> Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition.

Not sure what you mean here. T-Mobile's efforts in the last few years (the "uncarrier" marketing push, among other things), has cemented their position as the "third competitor" already (in part due to the failed AT&T buyout), and AT&T and Verizon have been forced to offer better plans to compete with T-Mo's offerings. I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time.

>Not sure what you mean here.

What I mean is T-Mobile + Sprint is still third by customer count. And not really a close third.

If competition is a problem, then ideally, the government would either allow a real third competitor, or in absence of that, break up the bigger two. They blocked the former and did not pursue the latter.

>I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time.

Spectrum. Combined, they would be a force to be reckoned with.

> What I mean is T-Mobile + Sprint is still third by customer count. And not really a close third.

I don't know where you live, but in LA County I have as good (if not better) reception than Verizon.

I switched to T-Mobile (I think in 2013 or 2012) from Verizon and never looked back, in additional to good coverage the bill is always the same amount (it doesn't suspiciously grow month over month), they don't seem to make "mistakes" with my bill that cost me more, don't charge me if I go over quota (just slow down the access) and comes with free perks such as free texting and data even when traveling internationally.

The T-Mobile is actually considered a shitty (as treating consumers badly) service in Europe so I'm very glad that at least for now we do have competition and if T-Mobile will become too big, at least there might be a chance for Sprint to grow as well.

In my opinion Sprint right now is where T-Mobile was 5 years ago.

>In my opinion Sprint right now is where T-Mobile was 5 years ago.

I send >30K SMS per day to the continental US and a large percentage of those receive replies. With the replies, I get carrier info.

For the entire US last week,

'Verizon','0.48' 'AT&T','0.31' 'T-Mobile','0.10' 'Sprint','0.09' 'Other','0.02'

For the entire US one week starting 5 years ago

'Verizon','0.46' 'AT&T','0.33' 'Sprint','0.08' 'Other','0.07' 'T-Mobile','0.06'

T-Mobile hasn't hurt Sprint. Sprint is basically in the same spot it was 5 years ago. AT&T and Verizon are also largely unchanged. The only action is in T-Mo eating up subscribers from the small carriers like cricket and metropcs.

T-Mo has eliminated all the smaller competition. The US gov did not create/preserve competition by blocking a Sprint+T-Mobile merger. Neither Sprint nor T-Mo alone are mounting a serious challenge to the big two.

> Combined, they would be a force to be reckoned with.

I'm just not seeing how T-Mobile isn't already a force to be reckoned with, even without Sprint in the picture. They're certainly smaller by subscriber count than AT&T and Verizon, and have less spectrum to work with, but it doesn't seem like they're actually hurting for spectrum or that their lack of more spectrum is hurting their growth.

I would certainly like my phone (on T-Mo here) to work in some random out of the way places where my AT&T- and Verizon-using friends have service and I don't (though the instances of that drop in number constantly), but T-Mo's subscribers are still way more loyal than any other carrier's, and they keep on growing.

The only reason they're a competitor is because the FCC blocked at&t acquiring them which triggered a clause where at&t had to give them spectrum. The FCC desperately needs to implement a use it or lose it policy on spectrum.

> I live in a metro area with more than 1M people. Where's my fiber optics?

That's the question you need to ask:

1. Your city council - they are the ones who are blocking or making it very difficult for others to access city's ROW which are needed

2. Ask the old lady across the street. I'm sure at some point she was displeased at the idea of someone digging the street.

Source: Spent years in the telecom trenches trying to roll out fiber in 50 meter increments.

There's more competition in the mobile space so I think it's less of a concern, though it can still be a problem. Broadband is where we need net neutrality the most.

As for Sprint and Tmobile, they are both "viable" competitors, whatever that means.

I think Sprint has like $30B in debt and struggles to make a profit while being a distant 4th. Not sure how viable they can be or for how long. SoftBank made a huge mistake buying up a majority of Sprint.

> We could have had a spread spectrum solution with open airwaves. We have with unlicensed WiFi frequency bands, and there's plenty of competition in that space. Well, at least until the FCC tries to meddle in that too.

Wat?

Do you even know how spectrum works? It's so trivial to dump RF hash out on 70cm/23cm that I don't think you have an appreciation of how horrible of an idea that is.

Mergers don't increase competition. They are the root cause of many of our problems in the first place.

So I used to work in the spectrum sharing space. When the FCC started spectrum auctions, the technology wasn’t there yet. Even today, see the challenges involved in sharing space between LTE and WiFi.

As for fiber—blame your municipality. I’m in a metro area of 200,000 and have two fiber providers.

>As for fiber—blame your municipality.

That's a lot of municipalities to blame. The US won't stay competitive just because your small town has fat pipes.

What’s the alternative? Give more power to local governments, the same entities that have screwed up education, transit, housing, policing, and all the other issues we entrust to local governance?