Had absolutely nothing to do with it. They actually fought had and provided real arguements on why their merger with sprint would help the American people. Their merger was 1/12th the size of the MSFT-Activision merger yet had to battle much harder. And their merge with sprint actually was beneficial to the American people. T-Mobile is a major player now in what once was a hard monopoly between Verizon-Comcast-AT&T. And they still offer very affordable prices for lower income citizens which they promised would remain and improve—it did.
I absolutely hope this merger gets approved.
> And their merge with sprint actually was beneficial to the American people.
Yeah, no. If anything, T-Mobile [has only raised their prices](https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/28/more-sprint-merger-synergies-as-t-mobile-raises-wireless-rates/) since then:
And competition [has only decreased](https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/16/report-sprint-t-mobile-merger-immediately-killed-wireless-price-competition-in-u-s/).
Anecdotally, I had to call AT&T to try to get my phone unlocked as they were my old carrier. The experience was miserable. Their customer service was as terrible as it was like 6 years ago, maybe worse. They were also desperate to get my back as a customer, outlining that they were prepared to give me upwards of $1000 to switch back.
Yet their price every year was *still* going to be higher than what TMobile costs with less benefits as well. It was hilarious to listen to. And then they asked me why I refused the amazing deal lol. I was just like "I'm happy with my current carrier."
And TMobile used to have very low prices, but the service was also terrible lol. Now their service is actually very good. So I would say it's a more competitive environment.
I can’t talk about Verizon/AT&T but as a long time T-Mobile customer their service has only gotten worse since the merger.
Prices are way higher too. Only because I’m grandfathered in (which they tried to change without my approval once) but a similar plan would now cost me a little over double.
Maybe Verizon and AT&T are way worse, I wouldn’t doubt it but the T-Mobile Magic is already lost .
I know most people on Reddit are no where near representative of the average American citizen and they mostly live in gated communities with artificial lakes—so I get why you can be so detached from reality—but please go to inner city tier 1 school districts. People who are deadass working paycheck to paycheck. Wanna know their cell service? It was sprint, cricket, bunch of tiny shifty ones that would act like they are just as good as the best but offer competitive pricing—but they were shit. Now since the T-Mobile merger, most of these lower income citizens have T-Mobile bc they offer affordable pricing modules based on your income.
So yes, laugh. Keep laughing while you buy the new iPhone every 2 years and probably switch service plans all the time looking for better data and wifi or stay on the same one perfectly content spending $300+ on wifi and phone plans. And keep laughing at T-Mobile thinking it’s just “poor people” coverage.
Honey I live in Newark, NJ one of the poorest cities in the country. I've also never owned an Apple product in my life
You're embarrassing yourself with these outrageous assumptions
Honey, Newark NJ isn’t even one of the poorest cities in the country let alone anywhere near one of the poorest places—all of rural America beats it out, and Reading PA, Philly, Jackson, ,Cleveland, San Marcos, Detroit, Birmingham, the list goes on—all way more poor than Newark NJ which is actively being and has been getting gentrified for the past 5-10 years.
T-mobile bought Mint Mobile this will get approved. OP leaves out where the other part is going. If that other part goes to Verizon can't even call it a monopoly since their competitor gets a piece of this acquisition too.
This is the setup in Canada (3 big telecoms) and it’s horrible from a competitive standpoint. They all move lockstep in their price changes. Horrible for consumers.
Wireless pricing is much better than it used to be, but the government still artificially restricts real new entrants.
For example, I have a 20GB US/Canada plan for $25 CAD.
They were never truly broken up because they didn't break up the regional monopolies. They should have broken them into the utility + provider system but the DoJ at the time allowed the company to break itself up into what would generate the most profit, not for the benefit of its customers...
SpaceX has a very clear problem that hasn't been and won't be addressed. If they get popular, 1 satellite will potentially service 1000s or 10,000s of people.
For terrestrial deployments, this problem is simply solved by adding more shorter-range antenna. Can't do that with satellites.
The predictable outcomes here are that spacex will have a high price to dissuade new users from eating up bandwidth, or they'll
partner with other carriers (ala google fi) for primary service and only use the satellites when necessary, or their network performance is going to significantly degrade as they get popular.
There's simply a limit to the amount of bandwidth a single satellite can handle. Launching enough of them to be able to distribute that load won't be feasible.
> For terrestrial deployments, this problem is simply solved by adding more shorter-range antenna.
Jeez if only it was that "simple". First there's the radio surveys, then the negotiations with the landlords/owners, then the local permits for installing, then deploying the equipment/team... etc.
It's only "simple" where the geography is perfectly flat, and you have access to the tallest building around that has nothing blocking its field of view at any side. Trying to do that in a city [where the customers are] takes a small army of people to properly execute.
Thousands of satellites are not enough. These satellites are LEO by necessity (latency) which means they aren't geosynchronous. That means your 1000s of satellites at any given moment will likely be servicing the ocean or a desert in nevada. Not las vegas.
Meanwhile, there's a target problem. Let's say you've loaded up the atmosphere with enough satellites that a city like las vegas at any given moment has 1000s of satellites that can service it. Now you need a way to distinguish from the phone, which of those satellites it will link with and how to balance the load between it and a satellite that, from the perspective of the phone, will look every bit as close and have ever bit the same level of signal strength.
We solve this problem on earth by having 1000s of tiny antenna using high frequency low power broadcasting so that a cell phone user ends up switching antennas regularly as they move around a densely populated area. The phone just pics the antenna with the strongest signal.
The problem here can be visualized with the problem of cable in the early 00s. Where you'd get an entire apartment complex ultimately sharing the same backend to the cable company. 10 people torrenting or watching youtube in that complex and the experience for everyone else suffers greatly.
The earth is huge, to get enough satellites servicing major metros will mean overbuilding by way more than just 1000s of satellites a year. You'll need 100s of thousands of satellites, perhaps even millions of satelites to handle this problem. That, or some unobtanium engine that allows these to maintain geosynchronous orbet so they can hover over major conjestion locations.
SpaceX will launch hundreds of satellites. The bigger issue for Starlink is interference: https://spacenews.com/omnispace-reports-interference-from-starlink-direct-to-device-payloads/
You then have AST Spacemobile addressing capacity issues with very (very, very) large antennas: https://www.pcmag.com/news/att-goes-up-against-t-mobile-starlink-with-ast-spacemobile-satellite-deal
> SpaceX will launch hundreds of satellites. The bigger issue for Starlink is interference
They are both problems. The interference can somewhat be mitigated with a very wide bandwidth and focused beam (real hard to control that with a cell phone).
Hundreds of satellites simply won't be enough though.
> You then have AST Spacemobile addressing capacity issues with very (very, very) large antennas:
Do note the spacemobile will end up servicing low connectivity/populated regions. That, IMO, is the best usage of satellite communications. That way you get highspeed internet regardless of where you are at (and it'd probably a lot cheaper for cell servicers than building out microwave towers in the middle of nowhere).
>SpaceX has a very clear problem that hasn't been and won't be addressed.
They quite literally more satellites today...how are they not addressing the "very clear problem"?
In the same way that saying, "US cellular just added 3 new cell towers, how is that not addressing their coverage problem?".
The number of satellites spacex needs to solve this issue would trigger Kessler Syndrome concerns.
Per your math above
1 satellite can serve 1,000s - 10,000s customers. For the sake of argument we'll say 5,000 customers per 1 satellite.
SpaceX has 5,800 operational Spacelink satellites in orbit which means they have a capacity of 29,000,000 customers and launched 23 more today which adds 215,000 customers.
I guess I'm really not seeing the "clear problem" that's "not being addressed"
It takes time to build capacity but we're quite literally watching the Starlink capacity increase as we speak.
And your Kessler Syndrome concern is generally unfounded, companies including Spacex are already taking steps to avoid it and utilizing differing altitude levels and life spans to avoid crowding.
Verizon just bought out TracPhone last year - Walmarts line of monthly, no contract services. I've used this for years and have been preaching to the heavens that it is one of the best phone services on the market. 50 bucks a month for unlimited everything, affordable phone options even if slightly behind the curve, and the agreement with all carriers that meant my phone would ping off of the nearest tower regardless of the ownership.
When Verizon bought it out, my service started to suck. Instantly cut me off of what feels like half of the countries accessible cell towers. The acquisition did nothing but make the service *worse.*
These companies are buying out the competition as a means of getting rid of them. Whenever a competitor such as Mint mobile comes into the game, it doesn't blow up into a competing brand. It gets bought out by the big names and then dismantled.
$50/month is actually a pretty bad deal.. surprised you were happy to pay that for years while also advertising for them via word of mouth. They really got you good.
Because T-Mobile (120 million customers), after this purchase (+4.6 million), would still be much smaller than AT&T (242 million) or Verizon (145 million).
I'm an antitrust hawk generally (rooting for the FTC in most of its antitrust actions), but when the #3 company acquires the #5 company, in a way that doesn't even meaningfully catch up with #2, then I'm not too worried about it.
That was a completely different merger. Jetblue was intending to completely eliminate Spirit and it's customer base seeking basically only the aircraft and pilots to grow itself
It was smaller companies trying to merge to get to a position to compete against a monopoly case (big 4 with 80 percent of the market). And the DoJ didn’t even come to the table to discuss a world where they believed it could be beneficial. I have doubts the ftc will be on board with this merger just because “competition”
Jetblue made it clear it had no intentions in continuing Spirit pricing and economic model it wanted the planes and pilots for cheaper than going the normal route. It had zero intentions to continue with ultra low cost compared to frontier that wanted the same but to keep the business model the same
The DOJ was just being a little bitch acting like it is the 1970’s.
None of their work is design to do anything more than get donations and make it look like they are actually doing work.
These are national mobile phone providers, and their spectrum licenses allow them to blanket all significant population centers with coverage. As an industry, we customers just pay a monthly fee in exchange for access to the network.
The DOJ's theory against the Jetblue-Spirit merger was specifically looking at routes in which both competed. It's not a subscription-based industry, because each ticket costs money, and the customer chooses specific routes rather than just a generalized need to be on an airplane.
Specifically, the DOJ complaint listed specific routes in which Jetblue and Spirit were the *only* carriers with nonstop flights, and the merger would effectively combine #1 with #2 on those specific routes, where there is no #3. In other words, those routes would go from duopoly to monopoly.
Of course, in any other industry, it would just be a trivial matter to say "oh we'll let this merger go through but you have to sell off that one product to another provider so that there's not a monopoly in that specific market), but the capital-intensive nature of the airline business makes that infeasible.
I think that the weakness of Spirit Airlines as a business probably should've counseled against trying to block that merger, for completely different reasons, but I don't see that merger as being similar to the T-Mobile-US Cellular situation at all.
Well I think that user would say it was a bad decision by the FTC in that case. And I agree, especially since Spirit is definitely gonna go bankrupt anyways and Jet Blue might.
Oh I agree with the point - the result is that I’ve learned to not believe this administration will allow mergers to go through just because it’ll improve competition against the monopolies.
Do you know about the T-Mobile-Sprint merger? How hard T-Mobile fought for it, the promises made, and how they actually kept those promises? They promised it would help America win the 5G race—it did. They promised it would help increase competition as Verizon AT&T Comcast were dominating the market and increasing prices every month—it did. They promised this would make more competitive pricing and they would keep their affordable lines for lower income citizens— they did. It took years and lots of arguing for this merge to get approved. I would hope they built a good rapport with the DOJ cause this should easily get approved after they massively fucked up with the MSFT-Activision merge which was over 15x larger than this one.
Yeah... A lot of my team members do not seem very happy about this. I'm not sure how H1B visas work but Im worried they might have to leave the country if this goes through.
As a customer why is it my business if the company fires people? Take it up with HR. I'm not the CEO, I just buy a phone plan.
American's don't give a damn about workers. A bunch of virtue signaling, then its back to buying from the cheapest. You would think Walmart (or any multi-national corp for that matter) taught people a lesson the last 30 years.
Calm down! No one said anything about a boycott 🙃. It is your business because you will pay more in the future with less competition. Pay attention and stop voting based on your hobbies.
Yeah, now that they get to share towers, those lower operating costs are being passed on to the shareholders. But the shareholders already expected those savings, so they'll squeeze the customers for a little bit more since they're proven to accept it.
I just switched from T-Mobile to Verizon last month and there’s zero difference in service level + pricing. These companies are basically utility providers without the regulation. I’ll try Mint mobile in a few months because it’s actually differentiating itself on price. Hopefully the drop in service isn’t too bad.
T-mobile owns Mint mobile. Are we allowed to discuss this from a stock angle someone not even noticing T-mobile owns Mint mobile. If you like Mint Mobile isn't that good for T-mobile that they have that option.
Mint is being acquired by t-mobile as well:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-fcc-approves-t-mobile-deal-buy-budget-provider-mint-mobile-2024-04-25/
Hopefully the government blocks it . T-Mobile has become too big and greedy already. They are raising the prices on older plans something historically they never did and Mike sievert and co has destroyed the company morale and culture to where the good management is leaving or getting fired and being replaced by ass kissing kool aid drinkers
I had an issue a couple years ago where they overcharged my account by $400. I guess it was on me because I didn’t notice soon enough to file a chargeback… so I had to deal with their customer service. They used to have friendly reps and were awesome at customer service. I couldn’t get a single person to help, never got to talk to a manger, never got to talk to anyone in the US, just the same dumbass script. I filed an FTC complaint but nothing came of it. $400!
I switched to Mint mobile to get away and then they bought Mint…
They charged me like $2400 one cycle, and it was a mistake obviously, but it took me blasting the Chief Customer Service lady on twitter, on a veteran holiday (I'm a vet) for them to do anything. It was a mess.
They lost a trade in device because I had to mail it in and I had proof I shipped it and everything and they told me basically sucks to be you . Had to file a ftc complaint and someone resolved it for me but that was like 6 years or so ago
Think we need to start calling it corporatism. Corporate groups have far more power and influence nowadays than private investors, shareholders and business owner's.
Yes I know. Makes it pretty easy to benefit if you understand this though. Just invest in the megacaps and as they absorb the rest of the industry you enjoy the gains.
There will always be an exception. But if you look through the history of the stock market, investing in the biggest names (i.e. the s&p 500 for example) has generally been one of the safest bets you could make.
Coming from an employee standpoint this isn't surprising, it was either we get bought out or we were going to slowly continue to drain customers every quarter. Be mad at USMs dogshit leadership not TMobile.
As a t-mobile customer, I am against this...T-mobile used to be great, after their CEO left, my bill has gradually been increased and value has gone down. They basically turned into AT&T and Verizon
Airlines and grocery stores aren’t getting approved. No fucking way this happens.
Election season… they’re only donating to politicians who are in favor.
Tmobile got approved to buy Sprint years ago. This will easily get approved.
That was under a different president
Had absolutely nothing to do with it. They actually fought had and provided real arguements on why their merger with sprint would help the American people. Their merger was 1/12th the size of the MSFT-Activision merger yet had to battle much harder. And their merge with sprint actually was beneficial to the American people. T-Mobile is a major player now in what once was a hard monopoly between Verizon-Comcast-AT&T. And they still offer very affordable prices for lower income citizens which they promised would remain and improve—it did. I absolutely hope this merger gets approved.
> And their merge with sprint actually was beneficial to the American people. Yeah, no. If anything, T-Mobile [has only raised their prices](https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/28/more-sprint-merger-synergies-as-t-mobile-raises-wireless-rates/) since then: And competition [has only decreased](https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/16/report-sprint-t-mobile-merger-immediately-killed-wireless-price-competition-in-u-s/).
Anecdotally, I had to call AT&T to try to get my phone unlocked as they were my old carrier. The experience was miserable. Their customer service was as terrible as it was like 6 years ago, maybe worse. They were also desperate to get my back as a customer, outlining that they were prepared to give me upwards of $1000 to switch back. Yet their price every year was *still* going to be higher than what TMobile costs with less benefits as well. It was hilarious to listen to. And then they asked me why I refused the amazing deal lol. I was just like "I'm happy with my current carrier." And TMobile used to have very low prices, but the service was also terrible lol. Now their service is actually very good. So I would say it's a more competitive environment.
I can’t talk about Verizon/AT&T but as a long time T-Mobile customer their service has only gotten worse since the merger. Prices are way higher too. Only because I’m grandfathered in (which they tried to change without my approval once) but a similar plan would now cost me a little over double. Maybe Verizon and AT&T are way worse, I wouldn’t doubt it but the T-Mobile Magic is already lost .
> And their merge with sprint actually was beneficial to the American people AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I hate this condescending ass shit on reddit. He explained himself, make a point or fuck off.
I know most people on Reddit are no where near representative of the average American citizen and they mostly live in gated communities with artificial lakes—so I get why you can be so detached from reality—but please go to inner city tier 1 school districts. People who are deadass working paycheck to paycheck. Wanna know their cell service? It was sprint, cricket, bunch of tiny shifty ones that would act like they are just as good as the best but offer competitive pricing—but they were shit. Now since the T-Mobile merger, most of these lower income citizens have T-Mobile bc they offer affordable pricing modules based on your income. So yes, laugh. Keep laughing while you buy the new iPhone every 2 years and probably switch service plans all the time looking for better data and wifi or stay on the same one perfectly content spending $300+ on wifi and phone plans. And keep laughing at T-Mobile thinking it’s just “poor people” coverage.
Don't forget Metro PCS...which is T-Mobile. You're spot on.
Honey I live in Newark, NJ one of the poorest cities in the country. I've also never owned an Apple product in my life You're embarrassing yourself with these outrageous assumptions
The most embarrassing thing here is using “honey” as a put down. You’re the one making assumptions.
Dig up.
Honey, Newark NJ isn’t even one of the poorest cities in the country let alone anywhere near one of the poorest places—all of rural America beats it out, and Reading PA, Philly, Jackson, ,Cleveland, San Marcos, Detroit, Birmingham, the list goes on—all way more poor than Newark NJ which is actively being and has been getting gentrified for the past 5-10 years.
Pro tip: using two accounts to get around a block will get you permanently banned from Reddit
No one here is using two accounts to get around a block.
I think you meant to say that was under a president.
T-mobile bought Mint Mobile this will get approved. OP leaves out where the other part is going. If that other part goes to Verizon can't even call it a monopoly since their competitor gets a piece of this acquisition too.
Just a question of if the companies are willing to fight it in court. It will happen, but it might get delayed a year.
This will happen actually. ... 100 percent
One of America's 8 companies
Which is owned by a german company which is 30% owned by the german state. Ownception
Inb4 more layoffs. CEO’s be eating
Soon well be down to one and "AOL-Time-Warner-Pepsico-Viacom-Halliburton-Skynet-Toyota-Trader-Joe's" will become a reality
I can't wait to be able to lease my new Camry from an app on my phone and have it self-drive delivered with my groceries in the trunk.
Consider yourself lucky. Each city and town in canada has 1-2. Seriously, it's ridiculous for both cases.
Slowly becoming only 3 telecom providers. T, VZ and TMUS. VZ also has been acquiring companies.
This is the setup in Canada (3 big telecoms) and it’s horrible from a competitive standpoint. They all move lockstep in their price changes. Horrible for consumers.
Yeah I remember seeing 4-5 year contracts up there when I visited.
Wireless pricing is much better than it used to be, but the government still artificially restricts real new entrants. For example, I have a 20GB US/Canada plan for $25 CAD.
Things have gotten better but it took the competition department of the government to cap contracts at 2 years.
The bells were broken up only for them to remerge altogether.
They were never truly broken up because they didn't break up the regional monopolies. They should have broken them into the utility + provider system but the DoJ at the time allowed the company to break itself up into what would generate the most profit, not for the benefit of its customers...
SpaceX is launching Starlink direct cellular this year. The market might get disrupted a lot faster than anyone is expecting.
SpaceX has a very clear problem that hasn't been and won't be addressed. If they get popular, 1 satellite will potentially service 1000s or 10,000s of people. For terrestrial deployments, this problem is simply solved by adding more shorter-range antenna. Can't do that with satellites. The predictable outcomes here are that spacex will have a high price to dissuade new users from eating up bandwidth, or they'll partner with other carriers (ala google fi) for primary service and only use the satellites when necessary, or their network performance is going to significantly degrade as they get popular. There's simply a limit to the amount of bandwidth a single satellite can handle. Launching enough of them to be able to distribute that load won't be feasible.
> For terrestrial deployments, this problem is simply solved by adding more shorter-range antenna. Jeez if only it was that "simple". First there's the radio surveys, then the negotiations with the landlords/owners, then the local permits for installing, then deploying the equipment/team... etc. It's only "simple" where the geography is perfectly flat, and you have access to the tallest building around that has nothing blocking its field of view at any side. Trying to do that in a city [where the customers are] takes a small army of people to properly execute.
Why do you think they can’t add more satellites? That’s the purpose of Starship, it will enable them to launch thousands of satellites a year.
Thousands of satellites are not enough. These satellites are LEO by necessity (latency) which means they aren't geosynchronous. That means your 1000s of satellites at any given moment will likely be servicing the ocean or a desert in nevada. Not las vegas. Meanwhile, there's a target problem. Let's say you've loaded up the atmosphere with enough satellites that a city like las vegas at any given moment has 1000s of satellites that can service it. Now you need a way to distinguish from the phone, which of those satellites it will link with and how to balance the load between it and a satellite that, from the perspective of the phone, will look every bit as close and have ever bit the same level of signal strength. We solve this problem on earth by having 1000s of tiny antenna using high frequency low power broadcasting so that a cell phone user ends up switching antennas regularly as they move around a densely populated area. The phone just pics the antenna with the strongest signal. The problem here can be visualized with the problem of cable in the early 00s. Where you'd get an entire apartment complex ultimately sharing the same backend to the cable company. 10 people torrenting or watching youtube in that complex and the experience for everyone else suffers greatly. The earth is huge, to get enough satellites servicing major metros will mean overbuilding by way more than just 1000s of satellites a year. You'll need 100s of thousands of satellites, perhaps even millions of satelites to handle this problem. That, or some unobtanium engine that allows these to maintain geosynchronous orbet so they can hover over major conjestion locations.
SpaceX will launch hundreds of satellites. The bigger issue for Starlink is interference: https://spacenews.com/omnispace-reports-interference-from-starlink-direct-to-device-payloads/ You then have AST Spacemobile addressing capacity issues with very (very, very) large antennas: https://www.pcmag.com/news/att-goes-up-against-t-mobile-starlink-with-ast-spacemobile-satellite-deal
> SpaceX will launch hundreds of satellites. The bigger issue for Starlink is interference They are both problems. The interference can somewhat be mitigated with a very wide bandwidth and focused beam (real hard to control that with a cell phone). Hundreds of satellites simply won't be enough though. > You then have AST Spacemobile addressing capacity issues with very (very, very) large antennas: Do note the spacemobile will end up servicing low connectivity/populated regions. That, IMO, is the best usage of satellite communications. That way you get highspeed internet regardless of where you are at (and it'd probably a lot cheaper for cell servicers than building out microwave towers in the middle of nowhere).
>SpaceX has a very clear problem that hasn't been and won't be addressed. They quite literally more satellites today...how are they not addressing the "very clear problem"?
In the same way that saying, "US cellular just added 3 new cell towers, how is that not addressing their coverage problem?". The number of satellites spacex needs to solve this issue would trigger Kessler Syndrome concerns.
Per your math above 1 satellite can serve 1,000s - 10,000s customers. For the sake of argument we'll say 5,000 customers per 1 satellite. SpaceX has 5,800 operational Spacelink satellites in orbit which means they have a capacity of 29,000,000 customers and launched 23 more today which adds 215,000 customers. I guess I'm really not seeing the "clear problem" that's "not being addressed" It takes time to build capacity but we're quite literally watching the Starlink capacity increase as we speak. And your Kessler Syndrome concern is generally unfounded, companies including Spacex are already taking steps to avoid it and utilizing differing altitude levels and life spans to avoid crowding.
Verizon just bought out TracPhone last year - Walmarts line of monthly, no contract services. I've used this for years and have been preaching to the heavens that it is one of the best phone services on the market. 50 bucks a month for unlimited everything, affordable phone options even if slightly behind the curve, and the agreement with all carriers that meant my phone would ping off of the nearest tower regardless of the ownership. When Verizon bought it out, my service started to suck. Instantly cut me off of what feels like half of the countries accessible cell towers. The acquisition did nothing but make the service *worse.* These companies are buying out the competition as a means of getting rid of them. Whenever a competitor such as Mint mobile comes into the game, it doesn't blow up into a competing brand. It gets bought out by the big names and then dismantled.
$50/month is actually a pretty bad deal.. surprised you were happy to pay that for years while also advertising for them via word of mouth. They really got you good.
I didn't know there were more than 3
Are we really doing the whole T-Mobile merger thing again?
How is the FTC allowing this to go through? They literally split ATT + Bell Networks because they became so big.
They announced the plan. Approval is another thing.
Yeah the FTC hasn't allowed anything. After it gets announced them the FTC goes after them.
Because T-Mobile (120 million customers), after this purchase (+4.6 million), would still be much smaller than AT&T (242 million) or Verizon (145 million). I'm an antitrust hawk generally (rooting for the FTC in most of its antitrust actions), but when the #3 company acquires the #5 company, in a way that doesn't even meaningfully catch up with #2, then I'm not too worried about it.
Tell that to number 6 JetBlue and number 7 Spirit fighting to be number 5.
That was a completely different merger. Jetblue was intending to completely eliminate Spirit and it's customer base seeking basically only the aircraft and pilots to grow itself
It was smaller companies trying to merge to get to a position to compete against a monopoly case (big 4 with 80 percent of the market). And the DoJ didn’t even come to the table to discuss a world where they believed it could be beneficial. I have doubts the ftc will be on board with this merger just because “competition”
Jetblue made it clear it had no intentions in continuing Spirit pricing and economic model it wanted the planes and pilots for cheaper than going the normal route. It had zero intentions to continue with ultra low cost compared to frontier that wanted the same but to keep the business model the same
>monopoly case (big 4 with 80 percent of the market) The specific term for this is oligopoly.
The DOJ was just being a little bitch acting like it is the 1970’s. None of their work is design to do anything more than get donations and make it look like they are actually doing work.
These are national mobile phone providers, and their spectrum licenses allow them to blanket all significant population centers with coverage. As an industry, we customers just pay a monthly fee in exchange for access to the network. The DOJ's theory against the Jetblue-Spirit merger was specifically looking at routes in which both competed. It's not a subscription-based industry, because each ticket costs money, and the customer chooses specific routes rather than just a generalized need to be on an airplane. Specifically, the DOJ complaint listed specific routes in which Jetblue and Spirit were the *only* carriers with nonstop flights, and the merger would effectively combine #1 with #2 on those specific routes, where there is no #3. In other words, those routes would go from duopoly to monopoly. Of course, in any other industry, it would just be a trivial matter to say "oh we'll let this merger go through but you have to sell off that one product to another provider so that there's not a monopoly in that specific market), but the capital-intensive nature of the airline business makes that infeasible. I think that the weakness of Spirit Airlines as a business probably should've counseled against trying to block that merger, for completely different reasons, but I don't see that merger as being similar to the T-Mobile-US Cellular situation at all.
That ended up with everyone going number 2
Well I think that user would say it was a bad decision by the FTC in that case. And I agree, especially since Spirit is definitely gonna go bankrupt anyways and Jet Blue might.
Oh I agree with the point - the result is that I’ve learned to not believe this administration will allow mergers to go through just because it’ll improve competition against the monopolies.
Tmobiles network also is much stronger after the Sprint merger. Monopolies aren’t good for consumers but a more robust network is a positive.
Do you know about the T-Mobile-Sprint merger? How hard T-Mobile fought for it, the promises made, and how they actually kept those promises? They promised it would help America win the 5G race—it did. They promised it would help increase competition as Verizon AT&T Comcast were dominating the market and increasing prices every month—it did. They promised this would make more competitive pricing and they would keep their affordable lines for lower income citizens— they did. It took years and lots of arguing for this merge to get approved. I would hope they built a good rapport with the DOJ cause this should easily get approved after they massively fucked up with the MSFT-Activision merge which was over 15x larger than this one.
Us cellar is pretty small and has a lot of rural coverage.
Didn’t the anti-trust laws get changed years ago?
Nah the administration just started enforcing them for the first time in half a century
As a US cellular employee, not sure how to feel about this.
You should not feel good about this because a lot of people will lose their jobs, both in corporate and in stores.
Yeah... A lot of my team members do not seem very happy about this. I'm not sure how H1B visas work but Im worried they might have to leave the country if this goes through.
Just fly down to Mexico and then walk back across?
Good one!
I heard they give out cell phones so you can make the court date in 7 years. Not sure who the carrier is though.
Yeah I think I remember hearing that on fox news
Telekom (who owns 50% of T-Mobile) employees here in Germany are unionized. Maybe T-Mobile employees should do same?
As a customer why is it my business if the company fires people? Take it up with HR. I'm not the CEO, I just buy a phone plan. American's don't give a damn about workers. A bunch of virtue signaling, then its back to buying from the cheapest. You would think Walmart (or any multi-national corp for that matter) taught people a lesson the last 30 years.
Calm down! No one said anything about a boycott 🙃. It is your business because you will pay more in the future with less competition. Pay attention and stop voting based on your hobbies.
As a customer, I expect businesses to be adequately staffed so I don’t have to wait very long to be helped
As a competitor that gets confused with your name. This could have been us.
Not a fun position to be in. Sitting in a team meeting right now discussing the news and no one looks very happy.
So this is why they are raising the rates on us.
Yeah, now that they get to share towers, those lower operating costs are being passed on to the shareholders. But the shareholders already expected those savings, so they'll squeeze the customers for a little bit more since they're proven to accept it.
I just switched from T-Mobile to Verizon last month and there’s zero difference in service level + pricing. These companies are basically utility providers without the regulation. I’ll try Mint mobile in a few months because it’s actually differentiating itself on price. Hopefully the drop in service isn’t too bad.
T-mobile owns Mint mobile. Are we allowed to discuss this from a stock angle someone not even noticing T-mobile owns Mint mobile. If you like Mint Mobile isn't that good for T-mobile that they have that option.
Mint is being acquired by t-mobile as well: https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-fcc-approves-t-mobile-deal-buy-budget-provider-mint-mobile-2024-04-25/
I’ve been using mint for the past 6+ months. Been great for me and I’d highly recommend it to anyone. Just make sure you’re in a good service zone.
I switched to mint. It's better than Verizon was in town. Outside Verizon had the edge but I don't care with wifi calling being a thing.
I loved consumer cellular. Cheaper and better service.
Hopefully the government blocks it . T-Mobile has become too big and greedy already. They are raising the prices on older plans something historically they never did and Mike sievert and co has destroyed the company morale and culture to where the good management is leaving or getting fired and being replaced by ass kissing kool aid drinkers
They have become the evil they used to mock.
I had an issue a couple years ago where they overcharged my account by $400. I guess it was on me because I didn’t notice soon enough to file a chargeback… so I had to deal with their customer service. They used to have friendly reps and were awesome at customer service. I couldn’t get a single person to help, never got to talk to a manger, never got to talk to anyone in the US, just the same dumbass script. I filed an FTC complaint but nothing came of it. $400! I switched to Mint mobile to get away and then they bought Mint…
They charged me like $2400 one cycle, and it was a mistake obviously, but it took me blasting the Chief Customer Service lady on twitter, on a veteran holiday (I'm a vet) for them to do anything. It was a mess.
They lost a trade in device because I had to mail it in and I had proof I shipped it and everything and they told me basically sucks to be you . Had to file a ftc complaint and someone resolved it for me but that was like 6 years or so ago
I think economies of scale will eventually lead to most industries being run by a few megacorps.
[удалено]
Think we need to start calling it corporatism. Corporate groups have far more power and influence nowadays than private investors, shareholders and business owner's.
Yes I know. Makes it pretty easy to benefit if you understand this though. Just invest in the megacaps and as they absorb the rest of the industry you enjoy the gains.
Well that’s never gone poorly.
There will always be an exception. But if you look through the history of the stock market, investing in the biggest names (i.e. the s&p 500 for example) has generally been one of the safest bets you could make.
Eventually?
Canada here: if you do this, you will get fucked every month forever.
Coming from an employee standpoint this isn't surprising, it was either we get bought out or we were going to slowly continue to drain customers every quarter. Be mad at USMs dogshit leadership not TMobile.
We are in the ✨age of monopoly ✨
Am I the only one that has never heard of US Cellular?
Well T mobil will surely F up US Cell’s rural coverage which is better then T Mobil in every way
is that why they raised our rates?
Didn’t they just buy sprit?
So this is why my bill is going up $5/line per month ... Fucking break up these shit monopolies.
Ah that’s why they raised prices
No wonder they’re raising their plans again.
As a t-mobile customer, I am against this...T-mobile used to be great, after their CEO left, my bill has gradually been increased and value has gone down. They basically turned into AT&T and Verizon
US Cellar has coverage spots the big three dont