DT in legal battle over ownership of the colour magenta

Deutsche Telekom is testing out the resourcefulness of its lawyers in an attempt to own the colour magenta as it battles with Israeli insurance start-up Lemonade.

Shortly after launched the online-only insurance brand in the German market, a court injunction was filed by the telco with Lemonade being told to remove all branding with the offending colour. It does seem quite remarkable a company can ‘own’ a colour, but that it was the German courts have ruled.

Although the ruling is limited to the German markets for the moment, Lemonade is escalating the legal fracas to the European Union Intellectual Property Office to invalidate the decision. As with many legal decisions of this nature, there is the risk of precedent being set, with this ruling being used as a basis for future decisions in additional markets, though Lemonade wants to cut the monopoly down before any momentum can be gathered.

“At first we thought it was a joke,” Lemonade co-founder Shai Winiger said on Twitter.

“Turns out its anything but funny. So, we’re doing the one thing they least expect, by launching a legal attack against the ability of corporations to own things that should belong to humanity as a whole – like colours.”

What is slightly baffling about this case is the free-reign Deutsche Telekom has been handed by the courts. The patent doesn’t seem to be related to the use of magenta with certain letters, a concept, design or services, it apparently ‘owns’ magenta in Germany.

Launching the hashtag #FreethePink, the Lemonade team is challenging what seems to be a remarkable decision. The legal challenge is also generating a handy amount of PR for the business, which has its eyes set on international expansion after a positive start to life in Israel.

And as one would imagine, support on social media is gathering behind Lemonade with several users suggesting new targets for the telco to chase after. Perhaps the Pink Panther will be tackled next, or the hideous and slightly terrifying Troll Doll should start quaking it its boots. Maybe even Barney might be hauled out of retired to defend his tone, or if Deutsche Telekom fancies bullying children, it could take-on the Power Puff Girls.

Of course, this is not the first time Deutsche Telekom has attempted to use its legal weight to bully start-ups who dared to cross its colour palette. Dutch IT firm Compello felt the legal stick over the use of pink in its own logo, while dataJAR in the UK was also a victim.

Interestingly enough, in the case with Lemonade, the firm has not even been using the shade of pink Deutsche Telekom holds the patent for.

DT currently owns the patent for RAL 4010, a shade which is incredibly similar to the one being used by Lemonade, but not exactly the same. Following the ruling out of Germany, Lemonade has received a colour wheel from the telco, pointing out the colours it cannot use, one of which would be more readily described as Purple.

Although it might seem baffling a corporation can ‘own’ a colour outright, hopefully there will be some common sense shown by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and DT will be put in its place.

Australia sues Google for misleading users over location data

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has taken Google to court over allegations that it misled consumers over the collection of their location data.

The ACCC reckons that from 2017 at the latest Google broke the law when it made on-screen representations to Android users that it alleges misled consumers about the location data Google collected or used when certain Google Account settings were enabled or disabled. In short the ACCC is claiming Google gave users insufficient information to ensure their location data wasn’t collected if they didn’t want it to be.

“We are taking court action against Google because we allege that as a result of these on-screen representations, Google has collected, kept and used highly sensitive and valuable personal information about consumers’ location without them making an informed choice,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims.

The problem is that Android has multiple settings that need to be adjusted if you don’t want your location data collected and the ACCC is alleging that Google didn’t flag up all of them. That will have resulted in some consumers thinking their location data wasn’t being collected when it still was. At the very least it seems Google has been insufficiently clear in communicating with Android users about this stuff.

Underlying a lot of the current wave of litigation towards internet giants is the desire by regulators and governments to retrospectively address the personal data land grab that characterised the first decade or so of the modern mobile device. Free services such as Android and Facebook have always sought payment in kind through the collection of personal data but have usually been very opaque in the ways they have gone about it. Regulators are now trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

T-Mobile and Sprint convince Colorado to cross the picket line

The coalition of lawyers fighting against the $26 billion T-Mobile US and Sprint merger has gotten a little bit weaker with Colorado dropping out of the resistance movement.

After the Attorney General for Mississippi secured concessions from the duo, the same has been achieved by Phil Weiser, the Colorado Attorney General. It might be the long-way around, but it does appear T-Mobile US and Sprint are turning some heads with individual, state-level deals.

“The State of Colorado joined a multistate lawsuit to block the T-Mobile-Sprint merger because of concerns about how the merger would affect Coloradans,” said Chief Deputy Attorney General Natalie Hanlon Leh.

“The agreements we are announcing today address those concerns by guaranteeing jobs in Colorado, a state-wide buildout of a fast 5G network that will especially benefit rural communities, and low-cost mobile plans.”

The guarantees are somewhat ambitious. New T-Mobile, how the merged entity is currently being referred to, has promised to deliver 5G with minimum download speeds of 100 Mbps to 68% of the state’s population within three years, and within six years, this coverage will have to increase to 92% of the population.

On the rural side, 60% of Colorado’s rural population will have to have access to 5G download speeds of 100 Mbps within three years of the completion of the transaction, increasing to 74% within six years.

New T-Mobile will also offer new tariffs at lower prices. Should the company fail to meet these commitments it will face $80 million in penalties.

In meeting these concessions, New T-Mobile might face some challenges. Colorado is the eighth largest state in the US at 269,837 km² (the UK is 242,495 km²), with some pretty mountainous landscapes. That said, the population does seem to help these coverage commitments.

Colorado has a population of roughly 5.6 million people, of which 4.89 million live in urban locations. The state has 196 towns and 73 cities, with the five biggest accounting for roughly 1.6 million people (23% of total). Should New T-Mobile cover the ten largest cities with 5G within three years, it would have achieved roughly 38% population coverage, more than half of the commitment made to the State.

With Colorado being a highly urbanised population, only 13% are described as living in rural environment according to Rural Health Info, the equation does not look quite as daunting. Another element to consider is the spectrum assets which will be owned by New T-Mobile.

Although it has been toying with the high-speed mmWave spectrum bands, New T-Mobile will have the benefits of the 600 MHz spectrum offering greater range for meeting the concessions. This will not deliver the eye watering speed which has been promised in perfect scenarios for 5G, though it will aid the demands of network densification. During a trial in January, T-Mobile US claimed a 5G call over 600 MHz could reach 1000 square miles from a single cell site.

Interestingly enough, the merger will also offer access to valuable mid-band spectrum which Sprint has been boasting about for years. Sprint is currently hording licences for the valuable 2.5 GHz band, very similar to the mid-band spectrum airwaves which are being championed in Europe because of the more palatable compromise between speed and coverage. Combining these assets with the mmWave trials puts New T-Mobile in a pretty attractive position.

Alongside the conditions placed on New T-Mobile, Dish will also face its own demands following the completion of the $5 billion acquisition of Sprint’s prepaid brand to maintain competition levels across the country. Dish will have to maintain the HQ in Colorado for at least seven years, hire an additional 2,000 people to work on the wireless business and Colorado will have to be one of the first 10 states Dish launches 5G in. Failure to meet these conditions will result in $20 million in fines.

The win in Colorado is a significant one for New T-Mobile and adds to the momentum gained in Mississippi. In this southern state, New T-Mobile will have to deploy a 5G networ with at least 62% of the population experiencing download speeds of at least 100 Mbps. These numbers increase to 88% within six years of the completion of the merger, though 88% of the rural population will also have to be upgraded to 5G by this time also.

Although this is not the end of the lawsuit led by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James to block the merger on competition grounds, it adds a dent to momentum.

The prospect of tackling James and a herd of 16 Attorney Generals might have seemed like a daunting one, but the divide and conquer strategy seems to be working well here. If the T-Mobile US and Sprint lawyers can convince a few more into ditching the lawsuit, the threat looks significantly lessened.

While there are some states where applying the same conditions as have been negotiated in Colorado and Mississippi would be incredibly difficult, the lawyers don’t have to worry about them. Chipping away at the states where 5G deployment might be a simpler task would certainly lessen the threat being posed by the coalition. There only needs to be another three or four convinced to cross the picket-line and the support for the merger starts to look much more substantial.

Vodafone Australia and TPG told to wait three months for merger decision

The final arguments have been presented to the Australian courts and now Vodafone Australia and TPG will have to wait until early 2020 for the decision on whether the $15 billion merger will be allowed.

This is a saga which has the potential to cause some long-term friction between the regulator and industry. Wherever you are around the world, best-case scenario would be collaboration between all elements of the ecosystem, but it does appear this is far from the case.

In a court case which has been on-going for just over three weeks, Justice John Middleton will now take into consideration all the arguments which have been presented. Unfortunately for those who are seeking a swift conclusion to the litigious chapter will be disappointed. Justice Middleton has said to expect a decision in January 2020, or potentially February.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took the decision to block the merger between Vodafone Australia and TPG on the grounds it would negatively impact competition in the future. The telcos are arguing this decision should be over-turned, suggesting it is the only way to ensure competition in a world which is quickly being defined by convergent operations.

This is a decision which will certainly disappoint someone. As patiently as Justice Middleton could look, there is no middle-ground between the feuding parties. The regulator is effectively accusing TPG of lying and the Vodafone/TPG representatives are suggesting the watchdog is not living in the realms of reality.

Looking at the perspective of the ACCC, the regulator believes the merger would prevent a fourth mobile player from emerging in the country. This is of course presuming TPG still has the appetite to deploy a network, and considering the telco has said it does not, the regulator is making a bold assertion.

Another interesting statement made by Michael Hodge QC, the lawyer representing the watchdog, is that its persistence to block the merger is based on “regulatory paternalism”. This is effectively a more acceptable way of saying ‘we know what better for you than you do’.

On the other side of the aisle, Vodafone and TPG are questioning whether the ACCC is looking at the same conundrum.

TPG did have an interest in diversifying revenues to enter into the mobile space, it was potentially going to do a ‘Jio Job’ to cause chaos, but the Huawei ban effectively put an end to this. Huawei was being touted as TPG’s main supplier of network infrastructure equipment, though the Australian ban for the vendor made financially unviable to pursue the network deployment, according to the telcos.

“Indeed, on the Commission’s evidence, TPG dodged a bullet that the network that they were rolling out would have been one of the great white elephants of Australian telecommunications history,” said Peter Brereton QC, representing Vodafone Australia at the trial.

If you believe the telcos, TPG is no-longer interested in building its own mobile network. It is not a financially attractive. Should the ACCC’s blockage of the merger stand, Australia will continue with three mobile network owners, though Vodafone will be in a weakened position to compete with the likes of Telstra and Optus.

This is the question which Justice Middleton needs to ponder. What is the best course of action for enhanced competition in the future? Three strengthened, converged telcos, or a fingers-crossed situation that TPG will be able to source CAPEX to fuel its own network deployment.

There are of course good and bad arguments on both sides of the aisle. The ACCC is potentially right to push for a disruptive fourth mobile provider, though is it reading the environment correctly? The telcos are of course correct to pursue a more comprehensive converged player, three top-tier telcos is certainly favourable than a duopoly, but there might be some nuanced language over the TPG appetite for network deployment moving forward.

The risk which could emerge is potential animosity. The UK’s connectivity landscape suffered due to friction between BT and regulator Ofcom, and there is potential for the same outcome here. Vodafone Australia and TPG only have one thing on their mind right now; a tie-up to challenge Optus and Telstra. The ACCC has taken somewhat of a patronising and stubborn stance, and seemingly does not want to consider the opportunity for increased competition with three converged operations.

Neither party is willing to budge, and it seems the loser will have to swallow a lot of pride to ensure a smooth relationship in the future.

Apple and Ireland begin appealing €14.3bn tax bill

Lawyers representing Apple and the Irish Government has begun their arguments in the EU’s lower General Court in an attempt to protect the suspect corporate tax environment.

In 2016, the European Commission ordered the Irish Government to collect back-taxes off Apple to the tune of €14.3 billion, including interest. Apple does not want to pay tax. Ireland does not want to collect it. Europe wants a level playing field. The lawyers are looking forward to nuance to bolster their bank accounts.

During the opening arguments, Apple’s lawyers suggested the European Commission decision “defies reality and common sense,” according to Reuters. Both the iPhone manufacturer and the Irish Government will argue against the decision to tax environment contravenes state aid rules.

Let’s be clear. Ireland is a tax haven. It is facilitating corporate tax avoidance. It is helping corporates collect greater profits without rewarding the societies they strain. Irish Government officials should be embarrassed they are helping technology giants abuse its European partners, the very same European partners which bailed it out of financial doomsday a decade ago.

This is a selfish position, and just at the time when the country is looking to Europe to protect it as Brexit looms large on the horizon.

Some might argue the Irish Government is entitled to charge whatever tax it wants. However, a modern society works because the general public and corporations pay taxes. It pays for roads, schools, hospitals, police officers and postal workers. There are technology giants out there who are asking consumers to strain their wallets further each year and care less about their right to privacy, but they are not willing to contribute to the societies which are fuelling the monstrous profits reported every three months.

With international borders being broken down, much to the distaste of some, irregular taxation policies can be taken advantage of. This is what is happening here. It beggars belief that Ireland can argue the benefits of the single economy, and still maintain this position, weakening the position of partners, depriving them of much needed taxes.

This is not the position the European Commission has taken, but it is the one each of Ireland’s partners in Europe should. Why should Ireland be able to collect all the benefits of Apple’s assaults on the European digital economy when it is citizens of every other nation which is fuelling the iLeader’s growth?

For some, it might sound bizarre that the Irish Government doesn’t want to collect €14.3 billion off Apple, but there are two reasons for this.

Firstly, if the Irish lawyers were not to fight back against the enforced tax run, it is effectively conceded to the assertion that it is a corporate tax haven. The last thing the Irish Government wants to do is admit that it is helping the already richly rewarded residents of Silicon Valley rip-off neighbouring governments further with creative tax strategies.

Secondly, Ireland needs to ensure it is viewed as a friendly corporate-tax environment moving forward if it is to continue to attract corporations to its borders. Ireland doesn’t necessarily have the best talent, it doesn’t have the largest economy and it doesn’t have a local supply chain for manufacturing. It needs a plug to interest the likes of Apple, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Twitter, Pinterest, PayPal and Amazon to house their European HQ in the country.

The value of the technology industry to both the Irish Government and society should not be undervalued. The Irish economy entered severe recession in 2008, and then an economic depression in 2009. The country was in tatters, though it was saved by the technology industry.

Over the last decade, technology giants thrived in the tax haven, creating new jobs directly and indirectly, and continues to be one of the biggest drivers today. Silicon Docks is as important to Dublin as Silicon Valley is to California.

That said, the European Commission does not agree this dynamic should be allowed to continue.

Should the Irish Government continue this favourable tax regime for certain companies, a competitive advantage is offered. The Commission, ably led by Margrethe Vestager, has been tackling anti-competitive business practises for years. If such a monstrous company like Apple is given a competitive advantage, state aid to run riot, start-ups will always be on the back-foot. Competition will likely never emerge, and the consumer will be in a precarious position.

Over the next couple of days, lawyers representing Apple and the Irish Government will argue against the opinion of the European Commission, attempting to overturn an order to collect back-taxes and create a more reasonable tax environment. It will argue that it is perfectly reasonable for it to help Apple bleed the consumer dry and then hide profits from governments who are asking for a fair contribution back to society to pay nurses.

Ireland should be embarrassed.

50 US Attorney Generals sign-up to Google antitrust investigation

Usually, when you put 50 lawyers in a room together, it’s a bloodbath, but Google has seemingly done the impossible; united them all behind a single cause.

Led by Ken Paxton, the Attorney General representing the State of Texas, the coalition brings all except two State Attorney General’s on board, California and Alabama, as well as the legal minds representing Washington DC and Puerto Rico.

“Now, more than ever, information is power, and the most important source of information in Americans’ day-to-day lives is the internet,” said Paxton. “When most Americans think of the internet, they no doubt think of Google.

“There is nothing wrong with a business becoming the biggest game in town if it does so through free market competition, but we have seen evidence that Google’s business practices may have undermined consumer choice, stifled innovation, violated users’ privacy, and put Google in control of the flow and dissemination of online information. We intend to closely follow the facts we discover in this case and proceed as necessary.”

Paxton has pointed out in the statements that the Government and its agencies does not have an issue with a dominant market player (we don’t believe this however), but it must maintain this dominance by playing within the rules. This is where Paxton believes Google has become non-compliant with US law; it is stifling competition and the choice for consumers.

The difficulty the legal coalition will face in this investigation to start with is the reason behind Google’s market domination; it offers the best search service on the web. Some might disagree, but we believe it is the most effective and accurate internet search engine available. This will be one of the reasons behind the continued dominance, though there are of course others; these other factors will determine whether Google is abusing this position of dominance.

One area which might become of interest to the Attorney Generals is the roll of acquisitions in maintaining this leadership position. Of course, M&A is a perfectly valid means of growing a business, though should such transactions be deemed as a means for Google to kill off any competition which could potentially emerge, this would be a violation of antitrust laws.

This is where the probes will find it very difficult to fight against Google and the other giants of Silicon Valley; can anything be done against potentially anti-competitive acquisitions? In the Google case, some might suggest it shouldn’t have been allowed to acquire both Android and YouTube to supplement its PC search advertising business. This suggestion is of course made with hindsight, though there will be some who will attempt to do something about it.

Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senator for Massachusetts and potential opponent for President Trump in the 2020 Elections, has already promised to break-up the tech giants. FTC Chairman Joe Simons is another who has the divestment ambition, though he has stated it would have to be done sooner rather than later, as Big Tech is manoeuvring assets and operations in an attempt to make any divestments almost impossible.

What this investigation does offer is another layer of scrutiny placed on the internet giants. This investigation might well be directed at Google, but any precedent which is set could be applied to the other residents of Silicon Valley.

When you actually stand back and look at the investigations which are on-going, the US Government is creating a swiss cheese model of legal nightmares for the internet giants. The more layers which are applied, the less likely Big Tech can squeeze through the legal loopholes and come out unscathed on the other end. The likes of Google will have the finest legal minds on the payroll, but the legal assaults are coming quickly, and from all angles.

Aside from this investigation, Google has also recently confirmed it is at the centre of a Department of Justice probe and is also facing the House Judiciary Committee’s examination into big tech antitrust. And then it will have to consider the potential implications of other enquiries.

Facebook is being investigated by the FTC for its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, as is the House Judiciary Committee. New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking whether the social media giant has damaged the consumers lives through its operations. Finally, the House Financial Services Committee as well as the Senate Banking Committee is investigating the Facebook push into cryptocurrency.

At Amazon, the FTC is investigating how the eCommerce giant competes against and aids third-party sellers on its platform, while at Apple, the House Judiciary Committee probe is attempting to understand whether the commission it takes from developers through the App Store is anti-competitive.

Each of these investigations will create precedent which can be applied to others in the Silicon Valley fraternity. It also gives any failed attempts to limit the potential of Big Tech another opportunity. There are plenty of irons in the fire and Silicon Valley will do well to avoid a branding altogether.

With the sheer volume, breadth and depth of investigations scrutinising the business models of the internet giants, it is starting to become impossible to believe the regulatory status quo will be maintained. The sun might be setting on the Wild West Web.

To date, Silicon Valley has enjoyed what should be considered a very light-touch regulatory environment. For us, there are two reasons for this.

Firstly, regulators and legislators simply could not keep up with the progress being made by the technology industry, or perhaps did not foresee the influence these giants might be able to wield. Whether it is a shortage of bodies, skilled workers being snapped up by private industry or simply too many different segments to regulate, the progress of technology leapt ahead of the rules which were supposed to govern it. The internet giants have been profiting greatly off this regulatory and legislative void.

Secondly, you have to wonder whether regulators and legislators actually wanted to put the reigns on the digital economy and the power houses normalising it in the eyes of the consumer. These companies are driving economic growth and creating jobs. The US is at the forefront of an industry which will dominate the world for decades to come; why would the Government want to stifle the industry which is keeping the US economy at the head of the international community.

With both of these explanations, perhaps it has gotten to a point where excess is being realised. The technology industry has become too powerful and it needs to be reigned in. Some might argue that Silicon Valley has more influence than Washington, which will make some in Government feel very uneasy.

Verizon sues City of Rochester over 5G fees

US telco Verizon has filed a lawsuit against the City of Rochester, suggesting a newly created telecommunications code violates federal law and the maximum fees telcos can be charged.

Filed in the District Court for Western New York, Verizon’s lawyers will be attempting to argue that the implementation of the new telecommunications code by the city will prohibit the rollout of 5G technologies in the area. This is of course early days, though it could go some way in creating legal precedent throughout the US.

Using FCC rules which were passed last September, Verizon will argue the newly adopted telecommunications code in the City of Rochester violates the maximum fee of $270 a year which can be charged by the local governments. Although we were unable to figure out how much each site could cost Verizon annually, it does appear to run into the thousands.

“To better serve its customers and the City and to begin to serve new customers and provide new services, Verizon Wireless seeks to extend, densify, and upgrade its wireless network infrastructure, including to install additional Small Wireless Facilities to support the provision of current and next-generation telecommunications services such as 5G and to deploy fiber to connect these facilities,” the filing states.

“To successfully do this, Verizon Wireless requires new approvals from Defendant to access City property.

“As a result of Defendant’s actions, Verizon Wireless has been, and will continue to be, damaged and irreparably harmed absent the relief requested herein. The harm caused by Defendant’s unlawful actions includes, but is not limited to, an effective prohibition on Verizon Wireless’s ability to provide telecommunications services in the affected area of the City.”

Similar to regulatory changes in the UK with the new Electronic Communications Code, the FCC is attempting to protect the interests of the telcos. As real-estate owners know the telcos have no choice but to increase the number of cell sites to provide the promised 5G experience to consumers, they are in a position of power. The new rules from the FCC, and the creation of the $270 annual limit, is supposed to create a responsible transaction which benefits both parties.

However, it does not appear the City of Rochester agrees with the position of the FCC. In creating its own telecommunications code, it does appear higher fees can be charged for cell sites, while some officials state they are attempting to reduce potential clutter and eyesores created by the additional mobile infrastructure.

Looking at the timeline, Verizon wrote to city officials to ask for revisions to the code on January 10 and February 7, before the code was enacted on February 20 without any amendments, taking effect on April 1. Another letter was sent on April 15 questioning whether the code was compliant with federal law, with city officials finally responding on April 30 suggesting they were happy with the set-up. On July 30, the city officials demanded payment from the telco.

In short, Verizon is claiming the fees are acting as a prohibitor to the delivery of connectivity in the city, therefore federal law is being violated.

What is worth noting, that due to the focus on mmWave for the delivery of 5G services in the US, more cell sites will have to be deployed. This is unavoidable, as to deliver the higher speed promised by 5G, higher-frequency airwaves will have to be utilised. This does not appear to be a problem, however coverage distance will have to be sacrificed leading to the densification plans set-forward by the telcos.

Although this is the first lawsuit of this nature which has been brought to our attention, we suspect there are numerous other local governments attempting to sweat public assets to secure more funding. This is one of the first, but this might become quite a common lawsuit to read about over the coming months and years, as densification strategies gather momentum.

Justice Department green-lights T-Mobile US/Sprint merger

This might sound like the end of the road for one of the most protracted merger processes in recent memory, but T-Mobile US and Sprint will still have to deal with the backlog of legal challenges.

Although this is certainly a win for the duo, it did look ominous for quite a while and there are still a few legal challenges which will have to be dealt with. That said, this is a victory for T-Mobile US and Sprint, and a positive step-forward in the ambition to tackle the market dominance of AT&T and Verizon.

“With this merger and accompanying divestiture, we are expanding output significantly by ensuring that large amounts of currently unused or underused spectrum are made available to American consumers in the form of high quality 5G networks,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.

“Today’s settlement will provide Dish with the assets and transitional services required to become a facilities-based mobile network operator that can provide a full range of mobile wireless services nationwide.”

In short, without the divestment of Sprint’s prepaid mobile business to Dish, the deal would not have gone ahead. What this announcement now creates is a merger player with a larger horde of spectrum ready to tackle the 5G era and a fourth player which can start to make use of the spectrum licenses it has been quietly accumulating over the last few years.

For Dish, deadlines were fast approaching. After securing various spectrum licenses in the mid- and high-band frequencies, authorities were starting to get a bit irate with the lack of action. Spectrum is a valuable resource in the digital economy and a threat had been made; make use of the assets or hand them back. The acquisition of the boost brand should allow Dish to make a run at the mobile world. It will now have seven years to make use of the T-Mobile/Sprint network while it deploys its own.

Of course, while the end is in sight there are still another couple of headaches to deal with.

Several State Attorney Generals have aired their grievances and filed a lawsuit opposing the deal. The primary concern here was the reduction of national telcos from four to three, though it seems they are still not happy with concessions made to create a fourth player in Dish.

“The promises made by Dish and T-Mobile in this deal are the kinds of promises only robust competition can guarantee,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has led the opposition.

“We have serious concerns that cobbling together this new fourth mobile player, with the government picking winners and losers, will not address the merger’s harm to consumers, workers, and innovation.”

The coalition of State Attorney Generals have reaffirmed their opposition to the merger, questioning whether the formation of a new MNO which has no experience in managing a mobile network is a suitable replacement for Sprint. Elsewhere, the Rural Wireless Association is also opposing the approval.

“Expecting Dish, a start-up mobile carrier in its infancy, to be able to compete as a fourth nationwide network, with divested wireless assets from Sprint and T-Mobile and Boost MVNO customers, and subject only to a handful of requirements that will expire, spells disaster for American consumers,” the RWA said in a statement.

“Three years is not nearly enough time to launch a facilities-based network. Clearly, DOJ has no idea what it takes to build a competitive nationwide mobile network.”

Gaining approval from the Department of Justice might have been one of the more difficult tasks on this quest, but this is not the end of the road for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

New York rages against T-Mobile/Sprint merger

Things are already looking dicey for the proposed merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint, and then New York’s Attorney General wades into the saga with scathing opinions.

“This is exactly the sort of consumer-harming, job-killing megamerger our antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” said Attorney General Letitia James.

Support for the merger is pretty rare nowadays, though James and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra have filed a multi-State lawsuit to add more fuel to the flames. In total, ten States have been included in the lawsuit, compounding the headaches induced by an already prolonged approval process.

The omens are not looking particularly positive for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

“When it comes to corporate power, bigger isn’t always better,” said James. “The T-Mobile and Sprint merger would not only cause irreparable harm to mobile subscribers nationwide by cutting access to affordable, reliable wireless service for millions of Americans, but would particularly affect lower-income and minority communities here in New York and in urban areas across the country.

“That’s why we are going to court to stop this merger and protect our consumers, because this is exactly the sort of consumer-harming, job-killing megamerger our antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”

T-Mobile US and Sprint are promising a cheaper and faster service, as well as a challenge to the dominance of AT&T and Verizon, but this isn’t enough to convince the legal heavyweights. It’s the same argument which is evident throughout the world of mergers and acquisitions; four to three does not encourage optimism.

Perhaps the most damning argument against the merger is market trends over the last decade. According to the US Labor Department, the average cost of mobile service has fallen by roughly 28% over the last decade, while mobile data consumption has grown rapidly. T-Mobile US and Sprint might argue a merger is better in the long-run for competition, but there is an old saying; if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

With four telcos competing for valuable post-paid subscriptions, the consumer does appear to be winning. Tariffs are expensive in the US, though they are becoming cheaper. Another interesting aspect to the lawsuit points to some skulduggery from the duo.

The Attorneys General’s investigation into the merger found that many of the claimed benefits were unverifiable and could only be delivered years into the future, if ever. Specifically, the AG’s are referring to the lightening speeds promised and the ease at which the duo believes a 5G network can be rolled out nationwide. This isn’t necessarily stating it is not possible, just that the claim is not supported by evidence.

For a decision which is likely going to be based on evidence provided, this is a very simple, but powerful argument for blocking the merger.

DoJ antitrust chief readies for battle against big tech

There have been plenty of whispers in the back alleys of Silicon Valley of the antitrust boogeyman and now the nightmares are turning into reality.

Speaking at an industry conference in Israel, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim outlined his views on competitiveness in the technology industry. Those who were anticipating an antitrust battle in the US can feel suitably vindicated, as Delrahim effectively confirms he has Google and Apple firmly in the crosshairs.

“The digital economy is a fact of life, but it is not all things to all people,” said Delrahim. “There has been robust public discussion about whether the broader economy, undoubtedly transformed by digital technologies, is working well for everyone.”

Although this is not necessarily shocking news, it is a nuanced confirmation of the up-coming assault against big tech.

Last week, the US took the first tentative steps towards addressing the influence of technology on today’s society. The House Antitrust Subcommittee announced the launch of a bipartisan investigation into competition in digital markets, potentially offering a threat to solid foundation of the technology giants. Diluting the dominance of big tech is going to be a very difficult task, but it does appear the groundwork is being laid.

In this speech, Delrahim is effectively outlining the Department of Justice’s plan, as well as the justification for tackling big tech.

“Where there are credible concerns that a transaction or business practice is anticompetitive, timely and effective antitrust enforcement is imperative,” said Delrahim.

“…After all, the government’s successful antitrust case against Microsoft arguably paved the way for companies like Google, Yahoo, and Apple to enter the market with their own desktop and mobile products.”

Microsoft’s dominance of the technology world in the 90s should not be underplayed and perhaps can be very accurately likened to Google’s influence today. Although the US Government was not successful in breaking-up Microsoft as an organization, it did manage to dilute its power and broaden the spread of wealth. When a company starts to dictate play in the way Microsoft did, the US Government starts to get a bit twitchy.

This is the issue which the likes of Google, Amazon and Apple are facing today. Such is the success of the business, through the creation of best-in-class products and strategic acquisitions to stutter the progress of competitors, the fortunes of the technology industry are incredibly concentrated. This is what Delrahim and his colleagues want to address.

Specifics are often lost in such conference speeches, but an interesting point raised by Delrahim focused on “network effects”. In short, an organization has such control over the supporting ecosystem competition is suffocated before it has any genuine chance to be competitive. Perhaps this is done through acquiring nascent competitors or manipulating the ecosystem.

Although there have been some hints of strategy from Delrahim, the specifics are still evading the industry. That said, it is becoming increasingly clear that the US Government wants to dilute the power and influence of big tech.