Ten US states file suit to block proposed Sprint & T-Mobile merger

Posted:
in iPhone edited June 11
The attorneys general of 10 U.S. states are launching a civil antitrust lawsuit to halt a proposed $26.5 billion merger of Sprint and T-Mobile, intensifying the carriers' uphill battle.

iPhone XR and XS


Participating states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The host for the suit is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

There are already just four dominant U.S. carriers, the suit warns, serving "at least 90%" of the country. It also accuses T-Mobile's controlling shareholder -- Deutsche Telekom -- of admitting that the merger any of those carriers would result in less competition and better profits for the remaining few.

Some statements by T-Mobile and Deutsche Telekom are redacted in the public version of the AG complaint.

"The combined market share of Sprint and T-Mobile would result in an increase in market
concentration that significantly exceeds the thresholds at which mergers are presumed to violate the antitrust laws," the suit alleges. "This increased market concentration will result in diminished competition, higher prices, and reduced quality and innovation."

While the merger has garnered support from the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice has reportedly been a strong opponent, with one rumor claiming it wants the creation of a spinoff carrier as a condition of approval.

Sprint and T-Mobile have imposed a July 29 deadline, and reportedly floated multiple concessions including the sale of Sprint's Boost Mobile brand, and a commitment to a three-year 5G expansion without hiking prices in the interim. A potential buyer for Boost may be Amazon.

The merged entity would still control Metro and Virgin Mobile USA, giving it massive influence over both the postpaid and prepaid markets.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    I think it should be "attorneys general", not attorney generals.
    bigtdsdavgregchasmforgot usernameSpamSandwichdysamoria
  • Reply 2 of 18
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 349member
    I think it should be "attorneys general", not attorney generals.
    True.
    The use of “General” to address an Attorney General is also wrong, but has become rampant in the media. It is as stupid as calling a General Counsel at a corporation as “General”.

    Attorney General comes from the French mode of title Attorney- General . 
    Our language is a dumpster fire these days.
    edited June 11 dysamoria
  • Reply 3 of 18
    RayerRayer Posts: 26member
    I think it should be "attorneys general", not attorney generals.
    You are correct, although I never understood that grammar portion of the English language.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    Oh man. I live in the DMV (DC, Maryland, Virginia area) and they are blocking the merger? T-Mobile reception is not that great and was hoping that the Sprint Spectrum/Towers would help out.
  • Reply 5 of 18
    RayerRayer Posts: 26member
    Oh man. I live in the DMV (DC, Maryland, Virginia area) and they are blocking the merger? T-Mobile reception is not that great and was hoping that the Sprint Spectrum/Towers would help out.
    Umm, if T-Mobile sucks in that area, Sprint is better, and you presumably have T-Mobile, why haven't you switched? Seems like a simple solution.
  • Reply 6 of 18
    davgreg said:
    I think it should be "attorneys general", not attorney generals.
    True.
    The use of “General” to address an Attorney General is also wrong, but has become rampant in the media. It is as stupid as calling a General Counsel at a corporation as “General”.

    Attorney General comes from the French mode of title Attorney- General . 
    Our language is a dumpster fire these days.
    And those in their office are Attorneys Colonel, Attorneys Major, Attorneys Captain, and Attorneys Lieutenant, depending on their scope of work.

    Maybe I'm thinking of something different.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    normangnormang Posts: 75member
    There are pros and cons to everything... I think the biggest opposition to this merger is because someone mentioned a dirty word, called "profits", can't have those these days. What happens if Sprint finally dies the slow death I think its suffering. Is that a good thing? For some people its probably ok.. which is too bad..
  • Reply 8 of 18
    Rayer said:
    I think it should be "attorneys general", not attorney generals.
    You are correct, although I never understood that grammar portion of the English language.
    In this case, "general" is an adjective modifying "attorney", it just is weird because it comes *after* the noun (because of its French origins.)

    English is pretty much a dumpster fire of a language in any case.



    RayerStrangeDayscornchipdysamoria
  • Reply 9 of 18
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,564member
    Does these Attorney Generals (BTW I believe this is a formal title thus the "s" on general but whom am i to say English like to break rules) anyway do they realize the alternative is to just shut it all down. Sprint and T-Mobile could decide it is not longer worth it and just shut it all down then what is the idiots going to do. The fact these two exist has not driven pricing down, it only gone up unless one of them are trying to sucker people to move.
    cornchip
  • Reply 10 of 18
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,531member
    I can’t say as I’m well-informed enough of the pros and cons of this merger to say if it would ultimately be a good thing or bad thing, but I can say that if it didn’t go through and Sprint died as a result, another existing carrier or a new entrant would swoop up those assets and spectrum, so I don’t think there’s much to worry about on that front.

    I’m concerned about the clause that they won’t agree to raise prices on “5G” for three years. IOW, you can expect to pay more for service soon, from basically everyone.

    Currently I’m against the merger simply because the current (and corrupt) chair of the FCC is for it. Everything he’s done, almost without exception, has been pro-corporate and anti-consumer.
    fastasleepcornchipdysamoria
  • Reply 11 of 18
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member
    I was basically for this merger until I just spoke to a Sprint employee that said the company was RIF'n employees in lieu of cheaper Asian labor based on the potential merger. 
    It's potentially a net loss for many stateside jobs.  That's enough for many here to block the merger. 

    cornchipchasmdysamoria
  • Reply 12 of 18
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,312member
    Rayer said:
    I think it should be "attorneys general", not attorney generals.
    You are correct, although I never understood that grammar portion of the English language.
    In this case, "general" is an adjective modifying "attorney", it just is weird because it comes *after* the noun (because of its French origins.)

    English is pretty much a dumpster fire of a language in any case.



    “The English language is very simple, every word has its own rule”

    — uncle jay explains the news


    PS. FWIW my investor buddy’s take - “As for the merger, they would control something like 80% of prepaid customers in the US. Clearly too much market power in my view.”

    edited June 11 dysamoria
  • Reply 13 of 18
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 942member
    I was basically for this merger until I just spoke to a Sprint employee that said the company was RIF'n employees in lieu of cheaper Asian labor based on the potential merger. 
    It's potentially a net loss for many stateside jobs.  That's enough for many here to block the merger. 

    Not really a good reason. Sprint will eventually die the death. Separate they are both terrible coverage wise. On the other hand T-Mobile tends to shake up the market in customer friendly ways the others are forced to follow. We need a major 3rd player because having Verizon and AT&T with 2 also rans is not enough real competition to drive prices down. 
  • Reply 14 of 18
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 436member
    Merger being opposed by left leaning States, although Mississippi is a head scratcher. Obviously politically influenced. Not sure why though. This is the merger that should happen. It would actually be beneficial to the market. T-Mobile and Sprint by themselves can't compete effectively against Verizon or ATT. A merged T-Mobile and Sprint would be big enough to bring some real competition to the cellular space, improving customer service and reducing prices - exactly the opposite of what the AG complaint is claiming. Protections do need to remain in place to service MVNOs.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    Rayer said:
    Oh man. I live in the DMV (DC, Maryland, Virginia area) and they are blocking the merger? T-Mobile reception is not that great and was hoping that the Sprint Spectrum/Towers would help out.
    Umm, if T-Mobile sucks in that area, Sprint is better, and you presumably have T-Mobile, why haven't you switched? Seems like a simple solution.

    I was AT&T but it was getting too expensive when I added my Apple Watch 4, so I switched to T-Mobile. AT&T and Verizon seem best in the area for reception. I'm hoping that the merger will make the combine company equal in service for reception.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,113member
    If this merger is stopped Sprint goes bust. 
  • Reply 17 of 18
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,143member
    If this merger is stopped Sprint goes bust. 
    What do you want? Corporate welfare? If they’re running themselves out of business, it’s their own fault. If the anticompetitive behavior of the remaining cell companies is the real problem, handing Sprint’s assets and customers to them, merger after merger, isn’t a benefit to competition; it just compounds the problem. What is needed here is antitrust action against the ISPs.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    cornchip said:
    Rayer said:
    I think it should be "attorneys general", not attorney generals.
    You are correct, although I never understood that grammar portion of the English language.
    In this case, "general" is an adjective modifying "attorney", it just is weird because it comes *after* the noun (because of its French origins.)

    English is pretty much a dumpster fire of a language in any case.



    “The English language is very simple, every word has its own rule”

    — uncle jay explains the news



    My favorite quote about the English language's penchant for "borrowing" comes from James Nicoll:

    english doesn't borrow from other languages. english follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
Sign In or Register to comment.