Submitted via IRC for Bytram
It's official: US government approves T-Mobile/Sprint merger
The Justice Department today announced its approval of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger as part of a settlement that requires the merging companies to spin off several assets to Dish Network.
The DOJ decided against filing a lawsuit to block the T-Mobile US purchase of Sprint, even though it reduces the number of major mobile network providers from four to three. In exchange for its approval, the DOJ convinced the companies to sell Dish spectrum licenses, wholesale network access, and Sprint's prepaid business including subsidiaries Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile. Boost and Virgin both resell Sprint network access instead of operating their own networks.
Dish would use its newfound assets to resell T-Mobile/Sprint service and to build its own network. The building-its-own-network part is far more crucial for Dish to effectively replace the competition eliminated by the merger, but this is expected to take several years.
The DOJ's approval is not the last one T-Mobile and Sprint need, because 13 states and the District of Columbia sued the companies to block the merger.
Related Stories
Judge approves $26 billion merger of T-Mobile and Sprint:
Shares of Sprint soared Tuesday after a U.S. District judge ruled in favor of its $26 billion deal to merge with T-Mobile.
The stock was up 75% Tuesday morning. It had risen after hours Monday after The Wall Street Journal reported the judge was expected to rule in favor of the deal. Shares of T-Mobile were up 10%.
The ruling clears one of the final hurdles for the deal, which still can't close until the California Public Utilities Commission approves the transaction. Tuesday's ruling also culminates a years-long courtship between Sprint and T-Mobile, which have made multiple attempts over the years to merge, only to abandon their plans fearing regulatory scrutiny.
Attorneys general from New York, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and D.C. originally brought the lawsuit to block the deal following approval from the Justice Department of Federal Communications Commission. The states had argued that combining the No. 3 and No. 4 U.S. carriers would limit competition and result in higher prices for consumers. The companies had argued their merger would help them compete against top players AT&T and Verizon and advance efforts to build a nationwide 5G network.
In his decision filed Tuesday, Judge Victor Marrero wrote, "The resulting stalemate leaves the Court lacking sufficiently impartial and objective ground on which to rely in basing a sound forecast of the likely competitive effects of a merger."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27 2019, @07:17AM (2 children)
I'm not loving this, but there are far bigger problems. Unless we're preparing to undo the mergers that made Verizon and AT&T huge, it wouldn't be fair to stop a couple piddly little companies from merging. Maybe they need to merge for survival.
Regarding Verizon and AT&T: mistakes were made
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday July 27 2019, @11:28AM (1 child)
If smaller corps keep having to merge to compete with a bigger corp, eventually they'll all be too-big-to-fail. Isn't that where the game is headed?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27 2019, @11:52AM
No, the game is headed to the de facto first and explicit later Corporate Congress[1], where corporations and not citizens make the Law, the State[2] and the Enforcing[3] both to the peasants, in exponential proportion to their value for the Society[4].
All democraticaly[5], of course, for our own good[6].
[1] Continuum 2012
[2] Dark Matter
[3] Robocop 1987
[4] Elysium 2013
[5] The Orville 2017 - Majority Rule
[6] Fahrenheit 451 1966
(Score: 1) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday July 27 2019, @10:49AM
do not welcome our new overlords.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27 2019, @01:57PM (2 children)
Why can states interfere in interstate commerce?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 28 2019, @01:01PM
You're asking the equivalent of "why can the federal government interfere when there exists a WTO".
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday July 29 2019, @04:22PM
All rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government/State Government are reserved for the people. Generally, the Federal Government, shouldn't be sticking it's nose in State Government business, unless it's been explicitly given the power to do that. As, the power should be left with the people, and the further out you get from local authority, the less authority they should have. Personal Freedoms > State Government > Federal Government
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Subsentient on Sunday July 28 2019, @02:50PM
Nobody I know likes Sprint. Their network is by far the worst in the country. They use custom bands and make compatibility with other phones a nightmare, too.
Hopefully if T-Mobile eats them, this will get fixed.
It's hard for me to be worried because Sprint is so terrible that I don't feel like anything of value is being lost.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti