Drivers Want Access to a Limited Number of Apps in Their Cars

As reported by Computerworld: Drivers are tiring of automakers embedding apps into their cars, the main complaint being that they only want essential apps that work as well as the ones on their smartphones, according to new research.

The research, presented by automotive market research firm SBD, was buttressed by the views of people in a focus group involving 46 people, six of whom participated in a panel at the Telematics Detroit conference here this week.

The focus group, identified by first name only, overwhelmingly chose two functions that they wanted in a car's infotainment system -- navigation and music. Everything else was seen as either a convenience or a dangerous distraction.

The Tesla infotainment system was popular among test users in a focus group at Telematics Detroit.
(Photo: Lucas Mearian/Computerworld)

Each driver was given an hour to experiment with six car infotainment systems from each of the leading car manufacturers plus Tesla Motors, the electric car maker.
"Music and where am I going. Everything else is about driving. Safety... that's what I'm most concerned with," said Megan, one of the panelists. "All this other stuff seams OK, but it's very distracting."

Having Google Search embedded in a car topped the list of features the drivers said they wanted because it was fast, intuitive and worked every time.

"There's just so many things you can do with it," said Neal, another panelist. "The information is instant. There's no lag time. And, it saves so much time."

Neal said he likes using Google Search and navigation on his smartphone rather than on his car's telematics system because the car always takes longer to find a location and often offers 10 or more search results that aren't related to the desired destination.

The second most popular app among the drivers on the panel was Pandora, the Internet radio and music streaming service. Most complained that the SiriusXM satellite radio service offered with new cars has stations with repetitive music playlists. Pandora, on the other hand, learns a user's preferences or allows them to be customized while still offering an endless variety of music, the drivers said.


"Does Pandora run for free in cars?" Neal asked. "I'd love to have Pandora, but I don't want to pay a premium to have it stream into the car. I have a phone I can use for that."

Andrew Hart, head of advanced research at SBD, said automakers choose the wrong apps to embed in their cars because, in the rush to catch up with smartphones and tablets, they forget about usability and responsiveness.

Today, there are 173 apps developed by automotive manufacturers that have been embedded in cars in the U.S., according to Hart.

The SBD focus group was made up of 46 U.S. drivers who'd purchased a car in the past year. The divers were split into two groups and asked to try infotainment systems in three premium cars and four mass consumer cars.

In the premium group was the Mercedes-Benz S-Class Command Infotainment system, the Porsche PCM infotainment system and the Tesla Model S infotainment system, which is based on the Linux OS.

In the mass consumer group of vehicles was the Dodge Ram 1500's Uconnect infotainment system, the Nissan Altima's NissanConnect infotainment system, and the Honda Civic's HondaLink (Next Generation) infotainment system.

The focus group was asked to complete three tasks: Find a radio station, navigate home, and find a pizza shop.

Only 40% were able to complete the simple tasks on the infotainment systems. The remaining 60% "got lost while navigating through the maze of different features," according to SBD.

Hart said the study revealed there are four categories of car infotainment systems. They are: Systems that provide both embedded and mobile apps; systems with apps that typically don't work well or fast enough to be used by drivers; systems with apps that are difficult to use; and systems with apps that distract and create safety issues.

The NissanConnect infotainment system (Photo: Nissan)

"As an industry, we're striving to develop Swiss Army knives instead of the spoons our customers want," Hart said. 

Even car dealers struggle to explain to new car owners how infotainment systems work, according to Hart. "There are too many complexities," he said. "And if we can't educate the dealers, we definitely can't educate the consumer."

Tesla, which used a Linux-based operating system for its infotainment system, ranked high in terms of usability among drivers.

Those on the user panel said the Tesla infotainment system was the easiest and "most intuitive" to use.

"We were very enamored with the Tesla. Not being tech-savvy, I found the icons were huge and easy to use while driving and while parked," said Tina, another focus group member. "It was a fascinating system to me, and I'd seek that one out [as a car buyer]."

The panel of drivers had mixed feelings about the idea of Wi-Fi in a car. Some said they would like to be able to work from their cars or stream live entertainment for passengers, while others said that being connected 24 hours a day wasn't necessary.  

The focus group also had mixed feelings about in-car infotainment platforms that allow drivers to sync or pair their smartphones. Some liked the idea of having the most up-to-date technology and apps available through onboard telematics, while others said it pigeonholed them.

Ford Motor Co., the first manufacturer to offer in-car apps via drivers' smartphones, with its SYNC AppLink technology, has a system that allows drivers to download apps from the iTunes App Store, Google Play or BlackBerry App World into the car's head unit.

AppLink started out with a few radio and location-based services, but Ford has expanded it to include dozens of such services. Earlier this year, Ford announced four more integrations: Parkopedia, a parking space finder; Parkmobile, an app that allows drivers to use their smartphones to pay for parking; Pulse, an ADT security app; and an app for ordering from Domino's Pizza.

MirrorLink, a service that provides connectivity between a smartphone and a car's infotainment system, is also being adopted by many auto manufacturers. Additionally, Apple's CarPlay and Google's Automotive Link allow pairing of smartphones with car infotainment systems.  

"I like that idea," said Neal. "You're personalizing it. My phone will always be as up to date as possible."

Neal said he had recently downloaded an app called 'Find My Car' that can locate his parked vehicle using GPS technology. "There are so many features on your phone that you can't build into a car," Neal added.

However, some people in the focus group noted that smartphones can be lost, leaving a driver without a navigation system. They said cars should always have an embedded app for navigation.

Moreover, people tend to replace their smartphones every two years or so, and when you get a new phone you may have to completely reconfigure your infotainment system in order to use the new apps.

"To me, [Apple's] iOS 7 is not as good as the last iOS, so that lowered my confidence in how well the software is working," Mark said. "If iOS 8 is as bad as iOS 7, I may want to migrate to Android. Then you have to migrate your car to Android."

Lazy, Overconfident Humans Shaped Google’s New Autonomous Car

As reported by MIT Technology Review: The fact that Google’s bubble-like self-driving car, unveiled this week, lacks a steering wheel might be seen as evidence the company’s software is close to mastering the challenges of piloting a vehicle. But the car’s design is just as much a consequence of what Google’s existing fleet of automated Lexus SUVs revealed about human laziness.

Google’s engineers had been focused on perfecting how well those modified cars could handle freeway driving, and they imagined their technology hitting the market in a way that left humans sharing driving duties with their vehicle. “The idea was that the human drives onto the freeway, engages the system, [and] it takes them on the bulk of the trip—the boring part—and then they reëngage,” said Nathaniel Fairfield, a technical lead on the project, speaking at the Embedded Vision Summit in Santa Clara, California, on Thursday.

That approach had to be scrapped after tests showed that human drivers weren't trustworthy enough to be co-pilots to Google’s software. When people began riding in one of the vehicles, they paid close attention to what the car was doing and to activity on the road around them, which meant the hand-off between person and machine was smooth. But that interest faded to indifference over weeks and months as people became too trusting of the car’s abilities. “Humans are lazy,” says Fairfield. “People go from plausible suspicion to way overconfidence.”

That convinced Google it had to give up on switching between human and machine control, says Fairfield. That also ruled out building on top of conventional car designs, because they assume a human is on hand and ready to take over in the event of an emergency.  

“If the car detects there’s something wrong with the power steering, it cuts it out and trusts you,” said Fairfield. “Same with [power-assisted] brakes—they go limp but you can still stop the vehicle.” Google’s tests suggest that anyone accustomed to a self-driving car would be unlikely to be ready take over in the event of such a failure.

And so Google’s new vehicle design takes a leaf out of NASA’s design book to cope with such eventualities. “It doesn't have a fallback to human—it has redundant systems,” said Fairfield. “It has two steering motors, and we have various ways we can bring it to a stop.”

The car is powered by an electric motor roughly equivalent to that used in the Fiat 500e and has a range of around 100 miles. Its maximum speed is 25 miles per hour to reduce the severity of injuries to pedestrians in the event of a crash, says Fairfield. The front of the vehicle is made of plastic material intended to cushion any impact with a human. Google says it intends to build up a fleet of 100 of the vehicles for testing this summer. However, existing laws mean that only versions that have had conventional controls installed can be tested on public roads.

Fairfield says that the decision to make a purely autonomous vehicle also had the benefit of bringing Google more in line with the company’s original vision of something that could “drive everywhere for everybody.” That more strongly differentiates Google’s approach to automated vehicles from those of conventional automakers, who have pledged to keep humans in ultimate control of their vehicles (see “Driverless Cars Are Further Away Than You Think”).

However, Google’s new focus sets it on a more difficult path to getting its technology into commercial production. The company previously decided to focus on freeway driving because it is a relatively manageable task for software to take on. The new vehicle will have to cope with the much more challenging conditions on urban roads.

FTC Wants To Be Top Cop On Geolocation

As reported by the Security Ledger: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is asking Congress to make it the chief rule maker and enforcer of policies for the collection and sharing of geolocation information, according to testimony this week.  

Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee for Privacy, Technology that the Commission would like to see changes to the wording of the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2014 (LPPA), draft legislation designed to spell out consumer protections pertaining to the location data. Rich said that the FTC, as the U.S. Government’s leading privacy enforcement agency, should be given rule making and enforcement authority for the civil provisions of the LPPA. The current draft of the law instead gives that authority to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The LPPA legislation (PDF) was proposed in March by Sen. Al Franken, and co-sponsored by Senators Coons (D-DE) and Warren (D-MA). It proposes updating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to take into account the widespread and availability and commercial use of geolocation information provided. LPPA requires that companies get individuals’ permission before collecting location data off of smartphones, tablets, or in-car navigation devices, and before sharing it with others. It would prevent what Franken refers to as  “GPS stalking,”  preventing companies from collecting location data in secret. LPPA also requires companies to reveal the kinds of data they collect and how they share and use it, bans the development, operation, and sale of GPS stalking apps and requires the federal government to collect data on GPS stalking and facilitate reporting of GPS stalking by the public.

FTC says that the LPPA dovetails with its own efforts to protect consumers. Rich told the Senate Subcommittee that the law supports the FTC’s own reading of the term “geolocation information” and would codify FTC actions such as requesting customer consent before location data is collected and requiring transparency when companies are collecting location information.

Allowing the FTC to take the lead on civil enforcement of LPPA provisions would be consistent with the Commission’s current role as the lead agency pursuing violations of consumer protections among makers of mobile devices and applications. The company has taken a number of actions in recent months to address what it considers dodgy business practices. Among other things, the FTC has settled complaints against Goldenshores Technologies, the maker of a popular Android mobile flashlight application over charges that the company used deceptive advertising to collect location and device information from Android owners. It also settled with a Utah firm that makes IZON wi-fi enabled home surveillance cameras for shipping products that proved easy to hack into and tamper with.

Automated System Lets Trucks Convoy as One

As reported by MIT Technology Review: A pair of trucks convoying 10 meters apart on Interstate 80 just outside Reno, Nevada, might seem like an unusual sight—not to mention unsafe. But the two trucks doing this a couple of weeks ago were actually demonstrating a system that could make trucking safer and much more efficient.

While the driver in front drove his truck normally, the truck behind him was partly operated by a computer—and it stuck to its leader like glue. When instructed to do so, the computer controlled the gas and brakes to pull to within 10 meters (roughly three car lengths) of the truck ahead. The computer then kept the two trucks paired at this precise distance, as if linked by some invisible cable, until the system was disengaged. If the truck in front stopped suddenly, the one behind could have reacted instantaneously to avoid a collision.

Most automobile companies are working on full vehicle automation, but they need to overcome significant challenges before they can deploy those technologies (see “Driverless Cars Are Further Away Than You Think”). The technology demonstrated in Nevada, in contrast, could be deployed today, since the system is only partially automated (the driver behind still steers, with the aid of a camera that shows the view ahead of the truck in front). So it is covered by the same guidelines and regulations as adaptive cruise control, a feature in some cars that automatically keeps vehicles on the highway a safe distance from the ones around them.

This kind of “platooning”—as it is known—reduces the wind drag on both trucks, and could therefore save trucking companies millions of dollars in fuel every year. The trucks were fitted with technology developed by a startup called Peloton Tech (“peloton” is the French word for platoon). Peloton’s system consists of radar sensors, a wireless communications system, and computers connected to each truck’s central computer. Video screens in both cabs show the drivers views of blind spots around the two vehicles.

Joshua Switkes, CEO of Peloton Tech, says the fuel savings are 4.5 percent for the front truck and 10 percent for the rear truck. This could amount to $100,000 each year. “For truck companies, these savings are enormous,” Switkes says. He adds that the technology could even allow competing companies to platoon together to get these savings.



Switkes says the technology should also improve safety, since drivers have greater visibility and the radar systems can brake automatically if needed. In theory, more trucks could be virtually tethered together this way, although the initial plan is to connect only two.

The prospect of two trucks driving so close together under computer control may raise concerns among other drivers, but the technology involved, including the vehicle-to-vehicle communications system used to share information between the two trucks, is set to become far more common in the next few years. The U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated that it plans to mandate such communications systems in new vehicles in the hopes of improving road safety (see “The Internet of Cars Is Approaching a Crossroads”).

Vehicle platooning has been a subject of research in industry and academia for decades, but efforts have intensified in recent years as the underlying technology has advanced.

A European project, called SARTRE (Safe Road Trains for the Environment), has been exploring ways for vehicles to travel in platoons since 2009. This effort is funded by the European Commission and involves various companies, including the carmaker Volvo. Another effort, called Energy ITS, which is backed by the Japanese government and involves several Japanese universities, has been testing platoons made of three semi-automated or fully automated trucks since 2007. A U.S. project, called PATH (Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology), operated out of the University of California, Berkeley, is testing vehicle platooning along with other technologies designed to improve transportation.


Steven Shladover, a research engineer at UC Berkeley involved with PATH, says that his own experiments indicate that platooning vehicles even closer together—just a few meters apart— could lead to fuel savings of 20 percent. But it would also introduce new risks. Once trains of trucks get too long, it’s much harder for drivers of other cars to change lanes. “I would not advocate running very long sequences of these trucks close together,” Shladover says.

Hydrogen Fuel Finally Graduating From Lab to City Streets

As reported by Bloomberg: Once relegated to the realm of science projects, hydrogen fuel cells are starting to displace fossil fuels as a means of powering cars, homes and businesses.

On June 10, in the latest addition to mainstream fuel-cell use, Hyundai Motor Co. will begin deliveries of a consumer SUV in Southern California. The technology is already producing electricity for the grid in Connecticut. AT&T Inc. is using fuel cells to power server farms, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. uses hydrogen-powered fork lifts. Later this summer, FedEx Corp. will begin using hydrogen cargo tractors at its Memphis air hub.

“This is the most exciting time for fuel cells in my career,” said Daniel Dedrick, head of hydrogen and combustion technologies at Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California. The hydrogen market “is starting to accelerate.”

Fuel cells produce electricity from hydrogen in a process that dates back to the 1830s, yet high costs have historically made the technology better suited for Apollo space missions and Soviet submarines. In recent years, the technology has made big strides, and prices are falling. And because the process produces little or no greenhouse gases, hydrogen power stands to get a boost in the wake of President Barack Obama’s recent call for tighter controls on carbon emissions.

Early Days
It’s still early days for hydrogen power. Prominent skeptics, including former Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk, have questioned whether the technology will ever catch on.

Hydrogen currently provides less than 1 percent of power worldwide, while coal and gas produced 67 percent of U.S. electricity in 2012, according to the Energy Information Administration. Chu, who was appointed by Obama, called for a 44 percent reduction in funding for hydrogen research.

“People have been working to improve fuel cells for over 150 years, and it’s still not commercially viable,” said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think-tank.

There are only about 1,000 cars and buses in operation worldwide today using hydrogen technology. There are nine hydrogen filling stations in California, with 48 more under development. California promises to boost that number to about 100 over the next several years. By comparison, there are 160,000 traditional filling stations across the country.

Hydrogen Infrastructure 
Advocates argue the hydrogen landscape could quickly evolve as corporations’ use of hydrogen spreads. The infrastructure for corporate fuel cells has been quietly spreading. Across the U.S., there are now tanks of hydrogen and fueling systems for fleet vehicles and forklifts. There are pipelines delivering the fuel to refiners that use it to make gasoline. As more companies adopt hydrogen power, the needed equipment will come, said Andy Marsh, chief executive officer of Plug Power Inc. (PLUG) in Latham, New York.

Yet even industry leaders say that, without a national pipeline network, it will be a long time before the nascent industry will enjoy widespread development.

“You have to get critical mass to build a business case,” said Ed Kiczek, global business director for hydrogen at Air Products and Chemicals Inc. in Allentown, Pennsylvania, the world’s largest supplier of hydrogen. “That could be 30 years away.”

Shops Buying 
For now, local pockets of hydrogen use are flourishing. Plug supplies fuel-cell powered forklifts for customers including Wal-Mart, the grocery chain Kroger Co. and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG. Plug also provides hydrogen-fueling systems. Once a company has a flock of its forklifts at a warehouse, it’s a short leap to installing larger fuel cells that can produce both hydrogen on site and electricity for the entire building, Marsh said.


The company is supplying the systems for FedEx’s airport tractors in Memphis, another location where stationary fuel cells might eventually become either a primary or back-up source of electricity.

AT&T is the largest non-utility fuel cell customer in the U.S.. It has 17.1 megawatts of fuel cells operating at 28 sites in California and Connecticut. The systems offer cleaner power that’s more consistent than electricity supplied by the grid, said John Schinter, the company’s assistant vice president of energy and smart buildings.


“For us, reliability is so critical and these help us ride through power disruptions,” Schinter said. “We deploy fuel cells in our high-cost markets, so these actually reduce our operating costs. We’re definitely planning to expand.”

Autos Next 
Proponents of hydrogen say all this activity will soon spill over to the auto market, and it’s already happening in Southern California. Hyundai will begin deliveries of its fuel-cell Tucson SUV next week. Honda Motor Co. already offers one there and Toyota Motor Corp. will follow next year.

“The shift to hydrogen is inevitable, and it’s happening faster than we expected,” said Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a non-profit clean energy research organization based in Snowmass, Colorado.

Not everyone agrees. Elon Musk, a longtime critic of fuel cell technology, particularly in automobiles that compete with Tesla’s Model S, revisited his opposition to the power-generating devices earlier this week.

“I’m not the biggest fan of fuel cells,” Musk said at the company’s annual meeting in Mountain View, California, on June 3. “I usually call them ‘fool cells.’”

California’s Push 
Even so, California is participating in an eight-state effort to get 3.3 million zero-emission cars on the road by 2025, powered by either fuel cells or batteries. Also participating are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, which together account for 25 percent of all U.S. auto sales.

Some analysts are predicting steady if modest growth. Automakers may be selling 1.76 million fuel-cell vehicles a year worldwide by 2025, according to Deloitte Tohmastsu Consulting.
Cars that run on hydrogen can typically go more than 250 miles (400 kilometers) on a tank of the gas and then must be refilled. They differ from battery electric vehicles like Tesla’s Model S or the Nissan Motor Co. Leaf, which use lithium ion batteries to store electricity. When those batteries are drained, they must be recharged.

Nearing Profitability
After decades of losses, fuel cell makers are finally closing in on profits. Ballard Power Systems Inc. (BLDP) expects to report break-even earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for 2014, after posting one profitable year since 1992. The Vancouver-based company supplies power systems used in buses and Plug’s forklifts.

FuelCell Energy Inc. (FCEL), a supplier of large stationary systems that run buildings and factories, said yesterday it will have break-even EBITDA by the end of this year. The company’s systems are running the world’s biggest fuel-cell power plant, a 59-megawatt facility in South Korea, and the first utility-scale plant in the U.S., in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Investors are taking note. Plug is up more than 1,000 percent in the past year, the best performer on the Nasdaq Composite Index. (CCMP) Ballard has doubled and FuelCell has gained 49 percent, compared with a 23 percent gain for the broader market index.

In the future, suppliers may tap excess power from wind and solar farms to make hydrogen, reducing the carbon emissions that come when it’s derived from gas, said Michael Beckman, vice president of hydrogen fueling at Linde AG (LIN), the world’s largest industrial gas supplier.

“In three to five years you will see that become more prevalent,” Beckman said. “Wind and solar can make hydrogen cheap when the grid doesn't need the power.” 

Storm Shelter GPS Coordinates Could Help Rescuers in Aftermath of Tornado

As reported by KSHB: For several years, Larry Hall and his wife, Jan, saved up to buy a storm shelter in their Belton home.

Last month, they ordered the unit and had it installed in their garage. When the man who assembled the shelter was finished, he presented the Halls with a certificate. It had the GPS coordinates of their storm shelter. The installer then gave the halls instructions on what to do with those coordinates.

“It says right here ‘Owner’s advised to share with the fire department or with the office of emergency management,” said Larry Hall.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Storm Shelter Association both give the same advice. They believe this information could prove valuable for emergency responders.

After a tornado, streets usually are covered in debris. Street signs may be missing. It’s also sometimes difficult to tell from the debris where homes once stood. When emergency responders arrive, they spend a lot of time hoping they have picked a good spot to dig.

However, with that GPS information, emergency responders could arrived with a handheld GPS location device. That would allow them to pinpoint a specific location where they should start digging.

Emergency Management offices would keep this information in a private database. Participation would be voluntary.


The cities of Moore and Oklahoma City in Oklahoma have started compiling this information. Storm shelter companies are already providing the information to homeowners.



However, when Larry Hall contacted Cass County, he found out they were not taking that information yet.

41 Action News spoke to Cass County Emergency Management Director Stan Swaggart over the phone. He said the idea of collecting GPS coordinates is so new, his county is still devising a good system for doing it.

Swaggart also believes collecting the information would be beneficial to emergency responders. He said he has had several people contact his office wanting to report their coordinates.

Hall said he is glad to hear his county is working on a way to collect this information.

“I figured in this part of the country anything you can do at all helps,” said Hall.

Sprint Agrees to Pay About $32 Bln to Buy T-Mobile

As reported by Reuters: Sprint Corp has agreed to pay about $40 per share to buy T-Mobile US Inc , a person familiar with the matter said, marking further progress in the attempt to merge the third and fourth-biggest U.S. mobile network operators.

The $40 price represents a 17 percent premium to T-Mobile US's closing share price on Wednesday, giving it a valuation of more than $32 billion and the shares have more than doubled in price since the group bought smaller rival MetroPCS a year ago.

Deutsche Telekom shares were up 1.4 percent at 12.60 euros by 1115 GMT on Thursday, valuing the German firm at over 56 billion euros ($76 billion).

However, Hannes Wittig, an analyst at JP Morgan, said the $40 price, if confirmed, seemed low.

"T-Mobile US should be worth more than that given that the synergies should exceed $20 billion, Deutsche Telekom would share some of the execution risk and Sprint would be getting control ... Somewhere in the high 40s would be more appropriate," he said.

Japan's Softbank, which owns Sprint, and Deutsche Telekom, which owns 67 percent of T-Mobile, still have to negotiate on the details, including financing and the termination fee to be paid should the merger get blocked by regulators, the source familiar with the matter said.

Analysts see the regulatory challenge as the biggest hurdle facing the companies since both the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have expressed a desire to have at least two more network operators competing against the market leaders AT&T and Verizon.

Three years ago regulators rejected AT&T's agreed $39 billion bid for T-Mobile US, which resulted in AT&T paying Deutsche Telekom as T-Mobile's full owner a reverse break-up fee of $6 billion in cash and U.S. mobile assets.

Under the proposed sale to Sprint Deutsche Telekom is expected to keep a 15 to 20 percent stake in the combined company, the source said.

It also remains to be seen what the break-up fee would be if the deal fails to gain regulatory clearance. Bloomberg said Softbank was pushing for a termination fee of $1 billion, while Deutsche Telekom wanted more like $3 billion.

Officials at Sprint, Softbank and Deutsche Telekom declined to comment. T-Mobile US did not respond to requests for comment.


REGULATORY CONCERNS
The U.S. telecommunications sector is already in the throes of a major, broader consolidation, with AT&T seeking to buy satellite TV operator DirecTV and cable company Comcast trying to merge with rival Time Warner.

The changes could create a clutch of media and telecoms giants and leave Sprint an also-ran with an inferior business, the source said.

Softbank Chairman Masayoshi Son has made no secret of his long-held desire to buy T-Mobile and merge it with Sprint, creating a carrier with the resources to upgrade its network and better compete with AT&T and Verizon.

For Deutsche Telekom, an exit from the United States would allow it to concentrate on its European business, including at home in Germany where it faces an upcoming auction of radio spectrum and needs to invest more in optic fiber broadband.

But first Sprint, T-Mobile US and their owners have to win over U.S. regulators to their merger plan.

"The (regulatory) agencies have tipped their hand and the parties know that," said an antitrust expert who asked not to be named to protect business relationships.

"(They) must think that they have stronger arguments and they're willing to battle them out with the agencies. That has to be part of their calculus here."

Analysts have also said that Softbank and Deutsche Telekom could choose to challenge the U.S. government in court if the acquisition was blocked.

"We see the odds of approval from both the FCC and DOJ as very low unless landscape-altering concessions are offered," wrote Nomura analyst Adam Ilkowitz in a note.