Another petition appears to delay T-Mobile/Sprint merger

Nine organizations have come together to petition the FCC to delay any permissions to approve the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger until a fraud investigation has been completed.

The petition is focused on a Sprint probe, relating to alleged Lifeline fraud. The under-fire telco has been accused of collecting subsidies from the FCC even though many of the subscribers through the initiative were inactive and not using the service.

“Specifically, the public interest, rural wireless, and labor organizations ask the Commission to pause its review of the merger while important issues related to Sprint’s apparent Lifeline fraud are more fully investigated by the Commission, and also urge the Commission to seek public comment on the DISH waiver requests, the July 26 Dish commitments to the Commission, and related developments, including the DOJ Consent Decree,” the petition states.

The petition has been filed by the Rural Wireless Association, the Communications Workers of America union, Consumer Reports, The Greenlining Institute, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, New America’s Open-technology Institute, The Rural Broadband Association, the Open Markets Institute and Public Knowledge.

Should the FCC agree with the petitioners, the completion of the merger would be paused until the end of the investigation.

Although T-Mobile US and Sprint have been making progress towards completing the merger, there are still numerous hurdles which will have to be negotiated. The FCC and Department of Justice have green-lit the deal, with concessions to be fulfilled, though that does not mean the law suits will disappear.

Aside from this petition, 16 State-level Attorney Generals have banded together to file a lawsuit against the merger. Led by the ambitious New York Attorney General Letitia James, the lawsuit questions the validity of the merger on the ground of competition. James has argued that with the presence of four MNOs, tariffs are becoming less expensive and coverage is improving; connectivity is getting better for the consumer with the status quo, so why should this be changed?

The nine organizations filing this petition to the FCC are demanding the merger be delaying which the fraud investigation into Sprint is on-going.

The Lifeline Program is designed to offer subsidies to telcos to enable free tariffs for low-income consumers across the country. Participants receive $9.25 a month on average, though Sprint is accused of collecting the pay-out for 885,000 inactive Lifeline customers. This number represents 30% of the Lifeline subscribers Sprint supports.

“It’s outrageous that a company would claim millions of taxpayer dollars for doing nothing,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said at the time. “This shows a careless disregard for program rules and American taxpayers. I have asked our Enforcement Bureau to investigate this matter to determine the full extent of the problem and to propose an appropriate remedy.”

Under the rules of the programme, providers of the service may only be reimbursed for a Lifeline subscriber if that subscriber has used the service at least once in the past 30 days. The onus is placed on the telcos to de-enroll inactive subscribers, though it does appear something went very wrong at Sprint.

Considering the investigation is being powered by the FCC, the petitioners might find some joy with this latest effort to de-rail the merger. It might be nothing more than a pause on developments, but it does afford more opportunity for other opponents to gather momentum.

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.

Aussie regulator not in the ‘real world’ over Vodafone and TPG

Lawyers representing Vodafone Australia and TPG have suggested the Australian competition watchdog is not living in reality as it continues quest to force in a fourth MNO.

Last year, Vodafone and TPG announced intentions to merge operations in pursuit of creating a business which can offer comprehensive services in both the mobile and fixed segments. The pair were searching for ‘synergies’, seemingly a play to compete in the world of convergence, but the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission disagreed, blocking the merger four months ago.

The ACCC rationale was relatively simple; if the pair are forced to continue to operate independently, they could potentially fund their own fixed and mobile networks, broadening competition across the country. Vodafone and TPG suggest this is not the case.

“What TPG wants is for this merger to go through but when you step back and look at the options and approach it had before August 2018… it is entirely commercially realistic that TPG will return to rolling out a mobile network,” said Michael Hodge, representing the ACCC in court.

However, the opposition hit back.

“There isn’t a real chance that TPG will pursue the rollout of a mobile network. There is not a real chance that TPG will become Australia’s fourth network,” said Inaki Berroeta, Vodafone Australia CEO.

The dispute here is simple. The ACCC wants four, independent MNOs across the country. TPG made some noise about deploying its own network prior to the merger announcement, though these ambitions were seemingly quashed by the ban on Huawei technology in the country.

“TPG did try to build it, but it was thwarted by community objections, by technical difficulties but ultimately by the federal government’s security guidance,” Ruth Higgins, the legal representative of TPG, said.

Vodafone and TPG do not believe they can compete with Optus and Telstra without a merger, though the ACCC is under the impression a fourth MNO will emerge organically.

TPG did announce in May 2018 it was planning to launch its own mobile network, learning from the success of Reliance Jio in India. The idea to attract subscribers was to offer six months of data and voice services for free, though this idea was killed off due to two developments.

The first development was the merger between Vodafone and TPG. Why would it build its own mobile network when it could dovetail with Vodafone, bringing its own fixed network to the party to complete the convergence dream.

The second development was the banning of Huawei technology in Australia.

“It is extremely disappointing that the clear strategy the company had to become a mobile network operator at the forefront of 5G has been undone by factors outside of TPG’s control,” TPG Executive Chairman David Teoh said at the time.

Following the decision, TPG decided against building its own mobile network as Huawei was the main supplier to the firm. This is an instance which backs up the Huawei claims it will improve competition in the 5G vendor ecosystem, bringing down the price of equipment investment and speed of deployment.

The decision to end TPG investment in a mobile network might have been enough to convince the ACCC the merger could be approved, but it seems the competition watchdog is clinging onto the hope it would do so on its own. TPG statements should be taken with a pinch of salt, it wouldn’t be the first-time executives changed their minds, but it does run the risk of negatively impacting competition.

One thing which is not healthy for any market is a tiered ranking system. If Vodafone cannot compete with Optus and Telstra without the converged business model the TPG assets offer, it might well fall further behind. If it dwindles to the point of irrelevance, the Australian telco market will be in a worse position than it is today, or with the combined Vodafone/TPG company offering increased competition. The risk the ACCC runs is effectively creating a duopoly.

Realistically, there is no right or wrong answer here. We do not have a crystal ball, and we cannot read the minds of TPG executives. It might well pursue the deployment of a mobile network if the prospect of a merger is killed off all together, but then again, it might just double-down on fixed line investments. It does currently have an MVNO, but that is a poor substitution for a fourth MNO to increase competition.

T-Mobile staff start getting twitchy over Sprint merger

A letter has emerged from T-Mobile Workers United, with the union asking Deutsche Telekom executives to confirm jobs will be safe following the merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint.

According to Reuters, the union, representing around 500 employees from the telco, have seemingly decided to skip out T-Mobile US CEO John Legere and gone straight to group boss Tim Hoettges. The union is seeking assurances jobs will be safe should the merger between the two telcos survive legal challenges which are emerging.

Although there have been several assurances from Legere the merger will be a net creator of jobs, this is under the assumption growth can be achieved through the union. It might sound like a good headline, but reading into the statements, Legere is suggesting job creation will be down to synergies between the firms and a more assertive challenge to AT&T and Verizon.

However, the issue of business rationalisation has not been addressed head on. Whenever two large businesses are brought together through a merger, redundancies are unavoidable. This is a point which has not been addressed by the management teams, with senior managers simply pointing to the potential for growth.

Irrelevant as to whether there will be job creation through an aggressive network rollout or a taking the combined business into new, regional markets, there will be overlap between the two businesses. Not every lawyer, accountant or HR employee will need to be retained as the team will seek cost efficiencies during the integration process. The other thing you have to think about is the retail presence.

It won’t be in every location, but there will of course be hundreds of jobs at risk as the merged business seeks to rationalise its presence on the high street. There are going to be numerous locations where both Sprint and T-Mobile US have a physical store within minutes of each other; a choice will have to be made and job cuts will be evident. Being a net creator of jobs does not mean there will be no redundancies.

These staff are perfectly entitled to feel nervous, as the issue has not been directly addressed and any logical person would say there will be redundancies.

Oregon joins the anti-merger brigade to dampen T-Mobile/Sprint party

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has is the latest recruit for the coalition of lawyers aiming to block the merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint.

Almost immediately after FCC Chairman Ajit Pai offered his blessing for the union, Rosenblum hit back with the announcement. T-Mobile US and Sprint might be collecting the approvals from government agencies, but unless they can figure out how to appease the Attorney Generals, another headache looms large on the horizon.

“It’s important that Oregon join other states in opposing the Sprint-T-Mobile merger,” said Rosenblum. “If left unchallenged, the current plan will result in reduced access to affordable wireless service in Oregon — and higher prices. Neither is acceptable.

“Oregon’s addition to our lawsuit keeps our momentum going and ensures that there isn’t a single region of this country that doesn’t oppose this anticompetitive megamerger,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “We welcome Attorney General Rosenblum to our 16-member coalition that now includes states representing almost half of the U.S. population. We remain committed to blocking the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint because it would be bad for consumers, bad for workers, and bad for innovation.”

James is of course the ring-leader when it comes to this legal saga, though we suspect in crafting the position of consumer champion, the Attorney General of New York has higher political ambitions. Irrelevant to the end-game, James has proven to be very effective in collecting support for this lawsuit.

Rosenblum will now become the 16th member of an increasingly dangerous opponent for T-Mobile US and Sprint. One lawyer as an opponent is a daunting prospect, but 16 Attorney Generals and 16 antitrust department working against the progress of the merger is the stuff corporate nightmares are made of.

The full list of States now opposing the merger include: New York, California, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

Having been filed with the District Court for New York on June 11, we suspect this might be somewhat of a prolonged battle. First, judges in New York will have to decide on the appropriateness of the merger, though you can almost guarantee whatever outcome will be appealed by the losing party. We suspect this is a see-sawing legal conflict which will carry on for months.

T-Mobile US and Sprint are nearing the finish line, but it is still well out of reach for the moment.

Pai gobbles up Sprint and T-Mobile US merger

After months of headaches and sleepless nights, the tides of favour seem to be turning for Sprint and T-Mobile US as the FCC chief gives his blessing for the union.

254 days into the 180 days the FCC gives itself to approve mergers, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has officially confirmed his position. It is still not quite 100% guaranteed for the two telcos, however with Pai’s recommendation, the future is looking very rosier.

“After one of the most exhaustive merger reviews in Commission history, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that this transaction will bring fast 5G wireless service to many more Americans and help close the digital divide in rural areas,” Pai said in a statement.

“Moreover, with the conditions included in this draft Order, the merger will promote robust competition in mobile broadband, put critical mid-band spectrum to use, and bring new competition to the fixed broadband market.”

Suggesting this was a protracted and painful process might be one of the biggest understatements of the year. However, it might have been necessary considering the significant impact a merger of this scale could potential have on competition, diversification and network deployment across the US.

Above all else, the US is a monstrous market with an incredibly small number of nationwide telcos. This does of course offer economy of scale to improve investment capabilities, though there is a risk of regional monopolies due to the sheer size and geographical variance across the country. Proposed mergers which would take the number of national telcos from four to three has been extinguished in the past, though this one has passed almost every test.

The greenlight from the FCC Chairman is an important step, adding momentum to positive news from the Department of Justice in the last few weeks. At the end of July, the DoJ’s antitrust division gave the thumbs up, assuming Sprint’s prepaid brand Boost is divested, and Pai has made the same demands.

This is one concession which many expected, but we have major issue with. Dish will acquire the Boost brand, allowing it to make use of its horde of valuable spectrum, satisfying the demands, though will this be enough to maintain the current levels of competition, the objective of both the FCC and DoJ? We do not believe so.

Firstly, instead of having four established telcos in the US, consumers will now have to choose from three telcos and a newbie with zero experience of effectively running a mobile business and network. Dish does not have the competence, experience, infrastructure, processes, billing systems or supply chain to run a mobile business, and it will take years to build these elements to the degree expected.

Secondly, Dish is now an MVNO. It will be able to make use of the T-Mobile network, but the FCC and DoJ has replaced a functional MNO with an MVNO and expects no-one to notice the difference. Both of these agencies expect Dish to have its own network up-and-running in a few years, but this is another ridiculous ambition.

As mentioned in the first point, this is a company which is not practiced in the dark arts of mobile. The three remaining traditional players took decades to rollout their own networks, and they are still not genuine nationwide telcos (there are still network gaps across the country). How is Dish expected to create a nationwide, 4G and 5G, network across a country of 9.8 million km2, with an incredibly variety of different urban densities, geographical landscapes and economic societies.

If anyone thinks Dish is going to be a replacement which can maintain the current status quo, they are quite frankly fooling themselves.

What is worth noting is that this is not the end of the road for Sprint and T-Mobile. It might have secured the relevant regulatory approval, but now it will have to combat the various legal challenges.

Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a coalition of State Attorney Generals have filed a lawsuit to block the proposed merger. The lawyers are arguing the merger would harm competition, and it should be blocked to maintain the status quo. As it stands, with four separate MNOs challenging each other, prices and mobile experience is improving for the consumer; the lawyers are arguing that the situation is not broken, it is in fact improving, so why should the FCC and DoJ try to fix an imaginary problem?

Although the approval process from the DoJ and FCC might have been considered a significant problem, the telcos will not have to face legal heavyweights from more than a dozen States. Lawyers have a way of being very difficult when they want to be, so there might well be a few more twists and turns in this saga.

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.

DoJ ready to greenlight Sprint/T-Mobile US merger – report

It has been one of the most protracted merger approval processes in recent memories, but source close to the US Department of Justice believe a positive decision is on the horizon for Sprint and T-Mobile US.

With Dish seemingly waiting in the wings to purchase Sprint’s prepaid brand Boost, the Department of Justice might well be on the verge of approving the $26 billion merger. According to the Wall Street Journal, a decision could be made public this week, though the budding duo would still have to face legal challenges from several State Attorney General’s before experiencing the merger euphoria.

After months of regulatory and antitrust objections to the deal, the Department of Justice might well be finally convinced. Aside from off-loading Boost to create a fourth nationwide player in the US, the duo would also have to commit to a three-year roadmap for 5G deployment as well as promising no tariff increases during the period.

Originally it did appear the Department of Justice did not share the enthusiasm as the FCC for the deal, though this report seemingly demonstrates somewhat of a U-turn. What is worth noting is all of these reports and rumours are nothing more than hearsay, though it will be welcome news from the T-Mobile US and Sprint executives who have been fighting against the tide for months.

That said, the deal with Dish appears to be central to this approval.

Earlier this week, it was suggested Dish had come to an agreement with Sprint to purchase the Boost brand for $5 billion. As part of the deal, Dish would become a connectivity customer of the newly merged business as it constructed its own network.

This would appear to be a very sensible report as Dish is under pressure to make use of the spectrum assets it has been collected over the last few years. Deadline day is quickly approaching for Dish to demonstrate it will make use of the licences otherwise it would be forced to hand back the valuable assets.

Hopefully the end of this saga is close as any further delays could start to have detrimental impacts on the 5G rollout plans of the two separate organizations. Both T-Mobile US and Sprint are keen to link up as this would create a more consolidated challenge to the leadership position of AT&T and Verizon in the mobile segment.

That said, objections from various parties have suggested reducing the number of nationwide MNOs from three to four would negatively impact competition, while others have also pointed to recent market trends.

In a joint lawsuit against the merger, several State Attorney Generals have pointed to decreasing prices for mobile contracts over the last few years, arguing that the system works. Some might suggest fixing something which isn’t broken is not the best path; if the current level of competition is benefitting the consumer, why should anyone consider changing it.

These reports are nothing more than rumour for the moment, and there are the lawsuits to consider, but it does appear this prolonged saga might be coming to a close sooner rather than later.

Four more States stand in the way of Sprint/T-Mobile merger

With each week that passes, it seems to be getting more and more difficult for Sprint and T-Mobile US. Now, four State Attorney Generals have attempted to block the move.

Officially, the 180-day stop-clock which the FCC gives itself to approve any industry transactions has hit 202, and that doesn’t include the ‘pause’ it gave itself. And while the FCC might be taking things at a leisurely pace, it seems the Attorney General Offices around the US are building up a head-of-steam.

Two weeks ago, New York Attorney General Letitia James launched her campaign against the merger, questioning the logic and evidence used to promote the promises of increased competition, a faster 5G rollout or cheaper tariffs across the country. And she seems to have stuck a chord with counterparts in numerous other states.

Initially, James had the support of nine states, but with Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Nevada adding themselves to the suit, the total number of states as plaintiffs is now fourteen.

“The merger of T-Mobile and Sprint would stifle competition, cut jobs, and harm vulnerable consumers from across the country, so unity among the states will be key in defending our citizens against this power-hungry corporate union,” James said.

“We welcome the support from these four additional states, which should serve as a reminder that, all throughout the nation, we have much to lose if we do not take action to protect our people from this megamerger.”

And while this might look bad enough for Sprint and T-Mobile executives, it could get a lot worse. Over the last couple of weeks, letters have been submitted from an additional six Attorney Generals, telling the FCC investigations have begun to check the legality of the merger. Those states yet to declare are Pennsylvania (letter submitted June 5), Arizona (June 5), Delaware (June 18), Nebraska (June 18), Indiana (June 20) and Texas (June 21).

What is worth noting is that there does seem to be somewhat of a political split in in terms of objections here. All of the 14 Attorney Generals who have joined the suit so far are sitting in the Democrat camp. Of the six who are currently conducting investigations, two more are Democrat (Delaware and Pennsylvania) while four sit in the opposing Republican party (Texas, Indiana, Nebraska and Arizona).

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is objecting on the grounds of reduced competition, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison is attempting to protect jobs and lower prices, Hawaii’s AG Clare Connors didn’t say anything, and Nevada AG Aaron Ford simply said nothing of genuine value.

The most common theme with these objections seems to be focused on the idea of competition. Although T-Mobile and Sprint argue there is a need for more competition in the market, the AGs don’t seem to think so, or at least this isn’t the way to go about it. T-Mobile CEO John Legere might condemn the ‘duopoly’ which has formed at the head of the telco rankings, however the numbers do not lie.

Coverage is increasing, ARPU is coming down and the US should have all four of the major MNOs in the 5G world before the vast majority of other nations around the world. Things could be better in this market of course, but the trends seem to be heading in the right direction. This is a point which has been raised by the AGs; if it isn’t broken, don’t try and fix it.

Unfortunately for Sprint and T-Mobile, the argument of decreasing the number of telcos to increase competition flies in the face of logic, especially when you are removing the two cheapest options from the market. Of course, telecommunications is a capital-intensive segment to operate in, scale is very important, as is access to more valuable spectrum. But, the general consensus in the telco world is more providers is a better approach not less.

There will of course be incredibly loud voices on both sides of the argument, but logic lies with the AGs here. This is not to say the FCC will agree, but overarching trends argue against the need for Sprint and T-Mobile to merge.

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.