The two carriers on Sunday, bringing together the nation’s third- and fourth-largest wireless service providers. The combined company will retain the T-Mobile name, and T-Mobile CEO John Legere and his team management team will run the day-to-day operations.
The deal comes at a time when the US carriers are bending over backward to win your business, leading to freebies like access to Netflix, as well as a renewed eagerness to court smartphone users with unlimited data. Sprint is still giving away a year of service for free. Those competitive pressures have driven T-Mobile and Sprint together. And while executives from both companies vow lower prices and better service, consumer groups and analysts are skeptical.
Worried about how this might affect you? CNET breaks down everything you need to know about this mega mobile merger.
Why are they merging?
T-Mobile and Sprint have long courted each other for a potential combination. The logic is simple: Verizon and AT&T are far bigger than either of the two companies, and a merger would create a stronger competitor.
Actually, T-Mobile and Sprint tried twice before. Back in 2014, Sprint parent SoftBank floated the idea of a deal with T-Mobile, but regulators and the White House were keen on keeping four national competitors. The current administration and the FCC are more open to deals, which is why both sides got close last year. The deal fell apart in November when Softbank and T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom couldn’t agree on how much control each side would get.
So this deal is a slam dunk, right?
Not necessarily. Analysts opinions on whether the deal will get regulatory approval vary, but many are giving it a 50-50 shot. Remember, the government is trying to kill a deal between AT&T and Time Warner, and those two companies don’t compete against each other.
That’s why T-Mobile and Sprint are pushing the idea that the merger will actually create jobs, largely thanks to the combined company’s investment in 5G.
Hey, that sounds good
Not so fast. Many analysts note that a key way to cut costs from a merger is the elimination of redundant positions. T-Mobile and Sprint wouldn’t be any different.
“It’s hard to calculate how a company can achieve $6 billion in primarily cost synergies while growing the employee base,” said BTIG Research analyst Walt Piecyk.
OK, but how does this affect me?
In the near term, nothing changes. The deal is expected to close in the first half of next year, so T-Mobile and Sprint have to keep operating as independent companies until then.
T-Mobile Chief Operating Officer Mike Sievert said in an interview that Un-carrier events are still planned for this year as the status quo remains.
Sprint customers get one near-term benefit: The company struck a roaming deal to let its customers ride on the T-Mobile network if Sprint isn’t available, which should yield better coverage in more places.
What happens after the deal is closed?
That’s the million-dollar question. T-Mobile and Sprint promise a combined network that will deliver better service at lower prices. They argue that their combined scale will help them build out a faster, more efficient network.
“This competition will result in lower prices for Americans,” Sievert said. “It will probably result in lower prices across the board.”
But consumer advocacy groups are saying the deal raises red flags.
“If the national wireless market shrinks from essentially four companies to three, history suggests the negative impact on competition would mean higher prices for many people,” said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union.
So prices could go up?
Potentially. There’s a reason why Wall Street likes this deal — financial analysts believe that the industry is a little too competitive and that removing one player could ease the pressure.
But given the entrenched positions of Verizon and AT&T, the combined company may still need to pull out all the stops to stay competitive.
“It doesn’t matter if you have three or four killers in the room going at each other,” said Roger Entner, a consultant with Recon Analytics. “There will be blood on the ground.”
Lopez Research analyst Maribel Lopez said she doesn’t buy the idea of lower prices, but suspects that pricing will remain neutral after the deal.
Didn’t Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure say 5G would be an opportunity to increase prices?
Yep. Claure said during a keynote address at the Mobile World Congress trade show in March that he sees 5G as an opportunity to charge more because it would be considered a premium service.
In an interview on Sunday, Claure said that the comments referred to the idea of building a 5G network for just the Sprint base. But combining T-Mobile and Sprint’s assets and building for a much larger base means an opportunity to lower prices.
“This changes the game,” Claure said.
What happens to existing plans?
Sievert declined to comment on what the companies plan to do with many of the ultra-competitive grandfathered plans that customers have clung to. T-Mobile has generally been good about honoring existing plans within its own service, but it’s unclear what it would do with Sprint’s plans.
How will the migration happen?
The companies say it will take about three years to migrate customers over to the T-Mobile network. While both companies support LTE, T-Mobile’s older network is based on a technology called GSM, while Sprint’s is based on CDMA — two incompatible networks.
Fortunately, popular phones like some Samsung models and the iPhones on Sprint can run on T-Mobile. Sievert says there are about 20 million Sprint phones that are compatible on T-Mobile.
Eventually, the idea is to get everyone onto the T-Mobile network.
What about 5G?
One of the critical parts to T-Mobile and Sprint’s argument for merging is the move to 5G. The companies say neither can build the 5G network they want without a combination, although that would have hardly been the rhetoric had you asked either side that question just a few days ago.
The case for 5G leadership is tailor-made for the White House, which killed a proposed takeover of Qualcomm by Singapore-based Broadcom because it threatened the US’ position on the next-generation wireless technology.