Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

AT&T: Is the T-Mobile effort worth the hassle?

By | November 28, 2011, 1:00am PST

Summary: For AT&T, T-Mobile’s spectrum outweighs the distractions from an ongoing battle with regulators over a $39 billion acquisition.

AT&T pulled its proposed merger with T-Mobile from the Federal Communications Commission, said it will take a $4 billion charge and reportedly will aim to divest network assets in a bid to get the Justice Department to somehow go for a deal.

It has been a busy few days for AT&T, which is still aiming to complete a T-Mobile acquisition that increasingly looks like a $39 billion long shot.

Analysts think this deal is cooked. Stifel Nicolaus analyst Christopher King said in a research note that AT&T’s moves of late signal that the company is aiming to start settlement talks with the government. Nevertheless, King said a deal is unlikely:

We view the odds of reaching an agreeable settlement as quite long, as the gov’t. would be looking for some type of deal that would maintain four reasonably strong national wireless carriers. An AT&T deal with T-Mobile, even assuming significant divestitures, would — at best — create a weakened fourth national carrier, even assuming a complete acquisition of the divested assets by a non-wireless carrier (Google, CenturyLink, etc.).

Macquarie analyst Kevin Smithen said:

We expect that the final outcome may not be known until August or September of 2012, when we expect T will have to pay T-Mo its full breakup fee of $3 billion plus spectrum and better roaming rates.

The big question here is whether this AT&T-T-Mobile song and dance with the government is worth the effort. On the surface, the deal looks like a huge distraction for AT&T. Underneath, however, it’s clear that AT&T has to push forward. It needs the spectrum that T-Mobile has. The Bloomberg report gets to the point:

AT&T’s proposal is likely to include the divestiture of a higher share of customers and lower percentage of spectrum, said the person familiar with the matter. The company needs more capacity to serve users as it adds customers and more of them adopt data-intensive smartphones.

For AT&T, the spectrum outweighs a gaudier customer count. T-Mobile subscribers will fall due to the iPhone launch at Sprint, AT&T and Verizon Wireless. AT&T is in it for the spectrum. T-Mobile’s spectrum is valuable and the plan B for the carrier may be to partner with a cable company.

AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts outlined the spectrum issues back in March. Watts said:

For different reasons both AT&T and T-Mobile are facing impending spectrum shortages in major markets. AT&T has been at the leading edge of mobile data growth on our network as a result of supporting more smart phones, more tablets and more eReaders than anyone else in the country. This has created an urgent need — an ongoing need for significantly more spectrum to support this explosive demand. T-Mobile is also limited in its spectrum capacity, so much so that T-Mobile has no spectrum to build out an LTE network.

In other words, that wireless spectrum shortage means that AT&T can’t completely punt on the T-Mobile deal. The carrier seems more than willing to push the T-Mobile acquisition uphill and hope time runs out on the Obama administration and its regulators. Next up is more positioning ahead of a February courtroom showdown with the DOJ.

More:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

24
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: AT&T: Is the T-Mobile effort worth the hassle?
tkejlboom 12th Dec
@aaronc0027

Ah, so according to your brilliant technical mind, it's all about spectrum. So Sprint has by far the most spectrum, so SPRINT must have overwhelmingly the best service and most bandwidth! Why, they must be like the #1 carrier!? No? Not even close? Not even getting closer?
Good grief . What does AT&T pay you to right this ? Because AT&T needs more spectrum they should be allowed to take over a company with better rates and customer service . Yeah AT&T's network is lame as well . I guess that is another reason for allowing them to takeover competition .
@The_Todd

The only part of this article questioning the government's decision is a quote from AT&Ts general counsel.

Not sure why you find it offensive that someone might report on why AT&T is so interested in the deal.
@SlithyTove

The entire article is written from the position that AT&T can only grow high speed services by deploying them on fresh spectrum rather than actually replacing their relics with new equipment. The position that AT&T can only increase their bandwidth by increasing their spectrum is completely overblown.
T-mobile wanted to sell. Governments are the only entities that can confiscate your business or property without your consent.
@baggins_z

Spectrum belongs to the people baggin_z . Americans shouldn't have that spectrum used against them in the form of less choice and higher wireless rates.....unless ofcourse you would prefer the telco industry to be highly regulated . I mean it would already be fully unionized if this deal did go though . Why not ?

@ SilthyTove

The way I read this piece it made it sound like AT&T needs TMO's spectrum or it won't be able to compete . Simply not true . They will be fine for the foreseeable future . There will be many auctions ahead and they also will still get the spectrum they purchased for Qualcomm .
Allowing AT&T to obtain more of a scarce resource doesn't seem like a win for the consumer.
unless T-mobile is willing to sell. If it bothers you so much, feel free to raise the capital needed to put in a competing bid. Oh. Wait. You'd rather have the state determine who can own what. Let me amend that. You'd rather have the state telling OTHER people what they can and can't own.
@baggins_z

You're tilting at windmills. I took these ninnies to task a few months ago on this issue and they had a meltdown. They think that the government should be able to stop a consentual merger because "AT&T has bad customer service." These people have no problem getting the government involved in every aspect of their lives, at least until their ox is gored.
@baggins_z

For your simplistic argument to hold any weight AT&T would have to quit relying on spectrum that is held by the American people .....That and huge government contracts that AT&T gets..... because it is in bed with our government .
@The_Todd

+1
I assume there's some deep dark reason that AT&T couldn't simply rent the spectrum from T-Mobile, or do some kind of partnership? No, just greed.

AT&T (aka Southwestern Bell) takes the long term view, especially when it comes to controlling the customer and limiting competition. Yes, spectrum is important, but in the end, eliminating competition and driving up rates are the true goal.
@terry flores TRUE
guys are like a push button doll. Press the button that says "corporation," and out pops the word "greed" from your speaker.
@baggins_z - to me, "greed" is bad when it involves anti-competitive tactics, cornering the market, and outright fraud. AT&T has a well-documented history of hindering innovation to protect their investments in aging infrastructure and technology. The essence of a free market economy is the ability to compete and offer the customer a reason to buy your product, not force them by limiting others' ability to compete.
0 Votes
+ -
@baggins_z

Yeah, that is because corporation = greed! If it walks like a greedy duck...
@baggins_z

wtf, you can't be for real can you?

Doesn't raise any alarms to you that they have $39 billion but claim they don't have the resources to improve their existing network? How about that T-mobile currently lists $46 billion is assets, including $15 billion is spectrum alone? So yeah, not only do you fail to get that greed isn't about what you took last year but about the continuing need to keep taking more, $39 billion is a low ball offer.
Out of curiosity, what's stopping T-Mobile from getting the Iphone?
@duplai@... in one word "APPLE"
@duplai@...

Apple requires a multi year agreement for that phone . Naturally with TMO being for sale they are not able to give one .
ATT wants the spectrum off the market, to increase demand. They can't use it with current phones. More capacity comes from putting in more cells, decreasing individual cell coverage.
@dickdavies

That is ridiculous. They need the spectrum to facilitate future growth. Stop spreading fud. You only make yourself look silly.
@aaronc0027

Ah, so according to your brilliant technical mind, it's all about spectrum. So Sprint has by far the most spectrum, so SPRINT must have overwhelmingly the best service and most bandwidth! Why, they must be like the #1 carrier!? No? Not even close? Not even getting closer?
I'm a T-Mobile customer (cell), and an AT&T customer (iPad). It's simple: TM is cheaper and gives better service. If AT&T succeeds, I'll simply switch to Verizon. If not, I'll stay with TM.
I find this very odd that AT&T is saying this. What do they mean by "compete" and "serve their customers." There are many other much smaller wireless services who are managing to serve their customers just fine. Isn't T-Mobile spectrum smaller than AT&T's? T-Mobile has been managing to get by with their small resource so why can't AT&T? I really don't care much how the deal goes but I just don't understand AT&T's argument for wanting to buy T-Mobile being based off of serving its customers. It seems more like they want to add more customers and make a lot more money. So just say the real reason and not a bunch of pitch phrases about it being about giving their customers better service.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix