The EU did a lot of analysis about this between member states.
It concluded that markets with 4 or more providers were far better served (price, quality, coverage, etc) than those with 3 (which effectively is what the US will have now).
The UK blocked the merger of 3 and O2 on these grounds, as it would leave only 3 providers.
Does sprint even count as a provider? The size of the players must matter? If you have 4 players and 3 are there in name only, surely that can't still be true?
From the looks of it, Sprint will be bankrupt in a few years anyway, and then we'll still end up with 3 providers, but likely Verizon and AT&T (in addition to T-Mobile) will buy up parts of its carcass. I'd rather T-Mo gets it all, now, rather than have all three companies fight over the scraps, later.
Yeah, this merger (for whatever reason) reminds me a lot of the US Air/American Airlines merger of a few years ago. On the one hand, going from 4 to 3 'major' players seems an obvious loss for consumers. On the other hand, unless these two combine, I don't really see either of them able to really challenge AT&T/Verizon long term, which means that a merger to create three large players is better for consumers than a series of events that ultimately ends with two major players - and that seems like a fairly realistic outcome in this space.
It concluded that markets with 4 or more providers were far better served (price, quality, coverage, etc) than those with 3 (which effectively is what the US will have now).
The UK blocked the merger of 3 and O2 on these grounds, as it would leave only 3 providers.