Verizon Wireless CEO: "We're not interested in Sprint. We don't need them."

posted by Victor H. / Mar 22, 2011, 8:45 AM

CTIA has already made quite a few headlines, but this one, made hours before the show, stands out. Verizon's very own Dan Mead confessed in an interview to Reuters that Verizon has no interest whatsoever in acquiring Sprint and thus joining the biggest carrier race started by AT&T:

"We're not interested in Sprint. We don't need them," Mead commented. After such a bold statement, we can't accuse Verizon of lacking swagger, for once.

The chief executive officer also said he won't oppose the $39-billion deal between AT&T and Deutsche Telekom, despite the fact that it will widen the gap between Verizon and AT&T, which recently outgrew Big Red and became the U.S. biggest carrier in terms of subscribers. At the same time, Mead mentioned that "anything can go through if you make enough concessions." Well, with Verizon withdrawing from any possible legal battles, the AT&T-Mobile deal seems to encounter much less difficulties in its approval. And while one of the biggest moves in the industry happens, Big Red will become much smaller in terms of size, but in Meads words it won't be distracted from its goal of being the most profitable carrier.

source: Reuters via Engadget

FEATURED VIDEO

Options

33 Comments

1. Gaby unregistered unregistered

Savage...

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 8:53 AM 2

2. Ralston1983

Posts: 70; Member since: Feb 03, 2011

I have to admit I admire vzw confidence in this matter.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 9:02 AM 10

28. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 2011

yes, but he never said anything about metro... possible buy?

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 8:59 PM 1

3. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

they know ATT wont be able to retain all of tmobile's customers. some will go to sprint, vzw, and metro. also others will be divested out to whatever the FCC demands. VZW has been the biggest carrier without the iphone, that was ATTs only success. Now that they both have the iphone and ATT is growing by absorbing tmobile, VZW will only have more people come to their network as there is less choices.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 9:31 AM 7

5. snowgator

Posts: 3614; Member since: Jan 19, 2011

I agree. Verizon stands to get ahead just by being the stable, healthy alternative to AT&T as it tries to get approval for, combine tech with, and keep the customers of T-Mo. Besides, I don't know if Sprint wants you, Big Red, so maybe not that bold of a statement .....

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 9:46 AM 3

4. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

Don't be fooled business propaganda. ATT and Verizon have worked as a secret cartel for the last decade. This has allowed them to reach the dominant status they are today. Acquiring and swapping assets. Children separated at birth, being brought together little by little. Verizon's statement is to allow an easier acquisition of TMO. By not contesting this, ATT has a far better shot to seal the deal. Once the deal is done, Verizon is wide open to bid on Sprint. Then the family will be complete once again. Hopefully, the government will impose major regulations or our communications will end up just like the oil industry. John B.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 9:40 AM 4

6. broro

Posts: 4; Member since: Jan 28, 2010

How quickly people forget. VZW became the largest carrier, not by OUTSELLING any of the others, including at&t, but through acquistion. Since Big Red jumped ahead of at&t at the time of purchasing Alltel, at&t has chipped away at the margin between the two by SELLING NEW CUSTOMERS, culminating in at&t regaining the lead in total subscriber base in Q4 2010. Of course at&t knows that not 100% of TMO's customer base will not stay, the majority will most likely jump to the new "value based" carrier, Sprint.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 9:49 AM 5

9. Monique27 unregistered

and lets not forget how at&t became the #1 carrier, by purchasing Cingular. Besides that, even though the iPhone was exclusive to at&t for a few years, vzw still gained customers and had the lowest churn rate out of the biggest 4 wirelesess companies. Therefore, I don't think VZW will be worried. Like someone posted, they will be the most stable/reliable network. It will take at&t a few years to get everything converted. By then, VZW's LTE network will be great and they will probably proclaim the network as "America's Most Reliable 4G" network. VZW will be fine, if only they will come down on plan/data prices, that would be great.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 10:28 AM 4

17. Tottenham

Posts: 86; Member since: Jan 05, 2011

Actually, if I recall correctly, Cingular (aka Southwestern Bell) bought ATT. They (SWB) elected to retain the ATT name as it had wider geographic and brand name recognition.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 11:50 AM 3

11. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

umm.. hate to remind you, but VZW was about to overtake ATT before the aquisition of Altell. its called more growth and less churn. ATT's only saving grace has been aquisition and iphone exclusivity. Both companies have gotten huge through aquisition though.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 10:56 AM 3

12. ozinator80

Posts: 2; Member since: Mar 14, 2010

And lets not forget how ATT has also grown by purchasing others, check the history of the company. That is how they got so large in the first place. Plus they did get some of the Alltel deal too if you recall. Maybe not a big chunk, but when VZW aquired Alltel, ATT was the first one there to swoop in and take the Markets that VZW couldn't solely own.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 11:27 AM 2

25. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

i cant remember exact numbes, but i think they ended up with like a million or 2 alltell customers that they had to convert.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 5:45 PM 0

7. leefer77

Posts: 23; Member since: Jan 04, 2011

Good, because Sprint doesn't need Verizon either. The consumer doesn't need Verizon buying out Sprint. If they play their cards right, I think Sprint could gain a great number of subscribers with the At&t acquisition of T-Mo.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 9:59 AM 3

8. JeffdaBeat unregistered

See, I just don't think that's the case anymore. I am right there with you in wanting Sprint to succeed, but they have half the customer base as Verizon and almost a third of the new...new AT&T. Granted people will defect to other carriers, I just don't think Sprint has a chance. It'll be either AT&T or Verizon...

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 10:18 AM 0

18. Tottenham

Posts: 86; Member since: Jan 05, 2011

As I commented in a different post, I believe the marriage of Sprint and US Cellular would be a good move. It would combine the (now) 3rd and 5th largest providers. US Cellular has a great longstanding reputation for customer service and support, and Sprint has the national name recognition and the clout to get exclusive first class smartphones (albeit, no iPhone). In a world were consolidation seems inevitable, I would rather see three top tier players, rather than Big Red swallowing up US Cellular (and other regional players), and leaving Sprint even more marginalized.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 12:00 PM 1

19. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

i could go for that. i also think metro/cricket/virgin/boost need to merge together and take up the spot left by tmobile as the cheapest carrier. that would help them be able to keep their plans down, have more phone buying power and sway, n stay competitive.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 2:29 PM 2

22. stjcripes

Posts: 27; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

Sprint actually owns Virgin Mobile USA and Boost.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 4:37 PM 0

26. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

sprint does not own anyone else.. virgin mobile and boost both pay to use sprint's network, the same way simply mobile pays to use VZW network

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 5:46 PM 0

33. Research Department unregistered

Do your homework. Sprint did indeed buy Virgin Mobile USA some time ago, Boost has always been a subsidiary.

posted on Mar 23, 2011, 10:58 AM 0

23. stjcripes

Posts: 27; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

A Metro/Cricket merger probably wouldn't be a bad idea, though.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 4:39 PM 1

10. jovy121

Posts: 14; Member since: Mar 14, 2011

So keep paying alot more for your Verizon service. Sprint will be just fine. They own virgin mobile, boost mobile and half of clearwire so its worth much more than T-Mobile 39 Billion.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 10:47 AM 1

13. CNahoz unregistered

Wow. I actually laughed at VZW's cockiness. Truth be told tho, I don't think VZW needs Sprint or vise-versa. The ability to have more than 2 markets makes it easier on the consumer. Imagine if there were only 2 "Biggies" in the Wireless industry in the U.S.? our prices for service would skyrocket and we wouldnt be able to do anything about it. It would be the smaller "mom & pop" companies that would be our only option (Cricket, U.S. Cellular, etc). The only question still lagging in my mind is that, if VZW does plan to acquire Sprint, does that have anything to do with Sprint wanting to move from WiMAX to LTE??? *DUN DUN DUN.....**scary foreshadowing music in the background**

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 11:29 AM 1

14. cornerofthemoon

Posts: 619; Member since: Apr 20, 2010

Sprint will probably try to gobble up some more regional carriers. Cricket, MetroPCS, etc. in the effort to stay viable.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 11:30 AM 0

15. roldefol

Posts: 4744; Member since: Jan 28, 2011

The way I see it, Verizon stands to gain in the eyes of customers by NOT being #1. There's something to be said for being the slow-and-steady underdog. If Verizon keeps hammering away at their time-tested "most reliable/best coverage" sales pitch, adds to that some innovation by taking the lead with LTE, and then invests in expanding the new network, they'll further solidify their reputation. Meanwhile AT&T will have the biggest carrier label, but with a mess of a merger to deal with. AT&T is now The Evil Empire...again.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 11:37 AM 1

16. trin

Posts: 88; Member since: May 11, 2010

1. Why is there a pro at&t/iPhone, anti VZW/droid slant to this site? Smh. 2. As far as ATT recently surpassing VZW in subscribers didn't they say that was only because ATT counts every connection whether its a phone or not and VZW doesn't? 3. Lack of competition is never a good thing.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 11:39 AM 2

27. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

correct. the sales numbers that PHONE ARENA MISQUOTED, originally showed ATT's numbers as all post, pre, ect while VZWs numbers only showed post. When VZW released the prepaids n other things, they were still the biggest carrier by a few million. VZW is the largest carrier in america until this deal is official.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 5:48 PM 1

20. CRICKETownz

Posts: 980; Member since: Oct 24, 2009

Not sure why anyone is surprised. In business esp. when you have the top 2 players involved there is bound to be some kind of powershift/power play. The latest, At&t throws down the gauntlet to purchase T-Mobile. Next who knows what the next move will be for the next player. This keeps competition going for the consumer in the end. The possible threat of prices going up is never a big issue. Look at Comcast/Time Warner or whatever its called in your area. Their prices continue to go up but in this area continues to be the dominant service b/c of good performance & being the most reliable.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 3:37 PM 0

21. Glorfindale

Posts: 17; Member since: Jul 16, 2010

I think that whenever there is less choice, the consumer looses. More competition will drive innovation and cheaper service, so overall I wish T-Mobile would stick around just for that. Otherwise why would Verizon care to be the biggest? In this deal Verizon is probably going to benefit a great deal from increased lines and less churn. Being #1 in size really doesn't have a benefit in itself. Sprint does have a tremendous opportunity here due to the fact that T-Mo was probably the cheapest out of the four, and Sprint is the next cheapest, so if a lot of customers were going for spending less money, Sprint would be a natural choice. Verizon will win with the network, and Sprint should really be there, two major carriers is simply not enough. Besides, buying sprint would be a huge hassle right now, concentrating on LTE and reliability is the right thing to do. Besides Verizon does have over 90 mil in subscribers, that's nearly 1/3 of the US population.

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 4:02 PM 0

29. urboypedro

Posts: 4; Member since: Mar 19, 2010

Verizon Wireless pay Sprint For There Service..yes that is true.. So Verizon CEO shouldnt be talking shit about Sprint why you think they plan are so expansive.....and why u think verizon got 4g cause of sprint notice how htc thunderbolt dose the same thing as sprint 4g network u talk n data at the same time n they both are CDMA ....so fuck verizon sprint all th way baby and notice how the map match sprint service

posted on Mar 22, 2011, 9:28 PM 1

32. Youranidiot unregistered

LMAO!!! You have got to be kidding me?? Sprint pays Verizon to ROAM because Sprints network is not as large. Not to mention Verizons 4G network works off a SIM CARD not the CDMA network so thats how they can talk and do data at the same time. Id love to see your sprint map that matches Verizons map though.

posted on Mar 23, 2011, 8:55 AM 0

view all comments