FCC Chairman Backs T-Mobile, Sprint Merger With New Conditions (variety.com) 60
T-Mobile and Sprint submitted a new plan for their proposed $26 billion merger to the FCC -- including enhanced 5G buildout commitments and an agreement to spin off Sprint's Boost Mobile -- which got the nod from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. From a report: T-Mobile and Sprint first announced their plans to merge in April 2018, looking to combine forces to take on the two industry leaders -- AT&T and Verizon. To clear regulatory hurdles, the companies have been forced to make additional guarantees. Those include a commitment to deploying a 5G network that would cover 97% of the U.S. population within three years of the closing of the merger and 99% within six years. In addition, the revised T-Mobile/Sprint plan guarantees that their 5G network would reach deep into rural areas, with 85% of rural Americans covered within three years and 90% covered within six years. T-Mobile and Sprint also have promised that 90% of Americans would have access to mobile broadband service at speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and 99% would have access to speeds of at least 50 Mbps.
just more lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there is an ungodly large financial penalty for failing to meet those conditions then they are just flowery lies. I'm sure they'll just change definitions of what "5G" and "rural" are so that what they have now is sufficient.
Re: just more lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't large penalties: "Missed Percentage Voluntary Contribution >0%-5% $10,000,000 >5%-10% $25,000,000 >10%-25% $50,000,000 >25%-50% $100,000,000 >50% $250,000,000"
So significantly less than the cost of build out.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'm stumped. What comes two levels above "giggle test" -- "rolling on the floor test"?
AT&T and Verizon not held to same standards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a catalyst to competition?
Verizon and AT&T would need to meet these standards if they want to get the customers. Besides, Verizon and AT&T aren't the ones trying to pull off a multi-billion dollar merger, so why would they be required to do anything other than what they've already agreed to with past deals and what the government wanted in order to bless those?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a catalyst to competition?
No, it isn't. 5G sucks and only works properly when you're basically standing underneath the tower. Getting 97% of the U.S. population covered by 5G in three years is impossible even if every single carrier worked together to do so. The FCC might as well have simply told them, "no you can't merger."
5G vs. walls and windows? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Back in the late 19th century, this German guy came up with an idea which ended up being called an "Antenna." [wikipedia.org] It's a pretty neat idea where you put something on the outside of a building and it picks up the radio signals outside of the building and converts them to electric impulses inside the building.
These "Antennas" became pretty popular in rural areas in the 1950s and 1960s to pick up TV signals. Most houses had some kind of antenna.
I know, it's a crazy idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I put an antenna out when the device can't use it - You'd still need something to distribute the signal (router/repeater/etc).
Exactly. And this is bad because...?
Right now, in my house, I have a Cable Modem which hooks to a router with WiFi. My portable and wired devices can use it no problem in the house.
So my phone, for example, uses WiFi in the house and 5G outside the house.
Re:5G vs. walls and windows? (Score:4, Informative)
That's what I don't get about this push to "5G"....if it can't really be used indoors, then what good is it?
Are they expecting everyone to run outside with their phones/tablets any time they want to make a call or stream something mobile?
Re: (Score:2)
You'll still fallback to 4G speeds everywhere else. It's just 5G's biggest speed gains that require uninterrupted line of sight to the cell tower.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering that myself and I guess most of us in the US, spend most of our times indoors doing things....exaclty what good does 5G give us, if it only works outdoors, in line of sight of a tower?
So the merger is scuttled? (Score:1)
5G will never reach 97% of Americans. Even counting all *4* wireless carriers coverage 5 years from now. We're way too spread out, signal falloff is too high, and hills and trees are still a thing.
Hell 4G coverage only covers like 90% and we've had that for how long now? And even that number is a lie as again coverage is affected by trees, hills, distance from nearest interstate, and angel farts.
Of course as others (rightly) point out, the FCC will do nothing when Sprobile (T-int?) fails to achieve this co
Re: (Score:2)
With the War on China where exactly will this new company get the networking equipment to to build this upgraded network from?
That depends. Do these tariffs also cover Taiwan Republic of China and Hong Kong SAR? If not, they're options. If so, look at Japan and Republic of Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes it would apply to HK as the pretense that has autonomy from China is long gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the tariffs apply to Taiwan?
For the same reason that they apply to Hong Kong: the United States recognizes the People's Republic of China, which the People's Republic of China treats as mutually exclusive with recognizing Taiwan as independent.
As Fry said... (Score:2)
I'm shocked, SHOCKED! Well, not that shocked.
You should be shocked (Score:2)
What are the odds that Verizon Corporate Lawyer^W^W^W FCC Chairman Ajit Pai would approve of a move that decreased competition in the wireless communication space?
For those that don't remember (Score:5, Insightful)
My advice is vote Warren or Bernie Sanders. They're the only two national candidates with any track record of reigning in monopolies, and it's the only shot to stop these mergers and acquisitions. There are some other candidates that might (Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang) but Warren & Sanders are the only ones that have a track record long enough to be sure they won't change gears in office.
Correct (Score:2)
On a side note you can see how pervasive pro-corporate establishment media is. You didn't even consider breaking up a company. But you did pick up on the narrative that we must let companies merge so they can compete. I'm not blaming you, but it's good to be aware. Check out Secular Talk and Non-Compete on YouTube for good alternate New media takes.
Re: (Score:3)
My advice is vote Warren or Bernie Sanders.
I plan on doing that (even in the primary), but in the interim it'd also suggest you write your congressperson and get him/her to understand you think an actual market competition is American. A monopoly is just another way to say "state-run business". That's a surefire way to reduced freedom for you as a consumer and a citizen.
Re: (Score:1)
T-Mobile was the "uncarrier", which sounds dumb as a bag of hammers but what it actually meant was they sold cheap, decent unlimited plans at a time when everyone else was metering with tight bandwidth caps.
T-Mobile's "uncarrier" campaign is all marketing spin. They were the carrier that pushed to get rid of phone subsidies (largely due to the cost of buying iPhones from Apple). They touted the change as going "no contract", except the finance agreement to buy a decent phone is still a contract, and the balance due if you foreclosed could be significantly larger than the previous early termination fees.
The carriers which were truly disruptive against the AT&T / Verizon / T-Mobile oligarchy were Sprint (t
Re: (Score:2)
They touted the change as going "no contract", except the finance agreement to buy a decent phone is still a contract
They separated paying for the phone from paying for the service.
Thus, they stopped screwing customers who didn't upgrade to a new subsidised phone every two years.
Re: (Score:2)
>"My advice is vote Warren or Bernie Sanders. They're the only two national candidates with any track record of reigning in monopolies"
Then the only problem is their stance on 99% of the other issues... :)
Trading monopoly-busting (which I do support) for centralized planning/control, identity/victimhood politics, open borders, mega-taxing, etc, is far from an overall "win." (Hint: I wish we had more choices in party, not in candidates, which is why we desperately need IRV or similar). In any case, I am
Re: (Score:2)
Endorsing Monpolies is Bad for Us All (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If this merger falls through, what do you think happens to Sprint? They go bankrupt. And then they get sliced up by the liquidators. Who do you think has the most money in order to buy those assets? My bet is on AT&T and Verizon. Congratulations, #1 and #2 just got bigger, and now #3 is in a far weaker position to compete, and will be the next one looking to liquidate.
Oh, but I'm sure you'll be asking for the breakup of AT&T and Verizon next. Because that's going to happen with this DoJ.
#3 and
Puffery (Score:2)
"T-Mobile and Sprint first announced their plans to merge in April 2018, looking to combine forces to take on the two industry leaders -- AT&T and Verizon. To clear regulatory hurdles, the companies have been forced to make additional guarantees. Those include a commitment to deploying a 5G network that would cover 97% of the U.S. population within three years of the closing of the merger and 99% within six years. In addition, the revised T-Mobile/Sprint plan guarantees that their 5G network would reach
Who put marketing in charge?? (Score:3)
Uh huh. Those are marketing promises -- otherwise known as bald-faced lies. As usual, nobody in engineering was even consulted prior to these FCC negotiations.
There are multiple Dilbert comics which very directly mirror this type of situation -- and you know where Scott Adams gets his ideas for those scenarios? I'll give you a hint: He doesn't have to make them up. (No... seriously: He says so himself in his book [hbr.org], as well as to anyone who asks.)
Credibility (Score:2)
We used to be able to trust the chairman of the FCC to be highly skilled and qualified. Decisions made in the past were to protect consumers, resources and to promote advancement in technology.
It's sad to see what used to be a highly respected organization reduced to the embarrassing and politically influenced condition of today. Decisions can't any longer be trusted to be made to be in the best interest for all concerned.