A new proposal from the nation’s six largest telephone companies would double or triple Universal Service Fund (USF) fees on many telephone lines, extending them to wireless, broadband-based phones, cable TV “digital phone” products, and potentially even Internet accounts, providing billions from consumers for the companies proposing the plan.

Universal Service Fund reform has been a hot topic this year in Washington, as regulators attempt to reform a long-standing program designed to help keep rural landline telephone service affordable, subsidized with small charges levied on customer phone bills that range between $1-3 dollars, depending on the size of your community.

The original goals of the USF have largely been achieved, and with costs dropping to provide telephone service, and ancillary services like broadband DSL opening the door to new revenue streams, some rural phone companies don’t need the same level of support they received in earlier years.  As a result, USF funds have progressively been disbursed to an increasing number of projects that have little to do with rural phone service.  Several funding scandals over the past decade have underlined the need for USF reform, and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been a strong advocate for directing an increasing amount of USF resources towards rural broadband deployment projects.

But now some of America’s largest phone companies want to establish their own vision for a future USF — one that preserves existing funding for rural phone service –and– levies new fees on ratepayers to support broadband expansion.

The ABC Plan's chief sponsors are AT&T...

America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan (ABC), proposed jointly by AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Windstream, Frontier Communications and FairPoint Communications, departs markedly from Genachowski’s vision for a revised USF that would not increase the overall size of the Fund or its cost to consumers.

That’s why some ratepayer consumer groups and utility regulators have taken a dim view on the phone companies’ plan.

Colleen Harrell, assistant general counsel to the Kansas Corporation Commission says customers would find USF fees doubling, if not tripling on their home phone bills under ABC.  That could mean charges of $6 or more per month per phone line.

While the plan substantially benefits the companies that propose it, critics say ABC will do little to enhance service for ordinary consumers.  In fact, some language in the proposal could open the door for landline companies to discontinue universal landline service, a long time goal of AT&T.

In fact, protection for incumbent phone companies seems to be the highest priority in most of the ABC’s framework:

1. The proposal provides a right of first refusal to the incumbent phone company, meaning USF grant funds effectively start at the landline provider, and are theirs to accept or reject.  This has competitors howling, ranging from Wireless ISPs, mobile data providers, cable companies, and even fiber networks.  The ABC proposal ignores who can deliver the best broadband most efficiently at the lowest price, and is crafted instead to deliver the bulk of funding to the provider that has been around the longest: phone companies.
2. Provisions in the ABC Plan provide a convenient exit door for landline providers saddled with providing service to some of America’s most rural communities.  An escape clause allows “satellite service” to be provided to these rural households as a suitable alternative to traditional wired service, sponsored by an annual $300 million Advanced Mobility/Satellite Fund.  This, despite the fact consumer ratings for satellite providers are dismal and existing providers warn their services are often unsuitable for voice calls because of incredibly high latency rates.
3. Provisions in the ABC Plan adhere to a definition of acceptable broadband well within the range favored by telephone company DSL providers — 4Mbps.  Setting the bar much higher could force phone companies to invest in their networks to reduce the distance of copper wire between their offices and customer homes and businesses, allowing for faster speeds.  Instead, lowering the bar on broadband speeds assures today’s deteriorating rural landline network will make-do, leaving a rural/urban speed divide in the United States.
4. To “resolve” the issue of the increased fees and surcharges that could result from the plan’s adoption, it includes a subjective cap of $30 a month on residential basic landline home phone service (without calling features).  But since most ratepayers pay substantially less for basic home phone service, the maximum rate cap provides plenty of room for future rate increases.  Also, nothing precludes phone companies from raising other charges, or creating new “junk fees” to raise rates further, ignoring the “cap.”

...and Verizon

Rural states seem unimpressed with the phone companies’ proposal.  The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) called various provisions of the plan “a train wreck.”  Kansas is one of several states that developed their own state-based Universal Service Fund to help the state’s many rural agricultural areas receive acceptable telecommunications services.  Kansans initially paid one of the highest USF rates in the country when their state plan was enacted in 1996.  But Kansas phone companies used that money to modernize their networks, especially in rural communities — some of which now receive fiber-based phone service, and the rates have fallen dramatically as upgrade projects have been completed.  Today, most Kansans pay just $1.45 in USF fees to rural phone companies, while AT&T customers in larger Kansas towns and cities pay an average of $2.04.

If the ABC Plan is enacted as-is, Kansans will see phone bills spike as new USF fees are levied.  That’s because the federally-based USF Fund reform program would require today’s 6.18% state USF rate double or triple to sustain various programs within its scope.

And forget about the $30 ‘smoke and mirrors’ “rate cap”, according to the KCC:

[…] The ceiling will not preclude carriers from increasing the basic rate beyond $25 or $30 through higher state USF surcharges or higher local rates.  Multiple states including Kansas  have partially or totally deregulated basic local phone service rates, and the only component of retail  local service pricing that the FCC regulates is the federal Subscriber Line Charge.  Thus, a carrier may face no constraint whatsoever in increasing basic local rates to the point that total local rates are well above the illusory ceiling.

The state of Wyoming was also unimpressed with a one-size-fits-all national approach advocated primarily by big city phone companies AT&T and Verizon, the chief sponsors of the ABC Plan.

The Wyoming Public Service Commission filed comments effectively calling the ABC Plan boneheaded, because it ignores the plight of particularly rural states like Wyoming, chiefly served by smaller phone and cable companies that face challenges in the sparsely populated, mountainous state.

First among the Wyoming PSC’s complaints is that the plan ignores business realities in rural states.  No matter how much USF funding becomes available or what compensation schemes are enacted, dominant state phone companies like CenturyLink are unlikely to “invest in broadband infrastructure unless it is economically opportune to do so.”

The PSC points to the most likely outcomes if the ABC Plan is enacted:

• Phone companies not challenged by a broadband competitor will make due with their current copper wire wireline infrastructure the PSC says has been deteriorating for years.  The PSC fears broadband expansion funds will be used to improve that copper network in larger areas where cable competition exists, while the rest of the more-rural network gets ignored;
• In areas like larger towns or suburbs where phone companies suspect a cable (or other) competitor might eventually expand or launch service, USF funding could be spent to bolster the phone company’s existing DSL service to deter would-be competitors from entering the market;
• 

  We'll pass, too.

  The Wyoming PSC believes phone companies will spend broadband funds only where it would improve the phone company’s competitive position with respect to cable competitors.  Providers are unlikely to expand into currently-ignored rural areas for two reasons: lack of ongoing return on investment and support costs and the ABC Plan’s willingness to abandon rural America to satellite providers.  “We are familiar to a degree with satellite service at it presently exists in Wyoming markets, and we are not particularly enamored of the satellite solution,” the PSC writes.  But if adopted, no rural phone company would invest in DSL service expansion in areas that could be designated to receive federally-supported satellite service instead.

Wireless competitors are not happy with the ABC Plan because it ignores Wireless ISPs and sets ground rules that make them unlikely to ever win financial support.  Many also believe the ABC Plan picks technology winners and losers — namely telephone company provided DSL service as the big winner, and everyone else a loser.

The Fiber to the Home Council also heaped criticism on the ABC Plan for the low bar it sets — low enough for any phone company to meet — on broadband speeds.  The FTTH Council notes the ABC Plan would leave rural America on a broadband dirt road while urban America enjoys high-speed-rail-like service.

Coming Next… Who Really Supports the Phone Companies’ ABC Plan.

Not satisfied with relying on the U.S. Department of Justice to protect the competitive marketplace for cell phone service, Sprint Nextel today brought suit against AT&T, Inc., AT&T Mobility, Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile seeking to block the proposed acquisition as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia as a related case to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) suit against the proposed acquisition.  It has been assigned to the same judge handling the Justice Department’s own lawsuit — Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

“Sprint opposes AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile,” said Susan Z. Haller, vice president-Litigation, Sprint. “With today’s legal action, we are continuing that advocacy on behalf of consumers and competition, and expect to contribute our expertise and resources in proving that the proposed transaction is illegal.”

Sprint’s lawsuit focuses on the competitive and consumer harms which would result from a takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T. The proposed takeover would:

• Harm retail consumers and corporate customers by causing higher prices and less innovation;
• Entrench the duopoly control of AT&T and Verizon, the two “Ma Bell” descendants, of the almost one-quarter of a trillion dollar wireless market. As a result of the transaction, AT&T and Verizon would control more than three-quarters of that market and 90 percent of the profits;
• Harm Sprint and the other independent wireless carriers. If the transaction were to be allowed, a combined AT&T and T-Mobile would have the ability to use its control over backhaul, roaming and spectrum, and its increased market position to exclude competitors, raise their costs, restrict their access to handsets, damage their businesses and ultimately to lessen competition.

Sprint believes that in a marketplace dominated by AT&T and Verizon Wireless, the two largest players would likely collude on pricing and terms of service rather than compete heavily against one-another.  Sprint’s assumptions may already be true, considering both companies largely charge near-identical prices for service.

While Sprint proceeds with its own legal action, squabbling has broken out over whether or not AT&T so carefully crafted the terms and conditions of their $6 billion “breakup fee,” payable to T-Mobile USA if the merger fails, that it almost guarantees AT&T will never have to pay it.

“Under its agreement with Deutsche Telekom, the deal is only valid if the acquisition receives regulatory approval within a certain time frame,” an anonymous source told Reuters. “Also, the agreement could become invalid if regulatory conditions for the sale push the value of T-Mobile USA below a certain level.”

T-Mobile, unsurprisingly, disagrees with that characterization.

A Deutsche Telekom spokesman said Tuesday that AT&T could retreat from the transaction if the concessions necessary to get approval amount to more than $7.8 billion, but added Deutsche Telekom would still be entitled to receive the break-up fee package, which includes cash and wireless spectrum.

Gone for new customers

AT&T has stopped allowing new customers to sign up for its “A-List” feature, which allowed AT&T Wireless customers on individual service plans to make unlimited calls to up to five mobile or landline numbers; Family Plan members were able to pre-select up to 10 numbers.  It’s particularly bad news for users of Google Voice, who added their Google-assigned phone number to their calling list to make unlimited Google Voice calls over their AT&T phones.

For now, existing A-List customers can keep the feature as long as they stick with the same rate plan, but AT&T warns it reserves the right to discontinue it at any time.

Engadget received a leaked memo regarding the change, which AT&T sprung on customers with no warning earlier today.

AT&T says A-List is a feature whose time has come and gone.  In its place, the company is allowing free mobile-to-mobile calling, according to an official company statement:

With automatic addition at no-cost of AT&T’s Mobile to Any Mobile offer for our wireless customers with an unlimited messaging plan, AT&T A-List is being discontinued for new users. Existing A-List users are not affected. We have seen a very enthusiastic response to the value of Mobile to Any Mobile which lets users with an unlimited messaging plan call any mobile number in America, regardless of the wireless provider.

While AT&T’s mobile calling feature is unique because it works with any mobile customer using any provider, the loss of A-List means numerous calls to landline numbers (including Google Voice numbers) could burn through your plan minutes much faster.  AT&T probably pays a higher connection fee to complete calls to landline numbers, especially in rural areas where connection charges are higher.

Ironically, competition from T-Mobile’s myFaves feature helped inspire AT&T to match the competition with the launch of A-List.  It is this kind of innovative, disruptive marketing that benefits every mobile customer, as competing carriers are forced to match features offered by other carriers.

In the last month, AT&T has been paring back customer-friendly value options such as its discounted, light user text plan.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Scott, who notes: “Again, the merger isn’t even through or likely and AT&T is still slashing consumer friendly and money saving features put in place to fend off the competition.”

Cablevision: Don't Call Us

By the time Hurricane Irene reached upstate New York and New England, it was a tropical storm some say was over-hyped from the outset, but don’t tell that to utility companies facing weeks of service restorations that will leave some of their customers offline until October.

The worst damage to infrastructure was done in this region, with utility poles swept away in flood waters right along with the homes they used to serve.  Telephone and cable companies in several parts of the region cannot even begin to restore service until higher-priority electric service is brought back.  Besides, you can’t use a broadband connection if your power has been out for a week plus.

Those addicted to their online connection are making due in parking lots and other Wi-Fi hotspots where service prevailed over Irene.  Wireless connectivity from cell phone companies is also getting a workout, assuming customers are aware of usage caps and limitations which could make September’s bill much higher than expected.

Stop the Cap! has learned some DSL service restoration appointments in upstate New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire are now extending into October, although companies suggest outside work may resolve problems.  Customers with the worst luck face a lengthy wait for the replacement of utility poles, new utility lines to be strung across them, and replacement of individual lines connected from the pole to individual homes.

Some FairPoint Communications customers are finding Irene did a real number on their DSL service even if power outages were limited.

In southwestern New Hampshire, Robert Mitchell was presented with a unique error page on his computer after the lights came back on:

“…we are improving the security of your broadband connection. As such, you have been redirected to the FairPoint Communications broadband service page to install a security update.”

That was a fine idea, except its implementation left customers like Mitchell with the most secure broadband connection around, resistant to all malware and viruses — namely, by not having any connection at all.

My annoyance only increased when I realized that FairPoint may have provided a link to download the security update software, but they were not going to make the process of accessing that software easy.

“Your Web browser (Firefox) and Operating System (Mac) are not compatible with the DSL Security improvement process…please re-open this page on a Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7 PC using Internet Explorer,” the message continued.

Bully for me, I have two Macs in the office. Time to call technical support? Nope, sorry. Both of my phone lines use Vonage, a VoIP service that relies on a working DSL modem for dial tone. Cell service at the house was sketchy at best — if I could even get through to technical support during a hurricane.

With the help of an old Windows XP machine, Mitchell managed to finally get back online.  Later, he learned the power spikes and brownouts that preceded the blackout in his neighborhood had caused his DSL modem to resort to its original default settings.  When FairPoint customers first connect a DSL modem, the company prompts them to perform the aforementioned “security update.”  Only FairPoint stopped offering that update more than eight months earlier.  Now, according to Mitchell, it’s just the default start page for newly activated DSL modems.

Customers further east in downstate New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey are finding getting service restoration highly dependent on which provider they use.

Time Warner Cable customers numbering about 350,000 found their service out Wednesday after leftover flooding and debris tore up fiber cables serving Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.  Service was restored that evening.

Cablevision customers in Connecticut are still experiencing new outages caused by flooding, and with power company workers contending with more damage in that state than further south in New York, cable crews can’t restore service until the lights are back on.

Cablevision customers on Long Island are still being told not to bother calling the cable company to report outages.  Those that do are often given a date of Sept. 15 for full service restoration, although it could be sooner if damage in individual neighborhoods is less severe.  A Cablevision spokesman said, “Cablevision is experiencing widespread service interruptions, primarily related to the loss of power.  Cablevision crews are in the field and we will be working around the clock to make necessary repairs, in close coordination with local utilities.  Generally, as electricity is returned to an area, customers will be able to access Cablevision service.”

Verizon customers in downstate New York and New Jersey faced lengthy hold times to report service outages, and are given a range of dates from later this week until mid-September for full service restoration.  Some pockets of very badly damaged infrastructure may take even longer to access and repair.  Verizon’s largest union workforce, under the auspices of Communications Workers of America District 1 are accusing Verizon management of slowing repairs with denials of overtime work requests, in part to punish workers for their recent strike action.  John Bonomo, a Verizon spokesperson, denies that accusation, but added the company is not treating the thousands of customers still without service as an emergency, noting landline service “is not as vital as it had been in past years.”

Comcast customers, mostly in Pennsylvania, Vermont and Massachusetts, are turning to smartphones to cope through extended service outages, according to the Boston Globe:

Comcast Corp. customer Soraya Stevens turned to her iPhone when her cable blew out, logging on to Twitter from her Bedford home for the latest power outage updates. “I would not have any communication or insight without my smartphone,’’ said Stevens, a software engineer.

Some customers who lost cable service lost their TV, Internet, and landline phone, which are often bundled and sold together. Many turned to their smartphones, operating on batteries and the signal from cellphone towers, or friends and family who still had cable service.

AT&T, which serves landline customers in Connecticut, experienced more outages a day or two after Irene departed as battery backup equipment installed at landline central offices finally failed.  Those equipped with diesel generators are still up and running, but many AT&T customers sold a package of broadband and phone service may actually be receiving telephone service over a less-robust Voice Over IP network, supported with battery backup equipment that shuts down after 24 hours, when the batteries are exhausted.  This has left customers with standard copper wire phone service still up and running, but customers on Voice Over IP completely disconnected.

Bill Henderson, president of Communications Workers of America Local 1298, told the Hartford Courant those landlines aren’t considered landlines by the Department of Utility Control, and aren’t regulated for reliability, as the old system is.

“Technology has risen. Some of the things we’ve given up in that system is reliability,” he said. “This is what I’ve been screaming about to the DPUC. It’s a telephone! We need to regulate this service.”

Customers are also complaining loudly about AT&T’s poor wireless performance during Irene, with many tower outages and service disruptions that are still ongoing.

Remember, when services are restored, be sure and contact your provider and request a full service credit.  You will not receive one unless you ask.

Phillip Dampier

Now that the initial shock of an aggressive — some say “audacious” — move by the Justice Department to block a merger AT&T confidently called “a done deal” is past, analysts of all kinds are attempting to discern the inside reasons for the merger’s rejection, where the deal can go from here, and what signals this will send the rest of America’s telecom industry.

In short — was this one merger proposal too far over the line?

The Justice Department reviewed reams of data, document-dumped by AT&T, on the company’s rationale for wanting to absorb T-Mobile and its implications for employees, consumers, and the dwindling number of wireless competitors.

They quickly discovered they did not like what they were seeing:  an all-new AT&T with a combined 132 million wireless customers, completely dwarfing all of their competitors and signaling a full-scale retreat from the company’s historic landline network.  An unregulated, increasingly concentrated wireless marketplace, represents the Wild West of fat profits, ripe for the picking by those large enough to control the market.  Increasingly, that means two former Baby Bells — AT&T and Verizon.

The Wall Street Journal charted more than two decades of mergers and acquisitions, which reduced nearly two dozen players down to five supersized telecom companies.

The Politics

Decisions at Justice are hardly made in a vacuum.  Politics always plays a role, and it’s a safe bet Obama Administration officials well-above rank-and-file lawyers in the Antitrust Division sent clear signals to the Department about how it wanted the review handled.  After all, this same team of lawyers had almost no trouble approving a mega-merger between NBC-Universal and Comcast Corporation, not finding anything ‘antitrust’ about that deal.  But Justice officials hurried out their own lawsuit with a wide-ranging, harsh condemnation of the deal at yesterday’s press conference.  As most Americans already know, competition in the cable industry is hardly robust, but market concentrating mergers and acquisitions are approved regularly in that industry.  So why did the Justice Department have such a problem with AT&T?

America's Wireless Market: Beyond well-behind, third-place Sprint, no other carrier comes close to AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

Many analysts seem to blame the company’s “arrogance” in telling reporters the merger was a breeze to be approved, others point to spectrum issues, as well as complaints about AT&T’s poor service potentially ensnaring T-Mobile customers.  But above all, Justice lawyers believe that America’s wireless marketplace needs at least four national wireless carriers, particularly scrappy T-Mobile, which has a long history of being a disruptive player in the market, loathe to offer the kind of “identical twin”-pricing common at AT&T and Verizon Wireless.  Losing T-Mobile’s aggressive performance in the market would mean declaring open season for price increases and abusive business practices.  After all, where would wireless consumers go?

That “four national carrier”-test could be a big problem for T-Mobile, as it could mean Justice lawyers would also reject an presumed alternative — combining Sprint and T-Mobile,  rumored before AT&T moved in and stole the show.  A new entrant willing to buy-out Deutsche Telekom’s U.S. wireless interests may be the only palatable solution acceptable to Justice lawyers because it would keep T-Mobile intact and running, independent of other wireless carriers.

Justice also completely discounted the relevance of regional carriers like MetroPCS, Cricket, U.S. Cellular, and other smaller providers.  The reason is simple: roaming.  All of these smaller providers are completely dependent on the four large national carriers to deliver essential roaming services for their customers who travel outside of the regions where these smaller companies deliver service themselves.  All national carriers would have to do to control an overly-competitive “problem” carrier is withdraw roaming agreements or raise prices for them.

Sprint, among others, is obviously the most relieved by yesterday’s events.  Their long term viability as a national carrier dwarfed by AT&T and Verizon Wireless would have raised numerous questions about whether that company could survive in the long term.  Sprint would have also felt pressure to beef up its own operations, likely through acquisitions of several regional carriers, particularly MetroPCS and Cricket, which share its CDMA network standard.

Wall Street is livid, of course.

The great gnashing of teeth has begun on Wall Street, evident as stock analysts begin raising questions about President Obama’s “anti-business” policies.  While executives at both AT&T and T-Mobile are at risk of losing substantial bonuses for pulling the deal off (and providing special retention packages to keep key talent from leaving), there is also a lot of money to be lost in New York and Washington should the deal collapse.  Take the “little people” that will be out tens of millions in deal fees and proceeds from extending credit, implementing the merger itself, and structuring the legal mechanics.  They include:

Arnold & Porter: The now infamous law firm that accidentally posted an un-redacted document on the Federal Communications Commission website that exposed, in AT&T’s own words, what consumer groups already strongly suspected: AT&T preferred the long term benefits of knocking pesky T-Mobile out of the marketplace, even though the $39 billion dollar price tag dwarfed the $4 billion estimated cost of building AT&T’s own 4G LTE network.  That’s the 4G network executives deemed “too expensive” earlier this year.  With a deal collapse, the firm can say goodbye to lucrative legal fees and perhaps more importantly, their reputation of properly managing their clients’ business affairs.

Greenhill & Co.: Greenhill is one of several all-star, platinum-priced advisory firms hired by companies acquiring other companies to structure and implement their mergers.  With Greenhill hoping for a substantial piece of at least $150 million set aside by AT&T to cover these specific costs, a merger-interrupted could cost key people some nice year-end bonuses.

JPMorgan (Chase): The House of J.P. Morgan handed over a check for AT&T worth up to $20 billion to help finance the deal.  JPMorgan doesn’t do that for free.  In addition to any interest proceeds, JPMorgan also charges a range of underwriting and administrative fees that could easily total $85 million dollars.  AT&T might have to send the check back.

Cable Business News & Business Media: One of the most ironic developments watching the Justice Dept. decision unfold was the unintentional amount of AT&T advertising promoting the merger that preceded video reports and appeared adjacent to AT&T-related stories.  Those ads may soon end, costing cable news and the business press substantial ad revenue.

Cable business news networks offered up scathing analyses. Among anchors and analysts upset with the news of the merger’s potential derailment, it didn’t take long for “couched questions” to begin, pondering whether President Obama was against big companies, jobs, or the concept of the private sector in general.  Completely missing: coverage of the benefits for consumers who potentially don’t have to endure a further concentration in the wireless marketplace.

Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein, who usually celebrates all-things-cable, today told the Wall Street Journal the actions at Justice will harm business at every U.S. wireless carrier.

“Put simply, the industry will be structurally less attractive than it would otherwise have been,” he said. “Pricing is likely to be less stable, and profound technological risks, including free texting and bandwidth arbitrage, that would be manageable in the context of a significantly consolidated industry now become much more threatening.”

Judge Ellen

In other words, a hegemony of AT&T and Verizon Wireless could play rough with third party developers trying to undercut text message pricing and deliver data plan workarounds. With more competitors, consumers could simply abandon abusive providers.  Without those competitors, consumers have to pay AT&T’s asking price or go without service.

The Law

AT&T may be hoping it scored one potential success in its anticipated legal challenge against the Justice Department’s antitrust case.

The judge assigned to hear arguments is Ellen Segal Huvelle, who has a track record of slapping down government overreach.  Huvelle previously rejected Justice Department objections to the merger of SunGard and Comdisco — two disaster-recovery businesses.  The government argued the merger would leave just two major players in that business.  Judge Huvelle dismissed that, claiming the government too-narrowly defined what a disaster-recovery business entailed.  If she finds AT&T’s arguments of robust competition from regional carriers, landlines, and Voice Over IP credible, Justice lawyers may have a problem.  So could consumers.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Audacious Move to Block Merger 8-31-11.flv[/flv]

PBS Newshour explores where the AT&T/T-Mobile merger goes next, now that the Justice Dept. sued to stop it on antitrust grounds.  (7 minutes)