Page 3 of 64 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 960

Thread: The final obstacle to the T-Mobile/Sprint Merger Begins Tomorrow

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    188
    Device(s)
    Looking for new one
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hofonewb9 View Post
    The deal TMobile made to gain DOJ approval was to set Dish up as viable competition in the industry. So, dish's past dealing in the wireless world are fair game. Dish's finances won't be a deciding factor, their past dealings with the FCC and basically spectrum squatting for years, very well could be.

    I'm not sure even how much TMobile will push the failing Sprint as part of their defense, none of their recent public statements about the trial mention this, and it has seemed to shifted towards 5G and rural coverage.
    The FCC and the DoJ created DISH as an alternative. It isn't T-Mobile's job in this suit to defend that decision. Once the FCC and DoJ are called in defense, then that can be questioned.

    Sprints financials are very important in the viability of being 4 carriers if the States are to win. The anti-merger groups and States my find a pyrrhic victory. Killing T-Mobile's chances while watching Sprint liquidate.

    Clearly the State's were up first, we shall wait until the defense. The DoJ and FCC will most definitely be getting their day in this case.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    383
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by n33d0n3 View Post
    The FCC and the DoJ created DISH as an alternative. It isn't T-Mobile's job in this suit to defend that decision. Once the FCC and DoJ are called in defense, then that can be questioned.

    Sprints financials are very important in the viability of being 4 carriers if the States are to win. The anti-merger groups and States my find a pyrrhic victory. Killing T-Mobile's chances while watching Sprint liquidate.

    Clearly the State's were up first, we shall wait until the defense. The DoJ and FCC will most definitely be getting their day in this case.
    This isn't accurate. Tmobile negotiated with dish on the deal. TMobile had the option to negotiate with any company they wanted to, they chose dish.

    "Killing Tmobile's chances" is nothing more than hyperbole. That tends to happen when people feel strongly about something, that they actually have nothing to do with. You tend to see this a lot on places such as reddit, or here, where people just want their opinion to be correct, over what's actually in front of them. TMobile will be fine either way, There are even those out there who want to see TMobile be successful, but don't want Sprint anywhere near them. Sprint may very well fail without a merger, Whether the judge let's that determine his verdict, it's highly doubtful, as there isn't much of a precedent of it happening. (See below)

    I'll ask the same thing to you that I've asked everyone else with zero answer, name 1 time the failed entity defense has worked in a horizontal merger case.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,484
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    The State AGs argued that SoftBank just needs to fund Sprint that will fix the issues, as if that has worked in the last 18 years. It doesn’t matter SoftBank will let Sprint go bankrupt like they said. SoftBank is just a stock holder with controlling votes but still not the owner of a public traded company. If the states want to supplement Sprint with money to stay in business let them try. If Sprint goes bankrupt then the banks own the spectrum and everyone will bid for it. T-Mobile is the only company that wants to buy all of Sprint’s spectrum. Also, if the deal falls through then Dish plan for a network is dead and their spectrum will be sold.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    224
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    The State AGs argued that SoftBank just needs to fund Sprint that will fix the issues, as if that has worked in the last 18 years. It doesn’t matter SoftBank will let Sprint go bankrupt like they said. SoftBank is just a stock holder with controlling votes but still not the owner of a public traded company. If the states want to supplement Sprint with money to stay in business let them try. If Sprint goes bankrupt then the banks own the spectrum and everyone will bid for it. T-Mobile is the only company that wants to buy all of Sprint’s spectrum. Also, if the deal falls through then Dish plan for a network is dead and their spectrum will be sold.
    Source? There is no way AGs argued that softbank needs to just fund sprint. They're not that stupid, that would instantly kill their chances of winning the case.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    188
    Device(s)
    Looking for new one
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hofonewb9 View Post
    This isn't accurate. Tmobile negotiated with dish on the deal. TMobile had the option to negotiate with any company they wanted to, they chose dish.

    "Killing Tmobile's chances" is nothing more than hyperbole. That tends to happen when people feel strongly about something, that they actually have nothing to do with. You tend to see this a lot on places such as reddit, or here, where people just want their opinion to be correct, over what's actually in front of them. TMobile will be fine either way, There are even those out there who want to see TMobile be successful, but don't want Sprint anywhere near them. Sprint may very well fail without a merger, Whether the judge let's that determine his verdict, it's highly doubtful, as there isn't much of a precedent of it happening. (See below)

    I'll ask the same thing to you that I've asked everyone else with zero answer, name 1 time the failed entity defense has worked in a horizontal merger case.
    From https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...uiring-package :

    "Under the terms of the proposed settlement, T-Mobile and Sprint must divest Sprint’s prepaid business, including Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, and Sprint prepaid, to Dish Network Corp., a Colorado-based satellite television provider. "

    It wasn't can divest Sprint's prepaid, Virgin Mobile, etc. It was MUST divest. This was ordered by the Department of Justice. Per the DoJ's order a fourth carrier MUST be created. Not CAN be created. The State's will have the high hurdle of proving that this will hurt competition and the order by the D0J's orders will be disobeyed.

    "CC clears Optimax’s acquisition of Ultralase
    20 Nov 2013 | by Caroline Sweeney

    The Competition Commission today published its final report clearing Optimax’s completed acquisition of refractive eye surgery provider, Ultralase, on “failing firm” grounds. Such clearances remain relatively rare, but in this case the CC was satisfied that, absent Optimax’s acquisition, Ultralase would have exited the market. It went on to compare the likely distribution of Ultralase’s sales in the event of an exit with the actual distribution post-merger, and concluded the merger was not a less competitive outcome.

    Optimax was represented by Alison Berridge and Michael Armitage."

    There is my failing firm grounds that won. I don't think they will use that defense because of the high hurdle. It is basically up to the State's to prove the DoJ's solution won't create a wireless carrier. All of Dish's spectrum, the purchase of Pre-paid companies, more spectrum, and tower divestitures has a lot to disprove.

    Now what merger was stopped because the State's don't like the DoJ's solution to creating a fourth carrier?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    383
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by n33d0n3 View Post
    From https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...uiring-package :

    "Under the terms of the proposed settlement, T-Mobile and Sprint must divest Sprint’s prepaid business, including Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, and Sprint prepaid, to Dish Network Corp., a Colorado-based satellite television provider. "

    It wasn't can divest Sprint's prepaid, Virgin Mobile, etc. It was MUST divest. This was ordered by the Department of Justice. Per the DoJ's order a fourth carrier MUST be created. Not CAN be created. The State's will have the high hurdle of proving that this will hurt competition and the order by the D0J's orders will be disobeyed.

    "CC clears Optimax’s acquisition of Ultralase
    20 Nov 2013 | by Caroline Sweeney

    The Competition Commission today published its final report clearing Optimax’s completed acquisition of refractive eye surgery provider, Ultralase, on “failing firm” grounds. Such clearances remain relatively rare, but in this case the CC was satisfied that, absent Optimax’s acquisition, Ultralase would have exited the market. It went on to compare the likely distribution of Ultralase’s sales in the event of an exit with the actual distribution post-merger, and concluded the merger was not a less competitive outcome.

    Optimax was represented by Alison Berridge and Michael Armitage."

    There is my failing firm grounds that won.

    Now what merger was stopped because the State's don't like the DoJ's solution to creating a fourth carrier?
    Yes, TMobile went to the DOJ with the proposed settlement with dish Network. The DOJ cannot make any company do business with another. TMobile chose to deal with dish.


    Oh cool you found one. Question though, what court is the "competition committee" exactly?

    Sure here from 2 years ago. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights...in-merger-case

    Also if you don't believe me

    https://www.manatt.com/Insights/News...rm-Really-Fail


    ."Very few merging firms, however, have been successful in invoking the defense"


    Now it does list a time where it did succeed, but this wasn't in court. It was in an agreement with the FTC. So, I'll ask again, in a federal antitrust case, where has the failed entity argument worked?


    See the part that loses it for most companies trying to make the defense, and why TMobile would have an impossible time using it with sprint is, they also have to prove they cannot reorganize successfully with bankruptcy.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,484
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    Source? There is no way AGs argued that softbank needs to just fund sprint. They're not that stupid, that would instantly kill their chances of winning the case.
    I read it in another story that I can’t find that had more details but this was a short statement that confirmed lawyers praise DT for funding T-Mobile and said SoftBank should do the same with link and quote...

    https://news.morningstar.com/all/dow...th-update.aspx

    “ Glenn Pomerantz, a lawyer for the states, said T-Mobile's parent "dug into its pockets," plowed billions of dollars into the company's network, and turned around its performance -- a point the plaintiffs have highlighted to argue that Sprint and SoftBank could do the same if left to keep fending for themselves.“.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,484
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Ok found another site that said a little more. https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile...-merger-trial/

    “ Toward the end of the day, Deutsche Telekom CEO Timotheus Höttges was called to the stand to discuss the dramatic turnaround in T-Mobile’s fortunes over the decade. The states’ lawyer Glenn Pomerantz noted that Deutsche Telekom had invested heavily in its U.S. arm, and “dug into its pockets,” continuing an argument that Softbank could do the same for Sprint.

    While Höttges did not deny Deutsche Telekom spent quite a bit on improving T-Mobile’s service and network, he added the failure of the merger with AT&T played an essential part. AT&T paid a $3 billion breakup fee to T-Mobile as a result of the failed 2011 merger — and T-Mobile won a seven-year tower roaming agreement at no cost to the carrier from AT&T that only expired in the past year.“

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    283
    Device(s)
    Samsung S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hofonewb9 View Post
    It's not really the courts job to find a way for Sprint to be profitable, or to make them profitable. From the states filings the argument will be an anti trust argument only and they will attack dish as unreliable and bring up all of dish's broken promises they have made with their spectrum. Charlie is expected to take the stand and counter with dish really didn't break any promises, as the FCC has given them extensions. Me personally, I think bringing dish into the fold was a questionable move at best. Dish is a very easy target for the states to attack, and they would have a harder time going after a Comcast, than they will dish. Dish may very well be the weak link here, and could realistically cost TMobile this merger.
    Agreed. T-Mobile's tactic of depending on Charlie Ergen and Dish to operate a fourth carrier for low-income users that don't care about network quality seems like a very dubious approach. 7-8 million Boost customers moving to a Dish-owned MVNO using T-Mobile's infrastructure would in no way constitute a fourth viable carrier. Surely the judge is smart enough to understand this. América Móvil has over 21 million customers in the U.S. with their eight brands, they're more of a competitor than Boost.

    Should the court worry about the inevitable price increases that will occur as a result of lowering competition or should they admit that Sprint is not a viable company and will disappear whether there is a merger with T-Mobile or not? Sprint's investors are absorbing the losses caused by Sprint's desperation pricing, and that pricing is unfairly helping to hold prices down. It's not even loss-leader pricing because the Sprint subscribers aren't buying other things to offset the low prices that they are paying.

    The issue is really if T-Mobile gets Sprint's assets via a merger, or if Sprint's assets are auctioned off once they cease operations. Of course someone with deep pockets, that wanted Sprint's assets, could come in and buy them, i.e. Google. Google has the cash to spend to turn Sprint into a viable competitor.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,805
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    Source? There is no way AGs argued that softbank needs to just fund sprint. They're not that stupid,
    Well according to the articles that shilohcane posted, they were that stupid.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,805
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    Agreed. T-Mobile's tactic of depending on Charlie Ergen and Dish to operate a fourth carrier for low-income users that don't care about network quality seems like a very dubious approach. 7-8 million Boost customers moving to a Dish-owned MVNO using T-Mobile's infrastructure would in no way constitute a fourth viable carrier. Surely the judge is smart enough to understand this.
    The Department of Justice and the FCC both seemed to accept the viability of this plan. So maybe the judge is smart enough to see what they saw?

    The issue is really if T-Mobile gets Sprint's assets via a merger, or if Sprint's assets are auctioned off once they cease operations.
    Sprint isn't going to cease operation. A company with that much revenue and marketshare would use bankruptcy to reorganize and wipe out their debt---not liquidation. But if they did that, there's no guarantee the new owner would keep the same low prices that they have now. There's nothing to stop a reorganized company from raising prices. There's nothing to stop them from laying off people. Both of these issues are what the AG's are supposedly concerned with.

    Of course someone with deep pockets, that wanted Sprint's assets, could come in and buy them, i.e. Google. Google has the cash to spend to turn Sprint into a viable competitor.
    Having the cash and wanting to do it are two different things. People looking at cash on a balance sheet don't understand that businesses make investments with the purpose of getting a return. They don't make investments to lose money or to be charitable in turning a company around. Furthermore, Google has stated no interest in such a venture nor how it would support their overall goals. Maybe they have the cash to turn Sears and K-Mart around too but I don't see them rushing to do that either.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    383
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    The Department of Justice and the FCC both seemed to accept the viability of this plan. So maybe the judge is smart enough to see what they saw?
    Well because sometimes the DOJ and FCC are incorrect. The states have the constitutional right to challenge their decisions in court. I know you are a huge fan of strict obedience and nobody being able to question anything, but that's not how it works here. It's not about the judge being "smart enough" to see anything. It's if he finds the merger legal or not, are you really trying to insinuate that if a federal judge doesn't rule the way you want him to, that makes them unintelligent??? If TMobile gets a judgment not in their favor, they will have the right to appeal.

    The rest of the post I actually agree with, and is the reason TMobile would be foolish to argue the failed entity argument in court. It will be impossible to prove Sprint could not restructure successfully with a bankruptcy. They take in too much revenue.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,805
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hofonewb9 View Post
    The states have the constitutional right to challenge their decisions in court.
    I never said they didn't.


    It's not about the judge being "smart enough" to see anything.
    The person I was replying to made the comment "Surely the judge is smart enough to understand this". Her comment was quoted by me and you should have saw it at the same time you saw my reply.

    So my response to that person used the same phrase. Oddly enough, when CanadianAngela used that phrase, you didn't lecture her.

    It's if he finds the merger legal or not
    Stating the obvious there, aren't you?

    are you really trying to insinuate that if a federal judge doesn't rule the way you want him to, that makes them unintelligent???
    I never stated that nor insinuated that. That's just something you're completely making up.

    If TMobile gets a judgment not in their favor, they will have the right to appeal.
    Again more stating of the obvious.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,970
    Carrier(s)
    TMobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hofonewb9 View Post
    https://www.phonearena.com/news/t-mo...wsuit_id121017

    Probably the biggest thing from the first day. People will feel about it how they do, my take is, of course it was a Sprint exec....lol the level of incompetence there never ceases to amaze me.
    I'm thinking some serious holes will be poked in both tmobiles and sprints arguments during this trial especially due to sprints garbage

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    383
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I never stated that nor insinuated that. That's just something you're completely making up. .
    I asked you a question, a question isn't making something up. Or are questions not allowed either? They raise too many issues eh?



    on using the "why didn't you also pull that guy over for speeding officer" defense lol it's a classic.
    Last edited by hofonewb9; 12-10-2019 at 03:42 PM.

Page 3 of 64 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 53 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2019, 12:38 AM
  2. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-26-2019, 10:29 AM
  3. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 08:36 AM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-21-2003, 09:31 PM
  5. finally, i got the real answers to the a530
    By Vyruz Reaper in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-29-2003, 12:49 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks