US operators belatedly act to protect user location data

AT&T and Verizon announced that they will terminate all remaining commercial agreements that involve sharing customer location data, following a report exposing the country’s mobile carriers’ failure to control data sharing flow.

Jim Greer, a spokesman for AT&T, said in a standard email to media: “Last year, we stopped most location aggregation services while maintaining some that protect our customers, such as roadside assistance and fraud prevention.” Referring to the Motherboard exposé, Greer continued, “In light of recent reports about the misuse of location services, we have decided to eliminate all location aggregation services — even those with clear consumer benefits.”

This is similar to the position T-Mobile’s CEO John Legere adopted when responding to the criticism from the US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Verizon also announced that the company will sever four remaining contracts to share location data with roadside assistance services. After this Version will need to get customers’ explicit agreement to share their data with these third-party assistance companies. Sprint, which was also caught out by the Motherboard report, is the only remaining nation-wide carrier that has not announced its plan on the issue.

This is all good news for the American consumers who are concerned with the safety of their private data. On the other hand, mobile operators have hardly been the worst offenders when it comes to compromising the privacy and security of customer data. Earlier, Google was exposed to have continued tracking users’ location even after the feature had been switched off, while Facebook has been mired in endless privacy controversies.

Monetising user data is only a side and most likely insignificant “value-add” business for the mobile operators, because they live on the service fees subscrbers pay. But it is the internet heavyweights’ lifeline. This may sound fatalistic but it should not surprise anyone if the Facebooks and the Googles of the world come up with more innovative measures to finance the “free” services we have benn used to.

T-Mobile US bags another million, while AT&T makes doubles down on 5G claims

It’s been a busy day on the US side of the pond as T-Mobile US reported its full-year subscription figures, while AT&T promised a nationwide 5G rollout with few details.

Starting with the controversial and confrontational T-Mobile, the magenta army claims to have added total net customer additions of 2.4 million to the ranks over the last three months, while 2018 on the whole stood at 7 million total net adds. In the final quarter, the numbers stood at 1.4 million branded postpaid net additions, 1 million of which were branded postpaid phone net additions, making it the best quarter in four years.

“The T-Mobile team delivered our best customer results ever in Q4 2018 and we did it in a competitive climate while working hard to complete our merger with Sprint,” said John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile. “That’s 23 quarters in a row where more than 1 million customers have chosen T-Mobile – along with a postpaid phone churn result that’s below 1%. These customer results speak volumes about our company, our network and our brand.”

There is no question T-Mobile US has been a success story under the leadership of Legere, but the big question is how he has done it. In short, Legere has not conformed to the status quo, as you can probably pick up from his ranting and raving on social media, but hyper-targeted marketing has also played a role.

This is a strategy which has been in the making for some time now, the team promised to address markets and demographics which are apparently underserved, or blurred together with generic marketing campaigns. It seems to be the incremental increase approach to growth, but you can’t argue with success.

“…it’s the strategy we laid out for you, going back to 2015 and 2016 is in full effect now,” said COO Mike Sievert on the earnings call. “We said we were going to expand distribution, we did that. We said we were going to expand the segments that we go after and we did that. We were going to add a very serious focus on business, we did that. So, the results have the benefit of all those things in the runway now.

“So that’s a phenomenal uptick. Our suburban market share, we think is 14% to 15%. Our rural market share, we think is sub-10%. Military and older people, 55 plus, sorry Braxton. We think we have a 10%-ish share of both those segments that we’ve been focusing on for a year right now. So, lots of runway behind the strategy left to go, but you are starting to see, as we promised you would the effects of those investments now flowing through into our results.”

One segment which is in currently in the crosshair is enterprise customers. The team might have had one of the most successful quarters to date in this area, according to Sievert, but market share is very low currently. AT&T and Verizon naturally hold the lion’s share of the business, but T-Mobile US has already shown it is perfectly capable of making a challenge to the ‘duopoly’.

Looking ahead to the 5G bonanza, the T-Mobile team has decided to sit out the initial race, or how this has been spun by the PR ‘gurus’, instead focusing on the long-term nationwide charge.

“We are the only ones that have a plan to bring 5G nationwide in 2020,” said Sievert. “And the others are focused on millimetre wave in some places. We are bringing 5G everywhere we operate, and we are doing it by next year and that’s a real differentiator.”

In the pursuit of coverage and due diligence, Sievert is not being factually correct here, making a statement which is indeed inaccurate.

Looking over at the AT&T business, the team has made its own statement, perhaps an effort to redirect attention from the misleading statements it has made concerning ‘5Ge’. This marketing ploy is of course nothing more than an attempt to pray on the un-informed, using small print to its greatest effect, though whether the latest statement is any better we’ll leave you to decide.

Similar to T-Mobile US’ commitment to 5G, AT&T has now promised ‘nationwide mobile 5G footprint’ using sub-6 GHz spectrum by early 2020. The ambitions are certainly noteworthy from both parties, but what we are struggling to stomach at the moment are a lack of details; no-one has actually stepped forward to say what a nationwide rollout actually means.

Does this mean there will be a 5G footprint in every state? What percentage of the US will be covered by 5G? Will the rural communities have a taste of the new connectivity euphoria or will it simply be limited to the busiest sections of the largest cities? What transportation hubs will become a 5G hotspot? How many 5G cell sites are forecast for the time when nationwide 5G coverage will be claimed?

While we are being particularly critical of the claims, we believe this is necessary for an industry which is not always the most honest with its customers.

Although consumers should remain apathetic, though they probably won’t, to the 5G euphoria, or at least until there are 5G-specific services launched, the new networks will become a major marketing plug for the telcos. The marketing team need something new to talk about, and the ‘bigger, better, faster’ tendencies of these departments will ensure 5G is front-page news.

All of the 5G buzz means very little to the consumer right now, but don’t tell them that. However, on a more positive note, it is quite exciting at how quickly the 5G promise is becoming a reality.

T-Mobile/Sprint merger heads towards final two hurdles

With the CFIUS giving a green light on the $26 billion merger of TMUS and Sprint, attention can now be turned to the final hurdles presented by the Department of Justice (JoJ) and FCC.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the US), which has been assessing the security implications of the deal, has given the go ahead. There has been no official statement made just yet, the CFIUS has abruptly pointed out it has no legal requirement to do so, though attention has most likely be focused on the last two potential problem areas for some time.

What is worth noting is that while there are opportunities for failure at every turn in the road, the CFIUS was unlikely ever to be a massive problem for T-Mobile or Sprint.

As a bit of background, the CFIUS is a multi-agency committee which assesses the impact of foreign investment on a number of different factors, most notably national security. Although a relatively unknown council, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (passed in August) vastly expanded the powers and influence of CFIUS, meaning it could probe into a wider variety of acquisitions, allow it to take longer and finally, charge for the pleasure of doing so.

Thankfully for T-Mobile and Sprint, the national security threat was low risk here. Firstly, you have to consider there isn’t any Huawei or ZTE kit in the pair’s networks right now, secondly, the Defense Authorization Act prohibits the use of any of their equipment or software in the future, and finally, the pair’s parent companies have said they would back away from Huawei for future investments.

It seems the direct threat to US national security, if you are in the camp of believing there is a genuine one, was minimal. The confirmation from non-domestic private businesses that they would pander to political paranoia looks like it was enough to ensure the CFIUS have no objections. All ties to Huawei and ZTE have been severed so it seems its mission accomplished for Trump.

Now it’s onto the tough jobs; the Department of Justice and the FCC.

The FCC is digging its heels in for the moment, extending the 180-day shot clock for approval, as it searches for justification for the deal. This is where the issue may lie for T-Mobile and Sprint, as while the FCC is looking to determine whether a proposed transaction will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, the evidence and support seems to be stacking up against the pair.

The Department of Justice on the other hand will be looking to assess whether the proposed merger would have a material impact on competition. Too much of a sway in the negative and this deal will head straight to the bin. The four to three operators shift could create monopolies in certain localities which will not be viewed favourably.

The finish line is now in sight, but it is still unclear which direction this will go. While the signs have been positive, the FCC has proven to be a surprise package while there are certainly warranted competition concerns for the DoJ to ponder.

T-Mobile’s Tele2 acquisition is not a sign of changing attitudes from Europe – Lawyer

While some might view European Commission’s decision for T-Mobile Netherlands acquisition of Tele2’s Dutch business as a softening approach to consolidation, White & Case, one of the law firms working on the deal, warned you shouldn’t get too excited.

With the European Commission historically taking an aggressive view against any acquisition which would take a market from four to three operators, T-Mobile Netherlands acquisition of Tele2 Netherlands looked doomed to failure. However, the European Commission has always stated there is no magic number, and each case would be considered on its own merit. Despite this stance, many believed the Commission secretly held the number four as sacred.

“Looking in the rear-view mirror, you could see that the tone seemed to have gotten harsher in terms of the Commission’s approach to four to three operators,” said Mark Powell, one of White & Case’s Partners who co-led the legal team on the deal.

Unfortunately for the European Commission’s claim of impartiality on market consolidation, the evidence has been stacked against it. In Austria, Ireland and Germany, consolidation was approved though there were increasingly stricter MVNO remedies placed on the deal. In Denmark, Telenor and TeliaSonera ditched their own deal just as the European Commission was set to block it. It did have to intervene in the UK with Three and O2, while in Italy consolidation was approved under the condition spectrum was released to create a fourth player, resulting in Iliad’s entry. As time progressed, the attitude towards consolidation seemed to become more vehemently opposed.

With this in mind, the approval of the deal in the Netherlands might have come as a surprise.

“Things are very different in this case,” said Powell. “If the Commission was prepared to look at the very specific conditions, we felt we would have a favourable decision.”

However, what telcos around Europe should bear in mind is the Netherlands is a unique market. This should not be taken as changing attitudes of the European Commission, or a new era where a free-for-all consolidation battle begins. So what were the favourable conditions in the Netherlands?

Firstly, the combined market share of the newly merged business would only be 25%, keeping it in third place. Tele2’s Dutch business was a relatively minor player, only controlling around 5% market share, but is also a pureplay 4G telco. The Commission did not have to worry about 2G or 3G. Another consideration is the aggressive MVNO segment in the country, perhaps compensating for any reduction in competition.

“You could say common sense prevailed, but the fact pattern was recognised by the Commission, so they should be credited for standing by what they say when they said they would look at specific cases and make a decision accordingly,” said Powell.

Another underlying point for the successful merger was the attitude of the regulator. The Dutch regulator was generally receptive to the idea of consolidation, which was perhaps taken into consideration by the Commission. In many of the cases which have gone against consolidation, the regulator has been against the deal. This was certainly the case in the UK Three/O2 merger, where the UK watchdog was publicly hostile to consolidation, as Powell put it.

The final point which Powell believes contributed to the success was the fact the case was heard verbally in court over the course of a single day. These are scenarios which are very fact intensive, resulting in a lot of paper. Simple sending opinions and evidence back and forth creates a mountain of information, perhaps confusing and convoluting opinions. By hearing the case verbally, the court was able to consider and crystallise a decision more effectively.

“At the end of the day, this confirms that if you think you have a strong case, then there is,” said Powell.

This is what should be taken away from this deal. This is not a changing of policy from the European Commission, but conveniently proving it will consider market consolidation in the right circumstances. There isn’t another market in Europe which mirrors the conditions here, but there are markets which could be successful in the same way T-Mobile Netherlands has been here in acquiring Tele2 Netherlands.

Interestingly enough, 5G did not factor into the equation much here. The Dutch 5G auction has not taken place yet, therefore the European Commission was taking into consideration the evidence which was put in front of it. Whether market consolidation is necessary in the 5G world still remains a valid question, and this decision should not be viewed as evidence for either side.

5G will require huge investment by the telcos, significantly more than previous generations, though how to ensure these investments are made in a timely fashion is an interesting question. Should consolidation be preventing to encourage competition and the fear of another eating a telcos lunch, or should it be allowed to ensure scale of customers and confidence in ROI? The debate rages on with pros and cons on either side.

While Powell warned against believing this is a sign the European Commission is softening its approach to market consolidation, it is evidence it can stick to its word that there is no magic number to make competition work.

Netherlands falls to three MNOs as Europe approves T-Mobile/Tele2 deal

The European Commission has officially approved Deutsche Telekom’s acquisition of Tele2’s Dutch business, reducing the number of MNOs in the country from four to three.

For many through the continent this will be seen as progress, as the European Commission has previously viewed reducing the number of MNOs in a single market below four as sacrilege. With telcos across Europe looking for ways to justify the vast expenditures expected for 5G and the full-fibre diets demanding by governments in the fixed space, the prospect of market consolidation is an interesting one.

What is worth noting is this is a relatively minor acquisition. Merging DT’s Dutch business and Tele2’s only adds a relatively small increment, roughly 5%, to the newly merged business. T-Mobile NL would still remain in third position with a market share of 25%, while the European Commission has also questioned Tele2 NL’s role as an important competitive force in the Dutch market. Despite these conditions, this will certainly be viewed as progress for those who sit in the pro-consolidation camp.

“Access to affordable and good quality mobile telecom services is essential in a modern society,” said Commissioner Margrethe Vestager. “After thoroughly analysing the specific role of T-Mobile NL and the smaller Tele2 NL in the Dutch retail mobile market, our investigation found that the proposed acquisition would not significantly change the prices or quality of mobile services for Dutch consumers.”

Through the five month investigation, Vestager and her team decided the proposed merger was unlikely to lead to significant price increases due to the limited incremental impact Tele2 would have on the T-Mobile NL business, the transaction would not increase the likelihood of coordinated behaviour between mobile network operators as there is sufficient enough difference between and the business models, and finally, conditions for virtual mobile network operators due to the proposed merger would not have a serious impact on the level of competition. In short, dropping from four to three operators would not negatively impact the consumer.

Here is the question though; will this decision have any material impact on consolidation decisions elsewhere? Perhaps it might, but we suspect the European Commission will stick to the three operator rule where competition is more intense.

In listing its reasons for approving the deal, Vestager effectively said that Tele2’s Dutch business was small and irrelevant enough to the other players that it being swallowed up by one of them would not make any material impact on competition. In most other markets around Europe the fourth players have much more of a foothold in the market.

Take the UK for instance. Here, Three is the smallest of the MNOs, controlling roughly a 15% market share. On its own it can provide suitable competition to the three larger players, though if it was acquired the gain in total subscribers would have a material impact on market share. This alteration in the status quo could lead to the anti-competition doomsday scenario, or at least this is what the European Commission might believe.

Despite consolidation being a positive for the industry, scale means confidence to invest, operational efficiencies, notable procurement benefits and greater ability to generate ROI, we suspect the European Commission will stick to its four operator rule for most markets. The only exceptions will be in cases like this one, where the fourth player controls a minor market share which would have no material impact on a competitors standing in the market.

That said, this is a step forward for the stubborn European Commission.

New York wades in to the T-Mobile/Sprint debate

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood could prove to be another hurdle for T-Mobile and Sprint to overcome in their headache-inducing merger.

The problem for the pair is there seem to be a lot more objections surrounding the tie-up than there has been support. After T-Mobile CEO John Legere seemingly got little response from his appeal to MVNOs to support the transaction, the wild-eyed leader has opened up to opinions from staff; a dangerous move considering some would certainly be under threat of redundancy.

Perhaps what the duo didn’t need are objections from the New York Attorney General Office over fears the consumer might get screwed. According to the New York Post, the objection is relatively simple. T-Mobile runs a prepaid service called MetroPCS, while Sprint has Boost and Virgin Mobile. Bringing all three into the same business could lead to one or more being scrapped, reducing competition. Secondly, all three are incredibly aggressive on pricing, but again, bringing all three into the same business could end this trend of undercutting, and an increase in price. The New Yorkers are concerned tariffs could become too expensive for some.

While objections from a few lawyers might not be the worst thing in the world for T-Mobile and Sprint, it seems there is a queue forming. In fact, the FCC released a notice last week which stated the Attorney General Offices of Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia have all requested information to assist their own investigations into the merger. The lawyers are lurking, and the more who gather around the fire, the less pleasing the situation appears for T-Mobile and Sprint.

This of course might mean nothing. All major parties in the US are perfectly entitled to do their own due diligence surrounding the deal as transitioning from a market with four major telcos down to three is a massive move. Considering there will be regions across the country where this transaction effectively creates a communications monopoly, every chance to scrutinise the deal should be taken.

As it stands, the self-appointed shot-clock on approving the deal at the FCC is on hold. This again is simply down to the magnitude and the potentially significant consequences of the deal, and should not be surprising at all, but the longer it stands still, we suspect the more nervous executives will become. Mergers of this nature have already been shot down in the US, and this deal does seem to be hanging in the balance.

FCC drafts in external opinion to figure out the T-Mobile-Sprint conundrum

Perhaps realising the gravity of the situation, the FCC has drafted in outside help to assess the impact of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger on the US economy.

David Sibley will help the team as an outside consultant reporting into David Lawrence, who is leading the merger taskforce. This should not be seen as an unusual move from the FCC, though perhaps such external opinions should have been brought in earlier considering the impact this merger will have on the telco landscape and competition.

“We are fortunate that Professor Sibley is bringing his considerable economic experience and expertise to bear in this review,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “Rigorous economic analysis plays an important role in all of the Commission’s work and will be essential to a thorough investigation into whether approval of this transaction would be in the public interest.”

This is the big question. The merger will bring the number of national telcos down from four to three, but is this a good or bad move. There are arguments on both sides.

The bad side of the argument is a simple one. Removing one of the major telcos from the ecosystem will reduce competition and hurt the consumer through higher pricing due to a lack of choice. This is not a complicated point to make and a genuine concern, especially in a country like the US which where telcos do not operate everywhere. The risk of monopolies or duopolies in certain areas increases.

On the positive side, while the number of massive telcos decreases, competition increases as the merged entity would offer a more valid threat to AT&T and Verizon through the combined scale. T-Mobile US CEO John Legere often refers to AT&T and Verizon as the duopoly, and while this is an exaggeration, they are miles ahead of T-Mobile and Sprint in third and fourth place. T-Mobile and Sprint are not at the right scale to compete with the leaders individually, but together the merged organization would offer greater scale. The theory here is reducing competitors would make the market more competitive, therefore better for the consumer.

This is the conundrum which the FCC needs to decide on. Evidence and experts will be aplenty on both sides of the argument, though Sibley certainly adds some expertise to the team.

Sibley is currently the John Michael Stuart Centennial Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Prior this role, Sibley worked Head of the Economics Research Group at Bell Communications Research, as well as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis in the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice. He also represented the US in OECD discussions.

As it stands, the merger shot clock is currently on pause, with the FCC deciding it does not want to be rushed. The approval or rejection of mergers and acquisitions are targeted to be completed within a 180-day window, though the FCC is offered the luxury of taking longer if it is a particularly complicated case. This is proving to be one, with the FCC requesting input from competitors of the pair recently, most notably from players outside the mobile ecosystem, suggesting it is investigating the impact on such segments as broadband.

Sprint asks under-threat employees to support redundancies

In a move which perhaps indicates the Sprint/T-Mobile team is starting to get nervous, Sprint CEO Michel Combes is rousing employee support for the very merger which could potentially make them redundant.

On Friday 5 October, Combes is inviting as many employees as possible to a special edition Town Hall which will feature John Legere and Mike Sievert, who will take over as CEO and COO of the combined company should the merger be given the go-ahead. The attendees will be able to ask questions and air their grievances, with perhaps a couple of brave souls condemning the merger due to the number of jobs it will sacrifice to the gods of profit making.

“Speaking of, it was five months ago when Sprint and T-Mobile announced our intentions to merge,” said Combes in the email, which was later filed with the SEC. “Since then, you’ve heard from me and Marcelo – along with much commentary in the media – about why this is such a good deal. Together we can build the best network across the U.S., including rural areas – and establish global leadership in 5G; offer unprecedented products and services at lower prices for consumers and businesses; and create thousands of jobs.”

How many jobs accountant Combes and his psychotic-eyed colleagues can create is questionable, though what is almost certain is redundancies. There will be cross-over when it comes to internal service departments (such as HR and IT) but the majority will most likely come from the retail side of the business, those in the field interacting with customers. In many cities across the US there will be areas which both a T-Mobile and Sprint presence; these will have to be rationalised.

But perhaps this is where Combes is playing his masterstroke. Those who can attend the meeting will be those who work at the HQ in Kansas, these people are less likely to be at risk from redundancies. Combes can have photographers and camera men capturing the happy faces at the event, while the people who are genuinely under threat can’t afford to fly out to Kansas with a weeks’ notice, or have work in the retail stores all around the country. Combes is essentially herding all the happy people together, while the ones who actually have something to object about are left in the cold, voiceless.

Perhaps Combes should be congratulated on his ability to present the concept of democracy while simultaneously silencing any objections through absence.

Maybe this is an indication the team aren’t getting the support they believe is necessary to force the hand of watchdogs approving the deal? The FCC has hit pause on the 180-day shot clock to approve the deal, not necessarily a good sign, industry groups have slammed the merger, customers offered a mixed-bag of feedback and as far as we can tell, Legere’s plea for support from the MVNOs of the US only brought about one proclamation. Asking employees for their approval is certainly risky, there is as much an opportunity for negative feedback as there is for the managers to be strong-armed into shallow, PR-riddled statements.

Despite seeing a few nerves between the lines, the team has hired an integration team, T-Mobile hired Sunit Patel to lead their merger and integration strategy while Kevin Crull leads efforts at Sprint. Vonya McCann and the Government Affairs team are working hard in the lobby front in Washington, while numerous executives from T-Mobile, Softbank and Sprint will be lending their weight to the effort.

Guessing which way the FCC is going to lean on this deal is almost 50/50 according to many of the people which we have spoken to, but with this move perhaps the mood in the merger camp isn’t as positive as some would let on.

Ericsson lands $3.5 billion T-Mobile US 5G contract

Kit vendor Ericsson has announced a major deal win in the form of a $3.5 billion contract to bring TMUS into the 5G era.

Not much detail has been offered up, but it involves Ericsson hardware such as ERS and plenty of involvement from the Digital Services silo, including dynamic orchestration, BSS and Ericsson Cloud Core. The chances are a spot of managed services may well be chucked in for good measure.

“We have recently decided to increase our investments in the US to be closer to our leading customers and better support them with their accelerated 5G deployments; thereby bringing 5G to life for consumers and enterprises across the country,” said Niklas Heuveldop, Head of Ericsson North America. “This agreement marks a major milestone for both companies. We are excited about our partnership with T-Mobile, supporting them to strengthen, expand and speed up the deployment of their nationwide 5G network.”

“While the other guys just make promises, we’re putting our money where our mouth is,” blurted TMUS CTO Neville Ray in the approved corporate style. “With this new Ericsson agreement we’re laying the groundwork for 5G – and with Sprint we can supercharge the 5G revolution.”

That’s the long and short of it, but Ericsson couldn’t resist another plug of its main USP, stressing that T-Mobile’s installed base of ERS radios will be able to run 5G NR technology with just a software upgrade. There is likely to be a bit of a PR arms race over big 5G deal wins among the kit vendors, but we won’t be seeing any of that action from Huawei in the US. Or Australia.

Could a security breach de-rail the magenta express train?

T-Mobile, ably led by wild-eyed CEO John Legere, has been causing chaos throughout the US wireless market, but a data-breach could impact the brands credibility in the eyes of customers.

Customer opinion is a fickle thing. It can sometimes only take a minor incident and all of a sudden the brand is as attractive as a turd in a washing machine. T-Mobile has been generating some serious momentum over the last few years, readily stealing subscribers from the likes of AT&T and Verizon by undercutting tariffs, though how much of an impact with a data-breach have on brand perception?

“Out of an abundance of caution, we wanted to let you know about an incident that we recently handled that may have impacted some of your personal information,” T-Mobile wrote in a statement to customers.

“On August 20, our cyber-security team discovered and shut down an unauthorized access to certain information, including yours, and we promptly reported it to authorities. None of your financial data (including credit card information) or social security numbers were involved, and no passwords were compromised. However, you should know that some of your personal information may have been exposed, which may have included one or more of the following: name, billing zip code, phone number, email address, account number and account type (prepaid or postpaid).”

According to reports and rumours across the industry, the breach could have left as many as 2.5 million subscribers exposed to the attack. According a T-Mobile spokesperson talking to Motherboard, the incident occurred after hackers compromised company servers through an API, although no further technical details have been disclosed. The attackers are believed to be international.

This is not the first time T-Mobile US has been exposed for security flaws. In May, researcher Ryan Stephenson found a bug which allowed external parties to access customer information just using a phone number. An API used by T-Mobile staff allowed them to look up customer details simply by entering their phone number, though it was not password protected meaning anyone could take advantage of the short-cut if they found the sub-domain. The oversight unveiled a customer’s name, address, billing account number, and in some cases, information about tax identification numbers, as well as security question information.

Every company will have flaws in the system, the perimeters are simply too vast nowadays making the concept of 100% secure almost impossible. The issue here is about credibility; how much of an impact will the news have on customers perception of T-Mobile as a brand and a trusted guardian of their personal information?

As mentioned before, customers are very fickle, especially when much of the attraction to a brand is based on price. Some customers might be asking a simple question now; are a few saved dollars each month worth the risk of my personal information being exposed? T-Mobile has been excellent at hoovering up new subscribers over the last couple of years, but this has been due to highly aggressive marketing moves focused on acquisition. The retention capabilities of the brand have not genuinely been put to the test.

With data protection and privacy high on the agenda following several scandals, most notably the Facebook Cambridge Analytica saga, customers are becoming more sensitive to such incidents. Whether this is enough to de-rail the magenta steam train remains to be seen, but it does ask questions over the company’s credentials.