DOJ Antitrust Boss Delrahim Ignored Hard Data As He Rubber Stamped T-Mobile Merger
from the dysfunction-junction dept
Technically, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, is supposed to enforce antitrust law and derail harmful monopolies when they arise. But that's certainly not what's happening with the DOJ review of T-Mobile's $26 billion merger with Sprint, which antitrust experts (and even the DOJ's own economists) have repeatedly warned will indisputably reduce competition, raise rates, and result in thousands of layoffs as duplicative positions are eliminated.
As state AGs continue their lawsuit to stop the merger, details were revealed last week in court showing that Delrahim did everything in his power to help shovel the deal through the merger approval process, including providing T-Mobile tips (via both personal and business accounts) on which officials they should focus their lobbying attention on in order to get the deal across the finish line:
"As the $26 billion blockbuster merger between T-Mobile and Sprint teetered this summer, Makan Delrahim, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, labored to rescue it behind the scenes, according to text messages revealed this week in a lawsuit to block the deal.
Mr. Delrahim connected company executives with the F.C.C. and members of Congress. And he gave executives insight into the thinking of Ajit Pai, the chairman of the F.C.C. who would also have to approve the merger.
He is “open and willing” to discussions about the deal, Mr. Delrahim said in one text message in June, a month before regulators blessed the transaction."
Delrahim's job is to look at the evidence and protect markets where necessary, not help companies push deals that erode competition, harm workers, and hurt markets. Keep in mind, past deals just like this one (AT&T/T-Mobile 2011, T-Mobile/Sprint 2014) were blocked because the harm was so obvious there was simply no way to justify it. This latest merger is no different, yet government officials have stopped even pretending to care. They're intent on shoveling this turd of a deal across the finish line at all costs at the behest of T-Mobile, Sprint, and Japan's Softbank.
The FCC rubber stamped the merger before Commissioners had even seen their own staff's full economic analysis. FCC staffers privately met with T-Mobile numerous times to massage their underlying and fragile arguments. Former FCC officials (Clyburn, McDowell) have happily lobbied on T-Mobile's behalf, and T-Mobile executives ramped up patronage of Trump's DC hotels to curry favor with the administration. That's all capped off by Delrahim all but putting out runway lights for T-Mobile in a bid to shine up a deal that, again, is going to be indisputably bad for consumers and the market.
Former FCC staffers like Gigi Sohn were not what you'd call impressed:
When I was at the @FCC, we were told point blank that we could never tell a stakeholder to lobby a member of Congress for ANYTHING. https://t.co/LJeRAte84s
— Gigi Sohn (@gigibsohn) December 20, 2019
To justify its mindless rubber stamp of the deal, the DOJ has pushed forth a shaky plan that involves giving Dish Network some spectrum (and prepaid brand Boost Mobile), then just hoping the company can build a replacement fourth wireless carrier over the next 7 years. But with T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T all heavily incentivized to make sure a strong fourth competitor never emerges, Dish having a reputation for empty promises and bluster, and regulators largely captured by industry players (who again, want less competition to boost revenues) few serious analysts actually think the plan's going to work.
This is, of course, the same DOJ that folks seriously hope will come in and "fix big tech" via an ocean of new antitrust inquiries. But it's pretty damn clear this DOJ doesn't actually give a damn about those responsibilities, and has been largely captured by the telecom industry under former Verizon lawyer Bill Barr. And while US corruption is nothing new, we seem to be entering a new era where we can't even be bothered with the faintest pretense to the contrary.
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, assistance, competition, doj, fcc, lobbying, makan delrahim
Companies: sprint, t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Click your heels three times...
When members of congress conflate big tech with telecom how could we expect the DoJ to be able to tell the difference. When the demands for anti-trust come down, Makan Delrahim will just ask Ajit Pai what to do. In that case, we can expect that enforcement will happen when big tech overlaps with some of the telecom's new businesses, like entertainment or maybe instant messaging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Click your heels three times...
... and repeat "There's no place like monopoly. There's nothing like monopoly! There is no monopoly!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Click your heels three times...
What makes you think they're conflating the two? I've seen multiple articles on TD where politicians use 'big tech' to rile up gullible fools, but I'm not aware of them giving near(if any) the same attention and concern when it comes to the telecom industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Click your heels three times...
A few weeks back (I couldn't find the article) some congresscritter (Pelosi?) was complaining about big tech when what they were in fact complaining about was telecom. That, to me is conflation. Of course it could be that that conflation is purposeful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Click your heels three times...
Because the DoJ definitely takes its cues from Nancy Pelosi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Click your heels three times...
Conflation is purposeful as in political science 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Click your heels three times...
"When members of congress conflate big tech with telecom how could we expect the DoJ to be able to tell the difference."
Why does the DOJ need Congress to tell them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
laws?
Isnt some law being broken by having the DOJ person contact the companies like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: laws ?
Fair an Just laws require clarity.
Exactly what "criminal behavior" has T-Mobile/Sprint committed that authorizes any government agency to forcibly block their voluntary merger ??
U.S. AntiTrust Law is couched in vague, indefinable terms -- permitting the government and its courts to omit defining in advance what is a "monopolistic" or "anti-competitive" crime... and what is not.
Basic Anglo-Saxon law rests on a structure of clear definitions of crime, known in advance and discoverable by a jury after due legal process.
But U.S. antitrust laws thrive on deliberate vagueness and ex post facto rulings.
No businessman knows when he has committed an antitrust crime and when he has not -- and he will never know until some government bureaucrat arbitrarily decides to swoops down upon him and prosecute.
AntiTrust law is bunk and primarily used to bludgeon politically disfavored businesses.
Government itself is the ultimate monopoly and restrainer of market competition ... and yet beloved by the antitrust enthusiasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: laws ?
Wouldn't there be something about a DoJ department head aiding and abetting the target of an investigation? While it is a transaction being investigated rather than an individual or a corporation, the investigators should not be assisting the transaction they are supposed to be investigating. But, as you point out, laws are not necessarily clear making me unsure of what law might have been transgressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: laws ?
What's next ... ya gonna tell me anti corruption laws are bunk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: laws ?
couldn't have said it better. I find it extremely funny those that purport to care about the system and the process don't say a word when it aligns with their political views.
There are plenty of economists that have said this this should be allowed stating the benefits of the merger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure it'll be beneficial, but to who(beyond the execs)?
There are plenty of economists that have said this this should be allowed stating the benefits of the merger.
Gonna need a [Citation Needed] for that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: laws ?
Care about what system? What process, merging or the anti trust review? What political views?
What benefits are you referring to, the corporate press release, technical analysis by experts in the field or some economists who know little about the underlying infrastructure requirements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: laws ?
obviously a paid shill or lobbyist for Telecom industry...
they can pay so much to spread FUD, but can't be bothered to actually follow the contracts and agreements they have signed. Their word means nothing and they will not follow through on anything they promise, yet due to the significant bribes being paid, this will not change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: laws?
Depends on how you word the encounter...
I know I’m playing dirty. But then again it’s not a lot to the imagination how things took place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"T-Mobile's $26 billion merger with Sprint, which antitrust experts (and even the DOJ's own economists) have repeatedly warned will indisputably reduce competition, raise rates, and result in thousands of layoffs as duplicative positions are eliminated."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "will indisputably reduce competition"
nope, that is highly disputable speculation by anonymous "experts".
"Competition" is not a measurable "quantity" -- it is a "process" that spontaneously occurs in free markets via mass individual choices and actions of buyers and sellers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "will indisputably reduce competition"
"nope, that is highly disputable speculation by anonymous "experts"."
Which of the following have already happened?
1) reduce competition
2) raise rates
3) thousands of layoffs
""Competition" is not a measurable "quantity""
Who said it was?
"spontaneously occurs in free markets"
That would be quite the trick if there was such a thing as a free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am tired of "I am shocked, shocked"
Let's try a different classic.
Bonus points for finding an English version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am tired of "I am shocked, shocked"
I am Shocked, Shocked, I tell you!
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article is fake news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
^^^ This comment is useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And that reply to the useless comment was funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is fake news?
and what is covfefe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:What is covfefe?
Some say it is overpriced half-baked poor quality floor sweepings mixed with hog-wash, that are hard to swallow and leave a bitter aftertaste.
https://www.redbubble.com/people/damienoujia/works/26648384-covfefe-coffee-starbucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:What is covfefe?
I thought covfefe was a Coffee brand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:What is covfefe?
Is it that coffee bean eaten by cows and then deficated on the ground where people pick it up and make covfefe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What is covfefe?
You can get busted for walking around picking stuff up in cow pastures looking for mushrooms. I'm not sure about confefe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:What is covfefe?
It was a weak attempt at joke relating to the cat poop coffee called Kopi Luwak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Poor lil triggered snowflakes says what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmm
“Poor little triggered snowflakes say what?”
That when t mobile says this will result in faster speeds would it survive scrutiny upon litigation against it if I receive anything but?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“T mobiles promises are fake news”
Fixed for accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Forgot to log in again, eh Richard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhhh...
This is, of course, the same DOJ that folks seriously hope will come in and "fix big tech" via an ocean of new antitrust inquiries. But it's pretty damn clear this DOJ doesn't actually give a damn about those responsibilities, and has been largely captured by the telecom industry under former Verizon lawyer Bill Barr.
That being the same industry that's been using 'big tech' as a distraction/punching bag in order to draw attention away from themselves? The one that effectively owns at the very least the DOJ's anti-trust division?
I'm pretty sure they'd be very interested in and energetic about those 'responsibilities' when it comes to the likes of Google and Facebook, even if they ignore them when dealing with AT&T and friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing has greater effect than money. I have to wonder how much it took to make Delrahim give this his approval, knowing full well what is going to happen to jobs, prices etc? I also have to adk if there is a single person heafing up any government dept or agency eho is actually doing what they are supposed to? This merger 'go ahead' stinks and everyone knows it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to ask..
Sprint gets 26 billion,,
But who pays the taxes??
And is this considered a loss/expenditure to T-mobile?? which would probably mean they dont get top pay a tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to ask..
Since you seem unaware of basic finance, I might suggest avoiding commentary in the future.
In the case of a buyout, The purchase price is paid to the owners of the company being bought. Basic capitalism 101, if you buy something the owners get paid. Sprint is a Public corporation, which means ts owners are the stockholders. Therefore, if T-Mobile purchases Sprint, the stockholders get a share of the sale price based on their percentage of ownership (how much stock they own and what kind of stock they own). The specifics change company to company.
This income is then taxed as a capital gain on the tax returns of those who owned the stock.
This is considered a expense for t-mobile. They are buying assets. They are capitalized and expensed over a period of time, based on the type of asset and expected useful life. And while that expense does reduce their tax burden, they also must pay taxes on the new income that comes in. In theory, they carry over a similar profit or loss as Sprint would have had. In fact, on balance, they likely owe more, because they pair down the expenses when they work out all the excess labor and storefront leasing. The big issue is the tax advantages of the loan they will take out, and the ability to take advantage of more deductions by having more assets, rather than the purchase itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just to ask..
Good factual statement, but omits one factor -- take a look at all the recent stock grants (at 0$) to Sprint insiders and consider the bonuses that have undoubtedly been promised to Sprint execs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to ask..
Also,
The idea of over paying and showing a Loss for the next 10 years..
Which would probably make it a free purchase and very little tax, as they get to write off the Loss.
Which has little to do with the Infrastructure they are paying for... And wont update/fix/repair, and then Write off estimated costs as Future loss's..
So how about Finance and capitalism 102. or havnt you been watching this for the last 40+ years.,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it time..
for the States to install their OWN versions of the backbone, Fiber, Cellphone system, Internet...?
the only really stupid thing I see here, tends to be that they are creating a mess, and hoping the Gov takes it, and fixes all the old crap, and improves it, then Gives it back to them.
The Old telephone system was Very limited. and I think those running it now, tend to get tired of re-building the system as tech changes, about every 10-20 years.
Scrap it all and start over.
Make it better, Make it all integrated, and Make it work.
But dont give it back to the corps..
USE it to get the State and fed taxes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it time..
You have no idea how any of this works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it time..
I bet you dont remember when Electric, gas, water, and telephone were controlled by the states.. The Utility boards did it all, and there were no Stocks to be sold, no profits to be found or hidden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it time..
... and then a get rich quick scheme was hatched where public utilities were "privatized", evidence of how well this working out can be found in the state of California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it time..
And I hope you understand that Every Major advancement in the USA was paid for by???(drum roll please) YOU, your father, your grandfather...and mothers..
The USA has backed so many companies it makes China look Stingy even a Scrooge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it time..
Also see Australia's attempt at this..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-17/nbn-complaint-melbourne-man-left-without-internet-six-weeks/ 9663648
https://www.canstarblue.com.au/internet/tio-report-shows-nbn-complaints-on-the-rise/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makan Delrahim. Antitrust. Sure. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ajit Pai Approval
Sounds like FCC Commissioner Pai is very busy at approving changes which will hurt the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ajit Pai Approval
Well, he's got plenty of free time what with all the enforcement he's not doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$26B seems like a yawner anymore especially as the cost of merging or total cost of two companies that rake in billions annually. Walmart brings in profits that exceed that merger annually! It must be the desensitization of hearing these ghastly amounts so frequently nowadays that it barely raises an eyebrow or instills the need to sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Billionaires are the new millionaires!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's clear that the system is broken when its set up to not legally bind agencies to obey the verifiable data they themselves produce and collect. Its also clear politicians with no morals and even less conscience are actively exploiting that fact For their own greedy benefit. If objective data doesn't matter anymore I'm afraid the U.S. is irreversibly declining as all other empires from the past un der the weight of our own hubris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"obey the verifiable data"
What?
followed by unsupported claims of doom and gloom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I support doom and gloom. I have been hearing about the inevitability of World War III my entire life. Lets get it on, over and past so I can move on with my life already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But would that be obeying the verifiable data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun time..
What ever happened to the IDEA, that the Citizens can do most anything themselves...
Not depend on the Fed or State.. If A town or city wanted to do something, they had the Rights to do it..
When was this erased..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun time..
When the telecom companies bought the state and federal politicians, probably around 40-50 years ago... after they were given billions to build out networks that have still not been built.
That doesn't count the billions in subsidies, tax breaks, and direct 'gifts' from the governments if they promise to do what they were supposed to do (this time charlie brown will kick the football.... yeah right, we know what happens there and we know what happens here, but we do nothing).
You get the government the Telecom's bought, now be happy with it or you will get cut off from the internet so you can't complain about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fun time..
Well you could go to court and argue that such things are actually anti competition i guess.
I mean what are the feds and ajit “I park my car in the middle of the road when I go to work” pai going to do? Say that’s illegal and only SOME PEOPLE can lay fiber in the ground?
....holy crap could that actually work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fun time..
Blowing in fibre is the easy and cheap part. Planning routes, negotiating rights of way, permits and digging the trenches is the difficult, time consuming and expensive part of the job. However it can be done as shown by hpr0980 :: Broadband for Rural North. Note the project was carried out by the community as private individuals, no politicians involved in their official capacity,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun time..
https://www.ecmag.com/section/systems/flurry-activity-state-fiber-installation-2018-begins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]