DoJ doesn’t share FCC enthusiasm for T-Mobile/Sprint – report

The FCC might have a skip in its step after securing concessions from T-Mobile US and Sprint ahead of the proposed merger, but the Department of Justice is not convinced.

Following the approval from FCC Chairman Ajir Pai, and the vote of support from Commissioner Brendan Carr, Sprint share price rose almost 19%. The long-awaited merger to create a genuine challenger to AT&T and Verizon on a national scale looked to be heading in the right direction, only for the DoJ to be the fly in the ointment.

According to Bloomberg, the DoJ believes the concessions made by the pair do not go far enough. This is a move which breaks with tradition, generally the FCC and the DoJ sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to acquisitions and mergers, though it appears antitrust investigators are still concerned over the threat to competition.

This is perhaps the nuance between the two departments. The DoJ, and various Attorney Generals throughout the US, are primarily concerned with competition, while the FCC rhetoric has been more focused on securing a more efficient and broader 5G rollout.

The concessions have taken the form of three commitments. Firstly, T-Mobile suggests 97% of the population could be covered by 5G within three years. Secondly, Sprint’s prepaid brand Boost would be sold to preserve competition. And finally, there would be no price increases while the 5G network is being deployed.

Of course, there is a very real risk to competition. Taking the number of national telcos from four down to three will mean less choice in the market. Less choice means less opportunity for disruption, even if the hatred from T-Mobile US CEO John Legere towards AT&T and Verizon is effectively teemed from his ears. There are too many examples through history of abuses when it comes to competition for some to be completely comfortable.

You also have to weigh up the current cost of mobile connectivity in the US. Although much has been done to help the consumer, ARPU is still notably more than in Europe, where competition is significantly higher. According to Moneysavingpro.com, the average postpaid contract in the US is as much as $80.25 compared to $30.06 in the UK. US consumers are already feeling the sharp end of the competition stick, and few would want to risk this difference to increase further.

The question is how much pain the consumer can tolerate in pursuit of leadership in the 5G race. Carr has spoken of his primary role at the FCC being focused on creating a leadership position for the US in the 5G era and part of this will depend on getting 5G in the hands of the consumer as quickly as possible. The sooner consumers have 5G, the sooner US firms can scale new services and products before assaulting the international markets. This is a playbook taken from the very successful 4G era.

With the US taking a leadership position in the 4G world, companies like Google, Amazon, Uber, AirBnB and Lyft thrived. These are companies which would have existed without the 4G euphoria, but success was compounded because of the connectivity gains. We are likely to see the same trend in the 5G world, with new products and services being designed for 5G connectivity. The question which remains is where they will call home.

This is the equation the FCC and the DoJ have to balance. The need to protect the consumer against the drive towards future economic success on the global stage. There is not going to be a perfect answer for this one, the US is gambling on the future success of the economy after all.

FCC Chairman convinced by T-Mobile/Sprint concessions

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has publicly stated he believes the concessions made by T-Mobile US and Sprint are enough to ensure the merger would be in the public interest.

Over the course of the weekend, rumours emerged over concessions the pair would have to make to get the support of the FCC, though rarely are sources so spot on. The merged business will now have to commit to a nationwide 5G deployment within three years, sell Sprint’s prepaid brand and promise not to raise prices during the rollout years, if it wants the greenlight of the FCC.

What is worth noting is this is not a greenlight just yet. Pai has said yes, though he will need a majority vote from the Commissioners. Commissioner Brendan Carr has already pledged his support, and we suspect Michael O’Reilly will in the immediate future also. The Democrats might want to throw a spanner in the works, but this would be largely irrelevant with O’Reilly’s support.

“In light of the significant commitments made by T-Mobile and Sprint as well as the facts in the record to date, I believe that this transaction is in the public interest and intend to recommend to my colleagues that the FCC approve it,” Pai said in a statement.

“This is a unique opportunity to speed up the deployment of 5G throughout the United States and bring much faster mobile broadband to rural Americans. We should seize this opportunity.”

As you can imagine, T-Mobile US CEO John Legere certainly has something to say on the matter.

“Let me be clear,” Legere stated in a blog entry. “These aren’t just words, they’re verifiable, enforceable and specific commitments that bring to life how the New T-Mobile will deliver a world-leading nationwide 5G network – truly 5G for all, create more competition in broadband, and continue to give customers more choices, better value and better service.”

The first commitment made by T-Mobile US and Sprint is a nationwide 5G network. Considering Legere has been claiming his team would be the first to rollout a genuine 5G network for some time, it comes as little surprise the FCC will want to hold him accountable.

Over a three-year period, presumably starting when the greenlight is shown, the new 5G network will cover 97% of the population. 75% of the population will be covered with mid-band spectrum, while the full 97% will have low-band. This is a very traditional approach to rolling out a network, as it meets the demands of capacity and efficiency, though there is a sacrifice on speed.

Perhaps more importantly for the FCC, the plan also covers objectives to bridge the digital divide. 85% of the rural population will be connected during this period, increasing to 90% after six years. This is not to say all the farmers fields will be blanketed in 5G, though it does help provide an alternative for the complicated fixed broadband equation in the rural communities.

Moving onto the divestment, selling Sprint’s Boost prepaid brand seems to be enough to satisfy the competition cravings of Pai. What is worth noting is this will not be a complete break-away from the business as it will have to run on the T-Mobile US network. Unfortunately, MVNOs in the US are not as free to operate as those in Europe, as switching the supporting network would mean have to change out all the SIM cards.

This becomes complicated as you do not necessarily know who your customers are in a prepaid business model. The situation certainly encourages more competition, it will after all not be part of the T-Mobile US/Sprint family anymore, but it is far from a perfect scenario.

Finally, Legere has promised tariffs will not become more expensive during the deployment period, another worry for the FCC should the duo want to meet the ambitious objectives to compete with AT&T and Verizon. However, it does appear Legere is promising 5G tariffs will not include a premium either.

And now onto the other side of the aisle. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has tweeted her opinions on the concessions and it appears she is not convinced.

“We’ve seen this kind of consolidation in airlines and with drug companies. It hasn’t worked out well for consumers. But now the @FCC wants to bless the same kind of consolidation for wireless carriers. I have serious doubts.”

Rosenworcel has also suggested the decision should be put out for public consultation. We suspect Pai will want to avoid this scenario, as it would be incredibly time-demanding; the Chairman will want the merger distraction off his desk as soon as possible.

Commissioner Geoffrey Starks is yet to make a comment, but DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT go on his Twitter page if you haven’t watched the latest Game of Thrones episode.

We understand the Democrat and Republican Commissioners are going to be at each other’s throats over pretty much every decision, however trolling any innocent individual with a GoT spoiler is a low blow.

Starks and your correspondent are going to have some issues.

T-Mobile and Sprint ponder concessions to force through merger

T-Mobile US and Sprint are weighing up the sale of one of the pair’s prepaid brands in an attempt to woo decision makers into greenlighting the divisive merger.

Dating back to April 2018, you will be forgiven for forgetting this saga is still an-going debate in the US. With privacy scandals, the Huawei drama and BT’s dreadful logo stealing all the column inches, the debate over whether T-Mobile US and Sprint should be allowed to merge their operations has been relegated below the fold. But it is still a thing.

The countdown clock, the 180 days the FCC gives itself to approve mergers, spent a lot of time on pause, though the longer the process takes the more likely it appears the answer will be no. If the relevant authorities were looking at the information in front of them, an answer would surely have been given by now, but sceptics might assume the FCC is desperately searching for a reason to say no.

According to Bloomberg, the duo is prepared to make concessions to force through the deal. These concessions include the sale of one prepaid brand, a pledge to finish the rollout of a 5G network in three years and promises not to raise prices during this deployment.

In terms of the timeline, crunch day is fast approaching. The FCC 180-day review is set to come to a close at the end of June, though the deal also has to be signed-off by the Department of Justice. With decision time on the horizon, egos will have to be stroked and arguments set in stone.

The issue at the heart of this debate is focused on competition. Critics of the deal suggest consumers who are at the low-end of the tariffs scale will effectively be punished with higher prices in a market with only three providers. T-Mobile US and Sprint have suggested prices would be kept down in an attempt to compete with AT&T and Verizon, though more than paper-thin promises will be needed.

Selling off one of the prepaid brands would help to preserve competition in this segment, offering more choice for those consumers who do wish to, or cannot afford to, invest in postpaid contracts. It is believed Sprint’s Boost brand is the one facing the chop, with the Virgin Mobile and Metro brands to remain in the potentially merged operations.

Peter Adderton, who sold Boost to Sprint in 2006, has previously stated he would invest in the divested brand. Adderton has been a critic of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, though if there is a chance to make money entrepreneurs have a way of changing their tune.

Reports have been emerging over the last couple of weeks suggest regulators are still concerned over competition despite assurances made by executives. The Wall Street Journal suggests the deal would not go ahead with the proposed structure of the company, a claim which T-Mobile US CEO John Legere rejects, suggesting there is still some stroking to be done.

Although trying to figure out which way this deal will go is little more than guess work at the moment, there is a feeling it is not going the way T-Mobile and Sprint would want. Rumours are only rumours, but the familiarity of the reports is starting to add weight. It does sound like T-Mobile and Sprint will have to make some considerable concessions to get the greenlight.

T-Mobile/Sprint merger approval is still hanging in the balance

The US DoJ’s anti-trust chief has not made up his mind on the T-Mobile/Sprint merger case, saying the deal must meet key criteria.

Speaking on CNBC (see below) Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for the US Departments of Justice’s Antitrust Division, said he has not made up his mind yet. Although he refused to comment on if his staff resisted the deal, as was reported by the media, Delrahim did allude to more data being requested from the two parties.

Delrahim also dismissed the notion that there is any magical number of competitors to deliver optimal competition in a regulated market like telecom. Any proposed deal needs to deliver efficiency, but the efficiency needs to be both merger specific, that is the efficiency cannot be achieved through other means, and verifiable.

With regard to the effects of the merger on consumers, Delrahim listed two items, price effect and coordinated effect. The first is related to the potential price move up or down after the merger. The second refers to if the merged company has the incentive to continue to compete with the existing competitors on price, in this case AT&T and Verizon. 5G will also factor in the DoJ’s decision making consideration, Delrahim said. But, instead of being positioned as a counteract against China, in this interview Delrahim was treating 5G in the framework of service offer to consumers, and the merger’s impact on it.

When being asked on the timeline, Delrahim said there is no deadline on the DoJ side, except that the deal cannot be completed before a certain date. This timeline can be extended if more deliberation is needed.

On the FCC front, another hurdle that the two carriers need to overcome before they can become one, they continued to play the offensive. Last week representatives from the two companies, including John Legere, the CEO of T-Mobile, and Marcelo Claure, Executive Chairman of Sprint, called on the FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and her Legal Advisor. The team presented the updated merger case, including their pledge to deploy home broadband, drive down prices, deliver more benefits to prepaid customers, and create, instead of cutting, jobs.

FCC’s unofficial 180-day consultation period was reopened early this month, after being halted three times, and is now on day 147.

Makan Delrahim’s CNBC interview is here:

 

 

T-Mobile merger will help us defeat China – Sprint CTO

The propaganda assault to validate the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger shows no signs of slowing, and now Sprint is suggesting it will help the US defeat those pesky communists.

Fear is tried and tested strategy to accomplish one’s ambitions, and Sprint is stirring the xenophobic pot. Just as President Trump used fear to justify his wall, and UKIP roused curtain twitchers to abandon the European Union, Sprint CTO John Saw is leaning on the Chinese threat as a means to legitimise the proposed merger between his firm and T-Mobile US.

“We are proud that the 5G potential of our proposed merger with T-Mobile has already spurred progress in the US, but China remains the clear leader in the race to 5G with a number of critical advantages,” said Saw in a blog post. “Multiple independent reports show that without aggressive action, the US will not overcome China’s progress.”

Saw is not implying any threat directly, but the world has already been done for him. Such is the intensity of the anti-China sentiment over the last couple of months, the mere mention of the country will get patriotic and paranoid US citizens and politicians fidgety. China is the enemy, or so the rhetoric tells us, they can’t win the 5G race, that would be un-American.

Whether a merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint would bridge the chasm which has developed between the two nations is slightly contentious, though Saw does have some valid points when it comes to the readiness of the US in comparison to China.

From a spectrum perspective, Saw claims no US telco has sufficient access to all three layers of spectrum (low, medium and high) for a genuine nationwide mobile 5G network, though Chinese telcos do. Some suggest China effectively gives spectrum away for free, as theoretically this encourages network rollout as there are more funds available. Sceptics will undermine this theory, though as Saw points out, China’s operators have large amounts of unencumbered 2.6 GHz, 3.5 GHz and 4.5 GHz spectrum for 5G.

Of course, should the merger be approved, the new T-Mobile company would be able to ride to the rescue, combining the spectrum holdings of the two organizations into a portfolio which can deliver nationwide 5G.

In terms of network densification, this is another area where the US is behind the Chinese, and a critical issue if 5G is to deliver the promised results. China currently has approximately 1.9 million sites, compared to 200,000 across the US, having built 350,000 over the last three years whereas the US has constructed 30,000 new sites.

Some might point to the difference in population the two countries, 327.2 million citizens in the US vs. 1.386 billion in China, though network density is certainly better in the far East. As it stands, the US has 4.7 cell sites per 10,000 people, while this number is 14.1 over in China. A merged T-Mobile business would have access to 3.3 sites per 10,000 POPs, compared to an average of 4.7 for Chinese telcos. This does not create parity, but according to Saw it is a better position.

Saw points towards regulatory difficulties in the US in slowing down progress being made. Merging two of the telcos would reduce the bottleneck, therefore allowing greater freedoms to the telco to roll out 5G infrastructure.

This also leads onto the investment case. A merged T-Mobile and Sprint business will be able to more efficiently invest a promised $40 billion to scale the network. China has been leaps and bounds ahead of the US when it comes to capital investment for years, this is no surprise.

While some of the statistics being put forward by Saw are interesting, there is nothing new being presented and we are sceptical a merged T-Mobile and Sprint business would counteract these points in any notably manner. It does seem to fit in quite well to the lobby mission to get the merger approved, though we hope people don’t get too distracted by the PR plug here.

Bringing China into the equation is an excellent move from Sprint. All the hard work of making China the bad guy has been done, and Sprint is exploiting this position perfectly. The telco is not over-egging the pudding, but enough of the arch-enemy has been mentioned to get people thinking.

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.