Sprint 'Betting Big On Trump,' Could Merge With T-Mobile Or Comcast (arstechnica.com) 89
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Speculation that Sprint will merge with T-Mobile USA or another competitor has ramped up since the inauguration of President Donald Trump. That continued Friday when a report from The New York Times suggested that Sprint could be combined with either T-Mobile or Comcast, the nation's largest cable company. Masayoshi Son, founder and CEO of Sprint owner SoftBank, "and his financial advisers are weighing several major possible deals for Sprint," the Times wrote. "Be it a tie-up with T-Mobile U.S., Sprint's closest competitor, or a more ambitious marriage with the cable colossus Comcast, a transaction would allow Mr. Son to fulfill a long-held ambition to invest aggressively in wireless networks in the United States and enable next-generation mobile technology." Titled "The World's Top Tech Investor Is Betting Big on Trump," the Times report says that "the Trump administration's push for lighter regulation and lower taxes has been a powerful lure for cash-rich investors the world over." SoftBank, which is based in Japan, had several of its executives "spen[d] a day in Washington talking to senior members of Mr. Trump's economic team" last month, according to bankers who were briefed on the meetings, the Times report said. U.S. regulators opposed wireless consolidation during the Obama administration, preventing potential mergers between AT&T and T-Mobile and later between Sprint and T-Mobile. With four major nationwide carriers, U.S. wireless competition recently led to an expansion of unlimited data plans.
Monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
Soon, we will have fewer choices again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The US broke up Bell exactly because they were a monopoly, and service suffered as a result.
The broken up bits of Bell have spent the last few years trying to re-form, and it looks like they will succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
And Bell was a monopoly to begin with because...?
Re: (Score:2)
...because utilities are natural monopolies? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
With what I know of US politics, I'm going to go right ahead and assume they used a tiny portion of their profits to buy off politicians, because that's exactly what the current telecoms monopolies do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile, a thousand Trump supporters run around proclaiming "Obama bugged Trump! We know so because Trump said so!"
I'm going to risk the inevitable downmod from the rabid hard right and alt-right types by finally thinking that we have maybe another six to nine months before even a majority of Republicans in Congress begin planning to remove this imbecile from office. I think there are at least decent odds that by this time next year we'll be bitching and moaning about President Pence.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You can of course point to where that piece of an article says "Obama wiretapped Trump's phone."
There's a specific claim being made and it isn't the one you seem to think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem awfully proficient at getting mod points, mind you.
Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. There were transcripts of Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador, so there were wiretaps done on foreign communications. Nobody is questioning whether or not some monitoring of Trump campaign officials was happening.
Nowhere does that say Obama ordered it. Nowhere does it say it was Trump himself that was monitored. It was part of an investigation and done based on evidence with court approval, not some fiat declaration from the dictator-in-chief, which is apparently what Trump supporters think the president is.
The presidency is not a monarchical position. The POTUS does not have king-like powers. One of the things he cannot do, since the Nixon administration, is order a wiretap. Only a court can approve that (including the FISA secret court) and only after an active investigation provides enough evidence to get a warrant.
Get that? Do you have a tape of Obama ordering the tap? No? Then you have nothing. Nor does Trump, by the looks of it.
That's why Comey is out there asking for the Justice Department to repudiate Trump's claim, because it's a bigger lie about the way our formerly stable republic works than it is about Obama. Trump isn't undermining Obama, he's undermining his own government. He is acting like a fifth-columnist, hopefully not wittingly.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It hasn't been caught doing any such thing, and even Trump's mouthpieces know it which is why they're diluting the claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton was impeached for, and I quote the judge, giving SUBSTANTIALLY false statements which "reprehensible as they are do not rise to perjury"
IOKIYAR.
It's O.K., IF you are republican!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, the irony that Leftists don't understand is that the mainstream media are being called out for the Leftist shills that they are. First, there is a wiretap documented in their own reporting in the New York Times. Then Trump tweets it and it's suddenly false. Then, all of a sudden, people are starting to say that there's no proof of the Trump-Russia connection. Where's the true story? And, did Obama break the law by-- directly or indirectly-- using intelligence gathered on an American citizen?
If Pr
Re: (Score:3)
Trump claiming Obama wiretapped his phone is not the same as a Russian phone line being wiretapped, and one of Trump's aides calling the phone line in question. Do you see the difference? The former is fantasy, the second standard operating procedure. That's why it's called fake - because it is demonstrably fake.
It doesn't make you or your argument look particularly sound if you attack the "mental capacity" of others with a news article you didn't understand. Ouch.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Writing unevidenced claims in bold capitals doesn't make them true.
Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` (Score:1)
The Trump regime is leaking like a sieve, probably due to a combination of poor management skills, inexperience and a genuine loathing of the man by existing staff members. It's no surprise he's gone full tinfoil hat and started blaming the Obama boogieman for everything that's gone wrong in such a short time, he's had an unhealthy obsession with Obama for many years now.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The problem is that if he's in total meltdown now, just 45 days into his Presidency, what is Trump going to be like in 180 days or 365 days? No wonder Republicans are trying to get an Obamacare replacement out ASAP. How much longer can they keep up the facade of good will before they finally have to accept they're dealing with a fantasist?
Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` (Score:5, Interesting)
My hunch is that the leaks in the White House aren't meant to be attacks on Trump himself, but rather various factions in what appears to be a very competitive White House environment trying to take the piss out of each other.
In the past, when "White House sources" leaked something, that was shorthand for "the President wants the public to know this, but doesn't want anyone going on record", in other words, it was a targeted form information/mis-information dissemination.
But the Trump White House doesn't function like that. It appears that Trump, perhaps quite intentionally, has created a White House built out of various competing factions, all trying to curry his favor and show their the best and most loyal. That's why they all seem to have their knives out for Priebus, because, as Chief of Staff, he's nominally supposed to be in charge of access to the President and general administration of the White House staff itself. But in this kind of environment, the CoS's primary job as gatekeeper would inevitably mean he's viewed as an obstruction, and what's more, with a dizzying array of "chief advisers" with Jared Kushner and Ivanka on one side and Steve Bannon on the other, Priebus seems to be viewed in equal parts with contempt and jealousy, and likely has no real control at all. The long and the short of it is that Trump's White House is a badly malfunctioning one with no clear lines of authority and where people seem to be using the press as a means of plunging knives into each others' backs, and in the process they're damaging the credibility of the Administration.
And that's all before Trump picks up his cell phone and begins tweeting...
Meanwhile, I'm reading these articles about what a steadying hand Mike Pence is (which makes us wonder how chaotic the White House would be if he wasn't there), how he's formed his own effective team and seems to generally be maintaining an air of calm orderly competence. Which makes me wonder if Pence is positioning himself in such a way as to a Trump loyalist, while sending coding signals to Congress that amount to "I'll back the President all the way, but if you do decide that he's too fucking batshit insane to be President anymore, well, I'm ready to go..."
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's not much of a team.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect this is the Republican game plan all along: use Trump's celebrity and free media pass to get the White House, then let him hoist himself on his own petard and Pence can take over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And that's where the two issues collide. Let's assume for the moment that Levin, Breitbart and Fox opinion crew who are spreading this conspiracy theory are right, that somehow Obama personally managed to get Trump Towers wiretapped. Let's assume that President Barack Obama is an evil man of Nixonesque subterfuge and willful vileness who overrode decades-old restrictions that basically shut the POTUS out from ordering wiretaps on domestic phone lines. How does that make the problems that Trump has with his
Re: (Score:2)
In other words you can provide no actual evidence to support his claims. As it is the whole thing appears to be a right wing shock jock's conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you use the same standard of evidence for your news sources (ex. CNN and NYT) or is thin air typically enough?
Re: (Score:3)
In general, I don't accept someone simply saying "I was wiretapped" and the primary defense of that being his own staff saying "Oh fur shure, he's got like evidence you don't know..."
As it stands, it's pretty clear a whole lot of people in Congress are as mystified by this as everyone else. But it served its purpose. It got everyone to stop talking about yet another senior member of the Administration being outed lying about contact with the Russians.
As to the standards put forward by CNN, whenever it amoun
Re: (Score:2)
So well researched that not even he can actually provide any evidence that President Obama ordered Trump Tower wiretapped. There's nothing well-researched about this. It's just out and out conspiracy theory, and Trump has jumped on it because he is, in his awkward way trying to take control of the 24 hour news cycle from the ill attention Sessions was getting. That's certainly been successful, to an extent, except of course the claim of wiretapping is going to end up in the same hands as the claims of Russi
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know if Trump has any evidence of this wiretapping he's tweeting about or not, but I can see no reason for him to be making stuff up like this. What's the upside if he's knowingly making this up?
Why not, his record on telling the truth is not stellar. His lying is so prolific even his staff feel free to lie without consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem boils down to the fact that Trump's proxies spent a good deal of last year cozying up to the Russians. They can spread conspiracy theories about President Obama ordering Trump be bugged (which is factually wrong, the President doesn't have that power, but whatever), but the real problem is that Trump's close advisers and appointees have created a veritable nest of Russian connection problems, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Did the likes of Flynn and Sessions imagine that they wer
Re: (Score:2)
Couple that with Trump admitting (in 2013) on national TV that he has a relationship with Putin, and this starts to get a bit worrying. Conflicts of interest aplenty.
The powerful and the stupid. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> I'm going to risk the inevitable downmod from the rabid hard right and alt-right types by finally thinking that we have maybe another six to nine months before even a majority of Republicans in Congress begin planning to remove this imbecile from office.
Ah, pause your actions, all! Heed and record the March prediction from MightyMartian!
We'll add this to the February prediction of "I honestly think Bannon's days are numbered", the January prediction of "Congress is going to start moving to claw back t
Re: (Score:3)
Well at least my stalker has an actual account.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, Obama directly acted a FISA court to bug Trump.
And you have evidence for this, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So now the Senate is going to be charged with investigating "somehow, sometime, somewhere the Obama Administration did something to Donald Trump"?
Re: (Score:2)
I especially liked how you didn't bother to provide any evidence of how your chosen "bad guys" are lying. That definitely makes you look balanced. Definitely.
Re: (Score:2)
we have maybe another six to nine months before even a majority of Republicans in Congress begin planning to remove this imbecile from office
Not until after the midterms. The problem with the last election is that it was so surprising - if he had been expected to win, if poles had shown themselves to accurately represent what voters were thinking, then public opinion turning against him would be enough to sway legislators. As it is, Republican legislators don't know what they should think or what they say. They don't know how their constituents will react, so I'm expecting them to avoid rocking the boat until the midterms.
If the midterms go t
I hope they merge with Comcast. (Score:3)
Then at least nothing of value would be lost.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know about that. Sprint + Comcast merger may produce a shit hole singularity and end the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh oh looks like the Trump downmod brigade is coming through! Let's make sure this is a trigger-free zone, people!
Sure, why not (Score:5, Insightful)
What this country needs when it comes to cable and broadband providers is less competition and higher prices. Let's fall even further behind the rest of the industrialized world.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
2017: Sprint + Comcast = Comcast
2018: Verizon + Comcast = Comcast
2019: AT&T + Comcast = AT&T
The logo will be the original AT&T Death Star, multi-colored like the NBC peacock, with a big red check mark on top. The Death Star will be firing at the Earth.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Anyone can buy OCP stock and own a piece of our city. What could be more democratic than that?"
Why Sprint with T-Mobile? (Score:5, Insightful)
Merging with Comcast might make some sense, but I don't recall hearing Comcast ever express a previous interest in going into the mobile market.
Re: (Score:2)
That matters less and less. With VoLTE those existing networks could be made compatible with all new handsets. As 5G rolls out in the next few years, that's going to happen regardless. GSM and CDMA will not be used for the Voice traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not that "out of sync". T-Mobile has a decent amount of Band 2 (PCS) spectrum thanks to their MetroPCS acquisiion, and in many markets they have either 10x10, 15x15, or 20x20 band 2 LTE deployed. Sprint's primary / base LTE band is also PCS, and is band 25, where they have at minimum 5x5 deployed (some markets have a 10x10, some have 2 5x5s, and others have both a 5x5 and 10x10. Band 25 is a superset of band 2.
So for current Sprint customers, nothing would be needed to start using T-Mobile's band 2
Re: (Score:2)
5g won't be rolling out anytime soon, most probably. My understanding is that the costs are pretty high, and the increase in market penetration isn't there. So providers aren't that keen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bus... [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
All the customers of one would eventually be stuck buying phones running the protocol of the other.
You make the mistake of assuming this would be done for the benefit of the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we save our outrage for when someone proposes something concrete?
Nor is there any Trump connection there. It's just NYT and slashdot blowing smoke for clicks.
Comcast can have them... (Score:2)
Sprint is rubbish in my opinion, which makes them a perfect fit for Comcast. I'll do business with neither, although I welcome either changing my mind by proving they can deliver a good quality, competitive service.
Comcast (Score:3)
The talk of Comcast makes a lot of sense to me. The writing is on the wall for wired home services--it's just a matter of time before the cell companies decide to push hard into that market. For most consumers, they could swap out their cable boxes and cable modem for versions that use LTE instead of coax. It would just be a matter of the cell companies having sufficient bandwidth.
Certainly Comcast sees this coming. Buying Sprint would be their best move to stay relevant as the market shifts. Instead of sitting around while the cell companies eat into their market, they can use Sprint to eat into the markets of their competitors.
Now I would much rather see Alphabet (Google) buy Sprint. That could enhance the competitive marketplace for home Internet and video instead of constrict it.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to (and still do!) have wireless TV. It offers far fewer channels with all kinds of reception problems, and that's using it as one-to-many solution that broadcasts at whatever time it feels is appropriate. Cable actually grew up because of all the transmission problems. And honestly, I don't know why anyone would prefer a wireless connection over fiber? Ever. Maybe within your home on 2.4 or 5.4 spectra.