New York ends resistance to T-Mobile/Sprint merger

New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced her office will not pursue an appeal against the courts decision to approve the $26 billion T-Mobile US and Sprint merger.

While the other states involved in the lawsuit to prevent the combination of the two telcos are yet to formally make their position public, James was the primary driving force behind the legal opposition. Others might try to step up, but without one of the US’ fastest growing political forces at the helm, responses look relatively pitiful.

“After a thorough analysis, New York has decided not to move forward with an appeal in this case. Instead, we hope to work with all the parties to ensure that consumers get the best pricing and service possible, that networks are built out throughout our state, and that good-paying jobs are created here in New York.

“We are gratified that this process has yielded commitments from T-Mobile to create jobs in Rochester and engage in robust national diversity initiatives that will connect our communities with good jobs and technology. We are committed to continuing to fight for affordability and access for all of New York’s mobile customers.”

James’ opposition to the $26 billion merger first emerged in June 2019 when, alongside California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, support was raised for a multi-state lawsuit against the corporate transaction. James managed to convince 12 State Attorney Generals to oppose the deal, questioning whether it would be beneficial for the consumer and attempting to disprove that Dish would not be adequate as a fourth mobile operator.

In a 173-page opinion, Judge Victor Marrero effectively said the merger was a good idea as Sprint was not worthy of being called competition. The combined entity would be a much better representative, while Marrero believed Dish plans to scale rapidly were viable, even if few others do. His ruling effectively killed the resistance to the merger.

Although some will be disappointed the lawyers are giving up the fight, it might simply be a case of looking at the bigger picture. James has pointed to job creation promises in her state, though now the attention will turn to ensure these jobs are actually created. Back in October, Colorado and Mississippi both did the same; the legal opposition was dropped as agreements were forged with T-Mobile US and Dish to offer benefits to the states.

While there will be some benefits to the transaction, it is impossible to avoid the negatives. T-Mobile US and Sprint will be able to realise efficiencies to better compete with AT&T and Verizon, while Dish will offer more jobs. However, there will be a rationalisation project after the transaction leading to job losses in shared business functions (finance, legal etc.) and also in areas where the retail footprint overlaps. Redundancies are unavoidable.

The question which remains is who will get the best slice of the benefits?

Colorado agreed to drop the lawsuit against the merger if Dish was to create 2,000 jobs in the statey and will also keep its corporate HQ in the city of Littleton for at least seven years. The Attorney General has also negotiated an accelerated 5G deployment timeline with T-Mobile US in exchange. Over in Mississippi, former-Attorney General Jim Hood also negotiated an accelerated 5G deployment plan and also a ceiling on tariffs for consumers for a five-year period.

These were the only two states to drop out prior to the conclusion of the lawsuit, though now the lobbying for attention can begin as T-Mobile/Sprint and Dish are wooed by each of the states for their own benefit. James has said the deal offers new jobs to citizens in Rochester, New York, though with other states considering more legal action, T-Mobile US and Dish might have to hit the negotiating table elsewhere.

In California, Attorney General Becerra is considering his options, while Ken Paxton, the Attorney General for Texas, has not stated whether he will pursue an appeal to the decision. These might not be the catalyst for opposition that Letitia James is, but they will certainly be able to cause a problem. T-Mobile US, Sprint and Dish executives want this deal done, are will probably be willing to negotiate some attractive deals.

Merger of T-Mobile US and Sprint finally gets the legal green light

The New York Federal District Court has ruled T-Mobile US and Sprint can finally go ahead and merge if they can still be bothered.

“Today was a huge victory for this merger and now we are finally able to focus on the last steps to get this merger done!,” exclaimed T-Mobile CEO John Legere. “We want to thank the Court for its thorough review of the facts we presented in our case. We’ve said it all along: the New T-Mobile will be a supercharged Un-carrier that is great for consumers and great for competition.

“The broad and deep 5G network that only our combined companies will be able to bring to life is going to change wireless … and beyond. Look out Dumb and Dumber and Big Cable – we are coming for you … and you haven’t seen anything yet!”

“This is a big win and a big day for the New T-Mobile!” exclaimed Mike Sievert, COO of T-Mobile. “Now we can get to work finishing what we set out to do – bringing a new standard for value, speed, coverage, quality and customer service to U.S. consumers everywhere and truly changing wireless for good. Now we’re laser-focused on finishing the few open items that remain but our eye is on the prize: finally bringing this long-awaited merger and all the goodness it will deliver to a close as early as April 1, 2020. We are so ready to bring the New T-Mobile to life!”

“Judge Marrero’s decision validates our view that this merger is in the best interests of the U.S. economy and American consumers,” said a calmer Sprint Executive Chairman Marcelo Claure. “Today brings us a big step closer to creating a combined company that will provide nationwide 5G, lower costs, and a high-performing network that will invigorate competition to the benefit of all mobile wireless and in-home broadband consumers.

With the support of federal regulators and now this Court, we will focus on quickly completing the few remaining necessary steps to close this transaction. I am proud of my Sprint team’s dedication, passion and resilience throughout the merger review process, and we are ready to make the vision of a New T-Mobile a reality.”

Nuff said.

RootMetrics US numbers indicate TMUS/Sprint merger is a good idea

The performance metrics of the four US MNOs confirm a significant gap between the big two and the other two.

RootMetrics did a deep dive into the networks of Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint over the second half of last year. In the customary way it then published top-line performance numbers and ranked the networks according to a few sub-criteria. As you can see in the first table below, Verizon comes top in nearly all categories, with AT&T close behind and the other two lagging considerably. We’re not sure why AT&T isn’t number one in any of the speed categories but it’s presumably explained somewhere in the methodology.

The report also takes a specific look at 5G and finds some pretty major variations in performance. Verizon got so excited about the finding that ‘Verizon’s 4G LTE speeds were faster than the low-band 5G median download speeds of T-Mobile in Chicago and Los Angeles and identical to AT&T’s low-band 5G median download speed in LA,’ that it published a special press release. This doesn’t come as a massive surprise since TMUS is devoting so little spectrum to its 5G right now.

The more significant issue raised by this report is how far behind TMUS and Sprint remain on most key metrics. This would seem to support the case for their merger, since the resulting economies of scale, buying power, etc, would allow greater investment in the network. Whether or not that would actually come to pass, or whether shareholders would trouser the cash instead, is hard to predict. But it seems counter-productive to insist they continue to struggle as second-tier MNOs.

Dish CEO claims it can compete from Day One

Dish CEO Charlie Ergen has been sitting in a New York court room to defend the approval of the T-Mobile US-Sprint merger, but also insisting his company can compete in the cut-throat telco industry.

This week is a critical one for executives in both the T-Mobile US and Sprint businesses. For the next few days, these men and women will be face-to-face with the 14 Attorney Generals, led by New York’s chief prosecutor Letitia James, in a court case which will decide the future of the business.

With approvals being granted by the relevant regulatory authorities, the last hurdle the duo has to navigate is the lawsuit from the Attorney Generals. These 14 lawyers oppose the merger on the grounds of competition, but Ergen is the star witness for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

“We will compete with the largest operators in the United States, and we’ll compete from day one,” Ergen said in court.

Ergen believes the Dish mobile business will be live within 30 days of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger being approved. At this point, Ergen will get his hands-on Sprint’s prepaid business, Boost. The brand will continue in the pre-paid market for the short-term, though Dish plan to move into the post-paid segment sharpish.

This is perhaps what the judgement will lie on. Will the court believe Ergen? Can this CEO convince Judge Victor Marrero that Dish is a viable alternative to the Sprint business which currently exists?

Looking at the positive side of the argument, Dish has spectrum. It has been competing in the spectrum auctions for years and has a treasure trove, which is currently under threat. Dish has been told to use it or lose it. Another interesting factor is the financing; Ergen claims to have $10 billion lined-up in loans from the banks. Then there is the agreement with T-Mobile US. For the next seven years, Dish will be able to make use of the T-Mobile US network where it hasn’t deployed its own.

These are all interesting points to consider, but then you have to look at the other side of the equation.

Dish has never been in the mobile business. Will it be able to get an effective mobile service up-and-running within 30 days? We’re not too sure. Is $10 billion enough to fulfil the grand promises which have been made to gain approvals from the authorities? If Sprint currently has 50 million subscribers, will the Dish mobile proposition ever reach this mark to maintain the current levels of competition across the US?

These are all queries which will need to be answered. Ergen will be placed under cross-examination from the Attorney Generals, and there are plenty of threads to tug on to unravel this story.

The question which remains is can Ergen prove Dish is a viable replacement for Sprint to maintain the competitive environment which is present today? That is the question which this case rests on.

T-Mobile/Sprint merger may increase ARPU – what’s wrong with that?

On the first day of the TMUS/Sprinter merger antitrust trial it was revealed that a Sprint exec thinks the merged company will be able to raise prices.

Reuters reports that the prosecution presented WhatsApp messages from Roger Sole, Sprint’s CMO, to his former CEO Marcelo Claure, sent in 2017, that speculated Sprint’s ARPU (average revenue per user) could increase by five bucks after the merger. Sole is insisting this was just conjecture about some distant possible outcome, but it’s nonetheless being used as evidence against the merger.

The fundamental assumption underlying this is that consumers are always best served by lower prices, but is this necessarily the case? Sole also testified that even lowering prices had proven ineffective at luring and retaining new subscribers because as soon as they experienced how rubbish the Sprint network is, they left before you could say ‘churn’.

Sole is effectively highlighting the Catch-22 position MNOs always claim to be in when restricted by operators. If their ARPU is too low then they won’t have the cash to invest in the network, and then everyone loses out. Regulators will typically say ‘that’s your problem mate, we’re just worried about prices’, which is also a valid position, and one used to push back whenever consolidation threatens to take the number of MNOs in a given market below four.

There is little hard evidence, however, that three MNOs constitute insufficient competition and that a reduction from four to three necessarily increases prices. Moreover, the merger of the third and fourth players would presumably improve the network for customers of both, which could be viewed as justification for raising prices by itself.

As we’ve seen with the disappointing early showing from TMUS’s 5G network, MNOs will have to spend a lot of money to deliver on all the promises mad on behalf of 5G. That cash has to come from somewhere and it seems only fair that subscribers contribute. It is, of course, possible that any increase in ARPU just gets trousered by senior telco execs and investors, but that’s not reason enough to automatically oppose any attempt to do so.

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.