Sprint T-Mobile Merger Approval Still Seems Questionable

The odds that the new proposal to merge Sprint and T-Mobile US could clear antitrust review do not seem to be different from three years ago, when the same deal was proposed, and was opposed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In fact, DoJ opposition to the vertical merger of AT&T and Time Warner assets, would suggest the conditions are worse. Win or lose their antitrust lawsuit, has DoJ signaled it is more open to big horizontal mergers of the specific type it opposed just three years ago, and when it has opposed a vertical merger many believe should not have caused concern?

Some argue this is not an instance of “consolidation.” That is simply untrue. We would move from four facilities-based tier-one suppliers to just three, at least until some time in the future, when one of the three experiences a major business reversal and some tier-one supplier in the internet ecosystem decides it needs such assets.

“This isn’t a case of going from four to three wireless companies,” says T-Mobile US CEO John Legere. He notes the existence of other mobile virtual network operators and a few regional providers. But the merger most certainly reduces the number of facilities-based tier one providers from four to three.

Some might say the proposed deal occurs “under different conditions” than three years ago, when the U.S. Department of Justice signaled its opposition. True, Comcast is an operating MVNO now. Charter is set to enter the market as well, as an MVNO. But market share has not budged much.

Also open to question are the consumer benefits. Virtually all equity analysts have been in favor of consolidation from four to three mobile companies because that would reduce competition and allow all the firms to raise prices.

T-Mobile and Sprint also argue the deal will not lead to layoffs. What merger of this size has not been accompanied by “merger synergies” that reduce headcount?

“This combination will also force AT&T, Charter, Comcast, Verizon, and others to make investments of their own to compete,” T-Mobile US and Sprint say. Those firms already are investing as fast as their capital budgets will allow.

It is not surprising that Sprint and T-Mobile US argue their proposed merger will lead to faster 5G investment, U.S. 5G leadership, lower prices, create jobs, higher economic growth and more competition in the mobile business. What, after all, would they say?

“This combination will create a fierce competitor with the network scale to deliver more for consumers and businesses in the form of lower prices, more innovation, and a second-to-none network experience – and do it all so much faster than either company could on its own,” said John Legere.

No offense; Legere is a brilliant competitor. But many of the claims are questionable, some would argue. “Faster investment?” It is hard to argue that the four facilities-based mobile service providers are not investing in 5G platforms as fast as their capital budgets will allow.

To be sure, a merged Sprint and T-Mobile US could invest more rationally, but likely not faster: they are running as fast as they can, right now. And by “rational,” less. That is why the argument in favor of the merger includes the claim that “neither company standing alone can create a nationwide 5G network.”

For that claim to make sense, one would have to believe T-Mobile could not have done so on its own. I doubt anybody believes that, given T-Mobile’s own recent claims about how fast it is moving, and how much spectrum it has to do so.

Sprint is challenged financially, to be certain. But it never has been clear Sprint would survive as a stand-alone company in any case. Most observers would likely agree “somebody” eventually will buy Sprint.

But is T-Mobile the “best” buyer, if industry lines are blurring, as Legere argues? Would not a tier-one app provider, a major device supplier, a big cable TV company better match the profile of an industry that now fuses content, apps and access? In that sense, the proposed Sprint merger with T-Mobile creates a bigger horizontal mobile company, to be sure.

But the strategic need still remains: ownership of apps, content and access assets are the future. This merger creates scale in access, which is helpful, to be sure. But the move does not address the future moves that then would become necessary: merger again with a big firm in the apps, platform or device area.

In fact, the scale of the new company likely reduces the odds many firms could envision such an acquisition. And there is a good argument to be made that if the industry is changing (access, platform, apps and content all fusing), as the two firms claim, this move does not help them do so. It simply creates more scale. That is helpful, but leaves unanswered the question of how to strategically reposition in a market that devalues "access only" or "content only" providers.

“There is no way we were going to build four national 5G networks,” some might argue. Many would argue that is not true. One way or the other, all four facilities-based providers are moving to 5G, as fast as they can.

And there are other ways for either T-Mobile or Sprint to get some assets (backhaul for small cells) they might need, if in fact each requires as much small cell support as do AT&T and Verizon. Those are open questions.

The proposed new company would not--despite the claims--get the country  to 5G any faster. AT&T and Verizon are moving as fast as they can, no matter what.

As for the claim that such a merger improves chances of “competing with China in the global 5G race,” other questions have to be raised. Where is the competition? Access? Or is the competition fundamentally in the platform, apps and infrastructure supply areas? If so, having another big supplier of “access” does not help much.

In fact, a combined new firm will obviously spend less on infrastructure than the stand-alone companies would have. That is why they want to merge, in part.

Also, the new firm does not create new platform, app or content capabilities. It is, by definition, a horizontal merger of like access assets.

The two firms argue their merger will lead to more competition in rural markets, beyond the fixed network providers. That could happen, at the margin. But more competition in rural markets, by wireless substitution, is coming, anyway, and not just from mobile suppliers.

The merger might, as Sprint and T-Mobile US argue, lead to creation of a better competitor in the enterprise mobility area. That also is possible, to an extent.

The main points, though, are that the stated rationales might be quite the opposite of the probable impact in some cases, are neutral in many other instances and helpful at the margin, as the companies claim.

But it seems unlikely that much as changed in terms of likely antitrust opposition. Much, observers say, will hinge on AT&T getting antitrust approval to acquire Time Warner. But that is a vertical merger that absolutely does not reduce competitors in the market, quite unlike a horizontal merger that will reduce competition.

And DoJ resistance even to the vertical merger, after declaring opposition, three years ago, to the same proposed Sprint merger with T-Mobile, does not bode well for the same transaction, three years later.

Internet.org Sponsored Access Helped 100 Million People

Facebook’s Internet.org efforts “have now helped almost 100 million people get access to the internet who may not have had it otherwise,” according to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO.

Ironically, this form of sponsored access is among the practices many “network neutrality” supporters want to outlaw. After all, giving users “no charge” access to a suite of popular apps--but not the “full internet”--does not “treat all bits and apps the same.”

That is among the objections some of us have to strong forms of network neutrality. Consumers should have full access to all lawful apps. That is among the original ways that neutrality originally was conceived, and still makes sense today.

But it has never made sense to some that, in addition to that openness, access providers should be legally barred from offering sponsored access, in the same way that internet.org works, or the way “toll-free calling” has been lawful in the voice business.

App providers routinely use content delivery networks--paid-for services not available to every app provider--to provide better quality of service. In principle, in at least some cases, it makes sense to allow use of content delivery mechanisms to provider better quality of service over access connections, as well as over backbone networks.

There are other advantages for app providers, as well as end users. Caching content at the edge of the network not only provides better user experience, but cuts the cost of internet transit services app providers must buy to support app access.

When content is locally based, app providers do not have to buy as much capacity across the internet backbone. That might be one reason internet transit revenue has dwindled in recent years, even as consumer bandwidth demand skyrockets.

source: TeleGeography

Sometimes Unhappy Customers Continue to Buiy

Two and three decades ago, it was somewhat hard to explain why buy rates for linear video were so high (up to 95 percent of U.S. households), but satisfaction routinely was so low. That sort of flies in the face of our general belief that happy or satisfied customers are good predictors of buying behavior.

In fact, even unhappy customers will continue to buy products for which there are no effective substitutes.

The answer is that, despite their mixed feelings, consumers did not actually have choices. If you wanted access to content diversity, the only choice was subscription TV.

That is no longer the case, so we should not be at all surprised that consumers are abandoning linear services for streaming alternatives that replicate much of the value, at far lower prices.

Linear video entertainment subscriptions have gotten more expensive for all U.S. consumers, but arguably most so for households with smaller incomes.

Though prices have virtually always risen annually, the issue is whether the rate of increase is in line with the growth of prices generally.

Nobody disputes the evidence that linear video entertainment subscription prices have risen faster than underlying inflation. According to SNL Kagan, the price increases have outstripped median household income growth since 2007.

Source: SNL Kagan

All products have life cycles. Three decades ago, consumers might not have been completely happy, but there were no real alternatives. That is one explanation for persistently low satisfaction scores, but high buying rates.

That is not the case any more. Consumers do have choices, and the range of choices is growing.  So consumers are voting with their wallets to use streaming services that cost less. No big surprise, there.

U.S. Mobile and Internet Access Prices Have Fallen for 2 Decades

Between 1997 and 2017, the cost of mobile service in the U.S. market dropped 50 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for internet services and electronic information providers were 22 percent lower in 2018 versus 2000.

Between 2000 and 2018, internet access services experienced an average inflation rate of -1.36 percent  per year. “In other words, internet services costing $50 in the year 2000 would cost $39.10 in 2018 for an equivalent purchase,” says the BLS.

The overall inflation rate was 2.07 percent during this same period, BLS says. Likewise, prices for mobile services also have fallen.

source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

There often is a big difference between posted retail prices for internet access and the packages consumers actually buy. Available plans can be expensive or cheap, but what matters are the buying habits of actual customers, who may or may not pay those posted prices.  

These days, as so many U.S. consumers are on some sort of plan featuring a product bundle, there might not be very many customers actually paying the “stand-alone price” for internet access.

In fact, internet access prices actually have fallen over the last two decades, not increased.  

Taiwan Regulator Warns of Dangers of Excessive Competition in Mobile Market

Up to a point, competition is good for consumers, leading to better prices and greater value. But there is such a thing as “ruinous competition,” which drives prices below the point at which suppliers can sustain themselves or invest in new products and features that provide more value.

That is a problem in the Taiwan mobile market, says  National Communications Commission (NCC) spokesperson Wong Po-tsungj. The problem is price wars.

Chunghwa Telecom, for example, recently introduced a 4G service plan costing NT$499 monthly (about US$17 a month) for unlimited access to mobile Internet and unlimited phone calls between Chunghwa Telecom subscribers. That basic plan was matched by competitors.

“If telecoms simply want to boost their market shares and revenue by luring subscribers from competitors, rather than with innovative business models, it would not be positive for the development of 5G in the nation,” Wong said.

“What they are doing does not help to make the pie bigger,” said Wong. And though it is easy to criticize firms for making profits, those profits are what allows firms to invest and innovate, as well as stay in business.

That tension between actions and policy that support sustainable competition, or ruinous competition; or competition versus investment, is at the heart of all thinking about ideal mobile market structure.

Few believe any more that telecom is a natural monopoly. But few would deny that sustainable retail markets are likely to be oligopolies. The real questions tend to be over the shape of such oligopolies. How much sustainable competition--especially facilities-based competition--is possible on a sustainable basis?

That is the problem NCC sees with the current price wars.

Fixed Wireless Now Generates as Much Global Revenue as Business Voice, Unified Communications

As vital as business voice and unified communications capabilities might be, they do not drive huge service provider revenues, globally.

By some measures, the global market for all business voice and unified communications, including the value of business access to support voice and UC, is perhaps US $28 billion a year.

Of that $28 billion or so of revenue, perhaps $10 billion consists of internet and data access circuits, implying that the value of hosted voice, unified communications apps and phone systems is about $18 billion annually.

So compare that to just one other product, namely fixed wireless internet access, admittedly a niche.

The global fixed wireless access market will grow 30 percent in 2018 and will generate $18 billion in service revenue, according to ABI Research, boosted by new use of 5G platforms to supply fixed wireless.

The point is that the fixed wireless revenue segment already is about the same size revenue contributor as business voice and unified communications.

It might not be easy to compare the relative value of those revenue streams. Businesses require voice capabilities and unified communications, while consumers also "need" internet access. The point, though, is that the fixed wireless internet access business (mostly consumer) is about the same size revenue contributor as all business voice and UC (phone systems, hosted voice, unified communications solutions).

You might therefore characterize the fixed wireless segment--though still a niche within the broader service provider business--as roughly as big a contributor as business voice and UC.

ABI Research forecasts worldwide fixed wireless broadband market to grow at a compound annual rate of 26 percent to generate $45.2 billion worth of revenue globally  in 2022.

Tier-one service providers launching 5G fixed wireless include Verizon plans an initial 5G fixed wireless network covering around 30 million U.S. households.

AT&T and Charter also are carrying out 5G fixed wireless broadband tests in select markets in the United States.

In Europe, Orange, Elisa, and telecom infrastructure company Arqiva are performing 5G fixed wireless trials as well. Australia’s Optus is planning for a 5G fixed wireless service launch in 2019.

Verizon is Optimistic About 5G; Others are Skeptical. Both are Right

As always, public company perceptions of upside from new markets is conditioned by their own view of ability to capitalize on those new markets. In many regions and markets, heavy recent investments in 4G mean service providers have less appetite for another round of investment to support 5G, as you would expect.

In other regions, where profits in the 3G and 4G era have been tough, there is some caution about revenue and profit upside from 5G. In addition, specific contenders have their own business reasons for seeing potential or danger. In other words, skepticism about the size of the 5G market opportunity, as well as optimism, are specific to particular firms, in particular geographies, for reasons having to do as much with current business environment as anything else.

For U.S. service provider Verizon, a relatively-small fixed line footprint, and the ability to compete in new markets with mobile-based alternatives to fixed network service, are a clear upside.

“We continue to be very excited about the opportunities that 5G has,” said Matthew Ellis, Verizon CFO. “I don't think in the U.S. we've seen people pulling back from 5G at all.”

Simply, Verizon sees many ways to grow its business with 5G. Residential broadband, fixed and mobile, is part of the expectation. But the biggest upside is expected from new internet of things and business-to-business apps, many of which can only be supported by ultra-low-latency networks.

In many quarters there is concern or belief that 5G will require huge capital investment boosts, beyond what was required for 4G. That is debatable. Verizon, for example, does not see capex exceeding the typical and expected annual range.

Though some seem convinced 5G capex will be double or triple what 4G cost, others believe 5G capex could actually be lower than required to create 4G. Some believe 5G could be built with only modest single-digit increases in overall capex. And yet others believe 5G will even cost less than 4G cost.

A variety of new approaches, including open source, virtualization, huge increases in use of unlicensed spectrum, shared spectrum and aggregated spectrum, new radio technologies and ability to leverage existing fixed network investments all will contribute to cost profiles for 5G using lots of small cells and new amounts of backhaul.

On the revenue side, Verizon has ability to compete for new revenues outside its current fixed network footprint. Also, the U.S. market is among those expected to lead in early internet of things deployments.

Also, unlike some other markets, the U.S. has a relatively robust supply of fiber and capacity “deep into the access network,” provided by two or more access providers in nearly every significant market (cable, telco, independent ISP, mobile infrastructure companies,  independent business bandwidth suppliers).

That means small cell backhaul facilities are arguably better positioned, in terms of facilities in place and the number of partners to supply such backhaul.

The point is that a range of opinions exist--for good reasons--about upside for 5G. There is no single pattern that fits every market.