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.

FCC reveals glacial progress on the resale of location data by operators

US operators have been reselling the location data they accumulate about their subscribers and have been slow to deliver on promises to stop.

This practice was already well-known by the time it was highlighted in an expose at the start of this year. At the time operators were quick to stress that they’re pulling out all the stops to protect their customers’ personal data but Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was apparently skeptical. Frustrated by their deafening silence on the matter she wrote to the four US MNOs at the start of the month to ask them what they were playing at.

Rosenworcel received relatively prompt responses from those operators and decided to publish them alongside a mea culpa that was probably directed more at other FCC Commissioners than herself. “The FCC has been totally silent about press reports that for a few hundred dollars shady middlemen can sell your location within a few hundred meters based on your wireless phone data. That’s unacceptable,” she said.

“I don’t recall consenting to this surveillance when I signed up for wireless service—and I bet neither do you. This is an issue that affects the privacy and security of every American with a wireless phone. It is chilling to think what a black market for this data could mean in the hands of criminals, stalkers, and those who wish to do us harm. I will continue to press this agency to make public what it knows about what happened. But I do not believe consumers should be kept in the dark. That is why I am making these letters available today.”

You can read the contrite and exculpatory responses here, but in case you can’t be bothered here’s a summary. AT&T said it started phasing out this sort of thing in June 2018, while still making location data available in emergencies. Additionally the letter attempted to distance AT&T from the reports in question and said it had stopped sharing and data with location aggregators and LBS providers on 29 March 2019.

Sprint said it current works with just one LBS (location based services) provider but will pack that in by the end of this month. T-Mobile said it had terminated all contracts with LBS types by 9 March 2019 and went on at considerable length to correct what it considers to be flawed reporting on how it used to handle this sort of thing. Verizon said it had terminated all location deals by the end of March 2019.

So that would appear to be that. All the operators have said they don’t deal with location data aggregators anymore and presumably Rosenworcel is a happy Commissioner. But the fact that they’ve only just stopped reselling their customer’s personal data, and even then only after persistent nagging and bad publicity, is a further illustration of how cavalier the tech industry has been with personal data to date.

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:

 

 

AT&T will stick with 5GE after settling with Sprint

US operator Sprint has settled the case it brought against AT&T for unfair competition with the 5GE marketing gimmick with apparently little to show for it.

The legal trade publication Law360 reported that Sprint and AT&T have reached a settlement of the case Sprint brought to a federal court in New York in February. A short statement was mailed to the media, “The parties have amicably resolved this matter,” it said. A source told Law360 that AT&T will continue to use “5G Evolution” or 5GE in its marketing and ads materials. No details on the terms of settlement have been disclosed.

In the court case, Sprint complained that AT&T was conducting false advertising, therefore misleading consumers, and in turn, directly harming Sprint’s business interest. In addition to the law suit, Sprint also took out a full-page ad in the New York Times in March to warn consumers “Don’t be fooled. 5G Evolution isn’t new or true 5G. It is fake 5G.”

The other big US operators were not holding back from attacking AT&T’s antics either. Verizon’s CTO wrote an open letter calling on the industry “to commit to labeling something 5G only if new device hardware is connecting to the network using new radio technology to deliver new capabilities,” as well as promised that Verizon “won’t take an old phone and just change the software to turn the 4 in the status bar into a 5.” T-Mobile, on the other hand, in keeping with its CEO’s maverick spirit, uploaded a video showing someone taping over the LTE indicator on the phone with a sticker labelled “9G”.

Even the OEMs would not let go the chance to mock AT&T’s shenanigans. Xiaomi, when launching its 5G smartphone before MWC in Barcelona, pointedly highlighted the 5G network by Orange it used for the demo was real 5G, “not fake 5G”.

A few days before the announcement of settlement AT&T defended itself at the court that consumers were not fooled into believing the 5GE is actually 5G. On the other hand, for the purists like the EU-backed 5G Infrastructure Association or Qualcomm, none of the 5G networks launched so far in Korea and the US can be called “real 5G”.

T-Mobile Sprint merger cast into doubt once more

The US Department of Justice might not let the merger go through in its current form, according to reports.

The WSJ has the scoop, citing those handy people familiar with the matter once more, who also seem to have been chatting to Reuters. According to the latter, which isn’t paywalled, the DoJ has concerns about the deal as it’s currently structured. The news caused shares in both companies to fall and their respective CEOs to tweet coded dissent.

Both John Legere and Marcelo Claure said the article is, respectively, untrue and not accurate. While on the surface these might appear to be absolute rebuttals, it’s actually a bit more nuanced than that. Legere says the premise of the article is untrue without detailing what he thinks that premise is, while any small part of the piece could be inaccurate without the overall claim being so.

Here’s the opening paragraph of the WSJ story: “Justice Department antitrust enforcement staff have told T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. that their planned merger is unlikely to be approved as currently structured, according to people familiar with the matter, casting doubt on the fate of the $26 billion deal.”

There’s not much else to say at this stage but the process certainly seems to be dragging on. Presumably there has been some discussions between the two companies and someone on the DoJ side decided to up the pressure on TMUS and Sprint to compromise via this mini-leak. Let’s see.

 

 

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.

DoJ rumoured to be half-convinced by T-Mobile/Sprint 5G argument

The anti-trust chief in the Department of Justice is said to be receptive to T-Mobile and Sprint’s argument that the combined company will improve America’s competitiveness in 5G.

Fox Business reporter Charlie Gasparino claimed people close to Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for the DoJ’s Antitrust Division, have disclosed that the department is receptive to the argument that a third strong operator in the US will help the country compete better with China.

Gasparino first tweeted about his “Scoop sources” before he went on the screen:

As we reported earlier, the proposed merger still needs to overcome two barriers before it can be completed: the DoJ and the FCC. Gasparino explained that, unlike the FCC which needs a panel decision, the DoJ’s decision rests on Delrahim’s office alone. It looks that the argument for 5G competitiveness from the merger is outweighing his concerns for anti-trust consequences. Also significantly, Gasparino said, the FCC tends to follow the DoJ’s decision in cases like this.

5G has always been a central argument in the merger case. In its public interest statement published in June 2018, the companies stressed the investment commitment and the benefits the New T-Mobile would bring to America. $40 billion in the development of a nationwide 5G network and services will be made by 2024. “The New T-Mobile network will have approximately double the total capacity and triple the total 5G capacity of T-Mobile and Sprint combined, with 5G speeds four to six times what they could achieve on their own,” the companies said in the close to 700-page document.

The argument of competing with China on 5G with a third strong operator comes days after the companies claimed the merger would benefit up to 50 million Americans who currently do not have access to broadband, when T-Mobile launched its LTE FWA trial.

Meanwhile, the position of FCC is not getting clearer. On 7 March, for the third time, the agency put a hold on its 180-day countdown to gather feedback while ploughing through new information, which, FCC detailed, is related to the extension of a simulation model for the merger provided by the companies. The Commission will re-open the countdown at day 122 on 4 April.

The market was encouraged by the news. Both companies’ share prices grew following Gasparino’s tweet. T-Mobile closed the day up by 1.42%, and Sprint’s up by 1.75%.

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.