1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

T-Mobile to buy Sprint for $26 billion in an all-stock merger

By William Gayde ยท 34 replies
Apr 29, 2018
Post New Reply
  1. After several years of on and off negotiations, T-Mobile and Sprint have finally agreed on a merger. Rumors that a deal was nearing completion surfaced last week and came true Sunday morning, sooner than expected.

    The deal is an all-stock merger and would leave Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile's parent company, in charge. T-Mobile's vocal CEO John Legere will stay at the helm as the new company looks towards the upcoming adoption of 5G networks.

    In the official press release Sprint is listed with an enterprise valuation of $59 billion with the combined company being valued at $146 billion. The terms of the merger however list Sprint's and T-Mobile's values at $26.5 and $54.1 billion, respectively. The two companies together have $60 billion in debt and by combining their operations, they are counting on counting on reducing this.

    The merger announcement states that the new company "will be named T-Mobile, and it will be a force for positive change in the U.S. wireless, video, and broadband industries." Of the 14 seats on the new T-Mobile board, Deutsche Telekom would hold nine and SoftBank, Sprint's majority owner, would hold four.

    If the deal passes antitrust regulators, it would result in a wireless provider with nearly 100 million customers. This would leave the US market dominated by just three providers and give T-Mobile a boost in going after Verizon and AT&T.

    Given their reception to the ongoing AT&T and Time Warner merger, the Trump Administration may take a very close look at this deal however. Previous negotiations failed due to regulatory opposition from the Obama administration and internal differences in opinion of how the new company should operate. Citing a more demanding wireless marketplace, Sprint and T-Mobile acknowledged that a merger was the only way for the two to compete.

    Permalink to story.

  2. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

    This needs to be blocked.
    JamesSWD and Reachable like this.
  3. trparky

    trparky TS Evangelist Posts: 487   +359

    Why? With the way that Sprint is being run into the ground the company would be dead in two years anyways. Either way we'd be down to just three carriers.
  4. Scshadow

    Scshadow TS Evangelist Posts: 559   +199

    I don't really view sprint or t-mobile as true competitors to AT&T and Verizon anyway. Sprints always had the crappiest of networks and T-mobile ran attractive uncarrier initiatives that failed me due to lack of coverage in the places I live. If they can piece together one competitive company out of these two companies, I'm actually okay with that.
    Tanstar and trparky like this.
  5. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

  6. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 3,152   +1,411

    I can't believe Sprint as even lasted as long as they have. I used to have them and I'd joke that their networks measured their speed in kbps instead of mbps like everyone else.

    With all the other choices people have for wireless now - cricket, google-fi, Metro PCS, and probably a bunch more - I don't see any decrease in competition. (for all I know they probably all use ATT network though)
  7. GeforcerFX

    GeforcerFX TS Evangelist Posts: 849   +352

    Block the merger and break up Verizon and AT&T into two companies each, with overlapping coverage acess as part of the breakup. The T-Mobile and sprint can compete and we get even more competition in the mobile market.
  8. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

    All of those companies purchase access from the bigger carriers. You can't honestly expect those smaller companies to have the money to layout nationwide service. They have to purchase access from the big carriers. It's nothing more than the illusion of choice.
    Teko03 likes this.
  9. Scshadow

    Scshadow TS Evangelist Posts: 559   +199

    Yeah sure. That overlapping coverage could only be top 50 markets. Then we'd have double the efforts to deploy 5G in the top 50 markets. while everyone else gets screwed. No thanks. Not sure what the solution is but its not that.
    Tanstar likes this.
  10. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

    Or, ya know, just force sharing of the infrastructure at reasonable prices. It only works in every other 1st world country. IMO vital infrastructure like internet and phone shouldn't be privately owned period. The people should own it and rent it out to companies. But hey, that doesn't make companies any money now does it.
    SirChocula likes this.
  11. mctommy

    mctommy TS Addict Posts: 293   +67

    You forget that all of the top two wireless carriers will have either their own backhaul or use one of the cable companies backhaul... T-Mobile and Verizon have to use the cable and telephone companies backhaul.

    Cricket = ATT prepaid
    MetroPCS = T-Mobile prepaid
    google-fi = T-Mobile & Spring MVNO
    a bunch of other = MVNO for the 4 big carriers
  12. Hexic

    Hexic TS Evangelist Posts: 479   +307

    That wouldn't make the companies any money. And it would defeat the entire purpose of capitalism. "The People" who own the companies are the shareholders and customers who continue to pay for the services. Money talks and controlling businesses like these is necessary; but you don't need the government micro-managing business to that degree.
    Tanstar likes this.
  13. bandit8623

    bandit8623 TS Addict Posts: 152   +55

    What needs to happen is sprint just gets a owner willing to invest. Tmobile is doing just fine on its own.
  14. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

    You clearly missed the joke. FYI capatalism only exists because the government controls it. Without rules or government intervention there would be no one to control intellectual property rights and there would be no one to regulate the stock market. We would go back to the era of the financial wild west with frequent pump and dumps. In some ways we are as big pharma is exploiting the lack of drug pricing controls. Capitalism can co-exist with government intervention as it has, does, and will. Without government controls a capitalistic economy would quickly collapse. People who say that capatalism is all about making money do not look at the reality of our world, in that pure system based on ideologies rarely work out. In the case of capitalism, putting money above all else has obvious implications.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2018
  15. gamerk2

    gamerk2 TS Addict Posts: 218   +146

    That's the exact thinking that got us into this situation in the first place.
  16. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al TS Evangelist Posts: 5,153   +3,575

    As has been proven on more that a few occasions, having too few big companies invites the opportunity for price fixing and criminal conspiracy to control the market. If anything we need MORE competitors and more competition to insure that consumers get the best deal possible. Those that would refuse should take their products elsewhere ......
  17. fl21289

    fl21289 TS Booster Posts: 92   +75

    I say do it! At&t is a SCAM. I have T-mobile and it's actually one of the fastest networks here in South Florida. I get 50-75mbps daily on my speeds... I can't wait till 5G Home Wifi comes out and takes over the home internet game too. Goodbye Comcast!
  18. OutlawCecil

    OutlawCecil TS Guru Posts: 653   +469

    Lol Evernessince looking at your profile, it's funny that 90% of your posts disagree with everybody. Are you just trying to up your post count or are you just trolling?

    This merger would be a good thing. It will create more jobs, better competition, will potentially lower overall customer costs, and aid in the rollout of 5G. Verizon alone has about 149 million customers. With this merger, T-Mobile would be at about 100 million. That is not overkill.
  19. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 2,842   +193

    5G another buzz word like 4G LTE.. They all use the same Cell Towers which are scatter all over the place. Better coverage at Disney World than your average local area map. Give us 5 bars strong not just at your local store. I was going to put up Cell ANT use for RVs to pull in more signal with Cell Wireless Access Point indoors. Cost wise $110 to pull that off. This merger will it help us on T-mobile already who knows. Just better not raise prices to do so.. I not mergers Metro PCS 4G LTE is just a mere 3G/4G signal from T-mobile. Everyone is using the same cell towers and sharing space to do so.. You have to pay to get a good signal otherwise it's poor. If your on Android there app called OpenSignal no ads free does a lot for what you want to know about Cell towers in your map area. Compares the major 4 carries in your too. Still all this talk about mergers who wins they do in the video not us the consumer.
  20. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

    How will it create more jobs, better competition, and lower overall consumers cost? I find zero faith in your words since the Spectrum / Time Warner merger has done nothing but cause a loss in jobs, higher consumer costs, and worse customer support.

    You state allot of conjecture but you never delineate. When there are few players in a space and two big competitors are merging, it never ends in more competition. That should be obvious.

    "Lol Evernessince looking at your profile, it's funny that 90% of your posts disagree with everybody. Are you just trying to up your post count or are you just trolling?"

    Projecting your self reflection sessions on other's isn't healthy. You should look at your own comments before casting stones. At the very least, you should quote people when talking to them.
  21. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

    5G is not a WiFi standard, it is a cellular data standard. And just a heads up, 5G does not penetrate buildings or objects well at all. It's essentially worthless when you get inside any house or building. You would still have to rely on 4G for inside your home. That's just an intrinsic quality to the wavelength of the millimeter waves used for 5G.
  22. OutlawCecil

    OutlawCecil TS Guru Posts: 653   +469

    Cable companies are a total monopoly. Time Warner and Comcast are never in the same areas so everyone has one cable company to choose from, which is the exact definition of a monopoly. How exactly would going from 4 major companies to 3 a monopoly or a comparison to cable companies. Especially when there's also tons of other competitive side-companies out there?

    lol @ "you never delineate". I give you every detail about why I feel a certain way and you mention something unrelated every time instead of staying on topic.
  23. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

    I hate to break this to you but Cell Phone service is very similar to cable. In my area (which isn't at all rural) you have one choice, Verizion. Sure, you can get AT&T if you want service 25% of the time and 1 bar the rest. You can also get resellers like republic wireless that rent the Verizon network but again, money is still going to Verizon. It's a carefully balanced choice you have to make, where in the end you always get less when you pay less. It's a great illusion of choice that keeps the big carrier in it's premium spot. If it were true competition you'd at least be able to get a better service at the same or lower price.

    So yay for regional cartels, the exact same as the cable situation. But hey, at least you bought into the small carrier that rent service from the big carrier, apparently their illusion of choice worked on you.
  24. OutlawCecil

    OutlawCecil TS Guru Posts: 653   +469

    Well if you live in the boonies, you can't expect a whole lot. I've never heard of any decent size town having one cell provider. If there's money to be made there, multiple providers will put towers there to compete.
  25. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 3,816   +3,209

    It's not even just locally in my state, the whole district is underserved. There's multiple providers but everyone but Verizon comes with one severe drawback or another. It's pick your poison. Similar situation for cable. Spectrum and Verizon have identical pricing and speed, both have terrible customer service, and both of them use deceptive billing and throttling practices. For example, the "100 Mbps" they offer only extends to new customers. They keep old customers on the same plan forever unless you pay a fee. You end up paying $40 more a month than a new customer for the same speed. If you don't you are stuck, they will literally leave you on the 12 Mbps plan you signed up for 12 years ago with Roadrunner. Verizon forced all their cell data users off their grandfathered data plans as well.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...