Technologies

T-Mobile’s 3 Years With Sprint: What’s Changed Since the Merger

T-Mobile has expanded its 5G network and kept plan and phone prices down, but other premerger pledges are still unfulfilled.

Three years ago, T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint was finalized, and the nation’s list of top carriers shrank from four to three. At the time, T-Mobile made promises that the merger would be positive for consumers and the larger mobile industry — and though that’s been more true than not, there are still some pledges that haven’t been seen through.

But it also hasn’t led to a worse situation for consumers, at least not yet. Though having three major carriers to choose from instead of four is worrisome for the future (with Dish so far failing to pose a real challenge), competition has kept plan prices relatively stable and even led to big savings on top-tier phones. Carriers have continued to build out their respective 5G networks, leading to new 5G home internet options for people who aren’t connected to broadband (or are looking for an alternative to their traditional cable options). It isn’t the rosiest future, but it isn’t as bad as some critics had feared.

In an April 10 blog post, T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert trumpeted how far the carrier has come in three years, citing everything from better 5G service to the greater availability of home internet to lower prices for all, even people signing up with other carriers.

Indeed, folding in Sprint’s midband 5G towers has given T-Mobile a lead on 5G, letting it achieve nationwide coverage of more than 200 million Americans with faster 5G in 2021, years ahead of both Verizon and AT&T. T-Mobile has also improved 5G access for rural customers, Sievert said.

T-Mobile piggybacked off its larger 5G network to launch and grow its 5G home internet service. For a $50 monthly subscription fee (if they set up automatic payments), the service offers customers higher-speed connectivity compared with dial-up, costly satellite, or underdeveloped DSL or cable alternatives. Though the speeds aren’t as fast or reliable as those of a good cable or fiber connection, T-Mobile’s 5G service can reach consumers who aren’t hooked up to the highest-speed internet networks.

And as Sievert notes, competition between carriers has kept prices on par — for instance, Verizon’s comparable 5G Home service also starts at $50 per month.

Keeping phone plans low

As far as phone plan prices go, the carrier landscape after T-Mobile and Sprint’s merger has preserved competition in consumers’ favor, at least for the time being. Indeed, carrier discounts and deals have even led to a boom in premium phones, which climbed to up to 18% of the phone market early this year, according to IDC analyst Nabila Popal (up from 10% before the pandemic). Carriers have been desperate to get consumers signed to three-year contracts, so they’ve subsidized most or all of the price for phones like the iPhone 14 or Samsung Galaxy S23 series.

T-Mobile remains one the last of the big three providers to still offer two-year options on most of its devices, a more consumer-friendly deal. (A notable exception are pricey foldables like Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold line, which requires a three-year commitment to get an upgrade discount.) That said, the carrier has tied some of its best perks and promotions — like free Apple TV Plus and its best device trade-in deals — to a requirement to be on its priciest Magenta Max plans.

On the low end of the price spectrum, T-Mobile did fulfill a premerger promise to offer a $15 per month plan with unlimited talk and text as well as 2.5GB of data, which the carrier has since increased to 3.5GB in compliance with its proposal to increase this cheap plan’s data allowance by 500MB per year. It also has said it’ll keep Mint Mobile’s $15 per month plan should its planned $1.35 billion purchase of the Ryan Reynolds’ owned prepaid carrier go through.

Another major element in T-Mobile and Sprint’s merger proposal was offering low-cost or free data plans; discounted laptops and tablets; and mobile hotspot access to 10 million low-income households. What the carrier branded as Project 10 Million has so far followed through on providing $4.8 billion in services and supplying 5.3 million students with devices through the end of 2022, a T-Mobile spokesperson told CNET.

The carrier hadn’t proposed a deadline for hitting the 10 million marker, but it said the program, which launched in 2020, would last five years, meaning it will expire in 2025. T-Mobile hasn’t said what’ll happen after its commitment period ends.

Merger misses: jobs fall short of promises

T-Mobile doesn’t seem to have fulfilled other pledges made for the merger. The biggest involves jobs, with then-CEO John Legere saying the new combined company would create new jobs and hire 11,000 more workers by 2024. The new T-Mobile started with around 80,000 employees in 2020, according to regulatory filings, but after losing around 5,000 employees in 2021 due to layoffs, along with more jobs shed among network and engineering as well as retail employees, the carrier so far seems to have fallen short of its promise.

When reached for comment, T-Mobile pushed back on the idea that the carrier employs fewer people now than it did before the merger. But it didn’t share exact personnel numbers, saying only that thousands of jobs have been created. T-Mobile also didn’t address whether it’ll make the 11,000-person hiring goal set by Legere.

“Before we merged with Sprint, we said we’d have more employees as a combined company than the two standalone companies would have had on their own without the merger — and we have done just that,” said a T-Mobile spokesperson. In the years since the merger, the spokesperson said, the carrier has also “created thousands of jobs for vendors and partners.”

Granted, the jobs-related proposal was made by a different CEO and before a pandemic led to layoffs and challenging economic conditions across many industries. But the current situation is still gloomier than T-Mobile had originally proposed.

The merger also shifted the balance of power among carriers. In their premerger assurances, T-Mobile and Sprint said they’d divest some of their assets to Dish, turning the satellite TV provider into the nation’s de facto fourth-largest carrier and saving the merger. Dish acquired Sprint’s prepaid mobile brand Boost and has the option to pay $3.59 billion for 800MHz wireless spectrum to form its own 5G network, though it may end up passing on the offer to save money after finishing testing the spectrum. In the meantime, Dish has secured agreements with AT&T and T-Mobile to use their 5G networks while it builds its own.

Though Dish finally opened sign-ups for its 5G service back in August, and launched its own $25 prepaid service in December, progress has been slow to get the carrier in line with the far more established T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T. For now, Dish isn’t a serious threat to its bigger siblings.

What comes after the merger timeline expires?

The US Department of Justice required a lot of assurances, like those listed above, to approve the T-Mobile and Sprint merger, but they all have expiration dates. This has implications for who’s helped by the new T-Mobile’s plans — like students aided by Project 10 Million, which lasts through 2025, as well as regular consumers through plan pricing.

As part of the merger, T-Mobile agreed to lock in pricing on its plans for three years, though it’s unclear what will happen after. Last year, the carrier introduced the similarly named Price Lock as a broad feature for most of its prepaid and postpaid mobile as well as broadband internet plans, but only new customers qualify.

There are still a few other merger pledges stretching into the years to come. By the end of 2023, T-Mobile must provide 5G service to 97% of the population, and within six years 99%. The carrier must cover 85% of the rural American population by the end of this year, and 90% within six years. But beyond that, it’s unclear what T-Mobile has in store for consumers.

Technologies

Kremlin Confirms Putin Transmitted Iran’s War Resolution Plan to Trump

The Kremlin says Putin relayed Iran’s proposal for ending the war to Trump, while Trump announced a Russian diesel supply deal that drew sharp criticism from Zelenskyy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin communicated Tehran’s perspective on a potential conclusion to the conflict in Iran to U.S. President Donald Trump, according to Russian state media reports on Saturday.

This disclosure follows Trump’s Friday statement that Russia will provide diesel to global markets amid soaring energy prices driven by the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

Russia’s Interfax news agency cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating that Putin conveyed the message to Trump “in agreement with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian,” per a Google translation.

Additional Russian media accounts indicate Putin spoke with Trump by phone after meeting Pezeshkian on the margins of a summit in Turkmenistan.

Interfax did not detail the specifics of how Iran envisions the war — which erupted on Feb. 28 with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets — reaching an end.

The White House did not immediately respond to Verum’s emailed request to confirm the reported conversation between Putin and Trump.

Russia supply deal

Trump announced Friday that Russia will deliver more than 4 million tons of diesel to the global market under an arrangement he said he agreed with Putin during a phone call.

Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons immediately after, Trump posted on Truth Social. Moscow will then provide another 3 million tons of diesel contingent on the condition of Russia’s refineries, Trump added.

The Treasury Department temporarily waived sanctions on Russian diesel through April 2027 under a general license issued Friday.

Iran has intensified attacks on oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, with vessels coming under fire almost daily as Tehran attempts to choke off a rebound in crude exports.

A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard official stated Wednesday that Iran will block all “illicit routes” through Hormuz, according to the Fars News Agency, an outlet considered close to the Guard.

The surge in tanker attacks coincides with crude oil exports from the Middle East rebounding in September to prewar levels, largely because the U.S. military escorted ships through Hormuz along Oman’s coast.

An interim agreement signed in June between the U.S. and Iran to pause hostilities to allow for negotiations quickly collapsed.

‘Gifts to Putin’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy immediately denounced Trump’s diesel deal with Putin. Ukraine’s leader warned that easing sanctions without a commitment from Russia to de-escalate the war will only prolong it.

“Gifts to Putin will not bring peace or any benefit to the civilized world,” Zelenskyy said in a social media post. “Russia will ‘repay’ the diesel with further terror and perfidy. Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

Diesel prices have surged worldwide as Ukraine has pounded Russian refineries, forcing Moscow to ban diesel exports to global markets. Iran and its Houthi allies have also attacked refineries in the Middle East, further constraining fuel supplies.

Trump faces mounting political pressure to lower fuel prices ahead of the November midterm elections. Republicans confront competitive races in conservative strongholds like Iowa, where farmers feel the pinch of high diesel prices.

Technologies

AI is Changing How Lawyers Work — and Putting the Billable Hour Under Pressure

AI is reshaping the legal industry by reducing the time needed for routine tasks, challenging the traditional billable hour model, and changing how lawyers learn and practice.

Artificial intelligence is now used by almost 90% of legal professionals in the U.K. and Ireland, and it’s putting one of the profession’s oldest conventions — the billable hour — under the microscope. That’s according to legal software company Clio’s U.K. & Ireland Legal Insights Report 2026.

It found that among firms using AI, almost 80% said they can handle more work without increasing resources, while over 70% said it cut costs by absorbing administrative work once done by support staff.

As a result, AI is challenging some of the assumptions on which the legal profession was built, forcing firms to reevaluate how their lawyers spend their time, how they charge for it and how new lawyers learn the ropes. You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 secondsNick Rowles-DaviesLexolent Some of the U.K.’s biggest firms are already putting this into practice.

A&O Shearman has worked with legal AI company Harvey to develop artificial intelligence agents for tasks, including reviewing loan agreements and analyzing regulatory filings, which it says can complete in minutes work that previously took several hours. Slaughter and May, meanwhile, has rolled out Harvey across all practice areas this year, including for regulatory research and document analysis.

Billable hour pressure The billable hour is central to the business model of many law firms, but when AI significantly reduces the time lawyers spend sifting through and drafting documents, the economics are no longer so straightforward. “You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 seconds,” Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of legal finance fund Lexolent, based in London and Dubai, told CNBC.

About one in five firms that have widely adopted AI report difficulty meeting billable-hour targets, according to Clio’s report. Globally, senior legal leaders expect the share of work charged by the hour to fall from 72% to 44% over the next two to three years, according to a Deloitte survey.

Routine work is the most exposed, Rowles-Davies said. “If you’ve got standard documents and you’re just putting in detail, then clearly that’s an automatic process.” But complex legal work still requires human judgment, he added, particularly when interpreting AI output and determining the right strategy for a client.

Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting betterJoshua LenonClio

AI and workloads

Whether AI efficiencies ultimately make lawyers’ working lives better may depend on what firms do with the time they get back. Clio’s report found that 51% of legal professionals work evenings, but only 32% want to, while 22% work weekends compared with 11% who would choose to.

Joshua Lenon, Clio’s New York-based lawyer-in-residence, believes some lawyers are already seeing the benefits. “Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting better,” Lenon told CNBC, as AI becomes more commonplace.

“People are really looking at these tools and saying, ‘This is making work better.’”

Technologies

Trump’s diesel agreement with Putin accused of contradicting Russia sanctions law

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

President Donald Trump’s Friday announcement that Russia will supply diesel fuel to the global market marked an apparent pivot from recent efforts to pressure Moscow to end the Ukraine war by targeting Russian energy exports.

Trump claimed the move, unveiled with less than a month left in an affordability-focused midterm election, would swiftly bring down record-high diesel prices.

But commentators and critics were quick to highlight contradictions between the new policy and prior efforts by the U.S. to clamp down on Russian oil sales.

Those efforts most recently included the enactment of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, empowering Trump to impose tariffs up to 100% on the top purchasers of Russian crude oil or gas, among other restrictions. Trump signed the bill into law just three weeks ago.

“Congress just passed a law giving Trump the power to impose new tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil & gas,” Scott Lincicome, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said on X after Trump’s Friday announcement.

“Can America tariff America?” he quipped.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, accused Trump’s latest move of being “directly contrary to Congress’s intent in our bipartisan sanctions bill.”

Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute of International Economic Law, in an X post said that the relaxation of Russian diesel restrictions “pretty much proves the point that the Graham Russia Bill was not going to force the Trump Administration to increase economic pressure on Moscow.”

Some of the criticism crossed party lines.

“Through the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, we gave the president significant authorities and leverage against China and Russia to bring Putin’s war to an end with a negotiated settlement,” Rep.

Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said in an X post. “Unfortunately, while I understand the desire to bring down diesel prices, I am concerned the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil will only fund the Kremlin’s war machine—emboldening more violence and destruction, as we have seen in recent days,” McCaul said.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s questions about the diesel agreement with Russia.

Less than a year earlier, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on multiple Russian oil companies in response to what it called “Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine.”

Trump also had previously slammed NATO allies for continuing to buy Russian oil. In a September 2025 Truth Social post, he wrote, “the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia.”

Later that month, Trump again harangued world leaders for doing business with Russia.

“They’re funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one?” he said in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. “They can’t be doing what they’re doing. They’re buying oil and gas from Russia while they’re fighting Russia.”

Trump announced the diesel deal in a Truth Social post Friday afternoon after what he described as a “highly successful discussion” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Under the agreement, Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, then another 500,000 tons in November, followed by 1 million tons “immediately thereafter” and 3 million more depending on refinery conditions, Trump wrote.

The Treasury Department soon after said that Trump directed the Office of Foreign Assets Control to immediately issue a “temporary general license to allow the supply of Russian diesel to the global market.” OFAC specified that the sanctioned transactions will be authorized for about six months, until April 7.

Russia seemed to celebrate the move. “Russia-US cooperation on diesel and energy will benefit the world,” an X account associated with Putin’s economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev said in response to the announcement.

But Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose military has started targeting Russian oil refineries, said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

“Any easing of sanctions against Russia without a clear and lasting de-escalation agreement with Russia is an obvious weakness,” Zelenskyy said. “Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

“We count on America’s fair support for our defense of life, for our defense of people in Ukraine – and on the United States having a correspondingly strong conversation with Russia,” he said.

“A strong one, not a weak one,” he added.

Trump thanked Putin later Friday afternoon for enabling “massive amounts of oil” to come to the U.S.

“We need oil for the world, and this is diesel, which is what we need, so we’re very happy to get it,” Trump told reporters before heading to Syracuse, New York.

The Trump administration has previously eased some Russian energy sanctions temporarily, though more narrowly than Friday’s announcement.

Earlier this year, in an attempt to stabilize markets after the start of the Iran war, the Trump administration issued limited, 30-day waivers allowing countries to buy sanctioned Russian oil that was already in transit.

But some interpreted the latest move as a more significant step.

“It looks like Trump cut a deal with the devil,” Jeremy Siegel, professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” Friday afternoon.

“It’s not a permanent solution at all. It’s sort of a short-term Band Aid,” Siegel said. “And cutting back on or eliminating sanctions on Russia for the invasion in Ukraine, I think, is a very unfortunate consequence.”