New York Attorney General maintains opposition to T-Mobile/Sprint merger

The T-Mobile/Sprint merger might have received official backing from government agencies, but New York Attorney General Letitia James is not giving up on her case to block it.

The backdrop to this recommitment to the cause is a slightly unusual one. The press conference itself was focused on a lawsuit which was filed against Juul, an e-cigarette company James is looking to have banned, but the floor was opened-up to ‘any other business’.

“Our case against T-Mobile is an antitrust violation, obviously we’re concerned with anti-competitive behaviour,” said James. “Providing public benefits are good but they do not address the antitrust violation.”

In announcing John Legere will step-down from the top job at T-Mobile US, and outlining the succession plan, T-Mobile US is clearly confident the deal will now pass without complication. However, James is a very interesting opponent.

James comes across as an incredibly ambitious individual, and it might not surprise that many if she decides to run for alternative public office positions. It is too late for James to throw her hat into the ring for next years’ elections, though there will plenty of opportunity for this lawyer to climb the greasy pole of politics.

This is what should worry any of the firms James has cast her eye on. Politicians love a war story, a scalp to display in front of the voting public. Campaign speeches are full of rhetoric of how that individual has selflessly fought for the general public and won. Next time a US politician takes the stage at a campaign rally, note the number of times the following phase (or variant of) is used;

When I was [insert previous position] I fought for the people of [insert place] to [insert social equality example].

If James has grander political ambitions, she will need plenty of war stories. It is a tool in the popularity contest which is politics and fighting against the T-Mobile US/Sprint merger could be a perfect example. The Juul case is another, while James has been pretty vocal in pursuit of President Trump’s tax filings.

James has decided the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger is anticompetitive. The position is relatively simple; more service providers means more competition, which is only good for the consumer. There are of course pros and cons to both sides of the telco consolidation argument, but James has set her position, and this will not be changed. With the trial set to begin on December 9, this saga might come to a close soon.

T-Mobile US merger with Sprint one step closer after FCC sign-off

Having secured a bunch of 5G network commitments, the US telecoms regulator has given its seal of approval to the merger of TMUS and Sprint.

The FCC had to make the usual judgment call when it comes to telecoms mergers of weighing up the reduction in competition with the increased investment power of the combined entity. As with apparently everything else in the US, the FCC is politicised and tribal. The three Republican Commissioners voted in favour, while the two republicans voted against.

To the winners go the spoils and the resulting announcement was heavy on the national benefits promised by ability of the combined entity to do a better job of rolling out a 5G network than the sum of its parts. The FCC (or at least the majority of it) is saying ‘the transaction will close the digital divide and promote the wide deployment of 5G services’. Let’s see.

“Specifically, T-Mobile and Sprint have committed within three years to deploy 5G service to cover 97% of the American people, and within six years to reach 99% of all Americans,” said the FCC announcement. “This commitment includes deploying 5G service to cover 85% of rural Americans within three years and 90% of rural Americans within six years.

“The parties also pledged that within six years, 90% of Americans would have access to mobile service with speeds of at least 100 Mbps and 99% of Americans would have access to speeds of at least 50 Mbps. This includes two-thirds of rural Americans having access to mobile service with speeds of at least 100 Mbps, and 90% of rural Americans having access to speeds of at least 50 Mbps.

“Compliance with these commitments will be verified by rigorous drive-testing, overseen by an independent third party and subject to Commission oversight, to ensure that the service Americans receive will be what the parties have promised. And in order to ensure that these commitments are met, the parties will be required to make payments that could reach over two billion dollars if they do not meet their commitments within six years. Moreover, the parties will be required to make additional payments until they have fulfilled their commitments.”

In their lengthy dissenting letter the two Democrat Commissioners stressed how little reassurance they take from these commitments. “The vague promise of 5G does not change what was true when this deal was first proposed and what remains true today—the benefits of this merger, if any, simply do not outweigh the harms,” wrote Commissioner Starks.

This still isn’t a done deal, however. It is the last of the federal obstacles but some individual states are pushing back and, by amazing coincidence, everyone involved seems to be of the Democrat persuasion. This is just how things work over there and the two companies will presumably need to dip further into the pork barrel to win those states over.

Having secured a bunch of 5G network commitments, the US telecoms regulator has given its seal of approval to the merger of TMUS and Sprint.

The FCC had to make the usual judgment call when it comes to telecoms mergers of weighing up the reduction in competition with the increased investment power of the combined entity. As with apparently everything else in the US, the FCC is politicised and tribal. The three Republican Commissioners voted in favour, while the two republicans voted against.

To the winners go the spoils and the resulting announcement was heavy on the national benefits promised by ability of the combined entity to do a better job of rolling out a 5G network than the sum of its parts. The FCC (or at least the majority of it) is saying ‘the transaction will close the digital divide and promote the wide deployment of 5G services’. Let’s see.

“Specifically, T-Mobile and Sprint have committed within three years to deploy 5G service to cover 97% of the American people, and within six years to reach 99% of all Americans,” said the FCC announcement. “This commitment includes deploying 5G service to cover 85% of rural Americans within three years and 90% of rural Americans within six years.

“The parties also pledged that within six years, 90% of Americans would have access to mobile service with speeds of at least 100 Mbps and 99% of Americans would have access to speeds of at least 50 Mbps. This includes two-thirds of rural Americans having access to mobile service with speeds of at least 100 Mbps, and 90% of rural Americans having access to speeds of at least 50 Mbps.

“Compliance with these commitments will be verified by rigorous drive-testing, overseen by an independent third party and subject to Commission oversight, to ensure that the service Americans receive will be what the parties have promised. And in order to ensure that these commitments are met, the parties will be required to make payments that could reach over two billion dollars if they do not meet their commitments within six years. Moreover, the parties will be required to make additional payments until they have fulfilled their commitments.”

In their lengthy dissenting letter the two Democrat Commissioners stressed how little reassurance they take from these commitments. “The vague promise of 5G does not change what was true when this deal was first proposed and what remains true today—the benefits of this merger, if any, simply do not outweigh the harms,” wrote Commissioner Starks.

This still isn’t a done deal, however. It is the last of the federal obstacles but some individual states are pushing back and, by amazing coincidence, everyone involved seems to be of the Democrat persuasion. This is just how things work over there and the two companies will presumably need to dip further into the pork barrel to win those states over. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

Networks need to be built for IoT not smartphones – Sprint

If telcos are going to back the IoT trend to realise the promised fortunes of the digital economy, are they building networks to fulfil this ambition?

This was the question raised by Ivo Rook, SVP of the IoT business at Sprint, at Total Telecom Congress. If telcos are still designing networks with the smartphone in mind, then the pot of gold at the end of the IoT rainbow may well be raided by rivals.

“If we think the world is going to change and networks are going to be at the centre of that, we should be thinking about how we are building networks but also why we are building networks,” said Rook.

“If the smartphone is the usecase of the mobile network today, then what is the usecase of tomorrow?”

The team at Sprint has taken a slightly different approach to many telcos and the result is the construction of a fully-virtualised network, which runs on bare metal servers, designed exclusively for IoT, which is known as ‘Curiosity’.

While it might sound like a simple idea, the best ones often are.

Rook highlighted traffic is separated at the radio, before being driven towards separate and dedicated network cores. One network is designed for the behaviour of smartphones, while the second is designed for IoT devices and applications. These are two different segments, which create different challenges, therefore it is only logical to create two different networks.

And when you look at the numbers, it does raise the question as to why more telcos aren’t taking this approach.

The smartphone segment is one which is likely to remain profitable in the long-run, though growth is only estimated at 2%. You can of course build a business case around this, but the levels of CAPEX required are eye-watering. It will be more expensive to build a dedicated IoT network to run alongside, but the financial projects are much more attractive.

According to EY, the number of IoT connections worldwide is forecast to hit 25 billion by 2025, creating a market which could be worth in the region of $1.1 trillion. However, one of the drivers of this segment is the progress of computational power, the rise of cloud computing and the decreasing price of connectivity. These are three segments which are accelerating their progress, suggesting the top-line estimates on revenues could be conservative.

As there is only so much growth left in the smartphone world, and the consumer’s data appetite is aggressively increasing, profits are looking less and less attractive. These are the trends which are driving telcos to diversify, however if the same approach is applied to the networks for different usecases, is the potential going to be realised? Its all about creating the right tools for different jobs.

The question which telcos need to ask themselves is where do they foresee the greatest profits in the future. If it remains in the smartphone world, then fair enough, design networks the same way. However, for enterprise applications and IoT, as Rook highlights, perhaps there should be a shift in mentality for prioritising network demands and design.

US operators collaborate in one more effort to make people care about RCS

AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon have created the Cross Carrier Messaging Initiative to push the Rich Communications Service standard on Android.

RCS is championed by the GSMA, which has been banging on about it for over a decade. It’s positioned as the heir apparent to SMS, offering all sorts of ‘rich communications’ such as images, group chat. That all would have been pretty handy when it was first proposed, but since then there have been countless OTT messaging apps launched, such as WhatsApp, which seem to provide at least everything RCS does. So it’s hard to see what the point of RCS is in this day and age.

The US operators clearly disagree, however, hence this announcement. It’s easy to see why operators, and therefore their lobby group, would want to promote a messaging standard that they have greater control over. But what is less obvious is the incentives smartphone users would have to switch to it. Presumably most would reflect on their current messaging app portfolio and conclude that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

“People love text messaging for a reason,” said David Christopher, GM of AT&T Mobility. “Texting is trusted, reliable and readily available – which is why we’re using it to build the foundation of a simple, immersive messaging experience. This service will power new and innovative ways for customers to engage with each other and their favourite brands.”

“The CCMI will bring a consistent, engaging experience that makes it easy for consumers and businesses to interact in an environment they can trust,” said Michel Combes, CEO of Sprint. “As we have seen in Asia, messaging is poised to become the next significant digital platform. CCMI will make it easy for consumers to navigate their lives from a smartphone.”

“At the Un-carrier, customers drive everything we do, and that’s no different here,” said John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile. “Efforts like CCMI help move the entire industry forward so we can give customers more of what they want and roll out new messaging capabilities that work the same across providers and even across countries.”

“At Verizon, our customers depend on reliable text messaging to easily connect them to the people they care about most,” said Ronan Dunne, CEO of Verizon Consumer Group. “Yet, we can deliver even more working together as an industry. CCMI will create the foundation for an innovative digital platform that not only connects consumers with friends and family, but also offers a seamless experience for consumers to connect with businesses in a compelling and trusted environment.”

Here are the things the CCMI says RCS brings to the table:

  • Drive a robust business-to-consumer messaging ecosystem and accelerate the adoption of Rich Communications Services (RCS)
  • Enable an enhanced experience to privately send individual or group chats across carriers with high quality pictures and videos
  • Provide consumers with the ability to chat with their favourite brands, order a rideshare, pay bills or schedule appointments, and more
  • Create a single seamless, interoperable RCS experience across carriers, both in the U.S. and globally

Of these the B2B angle seems the most compelling. There is still a surprisingly vibrant business around automated application-to-person (A2P) messaging, which typically operators use to communicate with their customers. The switch to RCS would bring a lot more options to that business. And then there’s the fact that you don’t need to know whether someone has an OTT app installed in order to send that message, although it should be noted that Apple shows no sign of supporting it.

But there’s no getting around the fact that RCS is essentially a direct competitor to OTT messaging which, thanks to the inability of operators to act with any kind of urgency, now has a massive head start in the marketplace. Perhaps if more of them belatedly get their acts together as the US operators have they can start to build some momentum, but we’re not holding our breath.

T-Mobile and Sprint convince Colorado to cross the picket line

The coalition of lawyers fighting against the $26 billion T-Mobile US and Sprint merger has gotten a little bit weaker with Colorado dropping out of the resistance movement.

After the Attorney General for Mississippi secured concessions from the duo, the same has been achieved by Phil Weiser, the Colorado Attorney General. It might be the long-way around, but it does appear T-Mobile US and Sprint are turning some heads with individual, state-level deals.

“The State of Colorado joined a multistate lawsuit to block the T-Mobile-Sprint merger because of concerns about how the merger would affect Coloradans,” said Chief Deputy Attorney General Natalie Hanlon Leh.

“The agreements we are announcing today address those concerns by guaranteeing jobs in Colorado, a state-wide buildout of a fast 5G network that will especially benefit rural communities, and low-cost mobile plans.”

The guarantees are somewhat ambitious. New T-Mobile, how the merged entity is currently being referred to, has promised to deliver 5G with minimum download speeds of 100 Mbps to 68% of the state’s population within three years, and within six years, this coverage will have to increase to 92% of the population.

On the rural side, 60% of Colorado’s rural population will have to have access to 5G download speeds of 100 Mbps within three years of the completion of the transaction, increasing to 74% within six years.

New T-Mobile will also offer new tariffs at lower prices. Should the company fail to meet these commitments it will face $80 million in penalties.

In meeting these concessions, New T-Mobile might face some challenges. Colorado is the eighth largest state in the US at 269,837 km² (the UK is 242,495 km²), with some pretty mountainous landscapes. That said, the population does seem to help these coverage commitments.

Colorado has a population of roughly 5.6 million people, of which 4.89 million live in urban locations. The state has 196 towns and 73 cities, with the five biggest accounting for roughly 1.6 million people (23% of total). Should New T-Mobile cover the ten largest cities with 5G within three years, it would have achieved roughly 38% population coverage, more than half of the commitment made to the State.

With Colorado being a highly urbanised population, only 13% are described as living in rural environment according to Rural Health Info, the equation does not look quite as daunting. Another element to consider is the spectrum assets which will be owned by New T-Mobile.

Although it has been toying with the high-speed mmWave spectrum bands, New T-Mobile will have the benefits of the 600 MHz spectrum offering greater range for meeting the concessions. This will not deliver the eye watering speed which has been promised in perfect scenarios for 5G, though it will aid the demands of network densification. During a trial in January, T-Mobile US claimed a 5G call over 600 MHz could reach 1000 square miles from a single cell site.

Interestingly enough, the merger will also offer access to valuable mid-band spectrum which Sprint has been boasting about for years. Sprint is currently hording licences for the valuable 2.5 GHz band, very similar to the mid-band spectrum airwaves which are being championed in Europe because of the more palatable compromise between speed and coverage. Combining these assets with the mmWave trials puts New T-Mobile in a pretty attractive position.

Alongside the conditions placed on New T-Mobile, Dish will also face its own demands following the completion of the $5 billion acquisition of Sprint’s prepaid brand to maintain competition levels across the country. Dish will have to maintain the HQ in Colorado for at least seven years, hire an additional 2,000 people to work on the wireless business and Colorado will have to be one of the first 10 states Dish launches 5G in. Failure to meet these conditions will result in $20 million in fines.

The win in Colorado is a significant one for New T-Mobile and adds to the momentum gained in Mississippi. In this southern state, New T-Mobile will have to deploy a 5G networ with at least 62% of the population experiencing download speeds of at least 100 Mbps. These numbers increase to 88% within six years of the completion of the merger, though 88% of the rural population will also have to be upgraded to 5G by this time also.

Although this is not the end of the lawsuit led by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James to block the merger on competition grounds, it adds a dent to momentum.

The prospect of tackling James and a herd of 16 Attorney Generals might have seemed like a daunting one, but the divide and conquer strategy seems to be working well here. If the T-Mobile US and Sprint lawyers can convince a few more into ditching the lawsuit, the threat looks significantly lessened.

While there are some states where applying the same conditions as have been negotiated in Colorado and Mississippi would be incredibly difficult, the lawyers don’t have to worry about them. Chipping away at the states where 5G deployment might be a simpler task would certainly lessen the threat being posed by the coalition. There only needs to be another three or four convinced to cross the picket-line and the support for the merger starts to look much more substantial.

Another petition appears to delay T-Mobile/Sprint merger

Nine organizations have come together to petition the FCC to delay any permissions to approve the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger until a fraud investigation has been completed.

The petition is focused on a Sprint probe, relating to alleged Lifeline fraud. The under-fire telco has been accused of collecting subsidies from the FCC even though many of the subscribers through the initiative were inactive and not using the service.

“Specifically, the public interest, rural wireless, and labor organizations ask the Commission to pause its review of the merger while important issues related to Sprint’s apparent Lifeline fraud are more fully investigated by the Commission, and also urge the Commission to seek public comment on the DISH waiver requests, the July 26 Dish commitments to the Commission, and related developments, including the DOJ Consent Decree,” the petition states.

The petition has been filed by the Rural Wireless Association, the Communications Workers of America union, Consumer Reports, The Greenlining Institute, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, New America’s Open-technology Institute, The Rural Broadband Association, the Open Markets Institute and Public Knowledge.

Should the FCC agree with the petitioners, the completion of the merger would be paused until the end of the investigation.

Although T-Mobile US and Sprint have been making progress towards completing the merger, there are still numerous hurdles which will have to be negotiated. The FCC and Department of Justice have green-lit the deal, with concessions to be fulfilled, though that does not mean the law suits will disappear.

Aside from this petition, 16 State-level Attorney Generals have banded together to file a lawsuit against the merger. Led by the ambitious New York Attorney General Letitia James, the lawsuit questions the validity of the merger on the ground of competition. James has argued that with the presence of four MNOs, tariffs are becoming less expensive and coverage is improving; connectivity is getting better for the consumer with the status quo, so why should this be changed?

The nine organizations filing this petition to the FCC are demanding the merger be delaying which the fraud investigation into Sprint is on-going.

The Lifeline Program is designed to offer subsidies to telcos to enable free tariffs for low-income consumers across the country. Participants receive $9.25 a month on average, though Sprint is accused of collecting the pay-out for 885,000 inactive Lifeline customers. This number represents 30% of the Lifeline subscribers Sprint supports.

“It’s outrageous that a company would claim millions of taxpayer dollars for doing nothing,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said at the time. “This shows a careless disregard for program rules and American taxpayers. I have asked our Enforcement Bureau to investigate this matter to determine the full extent of the problem and to propose an appropriate remedy.”

Under the rules of the programme, providers of the service may only be reimbursed for a Lifeline subscriber if that subscriber has used the service at least once in the past 30 days. The onus is placed on the telcos to de-enroll inactive subscribers, though it does appear something went very wrong at Sprint.

Considering the investigation is being powered by the FCC, the petitioners might find some joy with this latest effort to de-rail the merger. It might be nothing more than a pause on developments, but it does afford more opportunity for other opponents to gather momentum.

T-Mobile staff start getting twitchy over Sprint merger

A letter has emerged from T-Mobile Workers United, with the union asking Deutsche Telekom executives to confirm jobs will be safe following the merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint.

According to Reuters, the union, representing around 500 employees from the telco, have seemingly decided to skip out T-Mobile US CEO John Legere and gone straight to group boss Tim Hoettges. The union is seeking assurances jobs will be safe should the merger between the two telcos survive legal challenges which are emerging.

Although there have been several assurances from Legere the merger will be a net creator of jobs, this is under the assumption growth can be achieved through the union. It might sound like a good headline, but reading into the statements, Legere is suggesting job creation will be down to synergies between the firms and a more assertive challenge to AT&T and Verizon.

However, the issue of business rationalisation has not been addressed head on. Whenever two large businesses are brought together through a merger, redundancies are unavoidable. This is a point which has not been addressed by the management teams, with senior managers simply pointing to the potential for growth.

Irrelevant as to whether there will be job creation through an aggressive network rollout or a taking the combined business into new, regional markets, there will be overlap between the two businesses. Not every lawyer, accountant or HR employee will need to be retained as the team will seek cost efficiencies during the integration process. The other thing you have to think about is the retail presence.

It won’t be in every location, but there will of course be hundreds of jobs at risk as the merged business seeks to rationalise its presence on the high street. There are going to be numerous locations where both Sprint and T-Mobile US have a physical store within minutes of each other; a choice will have to be made and job cuts will be evident. Being a net creator of jobs does not mean there will be no redundancies.

These staff are perfectly entitled to feel nervous, as the issue has not been directly addressed and any logical person would say there will be redundancies.

Oregon joins the anti-merger brigade to dampen T-Mobile/Sprint party

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has is the latest recruit for the coalition of lawyers aiming to block the merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint.

Almost immediately after FCC Chairman Ajit Pai offered his blessing for the union, Rosenblum hit back with the announcement. T-Mobile US and Sprint might be collecting the approvals from government agencies, but unless they can figure out how to appease the Attorney Generals, another headache looms large on the horizon.

“It’s important that Oregon join other states in opposing the Sprint-T-Mobile merger,” said Rosenblum. “If left unchallenged, the current plan will result in reduced access to affordable wireless service in Oregon — and higher prices. Neither is acceptable.

“Oregon’s addition to our lawsuit keeps our momentum going and ensures that there isn’t a single region of this country that doesn’t oppose this anticompetitive megamerger,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “We welcome Attorney General Rosenblum to our 16-member coalition that now includes states representing almost half of the U.S. population. We remain committed to blocking the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint because it would be bad for consumers, bad for workers, and bad for innovation.”

James is of course the ring-leader when it comes to this legal saga, though we suspect in crafting the position of consumer champion, the Attorney General of New York has higher political ambitions. Irrelevant to the end-game, James has proven to be very effective in collecting support for this lawsuit.

Rosenblum will now become the 16th member of an increasingly dangerous opponent for T-Mobile US and Sprint. One lawyer as an opponent is a daunting prospect, but 16 Attorney Generals and 16 antitrust department working against the progress of the merger is the stuff corporate nightmares are made of.

The full list of States now opposing the merger include: New York, California, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

Having been filed with the District Court for New York on June 11, we suspect this might be somewhat of a prolonged battle. First, judges in New York will have to decide on the appropriateness of the merger, though you can almost guarantee whatever outcome will be appealed by the losing party. We suspect this is a see-sawing legal conflict which will carry on for months.

T-Mobile US and Sprint are nearing the finish line, but it is still well out of reach for the moment.

Pai gobbles up Sprint and T-Mobile US merger

After months of headaches and sleepless nights, the tides of favour seem to be turning for Sprint and T-Mobile US as the FCC chief gives his blessing for the union.

254 days into the 180 days the FCC gives itself to approve mergers, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has officially confirmed his position. It is still not quite 100% guaranteed for the two telcos, however with Pai’s recommendation, the future is looking very rosier.

“After one of the most exhaustive merger reviews in Commission history, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that this transaction will bring fast 5G wireless service to many more Americans and help close the digital divide in rural areas,” Pai said in a statement.

“Moreover, with the conditions included in this draft Order, the merger will promote robust competition in mobile broadband, put critical mid-band spectrum to use, and bring new competition to the fixed broadband market.”

Suggesting this was a protracted and painful process might be one of the biggest understatements of the year. However, it might have been necessary considering the significant impact a merger of this scale could potential have on competition, diversification and network deployment across the US.

Above all else, the US is a monstrous market with an incredibly small number of nationwide telcos. This does of course offer economy of scale to improve investment capabilities, though there is a risk of regional monopolies due to the sheer size and geographical variance across the country. Proposed mergers which would take the number of national telcos from four to three has been extinguished in the past, though this one has passed almost every test.

The greenlight from the FCC Chairman is an important step, adding momentum to positive news from the Department of Justice in the last few weeks. At the end of July, the DoJ’s antitrust division gave the thumbs up, assuming Sprint’s prepaid brand Boost is divested, and Pai has made the same demands.

This is one concession which many expected, but we have major issue with. Dish will acquire the Boost brand, allowing it to make use of its horde of valuable spectrum, satisfying the demands, though will this be enough to maintain the current levels of competition, the objective of both the FCC and DoJ? We do not believe so.

Firstly, instead of having four established telcos in the US, consumers will now have to choose from three telcos and a newbie with zero experience of effectively running a mobile business and network. Dish does not have the competence, experience, infrastructure, processes, billing systems or supply chain to run a mobile business, and it will take years to build these elements to the degree expected.

Secondly, Dish is now an MVNO. It will be able to make use of the T-Mobile network, but the FCC and DoJ has replaced a functional MNO with an MVNO and expects no-one to notice the difference. Both of these agencies expect Dish to have its own network up-and-running in a few years, but this is another ridiculous ambition.

As mentioned in the first point, this is a company which is not practiced in the dark arts of mobile. The three remaining traditional players took decades to rollout their own networks, and they are still not genuine nationwide telcos (there are still network gaps across the country). How is Dish expected to create a nationwide, 4G and 5G, network across a country of 9.8 million km2, with an incredibly variety of different urban densities, geographical landscapes and economic societies.

If anyone thinks Dish is going to be a replacement which can maintain the current status quo, they are quite frankly fooling themselves.

What is worth noting is that this is not the end of the road for Sprint and T-Mobile. It might have secured the relevant regulatory approval, but now it will have to combat the various legal challenges.

Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a coalition of State Attorney Generals have filed a lawsuit to block the proposed merger. The lawyers are arguing the merger would harm competition, and it should be blocked to maintain the status quo. As it stands, with four separate MNOs challenging each other, prices and mobile experience is improving for the consumer; the lawyers are arguing that the situation is not broken, it is in fact improving, so why should the FCC and DoJ try to fix an imaginary problem?

Although the approval process from the DoJ and FCC might have been considered a significant problem, the telcos will not have to face legal heavyweights from more than a dozen States. Lawyers have a way of being very difficult when they want to be, so there might well be a few more twists and turns in this saga.