Sprint

Sprint board rejects $8b MetroPCS merger

posted by Michael H. / Feb 24, 2012, 3:55 PM

Sprint board rejects $8b MetroPCS merger

CNBC has reported that even though Sprint CEO Dan Hesse had endorsed a proposed merger between the carrier and MetroPCS, the Sprint board has rejected the deal just hours before it was supposed to be announced. The deal was expected to be valued at $8 billion and had been in the works for months according to CNBC's Dan Faber.

There is no word yet on why the board rejected the deal, or whether the deal is now completely dead. Not surprisingly, Sprint has no comment on the rumors. We'll update this as we learn more.

source: Dan Faber via The Verge

FEATURED VIDEO

Options

23 Comments

1. atheisticemetic

Posts: 377; Member since: Dec 18, 2011

8B is a lot of money for Metro. But this would be a good thing for sprint imo. Metro wasnt the most integrity based cellphone provider i've known

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 4:02 PM 2

2. tigermcm

Posts: 861; Member since: Sep 02, 2009

all i can say is WTF Sprint??

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 4:31 PM 6

3. pbui.818

Posts: 78; Member since: Feb 06, 2012

I would have supported the proposal to combine with MetroPCS in that it would solidify Sprint's position and it would have consolidated the market. However, I can't see the real value to Sprint beyond that. T-Mobile would be the better merger but a more challenging objective in a number of ways.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 4:31 PM 1

4. VinCrel

Posts: 39; Member since: Dec 26, 2011

Sprint is against the Tmo and At&t merger saying that it will complicate things and make plan prices go high .. now, how is this so differrent?

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 4:32 PM 1

6. Cwebb

Posts: 501; Member since: Oct 05, 2011

Because Tmo is significantly bigger than Metro

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 4:49 PM 11

8. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

because ATT is a high priced company buying up the low priced company. sprint is a low/middle priced company buying up a small prepaid carrier.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 5:14 PM 8

19. bvalde09

Posts: 191; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Mmmmm I would think they dont have the money to buy Metro PCS. I mean they spend a lot cash on the iphone right? I mean I think is the right choice. If they have close deal would have been good. But isnt that they rejected more like they couldnt do so

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 11:42 PM 0

16. Giggity

Posts: 147; Member since: Nov 17, 2011

Right now, there are 4 major wireless carriers, 2 for CDMA network and 2 for GSM network. If the AT&T and T-Mobile merger went through, then you'll end up with AT&T as the sole GSM wireless provider in the US. And by becoming the sole GSM wireless provider, that will gives AT&T full control to dictate the pricing. Knowing AT&T, they will jack up the price one way or another to recuperate the money they spent on the merger.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 6:51 PM 3

5. mad5870

Posts: 60; Member since: Nov 21, 2011

Idk how much it would of been worth. but They should go through with the deal. Since metropcs has LTE in 9 cities and majority of Florida. It would of been a good start to there "aggressive LTE roll out." Especially now with all the LightSquared LTE drama.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 4:33 PM 6

7. TechnoTechyes

Posts: 71; Member since: Jan 24, 2011

This story was less than an hour old when you posted it... The original poster (The Verge), posted it at the end of a business day on a Friday... So, what is with the "Not Surprisingly, Sprint has no comment" comment? They were probably still in traffic heading home.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 5:11 PM 2

9. EclipseGSX

Posts: 1777; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

wow, it would be interesting if they would still honor their $40 a month unlimited plan or how that would work out

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 5:36 PM 0

10. Das70

Posts: 124; Member since: Jan 05, 2011

I doubt they would have changed it. Sprint has Boost and they are $45 a month.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 5:51 PM 1

11. downphoenix

Posts: 3165; Member since: Jun 19, 2010

This wouldnt have had any real benefit to Sprint, glad they shut it down.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 6:21 PM 0

12. nyamo

Posts: 274; Member since: Mar 19, 2011

Once again sprint shoots itself in the foot. I swear they do the exact opposite of what should be done

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 6:25 PM 0

13. Carlitos

Posts: 673; Member since: Oct 23, 2011

Thumbs up, not down, I accidently hit the down thumb.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 6:42 PM 0

14. Carlitos

Posts: 673; Member since: Oct 23, 2011

Either sprint is stupid, or they are to broke to afford to buy Metro PCS.

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 6:47 PM 0

20. bvalde09

Posts: 191; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

They are broke :D

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 11:43 PM 0

15. blaze456

Posts: 51; Member since: Oct 06, 2010

the only real ebenfit would be the 9 million added customers which would still make sprint way behind in customers than att and verizon

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 6:49 PM 1

17. snowgator

Posts: 3621; Member since: Jan 19, 2011

Curious decision. Anything to add infrastructure and more bandwidth for Sprint to play with would have been a good plan. I am wondering that if "no comments" means "not dead, just retooling....."

posted on Feb 24, 2012, 7:12 PM 1

18. theguero

Posts: 7; Member since: Jan 24, 2011

I hope they are still in negotiations. Sprint needs Metro and Metro needs Sprint. It would be a match made in heaven! Both are CDMA, Sprint had EVDO, Metro has a good start in LTE. It seems like a no brainer!