AT&T pays a lot of money — millions annually — to make sure its business agenda does not run into political or legislative roadblocks in Washington, D.C.  With dozens of members of Congress effectively on AT&T’s campaign contribution payroll and the company’s unparalleled skill at convincing non-profit organizations to advocate for its interests, worrying about the government’s antitrust views on its proposed buyout of Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile was the least of its troubles.

“It’s a done deal,” several analysts predicted shortly after the deal was announced, especially after AT&T demonstrated its confidence level in the merger was as high as the enormous $6 billion dollar breakup concession payable to Telekom if it ever fell apart.

Then the government dared to put its two cents in, in the form of a “are you kidding me?”-lawsuit courtesy of the U.S. Department of Justice.  It seems, in the words of some Beltway cynics, the Obama Administration can manage to see a clear cut case of anti-competitive behavior when given enough time.

Since the lawsuit was announced on Aug. 31, it has been “all-hands-on-deck” for the company’s government relations division, packed full of the company’s top lobbyists.  While company lawyers desperately attempt to block what it sees as “pile on” objections and lawsuits from worried competitors, Sprint-Nextel in particular, AT&T lobbyists are trying to compromise away the Justice Department case with proposals of concessions and giveaways to make approval more palatable.

Further north, as fall turns into winter in New York’s financial district, Wall Street analysts are cold on the troubled deal themselves.

The Financial Times reports most analysts think there is now less than a 50-50 chance the merger will be completed unless the two companies agree to disgorge themselves of market share, territories, and increasing “shareholder value” that will come from eventual rate increases a wireless duopoly would inevitably bring.

Some are even less sanguine, predicting AT&T has only a 20 percent shot, and only if it sells off considerable chunks of valuable spectrum to competitors other than Verizon Wireless.

AT&T is retuning its “message” for the times, downplaying the original, ludicrous notion that urban-focused T-Mobile would be the keystone of a new era in 4G wireless service for rural America.  There is a reason T-Mobile isn’t the first choice for small town America’s cell phone buyers.

Instead, AT&T is now positioning the merger deal as a lifeboat for its troubled competitor.  AT&T suggests the number four carrier is in immediate peril — hemorrhaging customers, caught without a coherent 4G strategy, and an exodus of interest by its increasingly neglectful parent — Deutsche Telekom.

Could Time Warner Cable be an eventual part-owner of T-Mobile USA?

“Over the past two years, T-Mobile USA has been losing customers despite explosive demand for mobile broadband,” AT&T said in a statement this week. “T-Mobile USA has no clear path to 4G LTE, the industry’s next generation network, and its German parent, Deutsche Telekom, has said it would not continue to make significant investments in the United States.”

With AT&T predicting the demise of its smaller would-be cousin, consumers may not be in the mood to sign a two-year contract with a company that could soon be rechristened AT&T, especially those leaving AT&T for T-Mobile.

But don’t tell T-Mobile’s marketing department it’s a phone company on life support.  T-Mobile has beefed up its advertising and continues to irritate its larger competitors, particularly AT&T, with very aggressive pricing on its prepaid plans.

T-Mobile recently unveiled two disruptive $30 4G prepaid plans that offer either 1500 shared minutes/text messages and 30MB of data usage -or- 100 voice minutes combined with unlimited texting and up to 5GB of mobile data before the speed throttle kicks in.  Those prices are too low for AT&T and Verizon to ignore, especially when offered on a 4G network.

So far, the Justice Department shows no signs of backing down from their resolute opposition to the deal, minor concessions or not.  Shareholders may not appreciate giving the government too much of what it wants in order to win approval.  Washington lawmakers are split — virtually every Republican favors the merger, Democrats are less absolute, with most opposed.  Among those in favor, by how much is often a measure of what kind of campaign money AT&T has thrown their way.

AT&T absolutely denies they have a “Plan B” in case the merger eventually fails.  But the Times doubts that, reporting as time drags on, an alternative deal might emerge.  Some of the possibilities:

• T-Mobile USA could merge its spectrum with Dish Network, the satellite TV company, to launch a new 4G mobile operator in the USA;
• Combine forces (and spectrum) in a deal with leading U.S. cable companies like Cox, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable to launch a new cable-branded mobile operator;
• Sell or merge operations with MetroPCS, Leap Wireless’ Cricket, or one of several regional cell companies.

Perennial cable booster Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein predictably favors the cable solution, which would let companies offer a quad or quint-play of cable TV, wireless mobile broadband, wired broadband, phone, and cell phone service all on one bill.  It would also get the FCC off the backs of cable operators Time Warner and Comcast, who both control a total of 20MHz of favored wireless spectrum they have left unused since acquiring it at auction.  The Commission is increasingly irritated at companies who own unused spectrum at a time when the agency is trying to find additional frequencies for wireless providers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATTs 96000 Job Claim in T-Mobile Deal Questioned 11-8-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News questions AT&T’s claim its merger deal with T-Mobile will create 96,000 new jobs. [Nov. 8] (3 minutes)

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen got himself off script and tangled in the percentages over the weekend when he told German magazine Focus the merger deal between AT&T and T-Mobile that the CWA has been cheerleading since it was first announced had little chance of coming to pass.

Cohen told Focus the chance of the deal getting beyond the current court challenge from the U.S. Department of Justice was around 20 percent. That seemed to signal the union was getting in line with those prepared to throw the current merger deal under the nearest bus.

Soon after that quote came home on the Bloomberg News wires (and reached AT&T), it didn’t take long for a revised quote (that a union spokesperson would later claim to be a “clarification”) to appear in a subsequent story:

There is about a 60 percent chance of a settlement between the companies and the Justice Department, Cohen said in a telephone interview today. Should the case go to court, it would be 50-50 on which way the decision would go, he said.

But the fuzzy math truly got exposed when the Wall Street Journal got this explanation for the discrepancy:

A spokeswoman for CWA said it was mostly a case of fuzzy math. Mr. Cohen’s point, she said, was that there was a 60% chance that the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the deal would be settled out of court.

But in the 40% chance that it didn’t, then there was a 50-50 chance that the company would prevail, which he may or may not have stated as 20 percent.

In reality, he meant to say that it was more likely than not that the case would be settled and the merger would succeed, the spokeswoman said.

“Perhaps it wasn’t the best of use of math,” she said. “Things got lost in the percentages.”

So, did AT&T push for the comments to be clarified? “I had some exchanges with my counterpart at AT&T, yes,” she said. “I sent her our clarification… which is good.”

La Schiazza

AT&T Illinois president Paul La Schiazza is in the business of predicting the future of other mobile phone companies.  In an interview with the Journal-Star, La Schiazza said AT&T should be permitted to complete its purchase of T-Mobile, because if they don’t, T-Mobile will never make the investment in 4G upgrades and “whether we buy them or not, (T-Mobile) is going to go away eventually.”

That’s ironic for Mr. La Schiazza to say, considering his employer made a decision not to make substantial investments in 4G upgrades itself, before suggesting it would with the purchase of T-Mobile.

La Schiazza admits AT&T has thrown its landline business under the bus, now considering it antiquated and irrelevant for a growing number of Americans.

“More people, especially young people, are cutting the cord,” he said, referring to customers who drop landline service completely. “We’ve changed our business model to be a mobile/broadband company,” said La Schiazza.

La Schiazza was also willing to call out AT&T itself when he noted wireless companies in Illinois, including his, have put rural areas at a “significant disadvantage.”  That’s because wireless companies ignore rural areas where providing coverage does not make economic sense.  Yet La Schiazza oddly claimed that with the absorption of T-Mobile, 97 percent of Illinois could get enhanced AT&T service.  He did not explain exactly what business formula was used to justify the enhanced proposed coverage maps he brought with him to the interview.

David Kolata, executive director of the Chicago-based Citizens Utility Board, provided the newspaper with a countering viewpoint — rare in newspaper stories featuring interviews with AT&T executives.  Kolata told the newspaper he was less thrilled about a possible T-Mobile-AT&T merger. “The cellphone industry is already pretty concentrated. When one of the biggest players buys another large company, it raises competitive concerns,” he said.

“The fact that the Department of Justice and five or six state attorney generals (including Lisa Madigan in Illinois) across the country oppose the merger as currently proposed is an indication that it could be bad for consumers,” said Kolata.

[Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Bob for the news tip.]

Crumpton

NAACP national board member and former Missouri Public Service Commission member Harold Crumpton believes that combining AT&T and T-Mobile will create 100,000 new jobs, despite the fact both companies have promoted “cost savings” from eliminating redundant services and winning “increased efficiencies.”

That’s code language for layoffs, and it has been that way with every telecommunications merger in the last decade.  But Crumpton prefers to deny reality in a guest opinion piece published today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Most mergers result in — and pay for themselves with — job losses and higher prices. Not this one.

If, to use the government antitrust lingo, there is a “relevant product market” for this merger, it would be “jobs” because jobs are the No. 1 product of the broadband factory. The AT&T and T-Mobile merger is structured as an engine of job creation — yielding 100,000 new jobs by delivering on President Obama’s call for a national high-speed broadband network. That’s far more jobs than would be lost because of AT&T and T-Mobile overlaps.

Ironically, AT&T announced the repatriation of 5,000 call center jobs and pledged not to terminate call center employees because of the merger. Two hours later, without warning to AT&T, the Justice Department filed its suit. Suffice to say that President Obama, our greatest champion of job creation, was not well-served that morning.

How will AT&T produce all these new jobs? By creating the first national next-generation high-speed (4G) mobile network. The merger is what will make the network possible, and it will do that by aggregating and redeploying spectrum T-Mobile can’t use for 4G. In this way, the network would reach 55 million more Americans than 4G currently reaches.

AT&T couldn’t have argued the case better.  Oh wait.  They have, in the company’s advocacy package mailed to the NAACP and dozens of other groups who receive the company’s financial support.  Those talking points inevitably end up in the guest editorials penned by Crumpton and others.

While the bloom is clearly off the rose of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, thanks in part to consumer groups and the U.S. Department of Justice who filed a lawsuit to stop it, AT&T is still flailing about trying to find some way to get the deal done, if only to avoid the outrageous break-up fee self-imposed by the telecommunications giant if the deal falls apart.  AT&T’s promise to bring an end to the obnoxious practice of offshoring their customer support call centers — if the merger gets approved — has been compared with blackmail by some customers who have spent an hour or more negotiating with heavily accented customer support agents that companies like Discover Card routinely mock.

AT&T promises customers a solution to the "Peggy Problem" if their merger with T-Mobile gets approved.

It clearly wasn’t enough to move critics of the deal to reconsider — AT&T could voluntarily hire American workers who speak the language of their customers for the benefit of those customers with or without a merger with the fourth largest wireless carrier in the country.

Crumpton argues President Obama was not well served by the Justice Department.  Consumer groups argue T-Mobile and AT&T’s customers will not be well-served if this merger ever happens.

As Stop the Cap! has repeatedly argued, both AT&T and T-Mobile will construct 4G mobile broadband networks in all of the places where the economics to deploy those networks makes sense.  No more, no less, no matter if AT&T and T-Mobile are two companies or one.

Crumpton might as well have argued the merger would deliver 4G service to Sprint customers as well.  It’s the same disconnected logic.

Crumpton thinks AT&T’s high-priced, heavily-capped 4G network will somehow solve the pervasive problem of the digital divide — the millions of poor Americans who can’t afford AT&T’s prices.  Incredibly, Crumpton’s answer is to allow one of the most price-aggressive, innovative carriers in the country favored by many budget-conscious consumers to be snapped up by the lowest rated, if not most-hated wireless company in the country.

It just doesn’t make sense.  But it does make dollars… for the NAACP, which receives boatloads of corporate money from AT&T.  It’s no surprise the pretzel-twisted logic that drives merger advocates like Mr. Crumpton comes fact-free.  The money makes up for all that.

“The NAACP stands ready to work with the public and private sectors to ensure that every American has an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from this awesome ‘broadband revolution,'” Crumpton writes.

We can only hope that is true.  The NAACP can get started by admitting publicly it receives substantial support from AT&T and it will either agree to remain neutral in corporate advocacy issues to avoid conflicts of interest, or return AT&T’s money.  After all, it sounds like they need it to build the digital divide-erasing 4G network Crumpton is purportedly so concerned about.