Sprint's coverage is actually very good. I can go just about anywhere and have service. At the few times where there is no Sprint service, I roam on VZW. I think the largest complaint is in building signal. Both Tmobile and Sprint have addressed this with the low band spectrum holding they have acquired. Tmobi...
(continues)
...
cellwatcher

Aug 6, 2014, 1:37 PM
Sure the government is in bed with the big 2 campaign donors/lobbyists.....err cell phone companies. Here in Montana with almost 1 million people there IS NOT ONE person who can get native coverage out of Sprint or T-Mobile. Ditto for most of North Dakota, significant parts of Idaho & Wyoming. While this just represents 2-3 million people ALL of them have to have Verizon or AT&T.... & that is exactly where the growth could be for the 2 smaller companies. I appreciate T-Mobile & Sprints "unlimited data" stances but after having been with them living in Illinois, Florida, New Mexico, Washington, Utah & Idaho I can safely say their DATA IS COMPLETE GARBAGE whenever you leave most metro areas. Like unusable. Having gone with Sprint several...
(continues)
...
cellwatcher

Aug 6, 2014, 1:41 PM
Left one thing out. I for one was hoping for the merger to create a viable third carrier to give big red & big blue some REAL & much-needed competition. I think an 85,000,000 strong combined company would have been able to vastly expand and improve their networks to actually compete. I don't get how the government thinks 2 companies, one with 115,000,000 customers & another with 105,000,000 vs #3 with 50,000,000 & #4 with only 35,000,000 is actually competition. It's like 2 random junior high school flag football teams against the Seahawks & Broncos.
...
Zpike

Aug 6, 2014, 1:52 PM
That's right. What the cellular industry really needs is some 49er's to come in and crush the Broncos and Seachickens.
...
Slammer

Aug 6, 2014, 5:00 PM
I agree 100%. The mere fact that the FCC and the DoJ had to think about the AT&T/Tmobile merge, is proof that big money was involved with trying to slide it on. There should've been no thinking. It should've been a cut dry; NO just like they did for Softbank and Tmobile.

John B.
...
Versed

Aug 7, 2014, 9:04 PM
In bed, not so sure, prefering the big two carriers, yes, I think they do for whatever reason. Not all of Sprints problems can be blamed on AT&T and VZW, many were bad decisions on their part.

As far as data speeds lets be honest, on a smartphone, I really doubt anywould notice a difference between 15 or so mb's down then 30. That all is bragging rights. Rather see some nationwide consistancy on all the carriers then people posting they got 64mb's down on TMO. And I don't doubt them. Even I've seen some fast speedchecks, then drive 10 minutes and you're lucky you get hspa+.

3 weeks or so I got a One Plus One, and see very little differences between big blue and magenta.
...
Zpike

Aug 8, 2014, 10:40 AM
>>, I really doubt anywould notice a difference between 15 or so mb's down then 30. That all is bragging rights.

So, I'm sure that when you're in traffic you don't notice any difference between the lane moving 15 mph and the lane moving 30 mph. The people in the lane moving 30 mph just have bragging rights, but they're not really getting anywhere any faster, right?
...
Versed

Aug 9, 2014, 4:29 PM
Apple's and Oranges.
...
Zpike

Aug 11, 2014, 10:15 AM
Nice to say that. Care to explain how its different?
...
Zpike

Aug 15, 2014, 12:16 PM
Didn't think so.
...
Slammer

Aug 6, 2014, 4:54 PM
---"Here in Montana with almost 1 million people there IS NOT ONE person who can get native coverage out of Sprint or T-Mobile."---

Variances and licensing is fickle for tower placement. I can agree that many areas could use more choices. However, an instance happened near me a few years ago where Sprint tried to build a tower and were voted down by the town. Miraculously, a year and half later, AT&T was given approval for the same area. Another example is a place in the Adirondacks was just given a variance for a tower in the Hamlet to build. It specifies that only AT&T and/or VZW have the rights to installing antennae on these towers. Any other carrier would have to seek another tower variance.

These are only a couple of examples...
(continues)
...
cellwatcher

Aug 6, 2014, 10:00 PM
I hope so John! I am always looking for Sprint & T-Mobile to expand and even knowing I would receive sub-par service to Verizon & AT&T I would prefer to be with them because I really appreciate their stances on data usage, pricing & just being more fair overall with their customers. It is sad to not even have the option here.
...
acdc1a

Aug 6, 2014, 3:01 PM
Come on John, we know exactly what the adds are, it's called a quarterly statement. 908,000 post paid adds. With Simple Choice plans, there really aren't value destroyers the way there used to be.

There's no reason for a merger and we've disagreed on this from the beginning. Dish is just sitting on substantial spectrum albeit high frequency. They would be a better suitor for T-Mobile.

Sprint is also sitting on a lot of spectrum. Why aren't they deploying it and taking on Verizon and At&t?
...
gfondeur

Aug 7, 2014, 2:40 AM
Exactly the reason I never saw sprint as a minor player, they just whine and cry about how small they are and want everyone to believe that, between all the frequencies they have they probably have same or more spectrum than at&t
...
amarryat

Aug 6, 2014, 3:03 PM
"We need to look at what type of subs T-Mobile is gaining. While we don't have conclusive facts on this, many are going to be what Sprint didn't need in the first place and what VZW and AT&T found least profitable. "

They were postpaid customers. The most desired kind.

Verizon added more customers, but most of them were for tablets. Remove tablets from the equation, ie lets talk about cell phones only, and T-Mobile added more postpaid than Verizon.
...
Slammer

Aug 6, 2014, 5:47 PM
---"They were postpaid customers. The most desired kind."---

At the risk of sounding stereotypical, what kind of post paid? I know many individuals that can't afford to flush their toilets, yet, still have post paid phones.

John B.
...
cellwatcher

Aug 6, 2014, 10:08 PM
Good one! 🤣 I always find that hilarious too that postpaid customers just "walk on water". With a 790 FICO score I could be "post" paid with anyone but I CHOOSE to be prepaid. I like to pay, in advance, for what I get with no surprise charges & no overages. Cricket (AT&T) is working out great for me at present but if T-Mobile, Sprint prepaid or one of their MVNO's had service here I would go with them. Is postpaid money greener? Postpaid is so last decade & probably will go away completely at some point like in the rest of the world that is already prepaid now.
...
amarryat

Aug 7, 2014, 7:16 AM
I have no idea. I have just read that they're the ones the companies want. Money is money, right? But for whatever reason, they covet postpaid. Maybe because it feels more like a contract?
...
thebriang

Aug 7, 2014, 12:43 PM
"At the risk of sounding stereotypical, what kind of post paid? I know many individuals that can't afford to flush their toilets, yet, still have post paid phones."

And that has What exactly to do with the value of the subscriber? Post paid's are more valuable because they make a lot more profit off them, plain and simple, and there is an contractual ETF tied to your social just in case they default.
A carrier doesn't Really care if they pay their bill or not, if they don't often the carrier makes more whether or not they pay the ETF due to charge offs. The carriers pay the master agents hundreds of dollars, often well over $500 for a Single good credit post paid activation in addition to the dealer subsidy offset. This business mode...
(continues)
...
Versed

Aug 7, 2014, 8:52 PM
John,
I happen to agree having four carriers woud be better then 3, having 5 major carriers would be even better. You may not believe me, but I wish all of them did well. And I also agree I don't know how long TMO will be able to keep this up. Sprint as far as using evdo and regular voice for calls ir good here, but they always neglected where I live improving data. No LTE, and previous no WiMAX and that with all of their promises. I will also say I dislike CDMA, I think half the problems in our nation is do to locked down CDMA. I have two line for myself, my family plan is with AT&T, and with their new schemes and corporate discount the price isn't bad. 5 Smartphones, 10 gb of data, unlimited calls and texts cost me there abouts...
(continues)
...
Cellular Phone

Aug 7, 2014, 10:31 AM
They acquired several multi-regional (or national) carriers over the years:

AT&T (formerly Cingular Wireless) became a giant when the former Cingular Wireless bought out the floundering old AT&T Wireless in 2003/4. AT&T bought out additional regional carriers like Cell One Dobson.

Verizon Wireless bought out Alltel in 2009.

Both the current AT&T and Verizon Wireless were formed as a result of mega mergers:

Verizon Wireless was formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic Mobile, Vodafone/Airtouch Cellular, GTE Wireless and PrimeCo.

Cingular was formed by the merger of BellSouth Wireless and SBC Wireless in 2001. (both companies had previously gobbled up several other carriers around the country)

Sprint and T-Mobile have made a...
(continues)
...
Slammer

Aug 7, 2014, 4:23 PM
This is what I try to explain to others here but they fail to listen. We should be thankful that these people don't run these companies. They think that it is so easy to just purchase carriers.

VZW and AT&T were destined to be the largest right from the start. The Bell system had it all worked out from the beginning. Equivalent to a rich person willing the entire fortune to their children.

John B.
...
Globhead

Aug 9, 2014, 9:00 PM
Big difference between buying up competitors in areas you already serve and buying up non-competitors in areas you don't.

Most of those large mergers in the past required the buyer to sell off redundant properties. It was not just a competitor buyout like Sprint was aiming for (or AT&T when they recently tried to do the same).

As of now, Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon have little need to add more area.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.