The DOJ is reportedly planning to approve the T-Mobile/Sprint merger

Polycount

Posts: 2,760   +571
Staff member

After plenty of hurdles (both political and legal), it seems T-Mobile and Sprint's lengthy merger is finally set to become a reality. According to a new report from The Wall Street Journal, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is planning to approve the deal sooner rather than later.

We all know the DOJ had some pretty strong antitrust concerns regarding the agreement in the past, so what changed their mind? As we reported around the middle of last month, T-Mobile and Sprint proposed to sell off a portion of their wireless equipment to Dish Network, which would allow the company to effectively act as the fourth major mobile carrier.

Earlier this month, it was unclear whether or not that proposal was enough to soothe the DOJ's antitrust fears, but now, it seems it was.

Instead of merely taking away competition from the industry, the T-Mobile/Sprint merger could add a new mobile carrier to fill the competitive void left behind after the deal goes through. That seems like a far better deal for consumers and the industry as a whole.

If the $26 billion deal is approved, it'll be interesting to see how the mobile market is affected. We look forward to covering the matter well into the future, and we'll let you know if the DOJ does indeed allow this merger to continue uninhibited.

Permalink to story.

 

Nocturne

Posts: 220   +116
Well this is one of those things that will either be good or bad, regardless by the time you know it's too late.

Excalibur 1981 Merlin comes to mind with his quote to Arthur about the sweet Guinevere gave him, "by the time you take a bite it's too late....it's too late"

In this situation people can speculate, like we always have in the past, but whether or not it's ok or good for the whole is a question answered only by time and opportunity.
 

mctommy

Posts: 366   +100
Well this is one of those things that will either be good or bad, regardless by the time you know it's too late.

Excalibur 1981 Merlin comes to mind with his quote to Arthur about the sweet Guinevere gave him, "by the time you take a bite it's too late....it's too late"

In this situation people can speculate, like we always have in the past, but whether or not it's ok or good for the whole is a question answered only by time and opportunity.
It'll be mostly good for the consumers for the initial 3-year since T-Mobile "promised" that part of the deal, they won't raise their prices for the first 3 years. After that, only time will tell.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,463   +6,141
Well this is one of those things that will either be good or bad, regardless by the time you know it's too late.

Excalibur 1981 Merlin comes to mind with his quote to Arthur about the sweet Guinevere gave him, "by the time you take a bite it's too late....it's too late"

In this situation people can speculate, like we always have in the past, but whether or not it's ok or good for the whole is a question answered only by time and opportunity.
Judging by continuing conglomeration of corporations in the untied states and lack of small businesses, it's a pretty safe bet that concentrating power among even fewer companies is in fact rarely if ever a good thing. That companies can outspend the government in litigation with impunity and become "too big to fail" is evidence enough of that.

I'm not one who subscribes to the idea that these companies merging will somehow bring value to the America public. If you truly believe that any company that spouts that line is telling the truth then you completely forget that every publicly traded company answers to the Almighty dollar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robb213

Evernessince

Posts: 5,463   +6,141
So, are we gonna see plan price hikes soon?
I wouldnt mind cheaper data though :F
They will play nice for the first few years, after that you will likely see a price increase.

Just look at the charter-spectrum merger as an example. Not a single benefit trickled down to customers. In fact customers now have to contend with charters new intentionally vague bills. Thanks to the repeal of Net Neutrality, ISPs are no longer required to clearly state certain surcharge and fees.
 

Nocturne

Posts: 220   +116
Judging by continuing conglomeration of corporations in the untied states and lack of small businesses, it's a pretty safe bet that concentrating power among even fewer companies is in fact rarely if ever a good thing. That companies can outspend the government in litigation with impunity and become "too big to fail" is evidence enough of that.

I'm not one who subscribes to the idea that these companies merging will somehow bring value to the America public. If you truly believe that any company that spouts that line is telling the truth then you completely forget that every publicly traded company answers to the Almighty dollar.
Keeping power in the hands of fewer corporations is easier to regulate and also easier to keep an eye on, and by making merger concessions you can always apply more to them or threaten a breakup if they fail to fall in line.
 

Nocturne

Posts: 220   +116
It'll be mostly good for the consumers for the initial 3-year since T-Mobile "promised" that part of the deal, they won't raise their prices for the first 3 years. After that, only time will tell.
It depends if a price hike is warranted, if they go e value for the increased cost like a better faster reliable network and host better features due to the merger than fine that is warranted, but if all they are doing is pleasing stock holders well let's see how much longer Doug Parker can stay the head of American Airlines as an example....
 

PEnnn

Posts: 519   +479
One headline here said "DOJ is looking into tech giants". and the headline right here says....."The DOJ is reportedly planning to approve the T-Mobile/Sprint merger"

One can see a pattern where the DOJ can't learn from history or its own mistakes!
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,463   +6,141
Keeping power in the hands of fewer corporations is easier to regulate and also easier to keep an eye on, and by making merger concessions you can always apply more to them or threaten a breakup if they fail to fall in line.
The point was never to "keep an eye on them", it was to get the market to self regulate, which happens naturally with competition. What you suggest is one step from state controlled businesses.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 463   +352
Judging by continuing conglomeration of corporations in the untied states and lack of small businesses, it's a pretty safe bet that concentrating power among even fewer companies is in fact rarely if ever a good thing. That companies can outspend the government in litigation with impunity and become "too big to fail" is evidence enough of that.

I'm not one who subscribes to the idea that these companies merging will somehow bring value to the America public. If you truly believe that any company that spouts that line is telling the truth then you completely forget that every publicly traded company answers to the Almighty dollar.
Keeping power in the hands of fewer corporations is easier to regulate and also easier to keep an eye on, and by making merger concessions you can always apply more to them or threaten a breakup if they fail to fall in line.
Except that's not what happens; see the 737 MAX for reference. Oversight agencies are stacked with industry insiders, as no one is willing to pay the cost (taxes) to actually train experts who can do independent oversight. Likewise, these corporations control such large swaths of the economy that there is major pressure to NOT punish them, as doing so could potentially cost [STRIKE]jobs[/STRIKE]campaign contributions. The only ones who benefit in mergers like this are the corporations bottom lines, as they can remove overlapping staff to increase overall profits.

Fact is, the US needs to pass a new anti-trust law that allows the Federal Government to forcibly break up a corporation for the single purpose of being too large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

Nocturne

Posts: 220   +116
The point was never to "keep an eye on them", it was to get the market to self regulate, which happens naturally with competition. What you suggest is one step from state controlled businesses.
Self regulation is like asking a wolf to herd sheep, it's a stupid concept to begin with, worked so good with big pharma, government oversight should be a service provided by social contract between citizens and regulating bodies, however penalties should be crippling depending on infraction and with a clear deviation from ethics and morals on a continual basis they should be denied right to operate, pure and simple.....
 

Nocturne

Posts: 220   +116
Except that's not what happens; see the 737 MAX for reference. Oversight agencies are stacked with industry insiders, as no one is willing to pay the cost (taxes) to actually train experts who can do independent oversight. Likewise, these corporations control such large swaths of the economy that there is major pressure to NOT punish them, as doing so could potentially cost [STRIKE]jobs[/STRIKE]campaign contributions. The only ones who benefit in mergers like this are the corporations bottom lines, as they can remove overlapping staff to increase overall profits.

Fact is, the US needs to pass a new anti-trust law that allows the Federal Government to forcibly break up a corporation for the single purpose of being too large.
First off people need to go to jail for the 737 Max, both Boeing CEO/CFO as well as board partners for clearly putting profits above the safety of passengers and crew, on top of members of the FAA and the airlines that helped push the 737max through it's certification process, they are all guilty.

American airlines will probably end up suffering the worst to be honest, contract negotiations have failed for mechanics and fleet service based on terrible foreign maintenance outsource and insurance concerns, at this point they are up to presidential level advisors which are not in the companies favor for all the things they failed to deliver upon.

Regardless the system need to be changed and the left and right wing extremists need to be removed nothing good has come this crapfest of Republicans and Democrats trying only for kudos and party lines.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 463   +352
First off people need to go to jail for the 737 Max, both Boeing CEO/CFO as well as board partners for clearly putting profits above the safety of passengers and crew, on top of members of the FAA and the airlines that helped push the 737max through it's certification process, they are all guilty.

American airlines will probably end up suffering the worst to be honest, contract negotiations have failed for mechanics and fleet service based on terrible foreign maintenance outsource and insurance concerns, at this point they are up to presidential level advisors which are not in the companies favor for all the things they failed to deliver upon.

Regardless the system need to be changed and the left and right wing extremists need to be removed nothing good has come this crapfest of Republicans and Democrats trying only for kudos and party lines.
Don't blame the political parties, they just do what the populace WANTS them to do.

The reason this happened is simple: The government doesn't have the necessary money for proper oversight because airplanes are so complex only the engineers who make them understand how they work. So guess who runs the oversight agency? The same engineers who built the damn thing. That's why the government lets the airliners self-certify, because it's impossible for the government to have the expertise to do it themselves.

The biggest irony is Boeing already had a Jet that fills the niche the MAX is supposed to fill: The 757. Airlines have finally figured out how to use the 757 properly, so what Boeing should have done was restart 757 production rather then re-design the 737 and try to pass it off as an upgrade rather then a brand new Jet.