Home » Competition »Consumer News »Public Policy & Gov't »Sprint »T-Mobile »Wireless Broadband » Currently Reading:

Wall Street’s Sprint/T-Mobile Merger Drum Circle

Phillip Dampier June 19, 2017 Competition, Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't, Sprint, T-Mobile, Wireless Broadband 1 Comment

Wall Street wants a deal between T-Mobile and Sprint rich with fees and “synergies,” but nobody counting the money cares whether consumers will actually get better service or lower prices as a result of another wireless industry merger.

Recently, more players have entered the T-Mo/Sprint Drum Circle, seeming in favor of the merger of America’s third and fourth largest wireless carriers. Moody’s Investor Service wouldn’t go as far as Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure in playing up the deal’s “synergy savings” won from cutting duplicate costs (especially jobs) after the merger, but was willing to say the combination of the two companies could cut their combined costs by $3 billion or more annually. Based on earlier mergers, most savings would come from eliminating redundant cell sites, winning better volume pricing on handsets, dramatic cuts in employees and back office operations, and spectrum sharing.

“Imagine if you had a supercharged maverick now going after AT&T and Verizon to stop this duopoly,” Claure told an audience in Miami.

Wells Fargo called Sprint’s large spectrum holdings in the 2.5GHz band undervalued, and could be an important part of any transaction.

Sprint has more high-band spectrum than any other carrier in the U.S. Much maligned for its inability to penetrate well indoors and for its reduced coverage area, most carriers have not prioritized use of these frequencies. But forthcoming 5G networks, likely to offer a wireless alternative to wired home broadband, will dominate high frequency spectrum, leaving Sprint in excellent condition to participate in the 5G splash yet to come.

Wall Street banks can expect a small fortune in fees advising both companies on a merger deal and to assist in arranging its financing. Any deal will likely be worth more than the $39 billion AT&T was willing to pay for T-Mobile back in 2011. With that kind of money at stake, any merger announcement will likely be followed by millions in spending to lobby for its approval. Washington regulators ultimately rejected AT&T’s 2011 buyout, arguing it was anti-competitive. Reducing the U.S. marketplace to three national cellular networks is likely to again raise concerns that reduced competition will lead to higher prices.

A merger is also likely to be disruptive to customers, particularly because Sprint and T-Mobile run very different operations and systems. Moody’s predicted it could take up to five years for any merger to fully consummate, giving AT&T and Verizon considerable lead time to bolster their networks and offerings. Moody’s notes Sprint also has a history with bad merger deals, notably its acquisition of Nextel, which proved to be a distracting nightmare.

“If [another merger] stalls or is derailed by operational missteps, the downside is catastrophic,” Moody’s noted.

Currently there is 1 comment on this Article:

  1. Paul Houle says:

    A Sprint/T-Mobile merger makes no sense to me.

    Sprint uses CDMA technology (like Verizon) and T-Mobil uses GSM technology (like AT&T) for voice. Both use LTE for data, although we may see voice-over-LTE expand in the future.

    It is a tough problem to merge two networks that use the same basic technology (think of Frontier’s botched takeover of wirelines from AT&T and Verizon) and a much tougher problem to merge two networks that use different technologies. Sprint spent $36 billion to acquire Nextel in 2005, only to take a $30 billion loss. I think the default analysis for a Sprint/T-Mobil merger would that it would be a shareholder value incinerator, and it would be the burden of anybody else to make a case otherwise.







Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • FredH: @Nick - it sounds like you were a previous Charter/Spectrum customer, not a former TWC customer - correct? If so, that's a totally different scenario...
  • Homeslice: Myself and many of you on here have been waiting for Charter to upgrade the speed as they had stated a while ago. I ended up finding this site that b...
  • Phillip Dampier: There are third party companies selling Russian language channels in the U.S. Russia TV Company claims to offer over 200 Russian Federation TV and rad...
  • Phillip Dampier: Thanks for the tip....
  • Phillip Dampier: Oh how clever they are. They want you to abandon the old $14.99 TWC Everyday Low Price internet plan to qualify for this. I wouldn't take this deal if...
  • jeff: if u tell the system u want to be a new customer it will let u add the choice option after selecting internet only. if current customer with tv it do...
  • EJ: Kaniki we all know what is happening. They charge that because they can. In most areas there one competitor is inferior so they can charge to much and...
  • Todd: And 300M to Charter/Spectrum is peanuts. They increased ELP Internet from $14.99 to $19.99. I'm not a math major, but let me see if I have this righ...
  • Todd: I got called with this offer yesterday, actually. The problem with this, is yes, at $22, it seems like a good deal, and I'd almost consider it. Exce...
  • Quinn: Spectrum is awful. I very much preferred dealing with them when it was just Time Warner. At least if I spent some time I could get myself a good promo...
  • kaniki: and yet, they still do nothing about the things that people need more.. Like an internet service that they can afford.. Cable is a luxury, but, a lot ...
  • L. Nova: In the long run it is cheaper for CenturyLink to partner with streaming providers Netflix, Amazon, Sling TV & HULU and the hardware streaming box ...

Your Account: