T-Mobile & Sprint said nearing agreement on merger, could sign deal in October

Posted:
in iPhone
T-Mobile and Sprint are reportedly close to "tentative terms" on a long-rumored merger deal, and could finalize an agreement by the end of October.




T-Mobile owner Deutsche Telekom would own a majority stake in the combined company, while Sprint parent SoftBank would take somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, Reuters sources said on Friday. T-Mobile CEO John Legere would allegedly assume leadership.

The people cautioned that negotiations could still break down -- any merger might also be stopped by U.S. regulatory agencies, given the narrow concentration of power in the telecommunications landscape.

While operating on a national scale, T-Mobile and Sprint have long sat in the shadow of the two biggest U.S. carriers, AT&T and Verizon. Even a merged entity, with over 130 million subscribers, would still be somewhat smaller.

SoftBank previously considered buying T-Mobile in 2014, but abandoned it in light of opposition by regulators. T-Mobile has grown substantially since then and in fact outpaced Sprint.

Any merger would have a particular impact on U.S. iPhone shoppers, especially as people buying direct from Apple must choose one of the major national carriers or go SIM-free, setting up with a carrier on their own. Today the company launched the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus in markets around the globe.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    bshank
  • Reply 2 of 46
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
    dysamoriaRacerhomieXbaconstangtmay
  • Reply 3 of 46
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,782member
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    Ah, this brings back memories of when Randall Stephenson (aka The Randster) tried to buy T-Mobile and cost AT&T a few billion when the deal blew up in his face. He even got a ding in his salary and stock options over it as I recall. When I was still working for AT&T we used to have to sit and watch pep talks from Randall (don’t cha call me Randy) a couple of times a year. Looks like a used card salesman.
  • Reply 4 of 46
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    T-Mobile is better than sprint. And honestly deserves a fighting chance against Verizon and at&t.  This will ultimately provide T-Mobile with better coverage and spectrum. And I see it as a gift to all sprint users. Because there service I've heard sucks.  
    bshank
  • Reply 5 of 46
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
    We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
    tallest skilRacerhomieX
  • Reply 6 of 46
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
    Typically I would agree.
    But here we have 2 overly dominant players who aren't all that competitive with each other and 2 also rans.
    ...  We might be better off with 3 strong companies -- we MIGHT even see some actual competition.
    Soli2old4funbshank
  • Reply 7 of 46
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
    We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
    Great ideology!
    ... It would be even greater if it worked.
    dysamoriatmaymrboba1
  • Reply 8 of 46
    OK... that’s weird. I posted a response to Tshapi and the entire response disappeared (and there was nothing offensive whatsoever in the post).
  • Reply 9 of 46
    Back in the days of flip phones and Palm Treo's I got consistently outstanding customer service from Sprint.  Then it all went to hell.  I haven't seen that level of service from anybody since -- Well, Consumer Cellular has been coming close, but they're not really a carrier.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    T-Mobile has proved disruptive in the cellphone industry.  I would almost gaurantee that they will bring the fight to att and verizon. I won't how they will handle creating a solid network. I believe sprint operates with cdma cellular network underneith its LTE and WiMAX. Where as T-Mobile uses GSM 
  • Reply 11 of 46
    Sprint is terrible. I have T-Mobile now, and it works great in my area. Some areas, not so well, but still better than Sprint. I had Sprint for a while and the coverage actually got worse every few months. Then they managed to screw up my bill for 6 months in a row. After 6 months and many lost hours on the phone trying to get them to fix their issues, I wrote them a letter telling them to just go away. Then, I had AT&T, and it wasn't bad, but T-Mobile offered better coverage in my area for less money, it was a no brainer. I had Verizon for home service and their customer service was so bad that I never want to speak to them again, let alone pay for their over-priced services. If T-mobile can take over Sprint, great, if not, let them go away.
  • Reply 12 of 46
    bellsbells Posts: 121member
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    The trouble with your argument is the Public owns the frequency they use.  Companies like T-Mobile only have a non-transferable license to use the frequency. So the owner of the frequencies need to provide consent to a merger that transfers usage rights.
    dysamoriaGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 13 of 46
    bells said:
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    The trouble with your argument is the Public owns the frequency they use.  Companies like T-Mobile only have a non-transferable license to use the frequency. So the owner of the frequencies need to provide consent to a merger that transfers usage rights.
    The reason SoftBank has attempted this merger for the second time is trump is a corporate friendly administration more so than Obama.  
  • Reply 14 of 46
    bellsbells Posts: 121member
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
    We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
    This has little to do with regulation. It has to do with ownership rights of the frequencies the at issues companies use. The public owns the airwaves. The companies just have non-transferable rights.

    if competition was the goal, killing the proposed ATT merger was one of the best decisions to ever happen to the cellular industry.
    Soli
  • Reply 15 of 46
    bells said:
    This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
    Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
    We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
    This has little to do with regulation. It has to do with ownership rights of the frequencies the at issues companies use. The public owns the airwaves. The companies just have non-transferable rights.

    if competition was the goal, killing the proposed ATT merger was one of the best decisions to ever happen to the cellular industry.
    Blocked mergers have little to do with regulation? What are you talking about? They have everything to do with regulation.

    And if the public actually “owns the airwaves” then there is no need for the FCC.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 16 of 46
    If I remember correctly, the reason why the original merger in 2014 didn't happen is because the regulatory committy under Obama sited that it would create less competition.  Article below from 2014 http://www.engadget.com/amp/2014/03/13/sprint-tmobile-merger/


    edited September 2017 baconstang
  • Reply 17 of 46
    tshapi said:
    If I remember correctly, the reason why the original merger in 2014 didn't happen is because the regulatory committy under Obama sited that it would create less competition.  Article below from 2014 http://www.engadget.com/amp/2014/03/13/sprint-tmobile-merger/


    Mergers should almost never be blocked. I can’t think of a real world reason why they should. If competition is actually functioning, no so-called monopoly is possible.
  • Reply 18 of 46
    tshapi said:
    If I remember correctly, the reason why the original merger in 2014 didn't happen is because the regulatory committy under Obama sited that it would create less competition.  Article below from 2014 http://www.engadget.com/amp/2014/03/13/sprint-tmobile-merger/


    Mergers should almost never be blocked. I can’t think of a real world reason why they should. If competition is actually functioning, no so-called monopoly is possible.
    Quite honestly, I think they just dropped the bid and blamed it on regulation. 
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 19 of 46
    I’m going to flip two sentences for effect.

    If competition is actually functioning, no so-called monopoly is possible. I can’t think of a real world reason why they should.
    Lack of functioning competition is a real-world reason.  :'(
    edited September 2017 dysamoriatmay
  • Reply 20 of 46
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,241member
    As long as it’s basically T-Mobile getting Sprint’s coverage and customers & basically nothing else, great. If they are taking on management, corporate attitude & customer service, then no thank you.
    stompy
Sign In or Register to comment.