T-Mobile/Sprint Deal Is Good Actually, Feds Tell Court In States' Lawsuit (arstechnica.com) 17
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Federal regulators that want to let T-Mobile complete its acquisition of rival wireless carrier Sprint are pushing back on a collective effort by some states to block the deal. The $26 billion transaction was subject to federal approval by both the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission. The agencies both blessed the deal, with the DOJ reaching a settlement in July and the FCC granting a green light in October. The deal also requires approval by regulators in several states, however. While about a dozen have in some way approved the deal or signaled support for the federal settlements, attorneys general representing 13 states and the District of Columbia filed suit to block the merger.
The FCC and DOJ on Friday submitted a filing [400-page PDF] in that case arguing that the deal is in the best interest of the U.S., and any nationwide injunction holding up the merger would block "substantial, long-term, and procompetitive benefits for American consumers." The argument, in large part, boils down to: trust us, we're the experts. "Both the Antitrust Division and the FCC have significant experience and expertise in analyzing these types of transactions and do so from a nationwide perspective," the agencies write. "Thus, their conclusions that the merger as remedied is in the public interest deserve appropriate weight in this remedy inquiry by this honorable court."
The FCC and DOJ on Friday submitted a filing [400-page PDF] in that case arguing that the deal is in the best interest of the U.S., and any nationwide injunction holding up the merger would block "substantial, long-term, and procompetitive benefits for American consumers." The argument, in large part, boils down to: trust us, we're the experts. "Both the Antitrust Division and the FCC have significant experience and expertise in analyzing these types of transactions and do so from a nationwide perspective," the agencies write. "Thus, their conclusions that the merger as remedied is in the public interest deserve appropriate weight in this remedy inquiry by this honorable court."
bad faith (Score:2)
Why have the FCC and DOJ been arguing in bad faith for the last several years?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: bad faith (Score:2)
The argument is that these two carriers cannot compete effectively against AT&T and Verizon without a merger. If this is true, the merger creates three competitive companies instead of two competitive and two struggling companies. I'm not saying I buy that argument but it is at least reasonable. Depends on what the data suggests.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh-oh (Score:1)
Trust us, we're the experts.
While the SCotUS has openly disagreed with federal policy, it has never instructed the current policy-makers to "get fucked". This case is unlikely to support the more-competition argument.
Monopoly is good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we need 4 such carriers anyway?
Competition. Duh!
If it wasn't for T-Mobile and all their Un-carrier initiatives [wikipedia.org], we probably wouldn't have what we have today: no contracts, freebies (T-Mobile Tuesday; T-Mobile's Netflix On Us; Verizon's free sub to Disney+; Sprint's free sub to Hulu; AT&T's free sub to HBO; etc.), unlimited data, etc
T-Mobile Wants To Merge With Comcast Too (Score:2)
T-Mobile wants to merge with Comcast after merging with Sprint according to an article titled "Internal T-Mobile documents show the company considering a Comcast merger" [theverge.com] put out by The Verge.
And the FCC and DOJ's claim that Dish would be a viable 4th competitor is a load of B.S. as noted in this paragraph:
The documents also cast doubt on one of the central claims of T-Mobile’s merger, which has sought to prop up Dish as a competitive wireless provider, backed by an MVNO deal with T-Mobile in advance of its own network buildout. But the document, which was prepared before the Dish deal was even considered, sees it as unlikely that any MVNO could provide meaningful competition to T-Mobile. The report is particularly focused on cable-based MVNOs like Tracfone, which had garnered a small but growing market share in the US at the time. But the report considered them only a minimal threat to T-Mobile’s business.
“Telco is a nationwide scale game,” one anonymous expert is quoted as saying. “Without regulatory and telco support it is almost impossible that new mobile entrants will be able to disrupt the industry.”
This merger needs to be blocked on anti-competitive grounds.
Putin on the BS (Score:2)
Could someone please explain this? (Score:2)
I admit it, I don't get the reasoning.
How, exactly, does reducing the number of competitors increase competition?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint is hobbled by two very bad decisions: buying Nextel for its walkie-talkie tech, and then rolling out WiMAX for 4G before switching to LTE. Both burned billions unnecessarily and leave it unable to effectively compete. The options past TMobile are cable companies like Comcast or Cox (which would be bad) or private investors that would cannibalize it out to other companies, including Verizon and AT&T, leaving TMobile a distant third and eventually subject to the same fate.