The Obama Administration Is on T-Mobile’s Porch With a Shotgun

Sprint is engaged in a long merger flirtation with T-Mobile, but the Justice Department is determined to keep the couple apart.

President Barack Obama shoots clay targets on the range at Camp David, Md., Saturday, Aug. 4, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Brendan Sasso
Feb. 3, 2014, midnight

Reg­u­lat­ors have a mes­sage for Sprint and T-Mo­bile: Don’t even think about it.

T-Mo­bile might be start­ing to feel like a teen­ager with an over­pro­tect­ive fath­er. The na­tion’s fourth-largest cel­lu­lar pro­vider keeps flirt­ing with oth­er car­ri­ers, but the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion keeps step­ping in to break things up.

In 2011, the Justice De­part­ment and the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion blocked AT&T’s $39 bil­lion bid to buy T-Mo­bile, say­ing the deal would have stifled com­pet­i­tion and led to high­er prices. The re­jec­tion stung for AT&T; the com­pany had to pay a $4 bil­lion break­up fee to T-Mo­bile.

Now Sprint is the latest suit­or to be­come en­am­ored with T-Mo­bile, and the com­pan­ies are re­portedly dis­cuss­ing a pos­sible mer­ger. But in re­cent days, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has been send­ing Sprint a clear mes­sage to back off.

“It’s go­ing to be hard for someone to make a per­suas­ive case that re­du­cing four firms to three is ac­tu­ally go­ing to im­prove com­pet­i­tion for the be­ne­fit of Amer­ic­an con­sumers,” Wil­li­am Baer, the head of the Justice De­part­ment’s An­ti­trust Di­vi­sion, told The New York Times last week, re­fer­ring to the four na­tion­al wire­less car­ri­ers. “Any pro­posed trans­ac­tion would get a very hard look from the An­ti­trust Di­vi­sion.”

Reg­u­lat­ors rarely com­ment on spe­cif­ic deals (es­pe­cially hy­po­thet­ic­al ones), but it’s not hard to read between the lines.

Not only would Sprint and T-Mo­bile have to per­suade the Justice De­part­ment to bless their mer­ger, but be­cause the deal would in­volve the trans­fer of wire­less air­wave li­censes, they would also need ap­prov­al from the FCC.

FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er has in­dic­ated he would put any ma­jor wire­less mer­ger through the wringer.

“The mo­bile busi­ness is today with four car­ri­ers a com­pet­it­ive busi­ness,” he said dur­ing a pub­lic dis­cus­sion in Ohio in Decem­ber. “And it’s im­port­ant it stay that way.”

Even as­sum­ing op­pos­i­tion from the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, Sprint (and its par­ent com­pany Soft­Bank) could try for the deal any­way and hope to win in court.

Sprint would have a stronger leg­al de­fense than AT&T did. Ve­r­i­zon and AT&T are the in­dustry’s largest firms, with Sprint and T-Mo­bile trail­ing far be­hind.

In a re­cent in­ter­view on Bloomberg Tele­vi­sion, T-Mo­bile CEO John Legere ar­gued that a mer­ger with Sprint could help crack the in­dustry’s “duo­poly” and ac­tu­ally lead to more ro­bust com­pet­i­tion.

But Jef­frey Silva, a tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions in­dustry ana­lyst with Med­ley Glob­al Ad­visors, said that try­ing to beat the gov­ern­ment in court would be a “huge risk” for Sprint.

“The sig­nals seem to be pretty clear at this point that the ad­min­is­tra­tion does not want this deal,” he said. “To just kind of hope that you can win in over­time with a fed­er­al judge, that’s a really risky high-stakes game to play.”

If Sprint tries to buy T-Mo­bile and fails, it would likely be on the line for a hefty break­up fee. A failed mer­ger also ties up a com­pany’s re­sources in leg­al fees and lob­by­ists and can mean delay­ing oth­er im­port­ant busi­ness de­cisions.

Sprint and T-Mo­bile de­clined to com­ment for this story.

The Justice De­part­ment has ar­gued that T-Mo­bile is a “mav­er­ick” com­pet­it­or, shak­ing up the wire­less in­dustry by in­tro­du­cing new fea­tures and pri­cing plans. Last month for ex­ample, the car­ri­er an­nounced that it will pay the early ter­min­a­tion fees for people who switch from a com­pet­it­or.

“Pushed by T-Mo­bile, the com­pet­i­tion has re­spon­ded,” the Justice De­part­ment’s Baer said in a speech last week in New York, not­ing that Sprint re­cently un­veiled a new un­lim­ited data plan and that AT&T has hit back by of­fer­ing a $200 cred­it to T-Mo­bile cus­tom­ers who switch. When T-Mo­bile an­nounced a plan last year to al­low cus­tom­ers to up­grade phones twice a year, the oth­er car­ri­ers all re­spon­ded with their own plans to al­low more fre­quent up­grades.

“Com­pet­i­tion today is driv­ing enorm­ous be­ne­fits in the dir­ec­tion of the Amer­ic­an con­sumer,” Baer said.

But Silva said the ex­ec­ut­ives at Sprint and T-Mo­bile may be won­der­ing how long they can com­pete with Ve­r­i­zon and AT&T.

“Both are trail­ing in 4G LTE build-out, and if you look at mar­ket share and sub­scribers, there’s quite a bit of dis­tance between them­selves and AT&T and Ve­r­i­zon,” he said.

Even with dim reg­u­lat­ory pro­spects, buy­ing T-Mo­bile might be Sprint’s last best chance to get on equal foot­ing with the two in­dustry gi­ants, Silva said.

The Justice De­part­ment, however, has a dif­fer­ent plan for boost­ing the two smal­ler car­ri­ers.

The FCC plans to auc­tion off the rights to large chunks of the air­waves in 2015. With the de­mand for stream­ing videos, down­load­ing apps, and brows­ing the Web skyrock­et­ing, all the car­ri­ers are look­ing to get ac­cess to more fre­quen­cies to carry their cus­tom­ers’ traffic.

AT&T and Ve­r­i­zon cur­rently con­trol most of the prime low-band fre­quen­cies, which can carry sig­nals over great­er dis­tances. So the Justice De­part­ment wrote a memo to the FCC last year, re­com­mend­ing that the agency use caps or lim­its to ham­string the big play­ers, en­sur­ing that Sprint and T-Mo­bile can come away from the auc­tion in strengthened po­s­i­tions.

It re­mains to be seen wheth­er the prom­ise of ad­di­tion­al air­waves and the threat of reg­u­lat­ory ac­tion will be enough for Sprint to res­ist the al­lure of T-Mo­bile.

What We're Following See More »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
21 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
22 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
1 days ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×