New York ends resistance to T-Mobile/Sprint merger

New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced her office will not pursue an appeal against the courts decision to approve the $26 billion T-Mobile US and Sprint merger.

While the other states involved in the lawsuit to prevent the combination of the two telcos are yet to formally make their position public, James was the primary driving force behind the legal opposition. Others might try to step up, but without one of the US’ fastest growing political forces at the helm, responses look relatively pitiful.

“After a thorough analysis, New York has decided not to move forward with an appeal in this case. Instead, we hope to work with all the parties to ensure that consumers get the best pricing and service possible, that networks are built out throughout our state, and that good-paying jobs are created here in New York.

“We are gratified that this process has yielded commitments from T-Mobile to create jobs in Rochester and engage in robust national diversity initiatives that will connect our communities with good jobs and technology. We are committed to continuing to fight for affordability and access for all of New York’s mobile customers.”

James’ opposition to the $26 billion merger first emerged in June 2019 when, alongside California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, support was raised for a multi-state lawsuit against the corporate transaction. James managed to convince 12 State Attorney Generals to oppose the deal, questioning whether it would be beneficial for the consumer and attempting to disprove that Dish would not be adequate as a fourth mobile operator.

In a 173-page opinion, Judge Victor Marrero effectively said the merger was a good idea as Sprint was not worthy of being called competition. The combined entity would be a much better representative, while Marrero believed Dish plans to scale rapidly were viable, even if few others do. His ruling effectively killed the resistance to the merger.

Although some will be disappointed the lawyers are giving up the fight, it might simply be a case of looking at the bigger picture. James has pointed to job creation promises in her state, though now the attention will turn to ensure these jobs are actually created. Back in October, Colorado and Mississippi both did the same; the legal opposition was dropped as agreements were forged with T-Mobile US and Dish to offer benefits to the states.

While there will be some benefits to the transaction, it is impossible to avoid the negatives. T-Mobile US and Sprint will be able to realise efficiencies to better compete with AT&T and Verizon, while Dish will offer more jobs. However, there will be a rationalisation project after the transaction leading to job losses in shared business functions (finance, legal etc.) and also in areas where the retail footprint overlaps. Redundancies are unavoidable.

The question which remains is who will get the best slice of the benefits?

Colorado agreed to drop the lawsuit against the merger if Dish was to create 2,000 jobs in the statey and will also keep its corporate HQ in the city of Littleton for at least seven years. The Attorney General has also negotiated an accelerated 5G deployment timeline with T-Mobile US in exchange. Over in Mississippi, former-Attorney General Jim Hood also negotiated an accelerated 5G deployment plan and also a ceiling on tariffs for consumers for a five-year period.

These were the only two states to drop out prior to the conclusion of the lawsuit, though now the lobbying for attention can begin as T-Mobile/Sprint and Dish are wooed by each of the states for their own benefit. James has said the deal offers new jobs to citizens in Rochester, New York, though with other states considering more legal action, T-Mobile US and Dish might have to hit the negotiating table elsewhere.

In California, Attorney General Becerra is considering his options, while Ken Paxton, the Attorney General for Texas, has not stated whether he will pursue an appeal to the decision. These might not be the catalyst for opposition that Letitia James is, but they will certainly be able to cause a problem. T-Mobile US, Sprint and Dish executives want this deal done, are will probably be willing to negotiate some attractive deals.

Vodafone and TPG win appeal for $15bn mega merger

The Australian Federal Court has overturned a decision by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), paving the way for Vodafone and TPG to create a converged telco giant.

The ACCC had originally opposed to decision on the grounds of weakened competition, believing TPG would create a mobile offering while Vodafone would expand its broadband offering independently, however the courts disagreed. Both the telcos argued the financials did not add up to pursue convergence strategies independently, with the courts now greenlighting an AUS$15 billion merger after an 18-month wait.

Vodafone and TPG have said the merger is set to be complete by mid-2020, subject to approvals from other regulators and other shareholders, as well as the likely appeal from the ACCC.

“The ACCC’s concern was that with this merger, mobile data prices will be higher than they would be otherwise,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims. “These concerns were reinforced by statements from the industry welcoming the merger and the consequent ‘rational’ pricing.

“We stand by our decision to oppose this merger. If the ACCC won 100% of the cases we took it would be a sign we weren’t doing our job properly; by only picking ‘safe’ cases and not standing up for what we believe in. The future without a merger is uncertain. But we know that competition is lost when main incumbents acquire innovative new competitors.”

Theoretically, the ACCC has a point, but it has been ignoring some very significant factors. Firstly, deploying a mobile network in a country so vast as Australia is incredibly expensive. Secondly, in banning Huawei as a supplier of RAN equipment, TPG’s business case was undermined. And finally, introducing additional competition and encouraging a race to the bottom does not necessarily create a healthy and sustainable telco industry.

TPG has said continuously over the last few months that without being able to work with Huawei the commercials of deploying a mobile network do not add up. On the increased competition, India and Italy are two markets which have demonstrated more competition and decreased tariffs can eventually lead to a very difficult position.

Mobile Broadband
Telco Market share Telco Market share
Optus 31.4% Optus 13.6%
Telstra 50.4% Telstra 55%
Vodafone 18.5% TPG 16.8%
Other 14.4%

While it is not guaranteed, there is hope this merger could end up being a positive for the Australian telecommunication market. A merged entity could provide more competition for the Telstra and Optus pair who are leading the market share rankings. Both of these telcos are able to entice customer with bundled service offerings, something which is becoming increasingly popular in the eyes of the consumer. The merged Vodafone and TPG proposition can now theoretically compete on a more level playing field.

“For the first time, Australia will have a third, fully-integrated telecommunications company,” said Vodafone Australia CEO Iñaki Berroeta. “This will give us the scale to compete head-to-head across the whole telecoms market which will drive more competition, investment and innovation, delivering more choice and value for Australian consumers and businesses.”

Competition is certainly not balanced in the Australian market currently. Increased competition might well fragment the market further, creating a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy for Telstra. It might have created more value for the consumer, as the ACCC so strongly insists, but it might have also worked out for Telstra, giving it a stronger position as market share is dwindled for the smaller players.

This ruling by no means guarantees the long-term health of the Australia telco industry, but it does create three converged players, perhaps the most logical position in the pursuit of sustainability.

Dish CEO claims it can compete from Day One

Dish CEO Charlie Ergen has been sitting in a New York court room to defend the approval of the T-Mobile US-Sprint merger, but also insisting his company can compete in the cut-throat telco industry.

This week is a critical one for executives in both the T-Mobile US and Sprint businesses. For the next few days, these men and women will be face-to-face with the 14 Attorney Generals, led by New York’s chief prosecutor Letitia James, in a court case which will decide the future of the business.

With approvals being granted by the relevant regulatory authorities, the last hurdle the duo has to navigate is the lawsuit from the Attorney Generals. These 14 lawyers oppose the merger on the grounds of competition, but Ergen is the star witness for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

“We will compete with the largest operators in the United States, and we’ll compete from day one,” Ergen said in court.

Ergen believes the Dish mobile business will be live within 30 days of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger being approved. At this point, Ergen will get his hands-on Sprint’s prepaid business, Boost. The brand will continue in the pre-paid market for the short-term, though Dish plan to move into the post-paid segment sharpish.

This is perhaps what the judgement will lie on. Will the court believe Ergen? Can this CEO convince Judge Victor Marrero that Dish is a viable alternative to the Sprint business which currently exists?

Looking at the positive side of the argument, Dish has spectrum. It has been competing in the spectrum auctions for years and has a treasure trove, which is currently under threat. Dish has been told to use it or lose it. Another interesting factor is the financing; Ergen claims to have $10 billion lined-up in loans from the banks. Then there is the agreement with T-Mobile US. For the next seven years, Dish will be able to make use of the T-Mobile US network where it hasn’t deployed its own.

These are all interesting points to consider, but then you have to look at the other side of the equation.

Dish has never been in the mobile business. Will it be able to get an effective mobile service up-and-running within 30 days? We’re not too sure. Is $10 billion enough to fulfil the grand promises which have been made to gain approvals from the authorities? If Sprint currently has 50 million subscribers, will the Dish mobile proposition ever reach this mark to maintain the current levels of competition across the US?

These are all queries which will need to be answered. Ergen will be placed under cross-examination from the Attorney Generals, and there are plenty of threads to tug on to unravel this story.

The question which remains is can Ergen prove Dish is a viable replacement for Sprint to maintain the competitive environment which is present today? That is the question which this case rests on.

New York Attorney General maintains opposition to T-Mobile/Sprint merger

The T-Mobile/Sprint merger might have received official backing from government agencies, but New York Attorney General Letitia James is not giving up on her case to block it.

The backdrop to this recommitment to the cause is a slightly unusual one. The press conference itself was focused on a lawsuit which was filed against Juul, an e-cigarette company James is looking to have banned, but the floor was opened-up to ‘any other business’.

“Our case against T-Mobile is an antitrust violation, obviously we’re concerned with anti-competitive behaviour,” said James. “Providing public benefits are good but they do not address the antitrust violation.”

In announcing John Legere will step-down from the top job at T-Mobile US, and outlining the succession plan, T-Mobile US is clearly confident the deal will now pass without complication. However, James is a very interesting opponent.

James comes across as an incredibly ambitious individual, and it might not surprise that many if she decides to run for alternative public office positions. It is too late for James to throw her hat into the ring for next years’ elections, though there will plenty of opportunity for this lawyer to climb the greasy pole of politics.

This is what should worry any of the firms James has cast her eye on. Politicians love a war story, a scalp to display in front of the voting public. Campaign speeches are full of rhetoric of how that individual has selflessly fought for the general public and won. Next time a US politician takes the stage at a campaign rally, note the number of times the following phase (or variant of) is used;

When I was [insert previous position] I fought for the people of [insert place] to [insert social equality example].

If James has grander political ambitions, she will need plenty of war stories. It is a tool in the popularity contest which is politics and fighting against the T-Mobile US/Sprint merger could be a perfect example. The Juul case is another, while James has been pretty vocal in pursuit of President Trump’s tax filings.

James has decided the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger is anticompetitive. The position is relatively simple; more service providers means more competition, which is only good for the consumer. There are of course pros and cons to both sides of the telco consolidation argument, but James has set her position, and this will not be changed. With the trial set to begin on December 9, this saga might come to a close soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.