The announced merger between T-Mobile and Sprint has the potential to shake up the mobile market, for the benefit of American consumers and taxpayers. The merger will bring more competition to the top-tier mobile carriers, spurring investment and innovation as well as increased deployment of the next generation of 5G cell technology.
NTU has supported a light-touch regulatory approach when it comes to tech mergers, and the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger warrants that approach. The two companies’ assets would make them competitive in the top tier of the mobile carrier market, and increased competition at the top would translate to savings for consumers as it would drive more innovation. This is consistent with the agenda of the Federal Communications Commission to bring the next generation of wireless technology to more Americans more quickly, and retain the U.S.’s global technological advantage.
As NTU has supported in the past, increased competition benefits all consumers up and down the income ladder. The combined capacity for capital investment will allow new technologies to reach new customers more quickly. The government has a very high standard to meet if they were to attempt to intervene in a marketplace that will produce a win for consumers and taxpayers, and there have been no arguments to date that rise to the level of requiring government intervention.
Recently, a former veteran of the mobile carrier industry has been advancing a case that there is a danger to the prepaid cell market posed by this merger, claiming that the emphasis on innovation would actually harm low-income consumers. This is a desperate plea from pro-regulation forces. Innovation and investment in new technology have been proven to be a boon to low-income Americans time and time again, and the idea that this merger would leave behind low-income Americans is absurd. Indeed, even in the prepaid market, T-Mobile and Sprint are not the sole or even the largest operators, with Tracfone and AT&T being two of the top three competitors.
The merger between T-Mobile and Sprint would be complementary to the largest carriers and provide needed competition in the market. This would lead to more competition, more innovation, and more investment in next-generation technologies. The government does not need to be intervening in the market based on voices from anti-business propagandists. A light-touch regulatory principle has worked for proposed mergers in the past, and should continue to be applied in the case of Sprint and T-Mobile.