Sprint Asks Regulators to Block AT&T/T-Mobile Merger

rated by 0 users
This post has 7 Replies | 0 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,722
Points 1,208,955
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Wed, Jun 1 2011 1:08 AM

Although we cannot think of a single recent instance where regulators flat-out refused a merger, Sprint is arguing that they should do so with the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile union. On Tuesday, Sprint filed a formal, 130-page request asking the FCC to block the merger, saying that even if AT&T divested itself of key assets, consumers would still be harmed.

Sprint used a lot of harsh language in its request to the FCC and its press release. It said that the merger would create a "duopoly" -- meaning AT&T and Verizon -- which would own 76 percent of the wireless market between them. This so-called duopoly, would "stunt investment and innovation. No divestitures or conditions can remedy these fundamental anti-consumer and anti-competitive harms. AT&T’s takeover of T- Mobile must be blocked."

The carrier went onto to say that this merger was tantamount to a "government bailout" of AT&T: "In effect, AT&T is simply seeking a government bailout for problems of its own making and expects the cost of the bailout to be shouldered by American consumers. Instead of paying Deutsche Telekom $39 billion, AT&T could invest a fraction of that amount to expand its LTE deployment to nearly all Americans. But rather than respond to the market demands of a competitive industry, AT&T has chosen to eliminate competition and transform a competitive market into a duopoly."

We hate to point out pesky little things called details, but AT&T spending its own money to buy an already built network is not the same thing as the United States giving Goldman Sachs $12 billion to keep it afloat ... just sayin'.

Sprint says it fears that AT&T and Verizon will set prices like dueling mafia families coming to agreement on how to divvy up their territories. Sprint insists that this imagined price setting would drive up costs for the consumers and allow the two to increase rates for backhaul services, the fees that allow carriers to pass traffic on each other's networks. Bigger still, Sprint argues that the two would lockout access to the handsets makers, who would be forbidden from allowing other carriers to sell their latest, greatest devices.

"AT&T’s spectrum position is the envy of the industry." Sprint says.

As for AT&T's argument that it needs T-Mobile to increase access to wireless spectrum, Sprint says pshaw. The company argues, "AT&T has the largest licensed spectrum holdings of any wireless carrier. AT&T also is the largest holder of unused spectrum, with 40 MHz, on a population-weighted nationwide basis, of unused or underutilized AWS, 700 MHz, and WCS spectrum. AT&T could use this reserve of spectrum to improve service for its customers, but has chosen instead to warehouse it for future services. Moreover, AT&T has repeatedly reassured investors that it has the spectrum and network capacity it needs to meet the growing demand for data services."

Sprint makes some valid points. Then again, while less competition isn't good for consumers, it's still hard to feel sorry for Sprint. The company is forced to note in the footnotes of the formal document that "Clearwire holds rights to more than 100 MHz of 2.5 GHz spectrum" and that Sprint sells Sprint-branded capacity from Clearwire’s network and "holds an ownership stake in Clearwire."

We also find it funny that Sprint didn't feel the same need to protect the consumer against potential of rising prices when it bought Nextel, which, ironically enough, was the last big telecom merger regulators reviewed.

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,865
Points 29,645
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: United States, Connecticut

The biggest point I see is that ATT will own almost twice the amount of spectrum of even Verizon if the merger goes through. Though Sprint owns plenty of spectrum to compete in the market.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,112
Points 38,335
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Texas
acarzt replied on Wed, Jun 1 2011 12:50 PM

700Mhz Spectrum would not be very good for any kind of data transfer. It wont be able to hit the high speeds of the higher frequency spectrums. You would have to use a larger channel width and more spatial streams, and then you'd have a problem with channel diversity and it would just be a mess. There is a reason it is "underutilized".

I do think tmobile and att should stay seperate tho to keep the market competitive. T-mobile has some good prices!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,798
Points 40,665
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: New York

I see some one's jelly! LOL

I don't think verizon and AT&T will be like a mafia dealing prices :D, just don't see it in them...

I don't really care for the merge as it doesn't really affect me too much. I can see that maybe it can become a issue for consumers with less competition comes higher prices thing. Meh, just got to see how this all plays out.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Wed, Jun 1 2011 4:28 PM

acarzt:
I do think tmobile and att should stay seperate tho to keep the market competitive. T-mobile has some good prices!

And some good deals as well. Shame they're going to bite the AT&T dust if the merger goes through.

While it is scary imagining them having the most PCS and AWS-1 frequency. I don't see eye to eye on the fact that they'll have a monopoly over frequency; well except those two frequencies unless T-Mobile owns more...

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 207
Points 1,515
Joined: Feb 2011

I can understand where Sprint is coming from here...it does sorta feel like At&t and Verizon basically own the market, and if they do get much bigger prices would be completely dictated by them. Considering cell phones have practically become a necessity in the US, this does require careful consideration. The other issue is quality. From what ive heard At&t doesnt seem to care about their customers much. I dont know if the same can be said about Verizon, but i certainly would want to have to deal with a business that doesnt care about me as a customer when there are better options.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Wed, Jun 1 2011 8:07 PM

pwrntspd:
From what ive heard At&t doesnt seem to care about their customers much.

Yet people still use them. That's another reason why AT&T is buying T-Mobile. T-Mobile has excellent customer satisfaction, integrate them and most of that negative reception will be thrown out of the window.

pwrntspd:
Considering cell phones have practically become a necessity in the US

Ironically, I don't have one... Yet...

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 467
Points 3,710
Joined: Feb 2011

Competition keeps prices in check and drives innovation.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (8 items) | RSS