Potential Presidential candidates line up to oppose T-Mobile/Sprint merger

Leading opponents of President Trump have signed a letter to the FCC condemning the proposed T-Mobile US and Sprint merger, suggesting the threat of regionalised monopolies and sky-high bills.

Signed by the likes of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, all of whom are potential opponents of Trump in the 2020 race to the White House, the 19-page document offers a broad and deep range of reasons for the FCC to block the merger. Whether the Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai elects to read the letter is anybody’s guess, such is the state of US politics today.

“The two companies have proposed a four-to-three merger that is likely to raise prices for consumers, harm workers, reduce competition, exacerbate the digital divide and undermine innovation,” the letter states.

“Blocking this proposed combination is necessary to send a strong signal that our enforcement officials are vigorously protection Americans from harmful anticompetitive behaviour.”

Which way this decision will go is still very unclear, but the paperwork arguing against the merger is starting to stack up. These nine politicians are firmly standing in opposition of the transaction, while on the other side of the line, T-Mobile US and Sprint are struggling to muster support. It seems few people are pro-merger, though when has politics ever followed the glories of logic.

As many these transactions, the main crux of the argument seems to be focused around competition. The Senators not only fear there will be nefarious conversations behind closed doors to carve the US into regionalised monopolies between the three remaining players, but they also question this suggests the telcos don’t really care about poorer families and those who are living in the chasm of the digital divide.

One point which might strike a chord for those considering the proposed merger is the focus of the telcos on low- and medium-income families. The letter suggests the two parties has aggressively competed against each other for these demographics, while there is also evidence of a high diversion ratio between offerings. Combining the two would remove this market dynamic, as well as the driver to offer competitive tariffs for lower-income individuals.

Another factor to consider here would be the impact on competitiveness of the wholesale market, and the subsequent ability for MVNOs to remain competitive, another option for low income individuals.

“The proposed merger would permit the new T-Mobile to steadily racket up wholesale prices on MVNOs and block them out of the market,” the letter claims.

While screwing the poor is often considered a political no-no irrelevant as to where you are in the world, Pai is seemingly not built from the same clay. A few months back, the FCC Chairman attempted to rid the ‘Lifeline’ initiative from the books, a programme which was designed to help poorer families and communities bridge the digital divide. This is one of the reasons the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has promised to exercise more oversight on the FCC, suggesting in a letter last week, some of Pai’s actions are not in the ‘public interest’.

Another damning point to the proposed merger is that is being sold on false pretences. The T-Mobile and Sprint management teams have together been promising a newly merged business would allow scale and efficiencies to effectively deliver 5G, though the Senators argue that these are two businesses which have deployment plans which would work on a standalone basis also.

This should not be surprising, as any good business will have created a standalone 5G strategy should the merger be blocked, this is just common sense, though the Senators argue the merger would not necessarily speed up deployment or create a challenge to the leading pair of AT&T and Verizon. Back in 2011, AT&T argued it should be allowed to acquire T-Mobile as there was no feasible way the company could compete in the 4G market but fast-forward a couple of years and look at the result. The T-Mobile success might count against it from a precedent perspective.

On the investment side of things, the argument for the merger also falls apart a little. The merged business has promised to spend $40 billion over the next three years (or three years after the green light) to make 5G a reality. However, both telcos have said they spent $10 billion in CAPEX across 2018 separately. Doing basic maths, the $40 billion of the combined business would not exceed the CAPEX of the standalone business. Economics of scale and a larger network footprint would of course impact this number, but it is a point well made by the Senators.

While we are sure there are Senators who genuinely object to this merger, it is tough to look past the fact so many of these signatories are potential Presidential candidates. For T-Mobile and Sprint, this could quickly evolve into a nightmare.

The positions have been perfectly pitched here. These are Senators who are protecting the interests of the poor, fighting to for the benefits of those in rural communities and of course, battling to make life better for families. These are all political hot buttons and excellent rhetoric to win the favour of potential voters in the run up to the next election. These are arguably the demographics which pushed Trump over the line in 2016.

T-Mobile and Sprint might now be caught between a rock and a hard place. With such politically motivated opposition and few friendlies fighting their case for the greenlight, the path forward is becoming increasingly bumpy.

Nerves jangle as Aussies delay TPG/Vodafone merger decision

The Australian regulator has pushed back the deadline for its decision on whether Vodafone Australia and TPG can move forward with the proposed £8.2 billion merger.

While this far from a definite sign the merger will be blocked by the watchdog, the longer the evaluation process goes on for, the stronger the feelings of apprehension will get. If the Aussies were happy with the plans to create a convergence player, they would have said so, but perhaps the regulator is just making sure it effectively does its due diligence.

The tie up between the pair is supposed to be an effort to capitalise on convergence bounties and reinvigorate the competitive edge of the business. That said, last month the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) weighed into the equation raising concerns a merger would de-incentivise the market to offer low-cost services.

According to Reuters, the ACCC has extended its own self-imposed deadline to evaluate the merger by two weeks to April 11. If the watchdog cannot build a case to deny the merger by that point it probably never will be able to, but you have to wonder whether the additional time is being used to validate its position of opposition.

All regulators are supposed to take a balanced and impartial position when assessing these transactions, though its negative opinion last month suggests the agency is looking for a reason to deny as opposed to evaluating what information is on the table. Giving itself an extra couple of weeks will only compound this theory in the mind of sceptics.

To be even handed though, the consolidation argument is perfectly logical and completely absurd depending on who you are. There are benefits and negatives on both sides of the equation, irrelevant as to how passionately supporters and detractors preach to you. For all the arguments and evidence which are presented, a bucket-full of salt will probably be required.

Cybersecurity investments on the up but not sustainable – study

Research from Strategic Cyber Ventures points to an increased appetite for cyber security investments, but the euphoria sweeping the segment forward is not sustainable.

On numerous occasions we have commented security is the ugly duckling of the technology world. It is critical to ensure the industry, and digital society on the whole, functions appropriately, though more often than not it is ignored. There will be numerous reasons for this, perhaps because security is a thankless and often impossible task, but the data suggests 2018 might have been a watershed year.

Not only did 2018 see $5.3 billion in global venture capital funding, 81% more than 2016, M&A activity increased as did private equity investments. On the M&A side of things, Cisco made a bang with a $2.4 billion acquisition of Duo Security, while Blackberry acquired Cylance for $1.4 billion. These are two of the larger deals, though there was increased activity in the segment across the period.

In terms of private equity, Barracuda Networks was acquired for $1.6 billion by Thoma Bravo, Bomgar by Francisco Partners for $739 million, while Blackrock spent $400 million on Cofense. Elsewhere in the more complicated financial world, Skyhigh Networks acquired McAfee with assistance from its financial sponsors Thoma Bravo and TPG Capital.

Cybersecurity one

Overall, the trends for the security segments are heading in the right direction. Perhaps now this is an area which will be taken more seriously by the industry, with adequate investments heading into security department.

That said, Strategic Cyber Ventures has warned the trends from a funding perspective are not exactly the most favourable. The amount of cash being invested is increasing, though it does not appear the rewards are reflecting this. Some of these companies have raised funds through big rounds, but growth has slowed, perhaps due to vendor fatigue or increased competition. The risk here is firms cannot raise additional funds at increased valuations from prior rounds, meaning they will have to lean on existing investors. Eventually these parties will grow tired of keeping them alive for minimal rewards.

The issue here is the need and hype around security. Its critical to secure the expanding perimeter of the digital economy, creating the need for the segment, while executives constantly talk about security being a number one priority of firms, creating the hype. This would seem to be the perfect recipe for investment in security companies and start-ups. However, the segment hasn’t taken off, perhaps due to the preference of customers investing in technologies which will make the company money as opposed to more secure?

This is maybe the most accurate assumption on why the security segment has faltered continuously over the years. Companies have limited spending power with executives choosing to invest in areas which will make the company more profitable, such is the pressure from investors and shareholders. However, consumer attitudes might be changing.

While many would have ignored the security risks of the digital economy in years gone, today’s consumer is more educated. Privacy scandals have demonstrated the power of data forcing the consumer to consider security more critically. This might have an impact on future buying decisions.

According to research by Onbuy.com 60% of US and 44% of UK consumers believe there is a risk to personal safety in the sharing economy, while 58% of all the respondents believed the risks outweigh the benefits in the sharing economy. Such attitudes will force companies to consider their security credentials as there is now a direct link back to the bottom line.

What this means for VC funding and investments from around the ecosystem remains to be seen, though the tides are turning in favour of the security segment. As Strategic Cyber Ventures notes, the current levels of investment are unsustainable, but there certainly are rewards.

T-Mobile/Sprint merger heads towards final two hurdles

With the CFIUS giving a green light on the $26 billion merger of TMUS and Sprint, attention can now be turned to the final hurdles presented by the Department of Justice (JoJ) and FCC.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the US), which has been assessing the security implications of the deal, has given the go ahead. There has been no official statement made just yet, the CFIUS has abruptly pointed out it has no legal requirement to do so, though attention has most likely be focused on the last two potential problem areas for some time.

What is worth noting is that while there are opportunities for failure at every turn in the road, the CFIUS was unlikely ever to be a massive problem for T-Mobile or Sprint.

As a bit of background, the CFIUS is a multi-agency committee which assesses the impact of foreign investment on a number of different factors, most notably national security. Although a relatively unknown council, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (passed in August) vastly expanded the powers and influence of CFIUS, meaning it could probe into a wider variety of acquisitions, allow it to take longer and finally, charge for the pleasure of doing so.

Thankfully for T-Mobile and Sprint, the national security threat was low risk here. Firstly, you have to consider there isn’t any Huawei or ZTE kit in the pair’s networks right now, secondly, the Defense Authorization Act prohibits the use of any of their equipment or software in the future, and finally, the pair’s parent companies have said they would back away from Huawei for future investments.

It seems the direct threat to US national security, if you are in the camp of believing there is a genuine one, was minimal. The confirmation from non-domestic private businesses that they would pander to political paranoia looks like it was enough to ensure the CFIUS have no objections. All ties to Huawei and ZTE have been severed so it seems its mission accomplished for Trump.

Now it’s onto the tough jobs; the Department of Justice and the FCC.

The FCC is digging its heels in for the moment, extending the 180-day shot clock for approval, as it searches for justification for the deal. This is where the issue may lie for T-Mobile and Sprint, as while the FCC is looking to determine whether a proposed transaction will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, the evidence and support seems to be stacking up against the pair.

The Department of Justice on the other hand will be looking to assess whether the proposed merger would have a material impact on competition. Too much of a sway in the negative and this deal will head straight to the bin. The four to three operators shift could create monopolies in certain localities which will not be viewed favourably.

The finish line is now in sight, but it is still unclear which direction this will go. While the signs have been positive, the FCC has proven to be a surprise package while there are certainly warranted competition concerns for the DoJ to ponder.

T-Mobile/Sprint edge towards finish line following Huawei snub

T-Mobile US and Sprint are reportedly rubbing regulators the right way, in the continued effort to get the prolonged merger approved, by overtly shunning Chinese kit vendor Huawei.

The statement should be viewed as more symbolic than anything else, as considering the clauses which have been inserted into the Defense Authorization Act during August, it would have been highly unlikely the pair would have considered Huawei for any meaningful work in US networks. What this could be viewed as is a PR move from the pair, allowing the US to demonstrate to the world how serious it is about the espionage claims.

According to Reuters, Deutsche Telekom and Softbank, parent companies of T-Mobile US and Sprint respectively, have confirmed they will not be working with Huawei moving forward. Neither US telco currently has any Huawei kit in its network, though it is hoped this statement from the international telcos will have the bureaucrats hand edging closer to the green button for the $26 billion merger.

For the US government, this is somewhat of a PR win. The Trump administration has been incredibly aggressive in making moves against the Chinese, and this could be viewed as a medal credited to the crusade. Not only can the US government effect change in its own telcos and other governments around the world, it can also influence non-domestic private firms. The long arm of the Oval Office is tickling opinion in places it really shouldn’t be able to.

Unfortunately for the US, each incremental step taken in the trade war against China seems to question how dearly the White House holds principles and values. All of these individual circumstances are starting to look like pawns in President Trump’s game of chess against Beijing. Trump is living up to his reputation as a deal-maker, with the promise of aiding the battle against the Chinese enough for the President to make concessions elsewhere.

The evidence being stacked up against the T-Mobile/Sprint merger was starting to climb pretty high, though perhaps this might be enough of a ‘concession’ to twist the White House’s perspective on the transaction. Trump has already shown he is capable of looking at the big picture, with the recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO another excellent example.

Having been arrested in Canada while in transit back to China, Trump promised to intervene in the court case should it help his pursuit of a more favourable trade relationship with China. This statement from Trump makes somewhat of a mockery of the whole arrest and demonstrates how little he thinks of the Canadian judicial system. If there is a benefit to the US economy, Trump can talk to the right people and make the whole saga disappear. It questions the validity of the arrest in the first place, but also the credibility of the Canadian courts; why does Trump believe they can be convinced to drop the case so easily?

Trump is starting to show his heritage; anything for the deal. This is a businessman in control of the White House, and his ability to ignore small print give the impression of a wheeler-dealer.

Aussie watchdog sniffs around TPG and Vodafone merger

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is having a closer look at the AUS$15 billion TPG and Vodafone merger, with the signs looking rather ominous for the pair.

After initially being rumoured in August, the merger was confirmed with the pair targeting convergence trends to source fortunes down-under. Neither telcos has been tearing up trees in the market, TPG’s recent financials revealed 0.5% growth over 2018 while Vodafone posted a first-half net loss of AUS$92.3 million in July, though this merger could have been viewed as a means to become more profitable.

However, the ACCC is citing competition concerns in both the mobile and the broadband business units. When the watchdog starts to get twitchy, it doesn’t necessarily bode well.

“Our preliminary view is that TPG is currently on track to become the fourth mobile network operator in Australia, and as such it’s likely to be an aggressive competitor,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“Although Vodafone is currently a relatively minor player in fixed broadband, we consider it may become an increasingly effective competitor because of its high level of brand recognition and existing retail mobile customer base.”

As separate companies, TPG has the broadband heritage with ambitions in the mobile game, while for Vodafone it is the opposite. Any regulator or competition authority which is starting to see organic diversification will start to get excited, though this merger will effectively kill off any promise of additional players in the individual connectivity segments, as they would lean on the new partners strength. The promise of four separate mobile and broadband telcos is disappearing in front of the ACCC’s eyes.

The question which remains is whether Australia needs a fourth player in the mobile and broadband segments for the market to remain competitive? There are of course pros and cons to both sides of the argument, though risk-adverse public sectors bodies tend to believe more providers means a better outcome for the consumer due to competition.

This is certainly what appears to be happening in Australia, though this is a country which needs to operate its own rules.

In markets like the UK, fewer providers might not mean less competition. The land mass which needs to be covered is comparatively small, therefore it is not out of the question to have genuine national providers, which can offer 90% or greater coverage. This means choice for the consumer and the providers have to scrap for attention and subscriptions.

However, Australia is massive, incredibly varied and contains some very hostile environments; not exactly the perfect playing field for telco expansion and greenfield investment. The risk of localised monopolies emerging are greater, due to the final burden of increasing coverage or entering into new segments. With this in mind you can see why the ACCC is getting a bit twitchy.

Of course, consolidation means a bigger subscriber base, greater revenues and therefore increased CAPEX budgets. Investors and management teams have more confidence in being able to upsell services to existing customers, therefore the risk in investing in new infrastructure or upgrades is decreased.

It is six of one and half a dozen of the other when you look at it, though that will come as little comfort to the TPG and Vodafone executives now facing the scrutiny of the ACCC.

Mobile data could get even costlier after T-Mobile and Sprint merger

Report by Rewheel showed Americans already have the most expensive mobile data among all four-operator markets. A move to reduce the number of them could make it worse.

According to the 2H2018 release of its mobile data price monitoring report, the Finland-based research firm Rewheel focused on the US market, which is likely to see the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint closing in the first half of 2019. The report showed that among the 41 countries it analysed (OECD34 + EU28, with seven EU countries not being OECD members), the median gigabyte price of a smartphone deal (nominal price + VAT) in the US is among the highest. Rewheel told Telecoms.com that Greece and Cyprus topped the table, followed by Korea and Canada. The median gigabyte price of a mobile broadband deal in the US is the most expensive among all.

Rewheel mobile data prices

The research compared two groups of markets, those with effectively four mobile operators and those with three. The mobile data price in the four-MNO markets is shown to be about half as expensive as the three-MNO markets, but the US is an outlier. The median US mobile data price per gigabyte is four times higher than the EU four-MNO markets, and sixteen times higher than the big EU markets with four MNOs.

To look at it from another angle, a 30€ monthly deal comes with unlimited data plans (and at least 1000-minute talk time) on smartphones in 13 markets (Korea, Mexico, and 11 EU countries) but can only buy 6GB in the US. Similarly, a 30€ monthly wireless broadband deal can buy unlimited data in 11 EU markets but can only get 40GB in the US.

The effect of the “magic four” driving price down is most telling in Italy: after Iliad launched its mobile service, the price per gigabyte fell by 70% in half a year. On the other hand, the research showed data price stopped falling in the Dutch market after the announced merger of T-Mobile and Tele2, and the price drop has visibly slowed down in Austria after it became a three-MNO market.

The researcher therefore argued that the Americans are already paying more than other four-MNO market users, it could get even worse if the US market became a three-horse race. However we can see in the data that North America is generally more expensive, with Canada, a four-MNO market, is as expensive as the US. Admittedly though, Freedom Mobile is still weak.

An additional angle to examine data price is to look at what is offered to contract users vs. prepaid users, which is excluded from the Rewheel research. The discrepancy is probably most obvious in Africa. According to the analysis published by the research firm Ovum, South Africa’s mobile data is among the highest in the world. This is largely down to the high prices PAYG users face when buying smaller data packages. Rob Shuter, the CEO of MTN, corroborated with his comments at the recent AfricaCom that, despite the average price per gigabyte for postpaid users in Africa is comparable to that of the US (around $3), data prices for prepaid users are prohibitive. The large majority of mobile users in Africa and other emerging markets are on prepaid services.

T-Mobile/Sprint merger finds a new enemy in mysterious lobby group

A new non-profit organization called ‘Protect America’s Wireless’ has emerged, seemingly with the sole objective of hurling spanners at the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger.

Details on the group are relatively thin at the moment, it was only founded last month, though a press call introducing the group and its mission statement on the website both seem to give the same message; the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger will be bad for the national security of the US.

“We must protect our networks from foreign spying,” the team announces on the websites homepage. “Our greatest concern is the pending Sprint T-Mobile merger, which could give countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Germany, and Japan direct access to our networks through the use of foreign-made networking equipment and billions of foreign money. We call on President Trump, Congress, and the FCC to protect American national security by denying these foreign interests access to America’s wireless communications.”

On the press call, David Wade, Founder of Greenlight Strategies, suggested a merger of the two telcos would open up the US to a Chinese ecosystem, while also suggesting any business working closely with Chinese vendors would effectively handover data to the Chinese government. While it is true Sprint owner Softbank has collaborated closely with Huawei and ZTE in the 5G R&D journey, this seems to be taking the conspiracy theory up another level. Deutsche Telekom, parent company of T-Mobile US, also has ties to Chinese vendors, but there aren’t many telcos who don’t.

The theory here is a merger between the two telcos would be bad for national security, effectively handing China a key to the backdoor. There have certainly been objections from a competition perspective, but this is the first we’ve seen with this angle. It’s difficult not to be suspicious about who the puppet master actually is.

Interestingly enough, the group has declined to discuss where funding is emerging from. As a 501c4 non-profit, the team do not have to disclose funding or ownership details, though they are permitted to attempt to influence politics as long as it isn’t their main area of focus. While the groups attempt to tackle US security is a thinly veiled attempt to demonstrate ‘social welfare’, as long as the group isn’t spending more than half of its funds on political-related activities, it can continue to operate half-hidden by shadows.

Finding out who is funding this organization is key to figure out what the angle is and whether this is yet another example of propaganda, though it is not necessarily a simple task. 501c4 non-profits have to complete a Form 990 for the IRS, on which any donations above $5,000 have to be disclosed. Unfortunately, due to the efficiency of the IRS, there is usually a 12-18 month lag on this information being made publicly available.

Until the influencers and donors of this group have been identified, this could be a very dangerous source of misinformation. Statements being made might very well be true, but without transparency it would be safe to be suspicious.

FCC drafts in external opinion to figure out the T-Mobile-Sprint conundrum

Perhaps realising the gravity of the situation, the FCC has drafted in outside help to assess the impact of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger on the US economy.

David Sibley will help the team as an outside consultant reporting into David Lawrence, who is leading the merger taskforce. This should not be seen as an unusual move from the FCC, though perhaps such external opinions should have been brought in earlier considering the impact this merger will have on the telco landscape and competition.

“We are fortunate that Professor Sibley is bringing his considerable economic experience and expertise to bear in this review,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “Rigorous economic analysis plays an important role in all of the Commission’s work and will be essential to a thorough investigation into whether approval of this transaction would be in the public interest.”

This is the big question. The merger will bring the number of national telcos down from four to three, but is this a good or bad move. There are arguments on both sides.

The bad side of the argument is a simple one. Removing one of the major telcos from the ecosystem will reduce competition and hurt the consumer through higher pricing due to a lack of choice. This is not a complicated point to make and a genuine concern, especially in a country like the US which where telcos do not operate everywhere. The risk of monopolies or duopolies in certain areas increases.

On the positive side, while the number of massive telcos decreases, competition increases as the merged entity would offer a more valid threat to AT&T and Verizon through the combined scale. T-Mobile US CEO John Legere often refers to AT&T and Verizon as the duopoly, and while this is an exaggeration, they are miles ahead of T-Mobile and Sprint in third and fourth place. T-Mobile and Sprint are not at the right scale to compete with the leaders individually, but together the merged organization would offer greater scale. The theory here is reducing competitors would make the market more competitive, therefore better for the consumer.

This is the conundrum which the FCC needs to decide on. Evidence and experts will be aplenty on both sides of the argument, though Sibley certainly adds some expertise to the team.

Sibley is currently the John Michael Stuart Centennial Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Prior this role, Sibley worked Head of the Economics Research Group at Bell Communications Research, as well as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis in the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice. He also represented the US in OECD discussions.

As it stands, the merger shot clock is currently on pause, with the FCC deciding it does not want to be rushed. The approval or rejection of mergers and acquisitions are targeted to be completed within a 180-day window, though the FCC is offered the luxury of taking longer if it is a particularly complicated case. This is proving to be one, with the FCC requesting input from competitors of the pair recently, most notably from players outside the mobile ecosystem, suggesting it is investigating the impact on such segments as broadband.

Sprint asks under-threat employees to support redundancies

In a move which perhaps indicates the Sprint/T-Mobile team is starting to get nervous, Sprint CEO Michel Combes is rousing employee support for the very merger which could potentially make them redundant.

On Friday 5 October, Combes is inviting as many employees as possible to a special edition Town Hall which will feature John Legere and Mike Sievert, who will take over as CEO and COO of the combined company should the merger be given the go-ahead. The attendees will be able to ask questions and air their grievances, with perhaps a couple of brave souls condemning the merger due to the number of jobs it will sacrifice to the gods of profit making.

“Speaking of, it was five months ago when Sprint and T-Mobile announced our intentions to merge,” said Combes in the email, which was later filed with the SEC. “Since then, you’ve heard from me and Marcelo – along with much commentary in the media – about why this is such a good deal. Together we can build the best network across the U.S., including rural areas – and establish global leadership in 5G; offer unprecedented products and services at lower prices for consumers and businesses; and create thousands of jobs.”

How many jobs accountant Combes and his psychotic-eyed colleagues can create is questionable, though what is almost certain is redundancies. There will be cross-over when it comes to internal service departments (such as HR and IT) but the majority will most likely come from the retail side of the business, those in the field interacting with customers. In many cities across the US there will be areas which both a T-Mobile and Sprint presence; these will have to be rationalised.

But perhaps this is where Combes is playing his masterstroke. Those who can attend the meeting will be those who work at the HQ in Kansas, these people are less likely to be at risk from redundancies. Combes can have photographers and camera men capturing the happy faces at the event, while the people who are genuinely under threat can’t afford to fly out to Kansas with a weeks’ notice, or have work in the retail stores all around the country. Combes is essentially herding all the happy people together, while the ones who actually have something to object about are left in the cold, voiceless.

Perhaps Combes should be congratulated on his ability to present the concept of democracy while simultaneously silencing any objections through absence.

Maybe this is an indication the team aren’t getting the support they believe is necessary to force the hand of watchdogs approving the deal? The FCC has hit pause on the 180-day shot clock to approve the deal, not necessarily a good sign, industry groups have slammed the merger, customers offered a mixed-bag of feedback and as far as we can tell, Legere’s plea for support from the MVNOs of the US only brought about one proclamation. Asking employees for their approval is certainly risky, there is as much an opportunity for negative feedback as there is for the managers to be strong-armed into shallow, PR-riddled statements.

Despite seeing a few nerves between the lines, the team has hired an integration team, T-Mobile hired Sunit Patel to lead their merger and integration strategy while Kevin Crull leads efforts at Sprint. Vonya McCann and the Government Affairs team are working hard in the lobby front in Washington, while numerous executives from T-Mobile, Softbank and Sprint will be lending their weight to the effort.

Guessing which way the FCC is going to lean on this deal is almost 50/50 according to many of the people which we have spoken to, but with this move perhaps the mood in the merger camp isn’t as positive as some would let on.