小布什執政時期，美國聯邦通信委員會（FCC）放寬了規定，允許更多無線通信運營商進行合并。到了2010年底，美國的全國性無線通信服務商數量從七個減少到了四個。進一步整合直到2011年，在司法部和FCC聯合出手阻止時才停下腳步。

從那時起，盡管谷歌、Dish Network和康卡斯特等公司都大張旗鼓地采取行動，但美國的全國性無線運營商數量一直是四個。要明白個中原因，要理解允許T-Mobile收購斯普林特為什么會給消費者帶來大麻煩，我們就需要弄清楚進入無線通信市場為何如此艱難，就連資金充裕、品牌知名度高的大公司也是如此。

僅參與其中就得花數十億美元

為防止無線信號相互干擾，FCC針對通信頻段（也就是某個電磁波頻段）頒發獨家使用牌照。要提供無線通信服務，企業就必須獲得多個這樣的牌照。由于政府限制此類牌照的數量，其價格高達數十億美元。在2016年進行的最近一次無線牌照拍賣中，整個無線通信行業花費了大約200億美元。紐約、洛杉磯等主要城市的牌照成本可接近10億美元。在美國，要在任何一個市場提供有競爭力的智能手機通信服務，都需要多張牌照來滿足帶寬需求。企業為此要拿出數十億美元，而此時通信網絡建設甚至還沒有開始。

組建網絡也需要幾十億美元以及大量時間，而且所有這些都發生在企業可以開始尋找用戶以便開始償還債務之前，更不用說開始盈利了。只有花上數十億美元參與其中，企業才能開始設法吸引消費者。但就算大幅打折并提供優質服務，讓一位用戶不辭辛苦地從一家手機通信運營商轉向另一家仍需要付出巨大努力，特別是轉向質量未知而又無歷史記錄可循的新電信服務商。

以康卡斯特為例，進入無線通信行業前，這家公司已經建立了自己的網絡，而且擁有2300萬有線電視和寬帶用戶。2017年5月，康卡斯特開始提供移動通信服務。一年后，其手機用戶只有50萬多一點兒。這聽起來挺多的，但2017年第四季度斯普林特和T-Mobile就發展了約1百萬（后付費）用戶。更糟糕的是，康卡斯特每爭取一位用戶就得花大約1260美元。即便是康卡斯特也無法保持這樣的支出水平，從而真正跟擁有1.26億用戶的T-Mobile和斯普林特抗衡。

如果谷歌和康卡斯特都不能在無線行業進行競爭，又有誰能呢？

這些門檻的出現源于無線行業的運作方式。這些年來，一系列潛在新生力量反復試圖顛覆這個行業的經濟，但都無功而返。無論是小而分散的新生創業者、打算將業務擴展至全國的地區性電信公司、還是資金充足的谷歌等科技巨頭，它們遇到的都是不留情面的無線通信行業經濟，這實際上已經讓出現真正的全國性競爭者變成了一件不可能的事。

那么全國性低成本通信服務商以及預付費通信公司怎么樣呢？比如Boost Mobile或TracPhone？它們或者為四大電信運營商所擁有（例如，斯普林特擁有Boost Mobile），或者租用四大運營商的帶寬，最常見的是租用斯普林特或T-Mobile的帶寬。說這些電信公司和那些全國性運營商競爭就像是在說WhatsApp和它的母公司Facebook競爭一樣。

讓T-Mobile收購斯普林特意味著四位競爭者將變成三位。政府一直表示，這樣的集中度對消費者來說是件壞事。基于無線通信行業的現實，情況不會發生改變。（財富中文網）

哈羅德·菲爾德是維權組織Public Knowledge高級副總裁。

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

Back during the George W. Bush administration, the Federal Communications Commission relaxed its rules to allow more wireless companies to merge. By the end of the 2000s, America had gone from seven national providers down to four. The slide to further consolidation only stopped in 2011, when the Justice Department and FCC put their collective regulatory foot down.

Since then, despite high-profile efforts from companies such as Google, Dish Network, and Comcast, we remain at four national providers. To understand why, and why allowing T-Mobile to acquire Sprint would be a big problem for consumers, we need to understand what makes it so hard to for even giant, well-funded companies with recognized brand names to break into the wireless market.

Paying billions just to enter the game

To prevent wireless signals from interfering with each other, the FCC issues exclusive licenses to use the electromagnetic spectrum (usually just called the “spectrum”). To offer wireless services, a business must acquire a fair number of these spectrum licenses. Because the government limits the number of these, they go for billions of dollars. The last wireless auction back in 2016 cost the wireless industry approximately $20 billion dollars collectively. A single license for a major city such as New York or Los Angeles can cost close to $1 billion. To meet the bandwidth demand for a competitive smartphone service takes multiple licenses in every market in the country. That’s a multibillion-dollar price tag before the company even starts to build its network.

Building a network also takes billions of dollars, and a great deal of time. All this is before a business can even begin to find customers to start paying off all its debt, never mind start making a profit. Only after spending billions of dollars to enter the game can a company begin trying to attract customers. But even with steep discounts and quality service, it takes an awful lot to get a customer to go through the hassle of switching from one cell service to another—especially to a new wireless service of unknown quality and no track record.

Consider Comcast, which developed its own network and had a base of 23 million customers for its cable and broadband services before it even entered the wireless industry. Comcast started offering mobile service in May 2017. A year later, it has just over 500,000 subscribers. That sounds impressive, but combined, Sprint and T-Mobile gained approximately 1 million (post-paid) subscribers in the last quarter of 2017. Worse, Comcast spent an estimated $1,260 per customer acquisition. Not even Comcast can keep up that kind of spending to seriously compete with the 126 million subscribersof a joined T-Mobile/Sprint.

If Google and Comcast can’t compete in wireless, who can?

These barriers to entry are built into the way the wireless industry works. Over the years a list of potential new entrants has repeatedly tried to upend the economics of the industry to no avail. Whether scrappy entrepreneurial new entrants, regional providers trying to grow a national footprint, or even well-funded tech giants like Google, each one has run into the unforgiving economics of the wireless industry that make emergence of a serious national competitor virtually impossible.

But what about the low-cost national providers and pre-paid providers, like Boost Mobile or TracPhone? These are either owned by one of the Big Four (Sprint owns Boost, for example), or lease capacity from one of the Big Four, most often Sprint or T-Mobile. Saying that these carriers compete with the national carriers is like saying that WhatsApp competes with its corporate parent, Facebook.

Letting T-Mobile buy Sprint means going from four competitors to three, a level of concentration the government has consistently said is bad for consumers. Based on the realities of the wireless industry, that isn’t going to change.

Harold Feld is the senior vice president at Public Knowledge.