Looks like MetroPCS and T-Mobile USA are thinking of hooking up. T-Mobile and MetroPCS are allegedly in merger talks, according to Investor’s Business Daily. The transaction would see the combined company come under control of T-Mobile’s parent, Deutsche Telekom. AT&T was unsuccessful in its bid for T-Mobile, and Sprint had its eyes on MetroPCS but I guess couldn’t close the deal.

If the deal is approved, the two companies would be able to acquire spectrum from each other and have at least 42.8 million customers.

Will the Federal Communications Commission play spoiler? I don’t think so. This transaction gives the FCC an out for two reasons. First, approving the transaction will show that the FCC is willing to allow the market and not Don Quixote politics to allocate spectrum. Second, it takes the FCC off the hook for putting the number four wireless carrier in a position where it was considering saying auf wiedersehen to the American market.

Again, Sprint may be left without a date to the dance.

The Wall Street Journal reported back on 27 March 2012 that Sprint has plans to offer 4G phones on an LTE network. Given the time and energy the company wasted trying to block the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, it’s about time.

It’s good to see from a broadband adoption standpoint that Sprint is deploying a network that can help the company deploy these advanced mobile devices. If it can leverage a price strategy that gets the company more customers at a lower price to consumers, all the better. Lower prices charged to consumers keeps them connected.

Does the word “communications” or “telecommunications” mean anything anymore? Communications refers to the act of imparting or interchanging thoughts, opinions, or information by signs, writing, or speech. A communication may be a document or message imparting news, views, or information.

If I talk to my son, I’m communicating (or trying to. Kids are hard headed.). If I call him on his cell phone, we are still communicating since the only thing happening is that electrons are moving up and down a wire and the message isn’t being changed by the phone company (But as parents we know the message is being changed in our kids’ heads…).

The reason I’m pondering the definition is because I’d love to see Apple, Google, or Facebook make a play for a wireless or even a wireline company. I don’t want to see them get bogged down by 20th century notions of what communications is, however. The FCC and a bunch of state regulatory commissions would love to get their hands on a piece of Apple’s, Google’s or Facebook’s cash flow.

With people using their smart phones as miniature and mobile information access terminals (I avoid using the term computer or phone when I can), maybe some type of separations cost scheme is needed, much like the separations mechanism used by the FCC and the states to share access revenues. That would really give Apple, Google, or Facebook an advantage by reducing their cost of entry into the wireless market while giving AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile a run for their money.

I expect, given their truly nationwide network that AT&T and Verizon would do well. Deadweight companies like Sprint and T-Mobile would probably go the away like the wind, given their networks are not as large or as fast.

Let’s face it. Apple, Google, and Facebook are media companies. It’s only logical that they would want to secure the distributional channels for the information that they want to share, namely our information. It would be like AMC Studios owning movie theatres. They produce the flick, they sell the flick.

Can FCC follow policy that would keep them out of the way of a potential mega deal?

It looks like Congress may be headed to signing off on a payroll tax extension. Unfortunately for broadband consumers, the package includes allowing the Federal Communications Commission the flexibility to impose on large carriers, such as AT&T and Verizon, conditions designed to ensure competition should carriers win bids for broadcast spectrum.

Allowing larger companies to bid is the appropriate approach this legislation should take. I’m still not comfortable with a regulatory agency creating conditions that ensure competition. If those conditions were to give Sprint and T-Mobile, two companies that have taken mismanagement to a new level, some additional advantage, you may as well keep more efficient and better managed carriers from bidding for spectrum.

A number of small carriers have sent a letter to Congress requesting that the Federal Communications Commission be given flexibility to set restrictions on who may bid for spectrum during voluntary auctions. Among the wireless carriers signing the letter were Sprint, T-Mobile USA, and C-spire.

Didn’t take T-Mobile long to take the money and run.

The carriers argue that competition would be limited unless the Federal Communications Commission is granted flexibility to restrict access to the auction by America’s two largest carriers, AT&T and Verizon. AT&T’s vice-president for legislative affairs, Jim Cicconi, raised the concern that restrictions on who can access the auction cannot be described as competitive.

I agree with Mr. Cicconi viewpoint. Can you really call a process competitive when the agency responsible for access to spectrum blatantly wishes to establish bottlenecks for those companies willing and able to provide wireless services? Companies, large and small, should have access to the process. Let the highest bidder for a respective swath of spectrum receives it.

Sprint and these other carriers had years of opportunity to grow their networks; merge if they had to; in order to compete with larger carriers. By restricting the carriers with the larger economies of scale from participating will only mean unserved and underserved communities may be seeing increased prices, more dropped calls, or worse yet, no service.