9 ms·
US Government seeks to block AT&T & T-Mobile's $39 Billion Merger
- AndrewWarner 15y agoThis whole process is going to weaken T-Mobile even more. Founders I've interviewed told me that the acquisition process plays head games with them and their people -- especially if it falls apart.
- cookiecaper 15y agoIf there has ever been an obvious need to prevent a merger it's this one. I really hope that common sense outweighs AT&T's ability to purchase bureaucrats this time.
- beefman 15y agoWhat is this obvious need?
- aaronbrethorst 15y agoAs the article said: “AT&T’s elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market,” the U.S. said in its filing. That is an obvious need. There's too little real competition in the wireless space as it is. We don't need to be down to a single nationwide GSM provider.
- danberger 15y agoThere are other budget options in the wireless space, including Cricket and Boost
- aaronbrethorst 15y agoCricket's apparently smaller than US Cellular and MetroPCS, neither of whom I even knew existed anymore. Boost is an MVNO. I'm not sure if they really count in this discussion since they don't own their own network. They're really at the mercy of whomever they lease their capacity from. I feel like this is kind of like making a case against the DOJ/Microsoft lawsuit in the late 90s by saying, 'it's ok if Apple exits the computer market, because there are still competitors out there like Amiga and Compaq.'
- MatthewPhillips 15y agoThey aren't big enough to have a measurable influence on the overall market.
- digikata 15y agoBoost is a brand-name under Sprint. So is Virgin Mobile in the US, and a couple of other mini-brands as far as I know...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- drzaiusapelord 15y agoThey just resell Sprint and Verizon service with shittier phones. A reseller isn't really competition. Spring and Verizon can shut them down whenever they please.
- beefman 15y agoThere can be, in principle, very little "real competition" in the wireless space. See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2946463 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2946463 Edit: I'm curious why this comment was downvoted. I'm new here and am trying to understand the policy.
- corin_ 15y agoErr, you're not new here, not sure why you said that.
- beefman 15y agoWhen I joined, downvoting was not used as much, and wasn't used to show disagreement (and this was considered good reddiquette for a long time). The community here has changed a lot though, and I sincerely do feel new and want to learn how to best contribute.
- beefman 15y agon1ce
- potatolicious 15y agoThis isn't reddit - if you like being snarky and condescending you can roll yourself back towards that side of the fence.
- beefman 15y agoI wasn't being snarky or condescending. Nor am I a redditor who has come over here lately.
- drivebyacct2 15y agoPhew, good thing we're also not so petty or immature as to compare all of reddit to a person, or a person to all of reddit.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- beefman 15y agoDid you downvote my reply, and if so, may I ask why?
- aaronbrethorst 15y agoNo, I did not.
- beefman 15y agoThanks for answering. I'm confused then. Do we downvote comments we disagree with, or only comments that are unthoughtful, offtopic, etc?
- aaronbrethorst 15y agoTry the search box at the bottom with terms like 'downvote.' these meta discussions come up fairly often.
- noarchy 15y agoMaking posts to inquire about why one got downvoted seem to throw fuel on the fire, resulting in yet more downvotes. At least, this is what I've observed time and time again here.
- potatolicious 15y agoYour current posts are being downvoted because you're complaining about downvoting. Your original post, i.e. "What is this obvious need?" is (IMHO correctly) perceived as a leading question. You want to make a point, but you're asking a disingenuous question instead. You're leading the other poster so you can tear him a new one - as evidenced by the fact that you seem to have a lot of stuff to say about this topic. As a rule I (and much of HN, apparently) dislike questions that aren't genuine. Feigned ignorance as an argumentative crutch is pretty lame. If you have a point, make it, this isn't some juvenile youth parliament or model UN, there are no victories here.
- beefman 15y ago
- cookiecaper 15y agoThe obvious need in my mind is that if we get down to a single national GSM provider, a lot of people are going to be stuck. The only alternative for T-Mo customers that don't want to use AT&T would be to sell their phone and get a new CDMA phone. The concern for me is mainly over a complete monopoly on national GSM; a duopoly is bad enough.
- marshray 15y agoYay, for once they do something for the consumer. We'll see if they hold to it, or is just a sham only to be dropped after promises and payouts.
- baltcode 15y agoFrom the article: "Should regulators reject the transaction, AT&T would pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion in cash. It would also provide T-Mobile with wireless spectrum in some regions and reduced charges for calls into AT&T’s network, for a total package valued at as much as $7 billion, Deutsche Telekom said this month." I don't get it, I thought this would happen if the deal went through. What is this $7 bn package in the event that the deal is blocked?
- cshenoy 15y agoIt's a breakup fee as explained here: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/02/ma-issues-breakup-fees.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/02/ma-issues-breakup-fees.html
- Shenglong 15y agoHow did AT&T not expect there to be a potential violation of anti-trust law? That's the first thing I was wondering when I even heard about this merger. Agreeing to a breakup fee without an exception clause for government intervention in this case is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
- jsnell 15y agoIt's possible that they expected the massive breakup fee to have an effect on the regulators in a way that a smaller one wouldn't. Just imagine the teary-eyed AT&T executive testifying in front of the TV cameras about how the evil government is forcing them to give $7G to a competitor.
- ericd 15y agoIf that's the case, they really have a delusional view of their public image.
- lallysingh 15y agoThey were hoping to BS their way through congress. The thing is, cell phone vendors are personal, tangible aspects of people's lives. People typically* have much stronger feelings about their cell vendors than they do economic, foreign, or gasp copyright policy. * Not that I know, I'm pulling this out of my ass, but it sounds good. Possibly even correct.
- thematt 15y agoT-Mobile would clean up on this deal if the US Government succeeds. Look at that breakup fee: $3 billion in cash and another $4 billion in non-monetary benefits.
- randall 15y agoI think that's why they agreed to it. Would be interesting if this is the one thing that propels T-Mobile out of the back of the pack.
- r00fus 15y agoThat, and if they do get the iPhone in Oct as rumored, I will switch from AT&T.
- joelhaus 15y agoIncluded in the "non-monetary benefits", T-Mobile would receive access to certain AT&T spectrum (it actually reads as if AT&T would simply have to hand it over)... This shared spectrum is something that has been sorely lacking in the U.S. and has been terrible for the consumer -- government granted monopolies are auctioned off to single companies and most devices will only work in a single company's spectrum band, however, if the spectrum T-Mobile gets is in the LTE band, this would have a significant positive impact on their service quality.
- iqster 15y agoI thought it was a sliding scale. It links to the amount of divesture required of AT&T. At some point, the breakup fee goes to naught. (source: I thought I heard this on CNBC this morning ... don't see any articles online that confirm this. Maybe I was dreaming?)
- grandalf 15y agoThe Sprint/Nextel merger led to a steady increase in mobile phone plan prices. One can only imagine what an AT&T/T-Mobile merger would do.
- megamark16 15y agoI love my T-Mobile plan, the customer service, the T-Mobile store down the street from my work, I love the whole company, and I hate the thought of all of that disappearing down AT&T's gaping black hole of a company. I really hope this deal doesn't go through, I'd love to be able to stick with T-Mobile for another 10 years or more.
- studiofellow 15y agoSame sentiments here. So glad they are fighting this. I really don't want to send my monthly payments to AT&T. After being screwed over by them so many times, T-Mobile really is a breath of fresh air.
- w33ble 15y agoI love T-Mobile too. The coverage may be spotty at times, but for $50 I get unlimited everything with no contract requirement. Nobody else offers that, and I'm confident that if the merger happens, nobody else ever will. Add to that their amazing customer service (at least in my experience) and I'd be really sad to see them be consumed by the evil that is AT&T.
- daimyoyo 15y agoGood. To have all the GSM spectrum being controlled by one carrier would clearly have been anti-competitive.
- w33ble 15y agoI'm not happy with the prospect of this merger, but I honestly don't understand why spectrum matters here. If all 4 companies used the same spectrum, would you then be OK with it?
- joelhaus 15y agoYes. The carriers currently certify and subsidize devices for their network that are designed to work only on the spectrum that they own. This creates customer lock-in because (i) devices are expensive and (ii) if you want a subsidy, you sign a two year agreement. Another reason is that (iii) available spectrum in finite. If a single device could work with all four carriers on the same shared spectrum, then they would need to compete for your business on price and customer service quality. When each carrier has spectrum independent of the others, they also compete on who owns rights to the best spectrum band, who has the best infrastructure built-out and who has the best devices. You can look to S. Korea to see what happens when all carriers share the same spectrum: http://gigaom.com/broadband/mobile-internet-cost-around-the-world-infographics/ http://gigaom.com/broadband/mobile-internet-cost-around-the-...
- macrael 15y agoThere is a strong incentive for me to use a GSM phone over a CDMA phone because the former works in the majority of the rest of the world. So if all the GSM phones sold in the States were sold by AT&T, it is likely that I would be getting a worse deal then I would otherwise. It's just one way in which AT&T and Verizon do not sell directly substitutable goods.
- psychotik 15y agoSpectrum is a sparse and valuable asset that isn't easy to acquire control of - you generally never want one company in complete control of such assets, especially when it can be used for anti-competitive means. I believe having ATT control all GSM spectrum (control is loosely equivalent to 'own' here -- technically ATT doesn't 'own' it but for all practical purposes it does) would be disastrous if other wish to acquire/use spectrum for services related to what ATT offers.
- cshenoy 15y agoThe breakup fee may be what T-Mobile was looking for all along since Deutsche Telekom AG has said it's not willing to invest more in the venture. $3 billion isn't chump change and I'm sure they'll take full advantage of those agreements (e.g. spectrum rights, etc) should the deal fall through.
- jonknee 15y agoWhen was the last time a merger of this size got blocked by the Feds?
- simonsarris 15y agoI can' think of any. I don't think there are any. The gov just blocked the merger of H&R Block and TaxACT (in May(?)), but those companies are almost two orders of magnitude smaller than AT&T.
- _delirium 15y agoIn 2000, the DOJ sued to block what would've been the largest merger in American history if it had gone through, a ~$120b combination of Sprint and WorldCom.
- jonknee 15y agoThanks. I couldn't find a list of the largest blocked mergers, just of the largest successful ones (topped by AOL/TimeWarner). Pretty amazing how many of the large mergers turned out. WorldCom tanked two years later, so that would have been another combined failure.
- kylecordes 15y agoWhy bother? There will be a few minor agreements and/or spinoffs, then it will be approved.
- crag 15y agoYay. About time the government did something for the consumer. Thought someway somehow, ATT will get it's merger. They'll just spread more cash around. Like TARP. Republican voted it down (for show). 4 days later they vote it up. At a cost of like $700 billion.
- schmittz 15y agoI'm not looking to debate this at all, but I'm not sure how program designed to prevent the insolvency of a major portion of US assets and the anti-competitive practices of one company are related or why you're singling out Republicans in both your metaphor or in relation to AT&T.
- bluedanieru 15y agoHe's referring to bribes. Typically with Republicans you buy a few of the important ones and the rest fall in line pretty quickly, however with Democrats you have to buy each one individually but generally at a cheaper price. Admittedly it is hard to say which way is more expensive on the whole, but there is something more admirable about a whore who plies his or her own trade, than a pack of them where the only one with any sense at all is the one in charge.
- schmittz 15y agoI don't understand this at all. There's no direct bribing because of the ramifications, but there is a lot of post-office job offer and campaign contribution gamesmanship, as everyone recognizes. However, I'm not sure where you're drawing your data from. Could you enlighten me? My anecdotal perception is that the "required" donations operate largely the same between parties. As per data compiled by the reputable OpenSecrets, of the top contributing organizations from 1989-2010, most of them donate strongly to Democratic candidates (this I assume would be the amounts used to "bribe" politicians).[1] Regardless of this fact, I still don't see an analogy between a flip-flop vote (I don't know the vote numbers, so that phrasing might not be true) on TARP by the Republicans (while I don't know numbers, as I recall, the Democrats also voted heavily against a "bailout" package before voting for it) and the way that AT&T might use political clout to push through this merger. [1] http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php EDIT: Interesting to note, however, that AT&T is third on the list of all time donors and on the fence for Dem/Rep support. If the justice department wasn't full of appointments or hires as opposed to elected officials, this could strongly weaken the likely outcome of this suit. In any case, will be interesting to note the effect in upcoming elections that this has on AT&T's donation patterns.
- dupe123 15y agoYes! I'm glad to see the government is taking a stance against it. Cell phone bills are expensive enough, I could only imagine what this merger would have done to them. I just pray they hold strong. This could be a really good thing for Tmob. Could seriously help level the playing field.
- ratsbane 15y agoThis is great news. I'm a happy T-Mobile customer and I've had bad experiences with AT&T and its predecessor, BellSouth, in the past. I don't want to be forced into AT&T. Question: What can we do to support the government's efforts? Write our congressmen? Write the DoJ?
- AmericasNewsNow 15y agoEh, theres always Verizon. AT&T cant get out of its own way anyway. If the govet wanted to block something, they should have stopped Google from buying youtube...
- pyre 15y agoI'm curious. Why Google and Youtube?
- sek 15y agoWhy? Are you aware that the only reason for Youtube's success the infrastructure of Google is? This is also the only reason why there is no real competitor.
- wanorris 15y agoAre you sure? YouTube was successful before they were purchased by Google, so I'm not sure how Google's infrastructure could be the only reason.
- jonknee 15y agoYouTube was tiny in comparison when Google bought them. They did an admirable job scaling to where they did, but it wasn't easy and it was still jut the beginning. They served ~100M videos a day and today serve over 3B videos a day (many in HD, which wasn't supported in 2006, the videos then were much lower quality). The amount of incoming video has also grown exponentially. The YouTube we know today is because of Google and their technical chops.
- wanorris 15y agoOK, but the only reason (as per the post I was responding to originally)? Those ~100M videos a day were about 99M (I'm guessing here) more than Google Video was doing at the time. I believe you that Google's technical prowess was a necessary condition to get YouTube to where they are today, but I find it hard to believe that YouTube did nothing whatsoever to warrant becoming the original name brand of web video in the first place.
- jordanb 15y agoThere are more than a half a million reasons why Congress will attempt to block this lawsuit: http://www.politicususa.com/en/att-democracy http://www.politicususa.com/en/att-democracy My guess is that Boehner will announce a bill to "defund" it shortly. That seems to be their favorite way to control the executive currently. As a very happy T-Mobile customer, I nearly punched my monitor when I saw the announcement that it was going to be consumed by the Death Star. I did not have faith that the justice department had the cajoles or the honesty to actually try and stop it. I still have little faith that the government will be able to stop it, given that Congress has dropped all pretense of being anything other than available to the highest bidder.
- veyron 15y agois the word 'cajoles' or 'cajones'?
- missing_cipher 15y agoIt's "Cojones". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones
- danberger 15y agoI'm honestly interested into why you consider yourself a very happy T-Mobile customer. I'm in DC and have T-Mobile and they are god awful. Dropped calls, reception in my studio's living room but not in the kitchen, 3+ hours downtime after earthquake. Obviously the only thing they have going on for them is their low prices.
- w1ntermute 15y agoReception quality can vary drastically with location. Your experience may not apply to wherever the OP lives.
- enjo 15y agoHere in Denver they're pretty good. There is a bad spot in Downtown (that I used to live in), but other than that one block... it was great. I was about to switch back (I had moved to Verizon for other reasons) until they announced the merger.
- pessimist 15y agoI'm a happy T-mobile customer, and I hate AT&T, but IMHO the government has no business blocking this deal. Maybe the law allows it to block on nebulous competition grounds, but if it does then the law is an ass. Business should be allowed to screw over customers as they see fit, customers can and must be allowed to walk away. And I can still walk away to join Sprint/Verizon. Yes, neither of these companies may be offering me the best deal possible, but unless they are colluding, the government should not be involved.
- tjarratt 15y ago... and what of the fact that there will be one fewer major carrier and the cost of entry is significantly higher? Do you even have any idea how much it costs to start operating as a cell carrier, or how impractical it is in most regions, due to the lack of space to build new towers? Blocking this deal makes sense, unless you truly believe that businesses should be allowed to screw over customers AND remove any choices they may have for competing products. Do you really want to defend a monopoly?
- pavel_lishin 15y ago> Business should be allowed to screw over customers as they see fit, customers can and must be allowed to walk away. And I can still walk away to join Sprint/Verizon. And when AT&T eats Sprint/Verizon? I guess it's technically not a monopoly if one giant controls five nines of the market.
- _delirium 15y agoIf you count GSM phones as a market, which anyone who does international travel would, then the deal would reduce the number of companies in the U.S. market from 2 to 1.
- mikelward 15y agoThere's a number of "global phones" available on Verizon that are dual CDMA/GSM. http://b2b.vzw.com/international/Global_Phone/index.html http://b2b.vzw.com/international/Global_Phone/index.html
- 15y ago
- beefman 15y agoI'm trying to understand why comments on Hacker News and Reddit are so uniformly against this merger. Is it because T-mobile has better customer service than AT&T (and most other carriers), and people are upset this will probably be lost? When T-mobile came to the US, I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that they licensed their towers from AT&T (then Cingular). But my impression is that they, by now, have their own towers which will extend AT&T's network. Surely folks realize that mergers are badly needed in the wireless industry - that they are the solution to many of most onerous problems with wireless service today - and that artificially dividing infrastructure, as the FCC did, is tremendously wasteful.
- elehack 15y agoIn part: because the U.S. cell ecosystem has severe problems, and eliminating an independent competitor (particularly on GSM) sets us back rather than moving us towards an affordable, sane wireless economy.
- beefman 15y agoI think you have it backwards. What would happen if car companies also owned the roads, and each brand of car could only be driven on the corresponding roads?
- wanorris 15y agoThere are obvious disanalogies, but if the options are between several competing companies with their own roads and cars, and having only one or two companies that collectively control all the roads and all the cars, the former is still better. At the moment, those are the options on the table -- throwing our mobile infrtastructure out and starting over with a clean slate is not something practically achievable.
- beefman 15y ago> if the options are between several competing companies with their own roads and cars, and having only one or two companies that collectively control all the roads and all the cars, the former is still better No, it isn't. It's why infrastructure is usually owned by government, or given protected monopoly status. Where infrastructure is defined as anything too expensive to build redundantly (starting with the military and its natural monopoly, which we call government). Your wireless coverage is not affordable because you are paying to build 75% of each of three redundant mobile phone networks. Independent networks would never exist in a free market - only the FCC licensing process brought them about. And despite that, the vacuum is so strong it produced several mergers so far (Cingular + ATT, Sprint + Nextel, and of course, the remerger of the bells into Verizon and SBC/ATT).
- Vincentmb 15y agoI definitely understand the resistance to this merger, especially on Dan Hesse's part, but lets step back and think about what a "big two" would look like (Don't we live in a free-market?). A Verizon, AT&T dominated market is still going to drive innovation and maybe even more important an AT&T merger with T-Mobile will help to improve the quality of their service for their customers. As an AT&T customer myself, I'm all for it. One thing I know for sure; $7 Billion in failure is going to drive AT&T to do what it takes to make this happen ($3 billion breakup fee in cash an additional $3 to $4 billion in spectrum and services).
- cowkingdeluxe 15y agoCome on now. They implement data caps at the same time, they implement higher costing texting plans at the same time. I find it hard to believe that you think a AT&T/Verizon controlled U.S. cell phone market would be good for the average U.S. citizen.
- wanorris 15y ago> A Verizon, AT&T dominated market is still going to drive innovation Why? Why wouldn't they just stop with "You take your half of the market, we'll take our half, and we'll push through a 5% price increase every year for more or less the same services."? It works for the cable industry, and I can't see any reason that wireless players wouldn't be delighted with this approach. Heck, with only two real players, they might even be able to gang up on Apple and demand a larger share of the iPhone profits in the future and start forcing carrierware onto the iPhone, as with Android. A duopoly is not a functioning free market.
- w33ble 15y agoExactly. We basically have a Verizon & AT&T dominated market now, with T-Mobile and Sprint being nothing more than an afterthought; I think Sprint more-so that Tmo, but I digress. AT&T as put off putting up new towers to keep up with use for years. Ask New York iPhone users how well that's working out for them. Meanwhile, TMO decided to get serious in the US wireless game and has been spending a lot of money building out their next-gen network while at the same time reducing the prices of their plans (or at least giving you more for the same money). VZW seems to be the only other provider serious about rolling out a 4G network, and to my admittedly limited knowledge, ATT hasn't done anything in that regard, besides try to buy the network off TMO. Why would you possibly think anything would be different if they suddenly became the #1 provider? Based on their past actions, what would happen is they would drop all of TMO's low price contract-less all-you-can-eat plans and most likely stop the 4G rollout and just rest on what's already built. I wouldn't be surprised to see some price bumps or at the very least airtime/data reductions in there either. What have you seen that makes you think anything else would happen?
- ansy 15y agoThe DOJ may be using its leverage to get better concessions out of AT&T. Basically, because AT&T set such a big cancellation fee for itself, the DOJ can bargain up to just less than that amount. It's saying, "shape up or we'll seriously make you eat that $7 billion fee!" I actually think the huge cancellation fee means the deal is more likely to happen because AT&T will tolerate a lot of regulatory arm twisting before walking away. Exactly what AT&T will need to do I'm not sure. AT&T will probably be forced to sell any T-Mobile operations that overlap with AT&T's existing service just like in the Verizon-Alltel merger a couple years ago. Presumably this will be to small regional carriers so choice is preserved for people in those areas. AT&T will probably need to agree to some kind of consumer price protection at the very least to keep AT&T prices at current levels or lower for a number of years and protect existing T-Mobile customer contracts. AT&T might also have to sell or spin off its TV and home internet operations. The issue of ridiculous text messaging fees might come up, but nothing will be done about them.
- cjoh 15y agoIf they made AT&T agree to use sims and antennas compatible with Verizon's LTE network, that seems worthwhile.
- joelhaus 15y agoAbsolutely. Device portability would add real competition to the market, but in reality, AT&T would never agree to that because their whole rationale for the merger is to reduce competition (per the leaked memo). Verizon would also take major issue with this and most likely not allow any such AT&T devices on their network... and if VZW did certify a device, they would only permit the most crippled hardware from AT&T on their network. True competition between the two telco giants is an exciting proposition though, hopefully this is eventually accomplished. Just look at what it did to the long-distance market: http://video.wttw.com/video/1949293907/ http://video.wttw.com/video/1949293907/ (this is a PBS documentary on MCI breaking up AT&T premiering this weekend--good timing!)
- djeikyb 15y ago
- alexqgb 15y agoI wonder if this gloriously epic lawyer-fail had anything to do with the DOJ's call? http://bit.ly/oGKw2x http://bit.ly/oGKw2x [Leaked AT&T Letter Demolishes Case For T-Mobile Merger]
- squozzer 15y agoA lot of good points, but one I didn't see is what will T-mobile do if the deal falls through? $7bn IS chump change compared to what T and VZ spend annually on infrastructure. Unless DT wants to step up their game, T-mob will muddle along as #3 or #4 until a merger with someone goes through. And if the DOJ blocks T, they'll (probably) VZ, which leaves Sprint. Good luck with that...
- dethstarr 15y agoT-Mobile has horrible service and horrible data plans. I'm sick of them and wish they would get sucked into the black hole that is ATT. Where I still will have horrible service and bad data plans. Need to switch to Verizon.
- donnawarellp 15y agoThis is all part of the dance. Believe me, AT&T knew full well ahead of time the merger exceeded HHI bogeys in several markets, that is a well known formula, they should have know about how much of TMob they have to lop off to get under the HHI limits (if they did not they are dummies). I am sure they were hoping to avoid this level DOJ confrontation, but I can assure you plan B is to settle with DOJ by divesting enough to come into compliance.
- Daniel_Newby 15y agoAT&T said yesterday that it was surprised by the government’s lawsuit ... So now we know where Saddam Hussein's publicity man went.
- lancewiggs 15y agoThe extraordinary high breakup fee is important here, and it's there despite the many reasons we and the DOJ itself are citing. It seems that they breach everything - it;s a terrible deal for consumers. So why are AT&T and their investment bankers pushing so hard for this deal? There is certainly an agency cost - the execs at AT&T want to do a deal and run a bigger company, and their lawyers and bankers want the deal to go ahead so they van get paid. However T-Mobile has to spend money on lawyers and bankers as well, and so some of that breakup fee will be used to pay them, as well as T-Mobile itself. AT&T were banking on a compliant DOJ, and to be fair over the last decade there was very little push-back from any of the regulators. Since the GFC we would hope that they look over business dealing a bit more firmly, and this seems to be the case. PBS have a very good article (video) on the topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XquULysO1E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XquULysO1E In Australia, NZ and the UK there is a Commerce Commission or Monopoles Regulator that can just say no to deals like this. It's sad that the DOJ has to do so via an expensive lawsuit. Your taxes at work.