DOJ Staffers Think T-Mobile's Merger Benefit Claims Are Nonsense
from the merge-ALL-the-things! dept
While the FCC announced this week it would unsurprisingly be a rubber stamp for Sprint and T-Mobile's proposed $26 billion merger, the DOJ still isn't buying the companies' claims that further consolidation of the wireless sector will be wonderful for competition and American consumers. Reports this week surfaced that DOJ staffers were still recommending that the agency block the $26 billion merger, based on fears that the deal would reduce market competition and likely result in higher prices overall:
"The U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust division staff has recommended the agency file a lawsuit to block T-Mobile US’s $26 billion acquisition of smaller rival Sprint, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The final decision on whether to allow two of the four nationwide wireless carriers to merge now lies with political appointees at the department, headed by antitrust division chief Makan Delrahim."
History and antitrust data is pretty clear on this point: when you reduce the overall number of major competitors in telecom, the end result is almost always higher prices, fewer jobs, and worse service. Growth for growth's sake may be wonderful for investors and executives over the short term, but over the longer term it's immensely harmful. You need only look at the US Telecom sector; one of the most despised, uncompetitive, and aggressively terrible sectors in all of American industry. That we refuse to learn that mindless consolidation is harmful directly reflects our refusal to learn from history.
Time and time again, telecom companies promise that somehow this merger will finally fix the universe of problems caused by... mindless merger mania. And time and time again, these telecom giants fail utterly to follow through on their promises, using the reduction in competition (and regulatory apathy) to jack up prices and lag on innovation and network expansion.
The fact that T-Mobile CEO John Legere plays a hip Millennial on Periscope and sometimes says "fuck" on Twitter doesn't change this equation. A major reason T-Mobile was so competitive and disruptive is (and "government is incapable of ever doing good" folks like to ignore this bit of history) that the DOJ blocked AT&T's attempted 2011 acquisition of the company, a decision based not only on the evidence that such consolidation would hurt consumers, but because the companies involved made a wide variety of merger benefit claims that were downright preposterous.
The DOJ did the same thing in 2014 when Sprint and T-Mobile tried to merge, again pointing to data in numerous international markets showing such consolidation raises prices and harms competition. The only reason we find ourselves once again in the same position is because T-Mobile and Sprint executives want to take advantage of the Trump administration's almost mindless belief that letting industry do whatever the fuck it wants somehow results in near-mystical outcomes (the exact kind of thinking that gave us Comcast in the first place).
While DOJ staffers are advising blocking the deal, that doesn't mean Delrahim will actually listen to them (especially if Trump applies pressure), or will do a good job in court defending consumers from mindless merger mania should the DOJ decide to sue.
Delrahim has been an odd duck to nail down in terms of antitrust enforcement. It's true that his DOJ sued to stop the AT&T Time Warner merger, but only after Rupert Murdoch (for his own competitive reasons) heavily pressured Trump to demand it. And while his antitrust enforcers' efforts to outline the obvious perils of that deal were hamstrung by ever-narrowing US antitrust guidelines and a ridiculously myopic ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, many of Delrahim's wounds were self-inflicted (like failing to mention net neutrality as essential competitive context at any point during the trial or appeal).
If the FCC and DOJ both wind up approving the deal, numerous State AGs have said they'll sue to prevent it from succeeding. That said, it's still pretty abundantly clear that America has no intention of learning from history and experience. We collectively hate Comcast, but there's still a sizeable segment that hasn't realized telecom's monopoly problems (and resulting price hikes, atrocious customer service, and patchy availability) are thanks to two things: our collective gullibility when it comes to merger mania and empty merger promises, and regulators and lawmakers that are either too timid or politically compromised to do the right thing and defend healthy markets, competition, and American consumers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, competition, doj, fcc, merger
Companies: sprint, t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not to worry...
The administration will soon purge such staffers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF the DoJ actually gets their act together
I hope they do a better job than they did against the AT&T merger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to admit that after their last showing in court and the history of megamerges, I'm not holding my breath that the outcome will be a benefit to the general public.
I really wish that some of these more public facing agencies that are supposed to be working to the general public's benefit, would actually do what they are supposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not mindless, corrupt
the Trump administration's almost mindless belief that letting industry do whatever the fuck it wants somehow results in near-mystical outcomes (the exact kind of thinking that gave us Comcast in the first place).
It's not mindless because it does result in 'near-mystical outcomes'. To be specific near mystical outcomes for the companies, who are able to use their ability to do whatever they want to ensure a steady stream of profits at the cost of their customers, and if that results in said customers being screwed over oh well, it's not like they're rich and therefor matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not mindless, corrupt
'near-mystical outcomes'
An unprecedented shift in wealth, destruction of the middle class, unbridled corporate power. Magic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sure do have a thing about T-Mobile. Get a bad bill or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note that most serious financial people don't believe Sprint can survive without the merger. They have negative free cash flow, which means they can't pay to upgrade their network without taking on debt. Oh yeah, they have $33 billion of that already and paid more in interest last year than they earned.
If you're going to rail against it at least talk to the financials. A bankrupt Sprint isn't a viable competitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi, John.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No sorry. Just because someone doesn't agree with something you think doesn't automatically make them the person you want them to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure the big shots will still get their bonuses while middle management takes it on the chin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They'll have to wait for Richard Bennett to give them a turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
WAPO work for you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sprint-without-t-mobile-investors-shudder-to-think/2019 /03/11/644f6690-43fe-11e9-94ab-d2dda3c0df52_story.html?utm_term=.876bcafcc9bf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, are you saying, if it wasn't for all the other mergers that were approved, Sprint wouldn't be in so bad a financial shape that a merger is likely the only thing that would save them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, I'm saying that if the merger doesn't happen Sprint is likely to enter bankrupcy, and that is worse for consumers and Sprint employees than a merger with T-Mobile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see this argument constantly.
If it were true, that's not an argument for the merger.
If Sprint is "dying" (despite their constant promises of things like 5G and other network investments) and its death means that Verizon and AT&T will get bigger, that means the real answer is breaking up the industry and not further consolidation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Meek will Inherit Nothing
We collectively hate Comcast, but there's still a sizeable segment that hasn't realized telecom's monopoly problems (and resulting price hikes, atrocious customer service, and patchy availability) are thanks to two things: our collective gullibility when it comes to merger mania and empty merger promises, and regulators and lawmakers that are either too timid or politically compromised to do the right thing and defend healthy markets, competition, and American consumers.
Exceptional!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition... it depends on your point of view
They always say this will increase competition and you guys always disagree. I think they're (Sprint/T-Mobile) looking at as a competition to see who can be the biggest and make the most money. It was never about competing for consumers... sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choking
I choke on laughing every time I read about sky-is-falling antitrust concerns.
I’ve never had a major problem with Comcast/Xfinity.
Microsoft tends to buy companies for products; then give the product away for free.
T-mobile is looking to expand spectrum. This would give currently in-supportable cell phones yet another option.
Antitrust is a misnomer.
Bigger companies can maximise on volume and lower prices.
Look what happened when Whole Foods became part of Amazon! Or, again, how Microsoft works.
The biggest monopoly complainers are competition who’s product doesn’t complete; or more often is inferior. It’s never about protecting consumers. Not in reality!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]