T-Mobile To Acquire Most of US Cellular in $4.4 Billion Deal (cnbc.com) 46
T-Mobile said Tuesday that it plans to acquire most of U.S. Cellular, including stores, some of the wireless operator's spectrum and its customers, in a deal worth $4.4 billion. The deal includes cash and up to $2 billion of debt. From a report: T-Mobile said it will use U.S. Cellular wireless spectrum to improve coverage in rural areas while offering better connectivity to U.S. Cellular customers around the United States. The company said it will allow U.S. Cellular customers to keep their current plans or switch to a T-Mobile plan. U.S. Cellular will retain some of its wireless spectrum and towers and will lease space on at least 2,100 additional towers to T-Mobile. The companies expect the deal to close in mid-2025.
So much for competition (Score:5, Insightful)
And just days ago it came out that raising prices on "some legacy plans" starting next month. [fox4news.com]
T-Mobile was very happy to crow that the Sprint merger was ushering in a "new era of connectivity and value" [t-mobile.com] for customers. I'm sure they'll say the same about this, and laugh all the way to the bank when they raise prices again in December or January.
It really sucks, too. I loathe AT&T and Verizon, and was very happy when I switched service to T-Mo several years back. But since the merger, it's just been more and more [cnet.com]. garbage from them.
Re:So much for competition (Score:4, Insightful)
It's almost like the USA's model for situations where a limited public resource is involved (right-of-way for landlines, spectrum for RF communication, etc) is crap, and the European model where standards are actually standardized, and the supposedly-premium services have to compete with a public utility that the population can directly access is far better. (Looking at Texas, where taxpayers have been soaked for now over $35 billion by "middlemen" companies [wsj.com] so that the Corrupt Republican Fucks in the state government can get kickbacks...)
The sad part is that so many in the USA forget that efficiently run public utilities and services are possible, given that conservatives in the USA regularly sabotage our public utilities and other essential public services both nationally (like the post office) and locally (parks, public transit, libraries...).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Conservatives know most of their followers have VERY short memories and are easily swayed; so they will create situations that only enforce the things they're screaming about. I live in a city where BroadbandoverPowerLine technology was tested. The technology worked; but it's approval by the FCC was largely rubber stamped; and a federal court told the FCC it had to follow it's own rules. But that's not what killed it; what ultimately made it fail was once faced with competition, the cable company (Comcast)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh I stopped there, your an obvious retard.
Most retards understand English better than you.
Re: (Score:2)
What pathetic complaints. So T-mobile, rather well known for price stability, now raises its rates every few months because it raised its rates on some customers once? And "more and more garbage" is changing what accounts qualify for AutoPay discounts?
I was a "victim" of the recent price hike, $2 a month on a $142 charge. Wow. Such garbage! Perhaps you would enjoy AT&T more, they deserve your patronage.
Perhaps if you are someone who is infuriated that he has to choose between "free insurance" and a
Re:So much for competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact is, less competition is worse, fact is corporate conglomerates are bad for everyone
Fact is, since AT&T lost the case back in 1984 on their monopoly, things have gotten better for consumers as the same corporate entities grew larger and bought each other out to be the big monopoly again, while giving enough money to those in charge and being "too big to fail" became the law of the land.
Fact is, the less companies there are in competition, the easier it is for them to set prices higher and higher, because lack of competition means higher prices on consumers. The middle class squeeze continues.
Re: (Score:2)
History proves them as true, anonymous coward.
Re:So much for competition (Score:5, Insightful)
I was a "victim" of the recent price hike, $2 a month on a $142 charge.
They told you, in writing, they would not.
Perhaps if you are someone who is infuriated that he has to choose between "free insurance" and an "autopay discount" the problem is your entitlement, not your cell carrier.
T-Mobile has made their auto-pay discount much harder to maintain by forcing their customers onto debit-only cards or T-Mobile's own 'money' service. They have also recently been the victim of a big hack. Guess what valuable data would-be hackers would get should they go for another round?
What pathetic complaints.
The complaints are valid. Your lack of understanding on the topic has earned you an unnecessarily high bill and has purposefully positioned you to a particularly bad day should history repeat itself. You should take a moment to rethink your position on this matter, it'd certainly be wise.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you loathe the big three carriers enough to walk away?
None of us had cell phones in the 80's.
Breaker, Breaker, 9 if you had a problem.
$40, no subscription fees.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got an amateur's license and four radios, so I get your point, (facetious though it may have been.)
The problem is the other couple dozen people I need/want to keep in close touch with, the hundreds that I occasionally need to talk to, and whoever else I might need to talk to via some kind of telecommunications system at some point.
Do I loathe them enough to walk away? Well, I guess not, considering I still have my T-Mo sub. But that equation could change very quickly at the first sign of an alternative
Re: (Score:2)
Right there with you.
I keep my personal cell number private; only about a dozen people have my actual number. Not even people I work with have my direct cell number; they have a Google Voice number that was ported over from a land line I had a couple decades ago.
I have SMS turned off on my personal cell line as well. US carriers will do that if you ask them. I can get SMS messages through a VOIP line I have for work if I really HAVE to get one. My company wanted me to have an iphone because they want to use
Re: (Score:2)
CB Radio is pretty much dead. It's max distance has always been 2 miles.
I think your confusing a fairly stupid '70's boomer trend with Ham Radio.
Re: (Score:2)
And just days ago it came out that raising prices on "some legacy plans" starting next month. [fox4news.com]
T-Mobile was very happy to crow that the Sprint merger was ushering in a "new era of connectivity and value" [t-mobile.com] for customers. I'm sure they'll say the same about this, and laugh all the way to the bank when they raise prices again in December or January.
It really sucks, too. I loathe AT&T and Verizon, and was very happy when I switched service to T-Mo several years back. But since the merger, it's just been more and more [cnet.com]. garbage from them.
Hmm, your claims are dubious at best.
I was a TMo user before switching to Mint (saves $$) and I can't recall the last time my price went up. A buddy has a very old plan that he won't give up, and his price increased a little bit - paying only about what I pay for Mint yet being a full fledged and unlimited data TMo user. I was an AT&T user before TMo and it wasn't better... at least not in my area. It did cost a lot more, however.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, call it dubious all you want, but a simple Google search [letmegooglethat.com] will show the price increase being reported by multiple outlets, and being referenced and discussed in a great many places over the last few days.
Their self-congratulatory press-release about the Spring merger is on their own website. And the fact that they require you to link a bank account or debit card to get the autopay discount, (regardless of the fact that yes, you can use a credit card if you remember to pay before the due date,) is a m
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim of "garbage" is the dubious part.
I mean, a grandfathered plan where the price has not even increased to match inflation for the past 20-odd years?
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile is Germany's "Deutsche Telekom", the former state monopoly turned largest telecommunication provider in the country by a wide margin. It owns most of the last mile telephone wires, has the highest prices and acts anticompetitively in a very aggressive manner. The German state owns a controlling share of the company and considers it a matter of national security. Seeing this company acting as an underdog and being beloved by customers in the US market was flabbergasting. It couldn't last.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So much for competition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US Cellular is split between T-Mobile and Verizon? (Score:1)
I'm trying to figure out what is happening here since the fine article wasn't all that clear. If US Cellular is selling their stores and customers to T-Mobile then what happens to what is left over? It looks like that will be sold to Verizon, is that correct?
If US Cellular isn't being split between T-Mobile and Verizon then what kind of business will it be in after the sale? I seems difficult to believe there will be anything left to remain a viable cellular service provider if they are selling their cus
Remains of USM (Score:4, Informative)
After this deal, USM will retain the remainder of the spectrum that T-Mobile isn't acquiring, and its tower portfolio.
The expectation is that they will seek to monetize (i.e. sell or lease) the remainder of the spectrum over time.
The tower business is valuable on its own; it consists of thousands of towers with active leases from the big 3 cellular operators. And as part of the deal, T-Mobile is signing new 15-year leases (likely in areas necessary to serve soon-to-be-former USM customers).
Re: (Score:1)
If US Cellular isn't being split between T-Mobile and Verizon then what kind of business will it be in after the sale?
It's a Vulture Capitalism thing. US Cellular will exist "as a company," and will be "leasing" various services from T-Mobile, so that the "US Cellular" company can be loaded down with debt and a bunch of the investors can run a short-sale scam on it (they likely were in the known and shorted the company right before this merger was announced already).
Same thing that just happened to Red
Not like Red Lobster (Score:4, Informative)
It's a Vulture Capitalism thing. US Cellular will exist "as a company," and will be "leasing" various services from T-Mobile, so that the "US Cellular" company can be loaded down with debt and a bunch of the investors can run a short-sale scam on it (they likely were in the known and shorted the company right before this merger was announced already).
Same thing that just happened to Red Lobster. The company was actually doing fine
That's not what's happening here.
Firstly, it's T-Mobile that will be leasing from US Cellular, as USM is retaining its towers.
As far as the remaining company being loaded down with debt, that's unlikely, at least in the near term. As part of the deal, T-Mobile is assuming ~$2B of USM debt. That debt originated from back when interest rates were low... what sense would it make for USM to shed their lower-rate debt to T-Mobile, only to load up on newer, higher-rate debt after the deal closes?
Lastly, USM was an operator wasn't "doing just fine"... they've been unable to compete for a variety of reasons, one of which is scale. The writing has been on the wall for years now, and the family that controls the company finally accepted this fact last year when they agreed to explore a sale of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, I'll give it a shot. You didn't say what "the answer we all know" is, instead of relying on some bullshit insinuation tactics, but we'll see if you respond and say what you are insinuating outright in return.
#1 - Spirit and Frontier weren't trying to merge. It's Spirit and JetBlue that were recently blocked from merging [apnews.com] in courts, under lawsuit from the USA.
#2 - you should read the judge's ruling. It focuses on key points of concern including: [thomsonreuters.com]
- Reduced availability of seat count on many travel ro
Re: (Score:2)
#2 - you should read the judge's ruling. It focuses on key points of concern including: [thomsonreuters.com]
- Reduced availability of seat count on many travel routes (artificially raising scarcity and thus pushing upward on prices to consumers)
- Reduced competitive routes creating monopolies; he identified many routes currently serviced by Spirit and JetBlue that would leave the combined company as the only company serving those routes, along with other routes or connection legs that would be similarly affected.
Now substitute areas of the country where only a couple of companies provide adequate cell service for routes that only a couple of airlines serve. Substitute reduced tower count (they're not likely to maintain towers that they don't have to) for reduced seat count.
So what's the difference?
I'm a customer (Score:2)
Google-Fi Is Now Just T-Mobile (Score:2)
Technically can't play that "multi-carrier" card anymore. They're nothing more than a third-rate MVNO on an over-subscribed network.
Google-Fi already just T-Mobile (Score:4, Informative)
US Cellular and Google broke up last year [9to5google.com]
US Cellular (Score:3)
A lot of people haven't heard of US Cellular because it's pretty regional - mountainous Virginia and North Carolina for example. I've been a customer since I got my first cell phone over 20 years ago. US Cellular is still the ONLY carrier with any decent coverage in the rural mountainous areas around here. They invested in rural towers that were not just along the interstate corridors like the other carriers. With non-US Cellular service, as soon as you were one mountain ridge removed from an interstate or town, you had no service. It has improved just slightly with those carriers, as I believe they have begun leasing space on some of those US Cellular towers.
I don't necessarily know US Cellular has the best plans, or the fastest data, but they definitely have coverage. After all, mediocre speed in a rural area is better than no service whatsoever. I'm definitely leery of the changes, but I suppose since this is simply using the infrastructure US Cellular has built out over the last couple decades, they can't really make it any worse, since it is what it is? Hopefully.
It's also not clear from this press release exactly what is going on. US Cellular will still own 70% of both its wireless spectrum and its towers, however T-Mobile is acquiring ALL the US Cellular stores? So does this mean US Cellular will cease to exist as a consumer brand, but still be a corporate entity that owns its towers, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
This is 100% true in rural Western Washington too. Mint is great in the populated areas, but once outside of the city or heading to the coast, US Cellular is likely to have bars when TMo goes to zero, for hundreds of miles.
I have two SIMs (one US Cellular as a backup for when I'm out in the hinterlands, and one that is Mint for day to day in the city).
It would be great if Tmo got the coverage of US Cellular. Hopefully we don't end up paying for both and getting the worst of both.
I wouldn't be suprised if
Bad math time (Score:2)
Please explain to you shareholders how this is profitable cause I don't see it.
Radio spectrum? (Score:2)
They're buying a load as well as the customers
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. 4.4 billion for a marginal competitor with less than 5 million subscribers, so call it $1000 per head, of which is split 50/50 between new debt and something else.
Please explain to you shareholders how this is profitable cause I don't see it.
USM was getting ~$625 in average revenue per user annually, slightly better than what TMUS gets from their postpaid subscribers. So they're gaining more valuable subscribers from a revenue perspective. And they will become more valuable from a profit perspective after integration.
Post-integration, TMUS is expecting ~$1B in annual opex/capex synergies. TMUS will be paying a lot less in roaming for it's ex-USM customers than USM was as a regional player. I expect they'll also have lower backhaul costs, billin
Similar to how Verizon bought out AT&T Cellula (Score:2)
mainly for their customer list. AT&T Cellular had the worse backend infrastructure upgrade of all time that essentially tanked the whole company. The main company eventually was bought out by Bell South and retained its name.
I'm Seeing a Pattern (Score:4, Funny)
They are putting the band back together (Score:1)
Just go with the company that pisses you off the l (Score:1)