US Antitrust Enforcement Clearly Broken As Court Rubber Stamps T-Mobile Merger

from the ill-communication dept

When AT&T was busy trying to gain regulatory approval of its $86 billion merger with Time Warner, economists, consumer groups, antitrust experts, and opponents of the deal warned it should be blocked because a bigger AT&T would only act anti-competitively to raise rates and hamstring competitors. AT&T and the FCC denied those claims, only to have them all come true a short while later.

Fast forward to this week and we're repeating history all over again. This morning U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero approved (pdf) T-Mobile's controversial $26 billion merger with Sprint, shutting down a multi-state AG lawsuit aimed at stopping the deal. Citing ample evidence that the reduction of four major carriers to three would dull any incentive to compete on price, a coalition of AGs tried to stop the deal after it was rubber stamped by both the FCC and FTC. But in his decision, Marrero tied himself into bizarre, esoteric knots in a bid to try and justify approval of the deal:

"How the future manifests itself and brings to pass what it holds is a multifaceted phenomenon that is not necessarily guided by theoretical forces or mathematical models,” Marreno wrote. “Instead, causal agents that engender knowing and purposeful human behavior, individual, and collective, fundamentally shape that narrative."

That's deep, bro.

Marreno at one point goes on at great length to suggest that it's "unlikely" that U.S. telecom giants, among the least competitive companies on the planet, would ever possibly act anti-competitively in the wake of the deal:

"In this court's view, in the intensely competitive and rapidly changing environment in which complex and dynamic markets operate, the anticompetitive business strategies and market effects Plaintiff States predict are unlikely. It is not likely, perhaps improbably or even not rational, that a major new or reinforced market participant, rather than vying aggressively to entire additional customers from competitor by introducing innovations, and investing more to protect and expand market share, would do the exact opposite, thereby risking har to its customer base.

Here in reality, there's ample evidence from around the globe that such 4 to 3 market shifts result in higher prices and significant layoffs. From Canada to Ireland, this kind of consolidation almost never ends well for consumers, competition, or the market. Hell, you only need look at Comcast, whose legendary status as one of the most despised companies in America is a direct byproduct of mindless M&A and a patent refusal to scale customer service alongside its relentless growth. US telecom consolidation has not been a good thing, no matter how many telecom-linked think tanks spin themselves into butter insisting otherwise.

American antitrust enforcement and consumer protection has turned into a running joke. The Trump administration uses antitrust to pursue weird, petty and pointless vendettas, while deals that create obvious market harm (AT&T Time Warner, T-Mobile Sprint) are allowed to proceed. The FCC rubber stamped the T-Mobile merger before staffers had even read the full proposal. The DOJ approved the deal against the advice of its own staffers.

The grotesqueness of the T-Mobile approval process couldn't have been any more blatant. Former FCC Commissioners from both parties, ranging from Mignon Clyburn to Robert McDowell, lobbied to help gain regulatory approval, often without identifying themselves (in Op/Eds and elsewhere) as being on T-Mobile's payroll. T-Mobile also hired Trump ally Corey Lewandowski (just days after he mocked a kid with Down Syndrome on national TV), and made a point of ramping up executive stays at Trump's DC hotel to further grease the wheels. It clearly worked.

To justify its approval of the deal, the DOJ created an absurd proposal that involves shoveling some spectrum off to Dish Network, which will then be tasked with building up a new fourth replacement carrier over a period of seven years. Economists pointed out repeatedly the plan isn't likely to work.

Dish (whose history of flaky promises in wireless was even previously mocked by T-Mobile) will spend much of that time as little more than a rebranded T-Mobile MVNO, and may never become fully viable. The effort is also likely to be undermined by AT&T and Verizon, which have every incentive to make sure Dish never becomes a viable fourth competitor. Who is supposed to prevent AT&T and Verizon from scuttling the effort? Who makes sure T-Mobile and Dish live up to their promises? Ajit Pai? The guy who mindlessly rubber stamps every fever dream the telecom sector has?

US consumers already pay some of the highest prices in the developed world thanks to regulatory capture and muted competition. A laundry list of economists have made it abundantly clear that further consolidation in wireless will only make the problem worse. There's literally forty years of documented history showing how these kinds of deals drive up prices, erode jobs, and result in worse overall service. While DC policy experts freak out about the perils of "big tech," we're giving big telecom a free pass to build something that could be arguably far worse.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, consolidation, judge, state ags, victor marrero, wireless
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

Merger Lawsuit Docs Reveal T-Mobile Eyed Merging With Comcast

from the Meet-the-new-boss dept

We've long noted that T-Mobile's brand reputation as a feisty consumer-friendly disruptor is only really skin deep. While the T-Mobile of 2012 or so certainly added some much needed competition to the wireless sector (killing ETFs, eliminating long-term contracts, and eroding international roaming costs), more recently the company has started to look a lot like the bigger competitors (AT&T, Verizon) it pretends to be superior to. From mocking groups like the EFF to opposing net neutrality, the company isn't all that different from the companies its brash CEO John Legere likes to make fun of.

Case in point: during the ongoing multi-state AG lawsuit attempting to stop the merger, documents were released showing that one of T-Mobile's master plans was to first buy Sprint then merge with Comcast. Yes that Comcast; one of the least liked companies on the planet, frequently mocked by Legere as a clear example of industry dysfunction. The presentation, assembled at the request of T-Mobile board member Thorsten Langheim in December 2015, highlights how T-Mobile owner Deutsche Telekom was eager to use T-Mobile to exploit the poorly regulated and marginally competitive US telecom market:

"The report, which is labeled as “confidential” throughout, suggests T-Mobile owner Deutsche Telecom had bet heavily on the US wireless market, where the company saw less regulation and higher average revenue per customer than in Europe. Analysts also predicted that, as the company reached the limits of its organic growth, it would have to rely on industry-wide consolidation to continue its growth after 2018. The report also cautions the company against pricing too aggressively in order to maintain those profits and the attendant merger potential. As the final slide puts it, “don’t trigger a price war in the US market (stable ARPUs base drives attractiveness & valuation.)”

We'd long noted that despite a lot of breathless press hype, T-Mobile's impact on American US wireless pricing (some of the highest in the developed world) was not all that. And with the 4-3 consolidation presented by T-Mobile's $26 billion merger with Sprint, most objective analysts say even higher prices are the likely result. T-Mobile, hipster Millennial pro-consumer branding schtick in tow, knows this very well. The docs show the company also knows that the DOJ's flimsy fix to have Dish step in and try to fix the problem the deal creates aren't realistic:

"The documents also cast doubt on one of the central claims of T-Mobile’s merger, which has sought to prop up Dish as a competitive wireless provider, backed by an MVNO deal with T-Mobile in advance of its own network buildout. But the document, which was prepared before the Dish deal was even considered, sees it as unlikely that any MVNO could provide meaningful competition to T-Mobile."

Yes, early T-Mobile (created ironically from the government's decision to block a merger with AT&T in 2011) was marginally disruptive. But modern T-Mobile is more of a stage play; designed to look disruptive without trying too hard to kill the captive cash cow. Like any corporation, T-Mobile's primary objective is to drive shareholder growth, something they feel is only actually possible via an endless series of merger and acquisitions resulting in fewer jobs, higher prices, and progressively worse service.

Normally that's where a functioning government would step in and protect the market, competitors, and consumers from antitrust violations. But in the Trump era, when corruption and regulatory capture are barely even hidden and even applauded, that's obviously not happening. As a result, a coalition of state AGs is the last line of defense between you and a significantly higher wireless bill courtesy of our mindless obsession with "growth for growth's sake."

Filed Under: cable, competition, merger, mobile
Companies: comcast, sprint, t-mobile

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:

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.

Filed Under: antitrust, assistance, competition, doj, fcc, lobbying, makan delrahim
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

As Trial Begins, Evidence Shows Sprint, T-Mobile Know Merger Will Raise Prices

from the history-keeps-repeating-itself dept

With the DOJ (run by former Verizon lawyer William Barr) and the FCC (run by former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai) eager to rubber stamp Sprint's $26 billion, competition-eroding merger with T-Mobile, a lawsuit from a bipartisan coalition of states is now all that stands in the way in the deal.

That lawsuit began Monday, with state AGs making it very clear that every meaningful economic metric indicates the deal will erode competition, raise rates, and result in thousands of layoffs as redundant employees are inevitably eliminated. While Sprint and T-Mobile (and the army of consultants, lobbyists, think tankers, and government officials paid to love them) insist the deal will be wonderful for America, financially independent economists paint a decidedly different picture. One in which ongoing consolidation in the space only drives up wireless data pricing for American consumers who already pay some of the highest prices in the world for what's routinely ranked as mediocre service (whether we're talking about speeds or overall video quality).

But underneath the deal's marketing veneer, industry giants know very well the reduction in competition will let them charge higher rates. You'll notice that AT&T and Verizon haven't lifted a finger to thwart the deal, suggesting they're perfectly fine with its impact (something that wouldn't be happening if they actually thought the end result would be a more competitive sector). And at the trial this week, AG lawyers highlighted that Sprint executive emails make it perfectly clear they know the deal will raise rates:

"Roger Sole, Sprint’s chief marketing officer, said in a text message in 2017 to Marcelo Claure, the carrier’s chief executive officer at the time, that the deal could mean an increase of $5 a month in average revenue per subscriber. Industry leaders AT&T and Verizon Communications would also benefit with fewer players in the market, he said.

“And they DO NOT pay anything for this,” Sole wrote to Claure. “The benefit of a consolidated market.”

The goal of the deal is less competition, providing a green light for even higher prices, which is effectively the same outcome we've seen from every major telecom union over the last 30 years. Three decades of data also makes it abundantly clear that pre-merger promises are worthless. But if the state AGs lose this case, the federal government is going to ignore that data -- and history -- and rubber stamp the deal anyway. You know, just because.

Filed Under: competition, consumer harms, merger, mobile, prices, wireless
Companies: at&t, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

Another Day, Another Telecom Giant Caught Taking Taxpayer Subsidies They Didn't Deserve

from the ill-communication dept

For decades, big and small telecoms alike have abused the FCC Lifeline program, a fund that's supposed to help subsidize telecom connectivity for low income users. Started by Reagan and expanded by Bush, the fairly modest program doles out a measly $9.25 per month subsidy that low-income homes can use to help pay a tiny fraction of their wireless, phone, or broadband bills (enrolled participants have to chose one). While the program (which you pay into via your telecom bills) has been a subject of fraud, enforcement of abuse hasn't always been consistent.

Back in September, the FCC noted that Sprint had been taking taxpayer funds for roughly 885,000 Lifeline customers who were no longer actually using the company's services. The FCC stated that it would be investigating the potential fraud, but hasn't yet announced any actual penalty. This week the Wall Street Journal raised the ante, issuing a report (non-paywalled alternative here) that took a closer look at Sprint documents and found that the problem went much further -- and has been going on for much longer -- than the FCC acknowledged:

"Sprint also made mistakes in tallying how many subscribers were using their Lifeline service in 2013 and 2014, documents obtained by the Journal through a public information request show. Because of an error in how it counted usage at the time, spam texts could keep dormant accounts live and allow Sprint to continue to collect subsidies for those customers, the documents show. In one case, the phone of an Oregon woman who died months earlier was still deemed active.

In Oregon alone, correcting that mistake at the time triggered the loss of more than 4,600 Lifeline subscribers for the company, according to the documents. “The failure was systemic and not confined to Oregon,” a then-senior counsel at Sprint wrote in a September 2014 email to officials at the state Public Utility Commission who asked about the matter.

It remains unclear just how big the problem at Sprint actually was, a task now in the hands of an FCC with a fairly... lacking record when it comes to holding telecoms accountable. These kinds of "errors" aren't uncommon in the subsidy-slathered telecom sector. AT&T was forced to pay $11 million in 2015 by the previous, Tom Wheeler FCC because it "forgot" to remove nonexistent subsidy recipients from its rolls. The Lifeline system is pretty routinely gamed by big and small players alike, though it's usually only the smaller, weaker culprits that see any serious penalty.

And while bigger carriers always insist that these issues are always inadvertent errors, this is a sector with a thirty year history of taking billions upon billions in subsidies in exchange for networks that routinely only wind up half deployed. Context probably matters.

Error or not, the ball now lies in the lap of an Ajit Pai FCC that hasn't done much (read: anything) to seriously hold bigger telecom companies accountable for fraud or bad behavior. You'd think that figuring out the scale of Sprint's unearned subsidies would be something the agency would want to get to the bottom of before approving Sprint's $26 billion merger with T-Mobile, yet somehow these inquiry settlements always arrive a day late and a dollar short.

Filed Under: fcc, lifeline, scams
Companies: sprint

FCC Approved T-Mobile Sprint Merger Without Even Seeing The Full Details

from the ill-communication dept

Surprising nobody, the Ajit Pai FCC last week approved T-Mobile's $26 billion merger with Sprint. The approval comes despite that fact that antitrust experts, consumer advocates, and a long list of others have pointed out the deal will reduce wireless sector competition by 25%, inevitably driving up costs and reducing the quality of service (40 years of US telecom history suggests as much). And while T-Mobile and Sprint insists the deal will create jobs, both union reps and Wall Street predict the deal could kill anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs.

Granted last week's vote of approval was really just a formality. The FCC's majority commissioners had already made it clear they'd be signing off on the deal. Troubling but unsurprising is the repeated allegations that the Trump FCC majority signed off on the deals before seeing most of the actual details, something FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was quick to point out in a statement:

"...the process that got us here is equally troubling. Three of my colleagues agreed to this transaction months ago without having any legal, engineering, or economic analysis from the agency before us. Consumers deserve better from the Washington authorities charged with reviewing this transaction."

Yeah, who needs to see the actual details on a transaction that will dramatically alter the US wireless landscape before voting?

Former FCC lawyer Gigi Sohn shared a similar observation in a statement circulated to the media:

"Today’s decision is the culmination of one of the most irregular and opaque processes in FCC history. The FCC majority prejudged the merits of this merger two months before the Justice Department found the combination of T-Mobile and Sprint to be anticompetitive and required the creation of a new fourth competitor to pass legal muster. Despite this radical change in the merger, Chairman Pai has refused to put the new arrangement out for public comment."

No willingness to look at hard data, an active disdain for public input; where have we seen that before? Worth noting the DOJ has followed a similar tack, ignoring advice from its own staffers to sign off on the deal.

Both the DOJ and FCC continue to push a remedy for the problems the deal creates that few think will actually work. They're hoping to have T-Mobile shovel off some additional spectrum and its prepaid wireless brand to Dish Network, who'll then attempt to build a functional fourth competitor to replace Sprint over the next half decade. But Dish has a long, long history of spectrum squatting and empty promises when it comes to wireless (just ask T-Mobile). And this FCC has exactly zero credibility when it comes to holding telecom giants accountable for, well, anything.

To make that deal work, the government will have to helicopter mom the hell out of the deal; ensuring T-Mobile lives up to its obligations and Dish meets its goals. It will also have to hold AT&T and Verizon accountable when they inevitably try to scuttle the deal in a bid to prevent a fourth viable competitor from truly emerging, something that, even under optimal conditions, isn't supposed to happen for years. Imagine thinking that's a more sensible route than just blocking the same deal that's already been blocked several times because it's clearly harmful to workers, consumers, and the market?

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, details, fcc, merger, telcos
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

Sprint Busted For Allegedly Defrauding The FCC Lifeline Program

from the whoops-a-daisy dept

For years, big cellular carriers have been busted defrauding the FCC Lifeline program, a fund that's supposed to help subsidize telecom connectivity for low income users. Started by Reagan and expanded by Bush, the fairly modest program doles out a measly $9.25 per month subsidy that low-income homes can use to help pay a tiny fraction of their wireless, phone, or broadband bills (enrolled participants have to chose one). While the program (which you pay into via your telecom bills) has been a subject of fraud, the agency has done some solid work under both parties trying to rein in abuse of the program.

This week, the Pai FCC brought the hammer down on Sprint, alleging that the company has been collecting monthly subsidies for roughly 885,000 Lifeline customers who were no longer actually using the company's services. From the FCC announcement (pdf):

"The Federal Communications Commission has learned that Sprint Corp. claimed monthly subsidies for serving approximately 885,000 Lifeline subscribers, even though those subscribers were not using the service. That would be a violation of a key rule—the “non-usage” rule—designed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. The 885,000 subscribers represent nearly 30% of Sprint’s Lifeline subscriber base and nearly 10% of the entire Lifeline program’s subscriber base.

These kinds of "errors" aren't uncommon in the subsidy-slathered telecom sector. AT&T was forced to pay $11 million in 2015 by the previous, Tom Wheeler FCC because it "forgot" to remove nonexistent subsidy recipients from its rolls. In this case, the Pai FCC makes it clear the discovery will lead to a broader investigation and at least some kind of fine for Sprint, which has been working overtime to gain approval for its $29 billion merger with T-Mobile.

Historically, the Lifeline program has seen pretty broad, bipartisan support. After improving reporting requirements to thwart fraud, the FCC under Tom Wheeler slightly expanded the program to include broadband. Pai voted that expansion down, and has been criticized for slowly attempting to kneecap the program. The courts however have argued that a number of Pai's efforts to hamstring the program (like taking away subsidies from tribal residents) haven't been supported by factual evidence.

To be clear, this is a good move by Pai. That said, Pai has been a bit discordant on this subject. He'll profess his top priority is "closing the digital divide," but will then either ignore issues at the root of the problem (limited broadband competition, high prices), or attempt to scale back programs like Lifeline that actually attempt to do something about it. With Sprint, Pai is back again insisting that Lifeline is something important that needs protecting, something his policy proposals don't always reflect given his numerous attempts to neuter the program:

"Lifeline is an important component of our efforts to bring digital opportunity to low-income Americans, and stopping waste, fraud, and abuse in the program has been a top priority of mine since I’ve been at the Commission,” Chairman Pai said. “It’s outrageous that a company would claim millions of taxpayer dollars for doing nothing. This shows a careless disregard for program rules and American taxpayers. I have asked our Enforcement Bureau to investigate this matter to determine the full extent of the problem and to propose an appropriate remedy."

Despite Pai's wishy washy positioning on whether we should help poor people get and stay connected, the crackdown is welcome and long overdue. That said, the fact that Sprint was likely defrauding the government isn't likely to change the FCC's decision to approve the Sprint T-Mobile merger; consolidation consumer groups say will only amplify many of the pricing and competition problems that make telecom services expensive for low-income users in the first place.

Filed Under: fcc, fraud, lifeline
Companies: sprint

T-Mobile Employees Want Promises They Won't Be Fired Post Merger

from the good-luck-with-that dept

We've noted repeatedly how the Sprint, T-Mobile merger isn't great. There's forty years of history showing how telecom industry megamergers almost always result in less competition, higher prices, and fewer jobs, and this deal is no exception. Eliminating one of just four US wireless carriers is likely to result in higher prices (see: Canada or Ireland). And Wall Street analysts not only predict the deal could eliminate anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs, data suggests the consolidation could result in employees across the sector making less money even if they work at other companies.

Of course if you ask T-Mobile and Sprint executives, they'll tell you that none of this will actually happen. They'll tell you that the deal will somehow create more competition and jobs, despite (again) history showing that this rarely, if ever happens and such deals almost exclusively benefit executives and shareholders.

Hoping for a little reassurance, T-Mobile employees this week penned a letter to Deutsche Telekom CEO Tim Hoettges (Deutsche Telekom has a majority stake in T-Mobile) asking for guarantees they won't see layoffs and pay cuts in the wake of the deal:

"T-Mobile US retail employees and technicians delivered a letter late Tuesday for Deutsche Telekom CEO Tim Hoettges, seeking assurances that their jobs and paychecks will be safe if the wireless carrier is allowed to merge with Sprint, its smaller rival.

T-Mobile Workers United, with about 500 members and backed by the Communications Workers of America and the German union ver.di, urged Hoettges to “make solid and verifiable” assurances that jobs will be safe, paychecks will not shrink and management will not interfere in union activities."

These workers shouldn't hold their breath.

From Comcast to AT&T, telecom merger after telecom merger begins with a laundry list of promises that nothing whatsoever will change and if things do change, it will only be for the better. Then, everything changes as redundant retail support, and executive positions are inevitably eliminated. It's a finely oiled machine you could set your watch to, yet each time a new merger is proposed the press collectively nods dumbly as if pre-merger guarantees mean much of anything, and government doesn't have a multi-generational history of failing to hold companies accountable when they blatantly ignore merger conditions.

It's a problem that's particularly pronounced in the telecom sector, where tens of thousands of jobs are being lost due to mindless consolidation and a mantra of "growth for growth's sake." Saturated growth in fixed and mobile broadband has driven companies to mergers in the hopes of attaining growth, but as AT&T's Time Warner and DirecTV acquisitions or Frontier's gobbling up of aging phone lines have made clear, being bigger doesn't magically equate to being better. In fact it's usually the opposite as even bigger, debt-saddled companies fail to scale customer service to handle the growth.

Why the US seems incapable of learning from history on this subject is a question for the ages. Right Now, T-Mobile is telling regulators that the merger will magically create thousands of new jobs. It's also promising to keep both Sprint's Overland Park, Kansas and T-Mobile's Bellevue, Washington headquarters both intact. All while we see zero negative impact and increased competition despite fewer overall competitors. History has repeatedly shown such claims to be little more than fluff and nonsense, yet regulators at both the FCC and DOJ (both not coincidentally now run by former telecom lawyers) are happy to believe the promises.

Filed Under: consolidation, employees, jobs, mergers
Companies: sprint, t-mobile