Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101

Thread: Amazon's plans and looking forward

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,357
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post

    However, I think there is more than selfishness, some of it is the mindset of T-Mobile fanboys/trolls who will defend whatever John Legere does, and will contradict themselves, make illogical statements, and generally make a fool out of themselves in order to defend the almighty T-Mobile, here or on Reddit.
    Yeah, but some of it is probably a lack of cynicism. I was guilty of that myself in my younger corporate days when I truly believed the companies I worked for were "good guys", when they were no different from any others. Like the X-Files' Mulder, we want to believe!

    And don't get me wrong- I think Legere is a marketing genius. He's done great things for T-Mobile in his tenure. The problem is when people confuse "genius" with "Saint". Legere works for T-Mobile, not its customers!

    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post

    This, unfortunately, sums up the entire industry right now. Verizon especially has focused most of it's CAPEX on large markets, as there's where the most customers are, and has left gaping holes in their rural network unfilled.
    Sure, because they don't really have the regulatory guns to their heads that they should. There is no effective cellular or broadband equivalent to the "rural electrification" program this country had in the mid-20th century to help get electricity and wired telephony out into un- and under served areas.





    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    --
    Todd Allcock, Microsoft MVP: Mobile Devices 2007-2011

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,357
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    A lot of this could have been avoided if the FCC about 20 years ago had made it a condition of obtaining mid-band licenses (PCS) that a carrier not be able to retain more than 10x10 MHz of 850 MHz cellular. This would have induced the A & B block licensees to return 2.5x2.5 MHz each, which could have been combined into a single 5x5 block to auction to a 3rd carrier with low-band. Well, that's water under the bridge now. I recall that Western Electric's original proposal for cellular was for a single 25x25 (20x20?) MHz band, which of course would be licensed to LECs (about 80% of which were Bell System companies). The non-LEC paging and 2-way companies got into the 'fray and the cellular duopoly was born.
    True, but again, most of the sins of the industry have been committed by allowing the creation of the current landscape via merger and acquisition. The original plan in the 800Mhz-only days was two cell companies per area (typically the LEC and an alternate) then the opening of the PCS band allowed up to five additional additional competitors.

    The thought at the time, was that this ragtag bunch of local wireless providers would engage in cross-roaming agreements to allow nationwide service via partnership. Cellular emerged in the decade where we had just broken up Ma Bell, which gave us an unprecedented leap forward in competitive pricing and increased services, and that was supposedly the blueprint for wireless going forward.

    The great irony, of course, was after breaking up the telephone monopoly in the early 80s, we spent most of the 90s and 00s letting them merge right back together again, resulting in the the AT&T and Verizon duopoly we "enjoy" today.

    The GSM Alliance could have been the blueprint for cellular in America: local and regional wireless companies working together via partnership agreements to provide nationwide service, but only profiting directly from their own regional base of customers, whom they have to serve well, or another of the handful of equally local providers will.

    Once we let the large companies get larger, they broke up these roaming agreements, because it was no longer a group of like-sized and like-minded equals, it was a few 800-lb gorillas strong-arming desperate mom and pops with take it or leave it deals. When Verizon knocks on US Cellular's door to engage in a roaming agreement, who do you suppose has the upper hand? Big Red with 85% of the nation's population in it's back pocket, or USCC with those sweet, sweet licenses in Iowa and Nebraska? Then when the locals are starving, bled out from the one-sided roaming agreements the big two forced them into, the big two then graciously offer to buy them out of their misery in some sort of twisted 21st century high tech protection racket. I used to get unlimited roaming in Sioux City, IA from T-Mo provided from Long Lines wireless, a T-Mo roaming partner from the Voicestream/Omnipoint days. Until Long Lines was gobbled up by AT&T five or six years ago, and now Sioux City is on the long list of areas that T-Mo can only afford to let me use 100MB of data a month before shutting me off. (That typically lasts me until about lunchtime the first day we visit my wife's family!)

    The only way you get decent service in rural areas is either by regulatory force, or by giving stewardship of those areas to local concerns who have to make it work because they have no other option. When a national company has to decide whether to allocate infrastructure dollars to Boston, MA., or Boise, ID, Boise is rarely coming up on top, to say nothing of a place like Black Eagle, MT. But if your cell company only has a licence to operate in rural MT or ID, you're going to build the best network there that you can, because it's the only source of revenue you've got.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Yep, AT&T and Verizon were praying so hard they both completely forgot to object to the merger during the comment period.
    You expected them to openly state that they don't want to compete against a larger competitor hence they object? Do you realize how bad that would make them sound if they said that? They can't say that openly! All they can do is bite their tongues and work behind the scenes to kill the merger.

    What company welcomes a larger competitor? The whole point of competition is to keep your competitors smaller and weaker than you! Not support them getting larger.

    another member joins the exclusive old boy's club, puts on the smoking jacket, lights a cigar, drinks some brandy, and everyone pats each other on the back and laughs all the way to the bank with our hard earned money.
    What you describe is not based on any successful business practice. Legere has competed and will continue to compete more because that's where the greater reward and profits lie. Steal even more market share with a larger expanded network. Steal a chunk of AT&T's and Verizon prime corporate customers. You claim they'd go to all of this trouble and expense to merge and build a bigger network and then not compete for customers which they could obtain to increase their profit! Your scenario that they would be so passive, is completely unbelievable.


    Put another way, if T-Mo really intends to "bring wrath and fury", why have they only promised regulators to protect current rates for three years? Why not five or ten?
    Why should they offer to keep their current rates at all? What business agrees to do that? You price your product so that it maximizes your revenue and your profit. You charge what the market will bare. They don't owe anyone low rates! Neither does Sprint.

    Any promise to hold rates for three years is an implicit promise to raise them in exactly 37 months!
    Since you clearly favor government intervention, (as you state they need to: "have the regulatory guns to their heads") why not mandate AT&T and Verizon hold their rates for 36 months? You'd probably like the government to mandate price controls on everything you buy. Gas? Food? Cars? Study history and find where that has ever worked successfully? All that does is stifle ingenuity and cause product shortages. But you support government intervention nonetheless.


    You don't support this merger on its merits, or even really care if it's bad for consumers or not, because it (probably) will be good for you personally.
    I support this merger because the new T-Mobile will have a better network and provide better service and be a stronger competitor to AT&T and Verizon. And yes, since I use T-Mobile, it will be good for me personally. You're right there. But having a third strong network will also be good for consumers too because they'll have a third choice when right now they may only have two. The new T-Mobile will put a lot of spectrum that isn't being used into use which is a good thing. They're even going to offer competition to the home internet market and project they can be the third largest ISP in the country in a few years.

    I'm not so selfish I don't care about consumers in general.
    .

    Sure you are. You're so concerned about your monthly rate plan, you want to pass up all of these advantages for the consumer of a stronger network and more competition for home internet. It's quite clear who is being selfish.

    T-Mo and Sprint already challenge AT&T and Verizon, and force them to offer reasonable prepaid and MVNO options.
    And Sprint's business model is working so well. Let's look at their last quarterly report:

    "Fiscal fourth quarter net loss of $2.2 billion, operating loss of $1.7 billion "

    https://investors.sprint.com/news-an...s/default.aspx

    That loss is in one quarter!! How long do you think that can keep supporting this low price model that you don't want to lose? The answer is not very long. AT&T and Verizon know that as well. They want this merger to be rejected because they know Sprint will fall apart, or become weaker or go bankrupt. The bottom line is Sprint is not charging enough to cover their operating costs. And no business can continue to do that indefinitely. It's a fact. So you and the 13 attorney generals who want to block this merger have no explanation to how Sprint can artificially hold their prices below their costs forever.

    And of course, you make it sound like being #3 or 4 in a huge industry is a terrible thing; T-Mo and Sprint both have a considerable number of customers, and T-Mo (at least) is making piles of money.
    I believe in free market and competition. If T-Mobile and Sprint want to gang up to compete against AT&T and Verizon, they should be able to do so. I don't believe that the government should take sides and say these two can be big, but you two must remain small. If you were really for more competition you would be fine with that. Instead, you just care about your low monthly bill.

    Companies have no God-given right to be automatically placed "on a level playing field".
    Customers have no God-given right to have prices that are artificially held down either. T-Mobile and Sprint are not asking to be automatically be placed on a level playing field. They are making typical business decisions to merge to be able to better compete. They'll still be #3 even after a merger. But the government interventionists can't even stand that. #3 is too high---they must remain a distant 3. As long as you can keep your same rate on your " ancient grandfathered plan" that's all you're concerned with.

    T-Mo is already doing just fine in the cellular biz without Sprint.
    If only you had a business and the government told you, others can expand but you can't. You're doing just fine. It's funny how the people who make such statements usually have no experience trying to build a business or make one run. The people that don't build businesses just want to tell others when they've had enough success.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Duh, they're an MVNO now. That's why they're useless for comparing the cheapest branded/postpaid service.
    Who cares if its postpaid or prepaid? I thought the point was having low cost service for low income people, right? And that's exactly what Boost will do. Problem solved!


    That's irrelevant. Of course they are going to use their 600mhz spectrum. But their towers in rural areas are way too far apart. I highly doubt that they would go back and rebuild all those areas, as both T-Mobile and Sprint are primarily urban/metro market carriers, Sprint even more so.
    You highly doubt it? See all of the spectrum they bought. Do you see all of that dark magenta color in the map in the rural areas.

    Name:  600mhzmap2.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  32.7 KB

    Why buy spectrum in those areas if you're not going to build it out? The answer is you wouldn't! As for rebuild, you just add additional sites in rural areas to make the coverage better. The 700 spectrum only allowed for one small 5x5 band to cover anything. The 600 spectrum that you can see they clearly bought, allows them to light up these rural areas to compete fully with the coverage of Verizon and AT&T. But you need a larger economy of scale to have the resources to allow such a build out to be feasible. Hence, the merger.


    I didn't say it was the only lesson. It's just an unavoidable truth. Businesses don't invest because they have money to invest. They invest because they need to.
    Which textbook ever said that? Businesses actually invest because they want to get a return on their investment. And they invest where they can maximize the return. That's what they do. There's no "need to" involved in the formula!


    A combined Sprint/T-Mobile will have less incentive to invest, due to less competition after their initial integration/network rebuild.
    Oh, they'll have plenty of incentive to invest. And that's because the majority shareholder DT wants to see more profit. And shareholders in general want to see more profit. So you invest in bigger coverage, and a better network so you get more customers, revenue and profit. You clearly missed that in Economics 101.

    some of it is the mindset of T-Mobile fanboys/trolls who will
    There you go again with the name calling. When your can't stand on your arguments, that's what you always resort to.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,580
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    My family owned one of the last medium-sized meat packing plants in the US, pushed out of business by giants on one side, part-time uninspected deer processors on the other and changing market forces that focused the grocery business on highly efficient, centralized distribution systems. We live in a world where it's more efficient (cheaper) to kill and gut chickens in the US and ship them to China for subcutting then ship them back for sale through giant chain stores.

    If you want an example of a current local, rural wireless company, just look at Commnet. They live by roaming. They sell only an over-priced local prepaid service and only because the FCC made them. That's pretty much how they've always worked. We used to keep a line with CSpire because they'd roam almost every domestic carrier. Now we're on a T-Mobile 55+ plan because it's inexpensive and good 'nuff. We do a little grocery shopping at the local store but make a weekly trip to Wally World for the big stuff. We get our Rx filled at Walgreens, rather than the local "mom & pop" pharmacy, because we can get refills just about anywhere in the country.

    What I'm getting at is that everything is going national and international. The world is getting smaller and it's also "flat". The wireless industry has been changing because the customers want a seamless, nationwide experience. Those who care if their carrier advertises at local high-school football games are getting fewer and fewer.

    Any solution has to take this into account. Look at every European country, the only one that has anything like the hodgepodge of local carriers the US has is UK, only because they have so many peculiar legal jurisdictions (e.g Man, Jersey, etc.) The rest have national carriers.

    I agree that the US needs four viable carriers to assure vigorous price competition. MVNOs that are at the mercy of the host carriers don't count. The problem is that the way the game has developed, Sprint is not viable and will (one way or another) go away. The only question is how is Sprint's "passing" to be managed. How can someone be encouraged to voluntarily take Sprint's ashes build a new national carrier? As with all things financial, the truth is in the details, the knowledge of which is beyond the ken of anyone here.
    Last edited by DRNewcomb; 07-19-2019 at 11:43 AM. Reason: spelling
    Donald Newcomb

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    579
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    A lot of this could have been avoided if the FCC about 20 years ago had made it a condition of obtaining mid-band licenses (PCS) that a carrier not be able to retain more than 10x10 MHz of 850 MHz cellular. This would have induced the A & B block licensees to return 2.5x2.5 MHz each, which could have been combined into a single 5x5 block to auction to a 3rd carrier with low-band.
    I'm not sure that actually would have worked with the band plan for Cellular. However, they shouldn't have allowed a single carrier to own both CLR blocks, which is still the case in several markets.

    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Yeah, but some of it is probably a lack of cynicism. I was guilty of that myself in my younger corporate days when I truly believed the companies I worked for were "good guys", when they were no different from any others.
    That's a really good point!

    And don't get me wrong- I think Legere is a marketing genius. He's done great things for T-Mobile in his tenure. The problem is when people confuse "genius" with "Saint". Legere works for T-Mobile, not its customers!
    Absolutely. John Legere has found a sweet spot in the wireless industry, but it must still be acknowledged that to get there, he cut a lot of corners on the network that AT&T and Verizon didn't. He's also done great things with plans and marketing, absolutely, the international was probably his single biggest stroke of genius.

    Sure, because they don't really have the regulatory guns to their heads that they should. There is no effective cellular or broadband equivalent to the "rural electrification" program this country had in the mid-20th century to help get electricity and wired telephony out into un- and under served areas.
    Our telecom policy is an abject failure, but our failure to regulate the ILECs and force them to deploy universal gigabit fiber is mostly a separate issue from wireless. There they intersect is where T and VZ have both let their wireless arms steal from the ILEC arms with underpriced backhaul access. If they had priced the backhaul at market rates, then their ILEC arms would have had a LOT more money to re-invest in their wired networks. I'm also not sure why, but in the US, building cell sites is way more expensive than in other places. In some European countries, they have a far higher density of cell sites compared to their populations, and those networks are both cheap and profitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    The only way you get decent service in rural areas is either by regulatory force, or by giving stewardship of those areas to local concerns who have to make it work because they have no other option. When a national company has to decide whether to allocate infrastructure dollars to Boston, MA., or Boise, ID, Boise is rarely coming up on top, to say nothing of a place like Black Eagle, MT. But if your cell company only has a licence to operate in rural MT or ID, you're going to build the best network there that you can, because it's the only source of revenue you've got.
    That's a really interesting way to look at it. There are relatively few small carriers left, and usually only in really rural areas. At least on the roaming portion of it, the most effective way to deal with that even today would by by regulating roaming rates, and forcing carriers to make it available to all other carriers.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    579
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    You expected them to openly state that they don't want to compete against a larger competitor hence they object?
    They love the idea of the merger, less competition for them.

    Why should they offer to keep their current rates at all? What business agrees to do that? You price your product so that it maximizes your revenue and your profit. You charge what the market will bare. They don't owe anyone low rates! Neither does Sprint.
    It is hilarious how quickly you contradict yourself. In one breath, you're claiming that T-Sprint won't reduce competition and won't cause rates to go up, and in the next, you're claiming that because of the reduced competition T-Sprint is going to raise their rates in order to provide maximum returns to shareholders. So which is it?

    Since you clearly favor government intervention, (as you state they need to: "have the regulatory guns to their heads") why not mandate AT&T and Verizon hold their rates for 36 months?
    Because they're not trying to merge. DUH. Leave T-Mobile and Sprint separate in the market, and they will keep rates down on their own.

    That loss is in one quarter!! How long do you think that can keep supporting this low price model that you don't want to lose? The answer is not very long. AT&T and Verizon know that as well. They want this merger to be rejected because they know Sprint will fall apart, or become weaker or go bankrupt. The bottom line is Sprint is not charging enough to cover their operating costs. And no business can continue to do that indefinitely. It's a fact. So you and the 13 attorney generals who want to block this merger have no explanation to how Sprint can artificially hold their prices below their costs forever.
    We don't know that there aren't other offers out on the table for Sprint. The cable companies could buy them. Amazon or Google could buy them. Some other company could buy them. There are lots of possibilities.

    I believe in free market and competition. If T-Mobile and Sprint want to gang up to compete against AT&T and Verizon, they should be able to do so. I don't believe that the government should take sides and say these two can be big, but you two must remain small. If you were really for more competition you would be fine with that. Instead, you just care about your low monthly bill.
    That's just not how it works. If you actually believed in free market and competition like you say you do, you'd be against the merger. If you want more government regulation in order to achieve perceived benefits of a combined T-Sprint, that's fine, that's another way of doing things, but it's not the free market way. Free market conservatives are against horizontal mergers in order to preserve free market competition with the smallest amount of regulation possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Who cares if its postpaid or prepaid? I thought the point was having low cost service for low income people, right? And that's exactly what Boost will do. Problem solved!
    Postpaid is a different class of service. And Boost's prices will go up if the merger goes through, as all prices in the market will go up.

    You highly doubt it? See all of the spectrum they bought. Do you see all of that dark magenta color in the map in the rural areas.

    Why buy spectrum in those areas if you're not going to build it out? The answer is you wouldn't! As for rebuild, you just add additional sites in rural areas to make the coverage better. The 700 spectrum only allowed for one small 5x5 band to cover anything. The 600 spectrum that you can see they clearly bought, allows them to light up these rural areas to compete fully with the coverage of Verizon and AT&T. But you need a larger economy of scale to have the resources to allow such a build out to be feasible. Hence, the merger.
    Whether they would build out their B71 wasn't the discussion. Of course they will. But in rural areas, they already have plenty of spectrum, much of which is not deployed today. So 600mhz will make a modest improvement, but their towers are still too far apart. They'd have to go back and likely rip down some sites and re-do the whole cell grid to get the coverage up to even the crappy coverage that AT&T and Verizon provide on 850 AMPS-spaced sites. T-Mobile was building for LTE, they should have done a better job doing that. It would have been WAY more cost effective to do it right in the first place than to have to go back and re-do it, which is why I think most areas won't get re-done, and at best they'll get B2/4/66/71 antennas slapped on sites that are too far apart from each other.

    They have plenty of PCS and AWS in those areas that they don't have lit up in many cases, so it's not like they're running short on spectrum, they just don't have enough towers. If they just put B71 on their existing towers in most of those rural areas, they wouldn't be competing with T and VZ, because they just don't have enough towers. The network is too thin, no matter how much spectrum they light up.

    Post T-Sprint, they will have an even more concentrated urban/metro market, so why would they go back and fix their crappy rural networks when AT&T and Verizon already have most of those customers? They're going to pour it all back into the urban/metro markets again, just like VZ is doing.

    Which textbook ever said that? Businesses actually invest because they want to get a return on their investment. And they invest where they can maximize the return. That's what they do. There's no "need to" involved in the formula!
    That's business 101. And the way these carriers are being run, I doubt we'll see many improvements in rural coverage from T-Sprint.

    Oh, they'll have plenty of incentive to invest. And that's because the majority shareholder DT wants to see more profit. And shareholders in general want to see more profit. So you invest in bigger coverage, and a better network so you get more customers, revenue and profit. You clearly missed that in Economics 101.
    Or they could continue to use their crappy, crayoned-in network and hope that it's good enough for people to stay around.

    There you go again with the name calling. When your can't stand on your arguments, that's what you always resort to.
    If you don't want to be called a T-Mobile troll/fanboy, then don't act like a T-Mobile troll/fanboy. Instead, you have continued to act MORE like one.

    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    I agree that the US needs four viable carriers to assure vigorous price competition. MVNOs that are at the mercy of the host carriers don't count. The problem is that the way the game has developed, Sprint is not viable and will (one way or another) go away. The only question is how is Sprint's "passing" to be managed. How can someone be encouraged to voluntarily take Sprint's ashes build a new national carrier? As with all things financial, the truth is in the details, the knowledge of which is beyond the ken of anyone here.
    Sprint could be quite viable if they were bought up by a consortium of Comcast, Cox, Charter, and Altice. They could start cheating on backhaul costs very quickly, and roll out more strand-mount small cells. Then they could actually fix Sprint's macro network. And best of all, their goal would be to simply tread water, they wouldn't really have to make a profit. They could also do some really interesting things as part of Amazon.

    There are options.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,357
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    You expected them to openly state that they don't want to compete against a larger competitor hence they object? Do you realize how bad that would make them sound if they said that? They can't say that openly! All they can do is bite their tongues and work behind the scenes to kill the merger.

    What company welcomes a larger competitor? The whole point of competition is to keep your competitors smaller and weaker than you! Not support them getting larger.



    What you describe is not based on any successful business practice. Legere has competed and will continue to compete more because that's where the greater reward and profits lie. Steal even more market share with a larger expanded network. Steal a chunk of AT&T's and Verizon prime corporate customers. You claim they'd go to all of this trouble and expense to merge and build a bigger network and then not compete for customers which they could obtain to increase their profit! Your scenario that they would be so passive, is completely unbelievable.




    Why should they offer to keep their current rates at all? What business agrees to do that? You price your product so that it maximizes your revenue and your profit. You charge what the market will bare. They don't owe anyone low rates! Neither does Sprint.



    Since you clearly favor government intervention, (as you state they need to: "have the regulatory guns to their heads") why not mandate AT&T and Verizon hold their rates for 36 months? You'd probably like the government to mandate price controls on everything you buy. Gas? Food? Cars? Study history and find where that has ever worked successfully? All that does is stifle ingenuity and cause product shortages. But you support government intervention nonetheless.




    I support this merger because the new T-Mobile will have a better network and provide better service and be a stronger competitor to AT&T and Verizon. And yes, since I use T-Mobile, it will be good for me personally. You're right there. But having a third strong network will also be good for consumers too because they'll have a third choice when right now they may only have two. The new T-Mobile will put a lot of spectrum that isn't being used into use which is a good thing. They're even going to offer competition to the home internet market and project they can be the third largest ISP in the country in a few years.

    .

    Sure you are. You're so concerned about your monthly rate plan, you want to pass up all of these advantages for the consumer of a stronger network and more competition for home internet. It's quite clear who is being selfish.



    And Sprint's business model is working so well. Let's look at their last quarterly report:

    "Fiscal fourth quarter net loss of $2.2 billion, operating loss of $1.7 billion "

    https://investors.sprint.com/news-an...s/default.aspx

    That loss is in one quarter!! How long do you think that can keep supporting this low price model that you don't want to lose? The answer is not very long. AT&T and Verizon know that as well. They want this merger to be rejected because they know Sprint will fall apart, or become weaker or go bankrupt. The bottom line is Sprint is not charging enough to cover their operating costs. And no business can continue to do that indefinitely. It's a fact. So you and the 13 attorney generals who want to block this merger have no explanation to how Sprint can artificially hold their prices below their costs forever.



    I believe in free market and competition. If T-Mobile and Sprint want to gang up to compete against AT&T and Verizon, they should be able to do so. I don't believe that the government should take sides and say these two can be big, but you two must remain small. If you were really for more competition you would be fine with that. Instead, you just care about your low monthly bill.



    Customers have no God-given right to have prices that are artificially held down either. T-Mobile and Sprint are not asking to be automatically be placed on a level playing field. They are making typical business decisions to merge to be able to better compete. They'll still be #3 even after a merger. But the government interventionists can't even stand that. #3 is too high---they must remain a distant 3. As long as you can keep your same rate on your " ancient grandfathered plan" that's all you're concerned with.



    If only you had a business and the government told you, others can expand but you can't. You're doing just fine. It's funny how the people who make such statements usually have no experience trying to build a business or make one run. The people that don't build businesses just want to tell others when they've had enough success.
    Too many individual points to try to cover inline on a mobile device, so I'll just touch on a few big ones.

    AT&T and Verizon support this merger because less government intervention in the wireless business is good for them long term. They too are the products of mergers that never should've happened.

    As to my belief in government regulation of business and/or price controls, these are two vastly different things. It's disingenuous for you to lump them together in a false equivalency to try and invalidate the concept of legitimate government oversight.

    Let's end one myth right now: there is NO free market with any "product" that has a finite availability like wireless. A market can't truly be free unless *anyone* who is able and willing can enter it. Can you or I start a cellco? No, because all the licenses have been sold. I can't just throw up a bunch of towers and switch on a network like I could open a chain of yoga studios or froyo shops. A free market assumes that anyone can come in and build the proverbial "better mousetrap." In wireless, all the mice have already been spoken for.

    Do I want the government to price fix cellular rates? Of course not. Do I want them to ensure *private* enterprise uses *public* spectrum in the public interest? You bet your sweet megahertz I do, up to and including mandating rural buildouts, capping roaming rates to protect smaller operators, and creating a "Public Interest Standard" like television broadcasters used to have to deal with (the argument being the scarcity of bandwidth gives the public/government the right to take the spectrum back and give it to someone else after due process if it's not being used in the public interest.)

    With a public interest standard, if the residents of Forgotten County, Oregon decide AT&T's, Verizon's or whoever serves that area's service sucks, they could petition the appropriate regulators to investigate and force the provider to improve it, or abdicate the wireless license for that area to someone who would ultimately serve them better.

    Lastly, for the record, I was a small business owner for many years, from the early 90s to the mid 00s. I owned a retail store that sold cellular phones, pagers, and satellite TV systems in suburban Missouri, (and I had no problem with government regulation then or now!)



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,580
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    ....Sprint could be quite viable if they were bought up by a consortium of Comcast, Cox, Charter, and Altice. They could start cheating on backhaul costs very quickly, and roll out more strand-mount small cells. Then they could actually fix Sprint's macro network. And best of all, their goal would be to simply tread water, they wouldn't really have to make a profit. They could also do some really interesting things as part of Amazon.

    There are options.
    Perhaps. And I'm also sure you and I could also pool our 401Ks and buy Sprint but I'm not interested. None of the other "options" could get over Sprint's ever-deepening debt. The only company that came forward with a plan to avoid Sprint's bankruptcy was T-Mobile.

    Sprint's problem (in addition to debt) is that they don't have adequate mid-band licenses to provide decent data speeds outside cities. A suburban network based on 2.5 GHz licenses is not really viable.
    Last edited by DRNewcomb; 07-19-2019 at 04:22 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    579
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    Do I want the government to price fix cellular rates? Of course not. Do I want them to ensure *private* enterprise uses *public* spectrum in the public interest? You bet your sweet megahertz I do, up to and including mandating rural buildouts, capping roaming rates to protect smaller operators, and creating a "Public Interest Standard" like television broadcasters used to have to deal with (the argument being the scarcity of bandwidth gives the public/government the right to take the spectrum back and give it to someone else after due process if it's not being used in the public interest.)

    With a public interest standard, if the residents of Forgotten County, Oregon decide AT&T's, Verizon's or whoever serves that area's service sucks, they could petition the appropriate regulators to investigate and force the provider to improve it, or abdicate the wireless license for that area to someone who would ultimately serve them better.
    I like that idea. Hopefully that would kick their derrieres in gear to build out their networks in rural areas. If not, hopefully a local co-op or something would build out, although there's always a risk there that the local operator sucks and is way behind on technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    Perhaps. And I'm also sure you and I could also pool our 401Ks and buy Sprint but I'm not interested. None of the other "options" could get over Sprint's ever-deepening debt. The only company that came forward with a plan to avoid Sprint's bankruptcy was T-Mobile.

    Sprint's problem (in addition to debt) is that they don't have adequate mid-band licenses to provide decent data speeds outside cities. A suburban network based on 2.5 GHz licenses is not really viable.
    We don't know that they didn't have another suitor, just that T-Mobile's offer was the best offer. There could be other companies interested in Sprint, but would pay far less.

    There is an issue with spectrum. Sprint really needs more low-band for data in exurban areas. B41 HPUE isn't that much worse than B4/66/30, although it doesn't carry nearly as well as B2. Don't ask me why B2 carries so much better than B4, it just does. With n41 5G and densification across all carriers coming, Sprint has a great spectrum position for the denser suburbs and urban cores within the major metros, and they have enough spectrum for truly rural areas, but the exurban areas in-between are a legitimate challenge. Their B25 performance is abysmal in most markets, and their B26 is downright pathetic. Getting their exurban tower density up to the same level as T and VZ would be a start, as it would move more traffic to B41 HPUE and create more density on B25 and B26. Unfortunately, their network seems to be spaced out for CDMA 1x800, which has similar range to Verizon's CDMA 850, and they stretch it similarly, which doesn't do anything for data.

    Really, DISH's spectrum needs to be carved up and sold off, with the B71 and B25 going to Sprint, the B70 going to Verizon, and the remainder split between Verizon and T-Mobile.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    They love the idea of the merger, less competition for them.
    Less weaker competitors. However, in return there is a stronger competitor who can compete better than the two smaller companies. That doesn't add up to less competition nor something they would love.


    It is hilarious how quickly you contradict yourself. In one breath, you're claiming that T-Sprint won't reduce competition and won't cause rates to go up
    Quote me where I said rates won't go up. Otherwise it's something you just made up.

    , and in the next, you're claiming that because of the reduced competition T-Sprint is going to raise their rates in order to provide maximum returns to shareholders.
    What I clearly said was, "You price your product so that it maximizes your revenue and your profit. " Sometimes that is raising rates. Other times, a company can lower rates, generating more revenue and in turn more profit.

    I have no crystal ball to predict where they will set pricing to maximize profit. I only believe in their right to do so without government interference.

    Leave T-Mobile and Sprint separate in the market, and they will keep rates down on their own.
    As I went over earlier, Sprint can't keep losing 2.2 billion a quarter and keep offering lower rates indefinitely. Even if someone buys them out, they're not going to continue to lose billions just to subsidize artificially low rates. Any investor is going to want a profit.


    We don't know that there aren't other offers out on the table for Sprint.
    We sure know in the time between when Son proposed a merger with T-mobile during the Obama administration and was discouraged from doing so and the time when this merger was announced, that not a single company announced any merger deal with Sprint. Not one! That's what we know. If it's such a great buy, where are all of the buyers? The truth is that its such an awful buy that nobody wants it. It's only worth it to T-Mobile, because they can deploy Sprint's unused spectrum, and they can get enough synergy with costs cuts to make it worth it.

    You can name a bunch of names, but not one has made an offer for Sprint because for them it would be a bad investment.

    The cable companies could buy them. Amazon or Google could buy them. Some other company could buy them. There are lots of possibilities.
    No evidence that anything you mentioned is a likely possibility. Sounds more like wishful thinking.


    If you actually believed in free market and competition like you say you do, you'd be against the merger.
    No, I already said I'm for the merger to add a stronger competitor to the scene. I am against government intervention to keep companies weak and less able to compete. You support the government intervention as you clearly have stated. You want the government to determine who should be big and who should be small. (As if the government should ever make such a decision.) You believe that keeping them small will keep your personal costs lower. There is no guarantee of that.

    I say, let them merge. Let them compete. And let the chips fall where they may as to who is the winner.


    Postpaid is a different class of service. And Boost's prices will go up if the merger goes through, as all prices in the market will go up.
    I don't know what class of service that a Boost owned by Dish will offer and you don't know either. The fact is Dish will have the spectrum to build out a full nationwide network. That's the fourth competitor. You don't know what their pricing will be, nor do you know it will go up. If four companies is the magic number to keep prices where you like them, then you should embrace Dish/Boost.

    But in rural areas, they already have plenty of spectrum, much of which is not deployed today.
    Right because as a distant 3rd competitor, they haven't had the resources to build out much of that rural spectrum. But given a greater economy of scale, they can then do so.

    T-Mobile was building for LTE, they should have done a better job doing that. It would have been WAY more cost effective to do it right in the first place than to have to go back and re-do it,
    They couldn't afford to do more due to their financial condition. They had to live with what they could do.

    Post T-Sprint, they will have an even more concentrated urban/metro market, so why would they go back and fix their crappy rural networks when AT&T and Verizon already have most of those customers?
    Because many prime AT&T and Verizon customers want such rural coverage occasionally. If you want to win them away, you have to build out that rural network to compete.


    If you don't want to be called a T-Mobile troll/fanboy, then don't act
    Or if I don't want to see you resort to name calling, I can ask that you stop violating the forum rules and stop calling people names. Disagree with my views if you want. However, there is no need to call anyone names for disagreeing with you.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    AT&T and Verizon support this merger because less government intervention in the wireless business is good for them long term.
    Having a stronger competitor is never good for a business.

    As to my belief in government regulation of business and/or price controls, these are two vastly different things. It's disingenuous for you to lump them together in a false equivalency to try and invalidate the concept of legitimate government oversight.
    I'm only going off what you said. You want the government to block the merger because you feel that "the only price competition comes from smaller carriers trying to disrupt by undercutting price". That's what you said.

    And as I pointed out, blocking the merger is no guarantee that price increases won't happen (as you and the 13 attorney generals believe). You just want the government to pick and choose who stays big and who stays small. "All hail the great government."


    A free market assumes that anyone can come in and build the proverbial "better mousetrap." In wireless, all the mice have already been spoken for.
    And your point is that it means the government should say AT&T and Verizon can be as big as they want. T-mobile and Sprint should remain small. Sprint should subsidize low prices at a loss so you can have a cheaper payment per month. And what happens when Sprint runs out of cash to subsidize those low prices that you want so much? You don't seem to have a good answer for that. The only answer I hear is some deep pocket company will come along and take over the subsidies at a great loss to them. And that's not very realistic.


    if the residents of Forgotten County, Oregon decide AT&T's, Verizon's or whoever serves that area's service sucks, they could petition the appropriate regulators to investigate and force the provider to improve it, or abdicate the wireless license for that area to someone who would ultimately serve them better.
    Right, that great unknown someone who can do it better. Who might that be? If your plan went into effect, it would be the taxpayer financing at great expense some carrier who might not do it any better than AT&T or Verizon. It just goes against the government debt and the government ends up paying for a company who could still provide unsatisfactory service.

    And why is it the government's obligation to make sure Forgotten County, Oregon has quality cell phone service? If you, as an individual, choose to move to Forgotten County and you don't like your cell service, I see that as your problem. If cell service is that important to you, move somewhere else.


    Lastly, for the record, I was a small business owner for many years, from the early 90s to the mid 00s. I owned a retail store that sold cellular phones, pagers, and satellite TV systems in suburban Missouri, (and I had no problem with government regulation then or now!)
    Did you offer to hold your prices for 3 years? Or 5 years? Did you invite the government to see that you were "making piles of money" and you should be blocked from expanding to make more. Did you "put on the smoking jacket, lights a cigar, drinks some brandy" because you had enough revenue and decided you didn't need to compete with other businesses in your market anymore?

    These are the expectations you have of T-Mobile. Certainly you must have expected the same from your business.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    579
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Less weaker competitors. However, in return there is a stronger competitor who can compete better than the two smaller companies. That doesn't add up to less competition nor something they would love.
    Look at Canada for what less competition does to a market. They have 3 carriers and absurdly high prices. A combined T-Sprint would take a lot of pressure off of VZ and T, and would probably gain them at least a few hundred thousand customers who for whatever reason don't like T-Mobile.

    Quote me where I said rates won't go up. Otherwise it's something you just made up.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    If that's the only lesson you got from Economics 101, you should go back and re-take the course. You clearly missed the part on how spreading fixed costs across greater revenue opens up many doors for investment and expansion. Or how a larger competitor can compete far more strongly than a smaller competitor.
    So in one post, you're claiming that T-Sprint will cause all this great competition, and then in another, you're claiming that they won't really need to compete anymore, and they can all just sit back and be fat and happy, as there will be 3 national carriers instead of 4.

    What I clearly said was, "You price your product so that it maximizes your revenue and your profit. " Sometimes that is raising rates. Other times, a company can lower rates, generating more revenue and in turn more profit.
    That's corporate speak for raising rates in a less competitive market.

    As I went over earlier, Sprint can't keep losing 2.2 billion a quarter and keep offering lower rates indefinitely. Even if someone buys them out, they're not going to continue to lose billions just to subsidize artificially low rates. Any investor is going to want a profit.
    That's why the ideal buyer is a company that can either significantly reduce their costs of operation, like a consortium of Altice, Cox, Charter, and Comcast, or else gain other benefits from having a wireless network and a massive fiber backbone, like Amazon.

    We sure know in the time between when Son proposed a merger with T-mobile during the Obama administration and was discouraged from doing so and the time when this merger was announced, that not a single company announced any merger deal with Sprint. Not one! That's what we know. If it's such a great buy, where are all of the buyers? The truth is that its such an awful buy that nobody wants it. It's only worth it to T-Mobile, because they can deploy Sprint's unused spectrum, and they can get enough synergy with costs cuts to make it worth it.
    We don't know that. The market is constantly changing, and Sprint might be able to get other buyers interested in buying them. The biggest issue is how much debt they've racked up by a series of botched technology integrations.

    No evidence that anything you mentioned is a likely possibility. Sounds more like wishful thinking.
    Altice is tight with Sprint. Comcast and Charter have their own small Verizon MVNO operations. Throw in C-Spire and USCC as minority stakeholders in a consortium to buy Sprint, and you've got a pretty compelling case to keep Sprint alive as an independent entity. Amazon is interested in Boost Mobile.

    No, I already said I'm for the merger to add a stronger competitor to the scene. I am against government intervention to keep companies weak and less able to compete. You support the government intervention as you clearly have stated. You want the government to determine who should be big and who should be small. (As if the government should ever make such a decision.) You believe that keeping them small will keep your personal costs lower. There is no guarantee of that.
    Your logic is shaped like a delicious super pretzel. With the merger, we would need MORE government intervention in order to regulate fewer players on the market, versus the more conservative approach of not letting them merger, and letting the free market take care of things. I'm generally politically liberal, but in this case, I favor the more conservative approach of breaking companies up and letting them compete on their own versus trying to micro-manage how they operate with specific regulations, and only resorting to the latter where it is necessary (like cable companies) due to a monopoly market position. I'd also force AT&T to divest Time Warner and Comcast to divest NBCU. Those should never have been allowed to happen.

    I don't know what class of service that a Boost owned by Dish will offer and you don't know either. The fact is Dish will have the spectrum to build out a full nationwide network. That's the fourth competitor. You don't know what their pricing will be, nor do you know it will go up. If four companies is the magic number to keep prices where you like them, then you should embrace Dish/Boost.
    Public policy should not be based on a pipe dream pulled out of a known spectrum hoarder's derriere. What's so bizarre is that Ergen is now trying to help the merger get through. It's in his economic interest to block the merger and then sell off his spectrum at a massive profit.

    Right because as a distant 3rd competitor, they haven't had the resources to build out much of that rural spectrum. But given a greater economy of scale, they can then do so.
    They've built out a ton of towers that don't have most of their spectrum even lit up. It's not a resources issue, it's an issue of where their priorities are, and they cut corners as hard as they could to make a "coverage" map for TV ads. They could have built a network to rival that of the CLR carriers but they chose not to.

    They couldn't afford to do more due to their financial condition. They had to live with what they could do.
    They could have done it slightly slower, and done it right. No one has ever built out a network as fast as T-Mobile has, and there's a reason- their rural network is crap.

    Because many prime AT&T and Verizon customers want such rural coverage occasionally. If you want to win them away, you have to build out that rural network to compete.
    I wonder how many people are going to differentiate between a medicore network (AT&T and Verizon in many rural areas) and a crap network (T-Mobile in those areas), and how many will switch as a result. I'd bet that most of the T-Mobile customer base rarely finds themselves in a lot of the rural areas T and VZ cover better, and probably even less of the Sprint customer base does. Bringing Sprint into the fold concentrates T-Mobile even more into urban core markets, and away from rural.

    Or if I don't want to see you resort to name calling, I can ask that you stop violating the forum rules and stop calling people names. Disagree with my views if you want. However, there is no need to call anyone names for disagreeing with you.
    It's not about disagreeing. It's about being intellectually dishonest, and continually changing your positions in order to try and avoid admitting certain facts. If you were here to have an honest and genuine debate/discussion than it wouldn't be an issue. But you're not.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    579
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    And as I pointed out, blocking the merger is no guarantee that price increases won't happen (as you and the 13 attorney generals believe). You just want the government to pick and choose who stays big and who stays small. "All hail the great government."
    You're totally ignoring how the balance of regulation and market forces work. With more market forces at work, i.e. more competitors, than less regulation is needed. Then there's the third option that the US is increasingly adopting, which is the "just give it all to the giant corporations" method, which seems to be what you're advocating for, except that you continually lie about what the effects of that are, i.e. reduced competition and higher prices.

    And your point is that it means the government should say AT&T and Verizon can be as big as they want. T-mobile and Sprint should remain small.
    That was a good argument for blocking the Alltel, Cricket and MetroPCS acquisitions a number of years ago, but that has happened, and is now water under the bridge. The way the CLR spectrum was divided up, it was naturally headed for a duopoly of sorts all along, and that's exactly what we ended up with, with USCC being the sole decent sized exception to that rule and not selling out to T or VZ. Virtually all the other CLR carriers in the US are allied with either T or VZ, with the VZ allied carriers being LTEiRA carriers, and being very tightly integrated with Verizon's network.

    Right, that great unknown someone who can do it better. Who might that be? If your plan went into effect, it would be the taxpayer financing at great expense some carrier who might not do it any better than AT&T or Verizon. It just goes against the government debt and the government ends up paying for a company who could still provide unsatisfactory service.
    It could be a local co-op type of provider, although it's still risky, as they could just screw up the whole thing and end up with even worse service than the crappy service that AT&T and Verizon provide today.

    And why is it the government's obligation to make sure Forgotten County, Oregon has quality cell phone service? If you, as an individual, choose to move to Forgotten County and you don't like your cell service, I see that as your problem. If cell service is that important to you, move somewhere else.
    WOW. Why was it the government's obligation to do rural electrification? Rural telephone service? Because we decided as a country that people in rural areas and farmers should have access to similar technology that people in cities do. Yet our policies today for both ILEC fiber deployment and wireless service have failed to live up to those standards. ILECs are easy. Just require them to provide fiber to their entire POTS footprint. Wireless is harder, but at a minimum, you could require the B-side carriers to provide coverage everywhere over the POTS footprint, even though many of the B-side carriers are no longer the ILEC in that area, and that still leaves a lot of areas that are remote and don't have an ILEC, or or off-grid entirely without wireless service. Where do you draw the line? What sort of investments do you require? We know the service sucks today in many rural areas, even on AT&T and Verizon, but how do you set the end goal for that?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,357
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Having a stronger competitor is never good for a business.



    I'm only going off what you said. You want the government to block the merger because you feel that "the only price competition comes from smaller carriers trying to disrupt by undercutting price". That's what you said.

    And as I pointed out, blocking the merger is no guarantee that price increases won't happen (as you and the 13 attorney generals believe). You just want the government to pick and choose who stays big and who stays small. "All hail the great government."




    And your point is that it means the government should say AT&T and Verizon can be as big as they want. T-mobile and Sprint should remain small. Sprint should subsidize low prices at a loss so you can have a cheaper payment per month. And what happens when Sprint runs out of cash to subsidize those low prices that you want so much? You don't seem to have a good answer for that. The only answer I hear is some deep pocket company will come along and take over the subsidies at a great loss to them. And that's not very realistic.




    Right, that great unknown someone who can do it better. Who might that be? If your plan went into effect, it would be the taxpayer financing at great expense some carrier who might not do it any better than AT&T or Verizon. It just goes against the government debt and the government ends up paying for a company who could still provide unsatisfactory service.

    And why is it the government's obligation to make sure Forgotten County, Oregon has quality cell phone service? If you, as an individual, choose to move to Forgotten County and you don't like your cell service, I see that as your problem. If cell service is that important to you, move somewhere else.




    Did you offer to hold your prices for 3 years? Or 5 years? Did you invite the government to see that you were "making piles of money" and you should be blocked from expanding to make more. Did you "put on the smoking jacket, lights a cigar, drinks some brandy" because you had enough revenue and decided you didn't need to compete with other businesses in your market anymore?

    These are the expectations you have of T-Mobile. Certainly you must have expected the same from your business.
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I didn't make myself very clear, rather than assume you're misconstruing everything I wrote.

    Re: the Government picking "who stays small"

    Every time large companies in a limited market (you've still ignored my point that a market with a finite supply of "product" is by definition not a free market) the government looks at it to determine if it will benefit or harm consumers. All four large carriers are already the product of past mergers and acquisitions, most of which were scrutinized by the government before they were allowed to happen. At some point, there's a minimum number of carriers each of us believes need to exist to allow competition. For some of us it might be two, some three, some 50, whatever. If the government shouldn't block this merger, should they also not block a future AT&T/Verizon merger? Why should the govt decide "who stays small?" Breaking up monopolies and protecting consumers from anti-competitive behavior is one of the functions of government. If you don't like it, make a make a $3/minute call on your Ma Bell phone to complain to your congressman, or stop to get some $10/gallon gas at the Standard Oil station on the way to a protest rally about it

    Wireless uses a limited public resource, and thus deserves far more scrutiny and regulation than most industries.

    Again, we already have two large competitive carriers. A third isn't going to enhance competition in *that class* of service and pricing. You seem to believe it will either because 3 is more than 2 or because Johhny is just such a stand up guy (or fueled by a desire to destroy his rivals) he'll add some additional level of competitive pressure that AT&T and Verizon don't already feel from each other.

    I'm against the merger because it will (probably*) destroy the entire second tier if cellular service. To use Yet Another Dumb Analogy, look at cellular like restaurants- T-Mo is the McDonald's of cellular (making Sprint Taco Bell, I guess?) It's cheap and good enough for a quick meal for folks who can't afford, or don't want to pay $15-20 for dinner. If all the fast food joints merged, and decided to become another fast casual chain, Applebee's, Chili's and TGI Friday's wouldn't suddenly quake in fear that there's another nearly identical competitor, but an entire tier of the restaurant business would be gone.

    T-Mo and Sprint represent a special niche in the wireless business- the lower price for less service/less quality "good enough" tier that McDonald's serves. The tier we pick when we buy Ford instead of Mercedes, Wrangler instead of Calvin Klein, Spirit instead of United, etc.

    The loss of this tier would also create a ripple effect that takes down MVNOs (eventually, as their contracts expire) or decent prepaid rates because AT&T and Verizon don't need to compete with a second tier that no longer exists.

    (*I said "probably" because the spin off of Boost and the potential DISH deal might save the lower tier service level. The irony in this discussion, of course, is that's a condition being forced on New T-Mo by the same government that *you* want to stay out of this entirely. If the merger goes through and cellular manages to remain competitive, it will be this forced concession alone that saves the day. ...and, for the record, T-Mo is against it!)


    As to Forgotten County, Oregon, as members of this society, they too "own" their spectrum, so they should get a say in who uses it. Just like the government (supposedly) protects us from spectrum squatters and hoarders (companies who buy spectrum at auction just to hold it in hopes of reselling at a profit to existing carriers later), the government should protect us from those who buy and *misuse* spectrum. Companies that buy a license for an RSA (rural statistical area) but instead of service the residents of that area, just string a set of towers 20 miles apart on the highway to sell roaming minutes to the big four. That might be fine in a "free market" where another competitor might move in, but in wireless, there are only so many licenses available per area... And in Forgotten County , two have been used as highway roaming traps, and the rest are being sat on by AT&T and Verizon who haven't bothered building out those networks because they have more population dense areas to worry about.

    This is a situation where local residents should have the right to force a sale to a company that promises to cover the local schools, churches and the Piggly Wiggly, rather than have one of their wireless licenses unused in Charlie Ergen's back pocket.

    Re: did I promise to hold my business prices for three years, etc

    No, I wasn't trying to rule the world. I did however, invite competition because I knew (or at least thought!) I could either out compete anyone or find my niche.

    When the owner of the plaza my store was in came and asked my permission to allow another cellular dealer to open up in the same plaza (my lease gave me a right of refusal allowing me to be the only store of my category in the plaza) I said heck yes. In fact I stipulated that I'd only allow it if that store couldn't block a third or fourth, etc from coming in. Competition fuels business. Why do you think there's a Burger King across the street from every McDonald's or car dealers "coincidentally" all open up in clusters on the same block?

    I only wish my business grew large enough for the government to give a damn what I charged it who I wanted to merge with. Those are good problems to have in business!

    Re: smoking jackets, cigars, and brandy.

    You seemed to miss the joke. The point was New T-Mo (and by extension, your hero Legere) is no different than AT&T or Verizon. Once the feds give T-Mo the fast pass to the front of the line, they will act and operate exactly the same the big two. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

    I would have happily donned the smoking jacket if my business grew to a market domineering size and then I'd have blown smoke in the faces of all my former equals. That's what businesspeople do. Even the ones that pretend they're "cool" and your friend, like John Legere (or DISH's Charlie Ergen.)

    I guess my question for you, since you seem to think you've got me figured out, is why are you taking the long way around? If you want to subscribe to a large cellular carrier with ubiquitous coverage and cutting edge technology, why aren't you with AT&T or Verizon already? Why hitch your wagon to T-Mo when they were none of those things and hope they got there eventually?

    Or, perhaps, you're just a cheapskate like me, who bought T-Mo service decades ago because it was cheap and good enough, and now you feel like you've won the lottery. You've paid for your Big Mac, but you think you're going to get a Chateaubriand as soon as those pesky regulators hurry up and let this merger happen... And you think I'm in the selfish one!

    Careful what you wish for... Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. New T-Mo might not be the fun ride you think it'll be. Of course that doesn't matter, because some people here would defend T-Mo to the end even if they started printing their brochures on the skins of murdered puppies. I'm too pragmatic in my old age I'm only as loyal as my options to companies. As entrepreneur and radio talk show host Bruce Williams used to say, "never love anything that can't love you back." Reserve your real affection for people and animals- not houses, cars, TV shows, wireless companies, iPhones, etc.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WWYD: Old T-mobile plan and moving forward
    By Robynsus in forum General Prepaid discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 09:13 PM
  2. $17 EPP plan and call forwarding
    By D-layer in forum TELUS/Koodo/Public Mobile
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 04:42 PM
  3. Bell Question about family plan and call forwarding
    By thebigwoof in forum Bell/Virgin/Lucky/Solo
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-06-2006, 07:55 AM
  4. Amazon, Family Plans, and Contract Length
    By AdamfromChi in forum AT&T
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-29-2004, 10:18 AM
  5. Amazon Rate Plans and Updates
    By Ludwig in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2002, 08:36 PM

Bookmarks