Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
Summary: Here's a look at AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal and how they don't look so hot if there's no deal.
AT&T's case for its $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile revolved around wireless spectrum, and improved network and more coverage for the U.S. But now that the Department of Justice wants to scuttle the deal, those arguments will haunt AT&T if the T-Mobile acquisition ultimately falls apart.
This AT&T-T-Mobile deal isn't over by any stretch. AT&T is likely to request an expedited hearing on the DOJ's request for a preliminary injunction to stop the merger. The DOJ argues that the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile will lead to two companies (Verizon is the other) owning too much of the wireless market.
Wells Fargo analyst Jennifer Fritzsche noted that regulators appear to favor a U.S. wireless market with four major players. The problem is that regulators would be hard-pressed to stop a T-Mobile-Sprint merger. AT&T will argue that the DOJ overstepped on its antitrust boundaries.
Let's assume that the AT&T-T-Mobile deal is shelved for good. Then what?
Here's a look at AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal and how they don't look so hot if there's no deal.
- Argument 1: In March, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said that the T-Mobile deal is about wireless spectrum. The joint company would have better coverage. It's hard to argue with that spectrum case. However, if there's no deal the next question will revolve around when and how AT&T will get more wireless spectrum. The other conundrum will be cost. How much will AT&T have to pay to procure more spectrum?
- Argument 2: The combined AT&T and T-Mobile network would have better coverage and "dense network assets." The implication is that AT&T and T-Mobile have network gaps that need to be filled. Without a deal, it's going to be hard for AT&T to contend that its network is up to snuff. After all, AT&T was going to spend $39 billion for T-Mobile to fast track network improvements.
- Argument 3: More 4G services for the U.S. is a natural outcome of an AT&T-T-Mobile merger. This argument was designed to woo regulators worried about rural wireless broadband coverage. If there's no deal, it's unclear whether AT&T will expand as quickly. Rivals are likely to note that AT&T needed T-Mobile to be a 4G player. The implication will be that AT&T is lacking in the 4G department.
Add it up and these arguments for the T-Mobile deal may back AT&T into the perception corner.
Related:
- Feds aim to block AT&T’s T-Mobile purchase: The fallout
- CNET: Why the DOJ means business on AT&T/T-Mobile
- CBS News: Feds sue to block AT&T deal to buy T-Mobile
- CBS News: U.S. vs. AT&T complaint
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
Given that fact pattern, we have a simple equation: who will give us higher speeds in more places with higher quality? AKA, who has the deeper pockets to spend on their network? AT&T or Sprint? Looking at who was actually willing to stroke a check, I've got to side with the T.
I'm undersatnding it like you do.
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
Wrong! AT&T's deep pockets over and over go straight to profit maximization. Competition is the ONLY incentive for companies to innovate and improve. AT&T is awful for the entire industry. They focus on making themselves attractive to investors instead of customers. If you rely on AT&T, not only do the contents of those deep pockets go straight into the pockets of the board, but AT&T ends up starving the rest of the industry for investment funds. Let DT spin-off T-Mob if, as a global telecom they've decided they no longer wish to be global or a telecom.
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
I understand that TMO in the US is profitable, operating in the black. I saw repeated figures of 1.2b in annual profits. It would be short sighted and a disservice to the shareholdrs if they will just close the doors. DT Pulling out of the US market may happen, but it wil lliekly get sold to someone else, perhaps a new player to the market. Either way, competition is essential.
What I am surprised not to see in all of the news surrounding this is the monpoly position. Not as the DOJ presents it as 'fewer players' in the market, but more so a monopoly on the type of network. For my part as an IT manager, when the deal goes through I will only have one choice of providers for my international travelers. This is simply unacceptable.
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
Maybe Deutche Telecom could sell it to Carlos Slim Helu and he could add it to his empire. Press 1 for Spanish or 2 for English.
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
...and I understand AT&T has spectrum they aren't even using... Greedy, greedy AT&T...
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
Certainly seems to me that T-Mobile had an inking about the failure of the deal and hedged its bets pretty well.
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
You're right. ATT can do a lot of network upgrading for $39B. To think that integrating the two network would speed up network expansion is naive. This is $39B primarily for expanded spectrum.
Verizon Will Benefit, Reducing Competition
AT&T will be delayed in its efforts to compete with Verizon ebcause it will not have the 4G capabilities. It's not just a matter of building more cell towers. They need more space, or spectrum, in the air.
As to the "competition" argument based on price, T-Mobile, with lower prices, is losing customers to Verizon, one of the higher-priced carriers. In other words people will pay more if they think they are getting better service. So, much for the DOJ argument that T-Mobile is needed to hold down prices.
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
I think the DOJ would manage just fine pointing to the rate increases just since March. You do have a point about people being willing to pay for better quality, though. If someone could demonstrate better quality and service in my area than T-mob, I'd switch. I'd be able to switch, because there would be multiple national carriers!
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner
RE: Why AT&T's arguments for the T-Mobile deal back it into a corner