Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

U.S. Justice Dept. moves to block AT&T, T-Mobile merger

By | August 31, 2011, 7:48am PDT

Summary: The U.S. government has officially filed suit to block AT&T’s proposed $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile.

The U.S. government on Wednesday officially filed suit to block AT&T’s proposed $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile.

The reason? The acquisition of America’s fourth-largest carrier by its second-largest would “substantially lessen competition” in the industry, violating U.S. antitrust law.

“The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services,” said deputy attorney general James Cole in a statement.

More points made in the filing:

  • The four major national wireless carriers — AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon — account for more than 90 percent of the market.
  • AT&T and T-Mobile compete head-to-head nationwide, in 97 of the America’s 100 largest cellular marketing areas.
  • T-Mobile’s small size allowed it to innovate with Android, HSPA+, national Wi-Fi “hotspot” access and unlimited service plans. That and its value pricing are at risk when joined with AT&T.
  • There’s no one to fill T-Mobile’s role. ”Regional providers face significant competitive limitations, largely stemming from their lack of national networks, and are therefore limited in their ability to compete with the four national carriers,” the DOJ said.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed its complaint in federal court in Washington, seeking a court order to block the deal. It’s officially U.S. v. AT&T Inc., 11-01560, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, though documentation is not yet accessible online now available here, as a .PDF. Or, read it below:

DOJ ATT TMo Complaint 083111

Should it succeed, AT&T would be forced to pay Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile’s German parent company, $3 billion in cash, as well as additional wireless spectrum and reduced charges for calls using AT&T’s network.

“Unless this merger is blocked, competition and innovation will be reduced, and consumers will suffer,” said Sharis Pozen, acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, in a statement.

UPDATE: Cole and Pozen also held a press conference about the complaint.

One point from each of their presentations:

  • Cole: “[We] will remain steadfast in its mission to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws.”
  • Pozen: “It is important to move expeditiously to preserve the lower prices and innovation resulting from T-Mobile’s competitive presence in this market.”

The news comes after AT&T claimed that the deal would add 5,000 new jobs in the U.S. The final decision is expected early next year.

Photo Illustration: Andrew Nusca

Related on ZDNet:

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

Topics

Andrew J. Nusca is associate editor of ZDNet and editor of SmartPlanet.

Disclosure

Andrew Nusca

Andrew J. Nusca does not hold any investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew J. Nusca is an associate editor at ZDNet and editor of SmartPlanet. As a journalist based in New York City, he has written for Popular Mechanics and Men's Vogue and his byline has appeared in New York magazine, The Huffington Post, New York Daily News, Editor & Publisher, New York Press and many others. He also writes The Editorialiste, a media criticism blog.

He is a New York University graduate and former news editor and columnist of the Washington Square News. He is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He has been named "Howard Kurtz, Jr." by film critic John Lichman despite having no relation to him. He lives in his native Philadelphia with his wife, cat and Boston Terrier.

Follow him on Twitter.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
34
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: U.S. Justice Dept. moves to block AT&T, T-Mobile merger
marco5811 5th Sep
Sprint-T-Mobile merger, while having issues of handset compatibility, would make more sense from a competition standpoint. sazkove tipy
Wait, what? Can somebody explain this to me. I understand they want to block the merger, but why would T-Mobile get 3 billion plus the other stuff if the merger that it wants in the first place failed? It's like the DOJ is suing on T-mobiles behalf against their will.

Maybe I'm just being stupid or missing something obvious. If so, please point it out to me, I'd really like to know.
@Aerowind

I have to agree... something doesn't make sense here.

I also thought part of the reason for AT&T wanting to merge with T-Mobile was because T-Mobile is hurting financially and this would allow for use of any T-Mobile's towers for expanded coverage instead of them going out of business and those towers going dormant. Besides there are the three Top Carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint) then US Cellular and all the little companies like Boost, Virgin Mobile, Cricket, etc.. that are owned by the bigger companies too right. I do not think the claim of substantially lessen competition is really that valid.
0 Votes
+ -
lemme break it down, quick
voyager529 31st Aug
@bobiroc

typed 90% of the message out, and a damn windows update stole focus and took my keystrokes as permission to reboot...

--There are four cell networks: AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mo. While a few carriers have a handful of towers in a small geographic region, the other carriers either roam onto one of those networks, or use one of those networks entirely. Boost and Virgin are both prepaid services completely owned by Sprint. Their difference is purely marketing.

--T-Mo's towers wouldn't go dormant if they went bankrupt. They'd either be sold at auction as complete cell sites, or the land itself would likely be bought by the other companies who can't set up their own cell site due to zoning regs and homeowner associations.

--AT&T+T-Mo would give them a commanding majority of subscribers in comparision to Verizon. Rumors state that Sprint isn't doing so hot, and that there have been water cooler discussions of Verizon buying them out, too.

--T-Mo's biggest asset is its spectrum. If AT&T gets it, they'll have more of that than any other company, to say nothing about the fact that it's basically impossible to start a new cell carrier now as it is because all the spectrum suitable enough for cell phones is in the hands of existing carriers.

--AT&T has only publicly stated that they'll honor t-mobile contracts for the duration of those contracts - they haven't agreed to allow the same plans to be honored after the contracts expire. I, for one, would be looking at my bill increasing by nearly $40 a month if I were forced onto a comparable AT&T plan, and that negates the fact that my phone would likely be stuck on EDGE data speeds if I don't upgrade my handset as a result.

So no, this really isn't good for anyone. AT&T Smartphone owners would see some short-term niceness as T-Mobile towers have lots of backhaul that could be utilized in order to load balance the traffic. By any other metric, it's Ma Bell calling all over again.

Joey
@bobiroc They also said that TMO's cheaper rate plans encourage (or stop if you will) rate plan prices from getting higher and higher. ATT and Verizon are definitely over the top on prices already, if TMO went bye bye it would get nasty.

"this would allow for use of any T-Mobile's towers for expanded coverage" --This is the one statement from AT&T that I love the most. They have bought alot of spectrum to keep the competition from getting it. They charge ridiculous prices for plans, then nickel and dime you on everything else. SO, my question to ATT would be, why don't you take some of that money and spectrum and build out your own damn network, instead of letting a smaller provider like TMO do it, and then say "we need" it to expand. That's a crock.
0 Votes
+ -
It's "normal" business...
el1jones 31st Aug
...for the company that initiated the merger to pay the other company a payment if the merger fails, to compensate for lost expenses and fees. However I personally have never seen a billion dollar payment, much less a 3 billion dollar payment. There's something weird about that.
@el1jones

The chances of that one going through, however, is pretty darn high.
@Aerowind
This is SOP. If a merger is not completed -- for ANY reason other than something on the smaller company's end -- that smaller company gets money.
@Aerowind
Apple from competition from a clone maker?
None of these compute!
@Aerowind Antitrust law isn't about doing things "on behalf" of a business, whether it's against their will or not.

Antitrust law is about maintaining competition.

The free market relies on competition too keep innovation high and prices low. It offers customers the ability to go somewhere else if they're not satisfied with what they've got.

Reducing competition reduces consumer choice and innovation, and drives up prices (if you're the only game in town, there's no reason to keep prices low - after all, who else would people turn to?).

The government isn't acting on behalf of AT&T or T-Mobile. The government is acting on the behalf of the people, the customers.

"typed 90% of the message out, and a damn windows update stole focus and took my keystrokes as permission to reboot..."

I hate that, I really do X(. If there's one thing that should NEVER be allowed, it's stealing focus.
The fee is $2.5billion in the google motorola deal. This is business as usual, these are just really big deals so the fees are correspondingly big.
0 Votes
+ -
Thank Goodness
x I'm tc 31st Aug
This was a bad idea from the start. I understand concerns about spectrum, but having two choices for GSM in the US is a must.

I think a Sprint-T-Mobile merger, while having issues of handset compatibility, would make more sense from a competition standpoint. If the world goes LTE, those issues might even become negligible in the coming decade.
ATT claims +5000 on a merger? Who is stupid enough to believe that? Mergers = layoffs. Why does our media let companies get away with outrageous claims like this?
Agreed. I have read 5 different articles today and not one has mentioned the number of job LOSSES the merger would result in. At least broadbandreports.com has linked to several articles pointing out AT&T's lies about jobs and spectrum, but they aren't really "main stream" as far as news goes. *sigh*
@FireThorn
you saw that it is 5000+ jobs in the US. Many layoffs are from upper mgmt, and those for Tmobile arent in the US if i am not mistaken.
@FireThorn maybe AT&T's number of employees go up by 5000 - it might be that they will short term need to hire 5000 people to handle all of the complaints - plus from what i read, the T-mobile customers would need to exchange phones - they would need people to do that. my guess also is that these jobs would not be permanent and probably low pay -McJobs
@FireThorn You're right, and that number is taken out of ATT context. They've already stated 20-25,000 people would "probably" lose jobs. Then they state they would bring 5k jobs back to the US. A loss even at that, but here's the kicker. ATT's claim of 5k jobs back to US works like this: Merge, shutdown or fire overseas call desk, pull down the TMO signs on TMO's existing call desk centers already here in the US, put up ATT signs, and BOOM... 5000 jobs back to the US, even though those 5000 were already employed here.
Obama needs to go, big mistake voting for him... I hope Romney or Perry take over and fire all the jokers at the Just Dept.

Government, stay out of business!
@Hasam1991 Right! I can't wait to pay $250 a month for cell service! Hey...let's lower their taxes too then they can get us coming and going. They are job creators, for people in China.
0 Votes
+ -
@Hasam1991 Let me guess... you're on sucky arse ATT service so you can have an iPhone and you want this deal to go through so you can have good service too. News flash, TMO customers are perfectly happy the way things are right now. Fair prices plans, great customer service, fair to good coverage, a slew of very nice Android and BB phones vs. Crappy signals, crappy service, higher prices and an iPhone. I'll opt for TMO as it is right now anyday. And if this deal goes through, I'll happily move to Sprint.
Yes it's 5,000 they just forgot the (-) sign before
5,000 jobs (mostly call-centers) - that's what at&t "promises" (oh, i love that!) to bring BACK to US if merger is approved.
Anybody belives it?
I blame at&t for making telco companies most hated in US - i think that honor should belong to cable-cos...
@vgrig Shutdown overseas ATT call centers, make US TMO call centers ATT... and there you have it. 5000 jobs "moved" back to the US. It's just unfortunate that those 5000 jobs won't be NEW jobs, they'll be jobs that already existed. Then take away the 20-25k they said would lose their jobs and I think ATT might be in the red when it comes to jobs in this deal.
0 Votes
+ -
Looking a bit deeper....
rhonin 31st Aug
Reading as written, it appears the Justice Dept wants at minimum 4 major carriers plus a host of minors.
Hmmm......
@rhonin

So if T-Mobile USA keeps at this pace and fails here in the US is the government just going to throw money at them too because they are too big to fail at the tax payers expense?
@bobiroc They were doing just fine until Apple bailed ATT out with iPhone. That and Sprint/Nextel merger is what put TMO at #4. I honestly don't understand why anyone wouldn't opt for way better rate plans, customer service, and reception vs. ATT crappiness just for 1 phone. I see alot of people on East Coast say TMO reception is really bad there, so maybe that's it. But I've personally made numerous trips from Seattle - LA - Arizona - New Mexico - Texas and never had any issue with my reception at all for the whole trip. So I'm not sure why TMO doesn't get more customers. I'll never leave unless they fold or become ATT.
To Hasam1991:
Yeah, let's keep government out of business. Business will do what's best for common-folk to 'take care' of us. They want to become monopolies? Don't interfere. Bush raised debt limit 8 times. Reagan (aka 'god') raised ceiling 17 times. Romney did Universal Healthcare in MA, now he's against it. Yeah, Republicans have the answers. Let's do away with Social Security, Medicare, and why not, 40-hr workweek, unemployment comp. Go for it!!!
I'm sorry, when was the debt ceiling or your terrible knowledge about the Republican Party brought up? It wasn't? Drat, must be some idiot just acting like himself.
@Michael Alan Goff
You said nothing when Hasam1991 expressed his anti-Obama personal-opinion, offering no evidence. But, 'my' short reply of undisputed facts is what triggered your obviously-biased reaction? Had I agreed and praised his comment you'd say nothing. Typical Right agressiveness, venom, blinders and thoughtlessness.
@SpamNone Hmm, now I understand perfectly about this whole ATT TMO deal... thanks for the clarification and insight /end major sarcasm
@SpamNone

Actually, I'm sure the Republicans would be fine with this. It's not as if they want to have no laws at all, and competition is a known and accepted free market principle.

Yeah, the Republicans prefer to have the market take care of things rather than the government, but I don't think they're so extreme as to kill basic economic principles in the process.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are establishing gov't monopolies, and couldn't care less about basic economics.
@CobraA1
So, when Repubicans are in office and keep raising the debt ceiling, because they know what they're doing fiscally, we must always blame Democrats. Hmmm, it's somehow confusing....
0 Votes
+ -
Is T-Mobile going out of business?
MSFTWorshipper 31st Aug
I have a feature phone on T-Mobile, how will that affect me?
0 Votes
+ -
@MSFTWorshipper It probably won't. The deal even if it goes through is roughly 9-12 months from now. ATT stated they would honor current contracts and that infrastructure/network merging would probably take at least another 2 years beyond that. So, by the time handsets would even be an issue, you'd probably be due for another phone anyway. And if not, at the very least it'll be 3 years (give or take) before you'd have to worry about it.
Sprint-T-Mobile merger, while having issues of handset compatibility, would make more sense from a competition standpoint. sazkove tipy

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