While T-Mobile isn’t bashing AT&T in advertising as badly as it did before the announced proposition of a merger between the two companies, T-Mobile is still calling out AT&T’s high mobile prices with innovative new service plans that can deliver substantial savings for consumers — savings that will evaporate if AT&T swallows the company whole.

Take this week’s introduction of T-Mobile’s new Family Mobile Unlimited Plans, which deliver unlimited texting, calling, and 2GB of throttle-free “4G” (HSPA+/HSPA+42) data for as low as $69.99 per line (two-line minimum), which is just shy of $140 a month before taxes and fees.  Comparable plans from AT&T run $99.99 per line — a $30 difference.  A two year contract is required.

Although T-Mobile is pitching these plans as delivering “unlimited data,” in reality their speed throttle kicks in on some of them after 2GB of usage per month.  While customers will not experience bill shock from overlimit fees common with AT&T and Verizon Wireless, they won’t actually get an unlimited data experience like the one Sprint still delivers on its unlimited data plans.

Additional lines are available for $20 a month with 500 calling minutes and 200MB of data usage, or $40 a month each to upgrade to unlimited talk (but keep the same 200MB usage allowance for data.)

T-Mobile is pitching these plans to value-conscious families who live on their phones.  While other providers let you pool calling minutes on Family Plans, each phone usually has to also select any additional added-cost features like data and texting.  T-Mobile is bundling some of these features into the sale price.

AT&T told investors the merger would bring about higher revenue and cost savings.  Not having to respond to T-Mobile’s aggressive price competition by lowering its own prices is one great way to achieve this.

That means higher prices for everyone.

Don’t like the prospects of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and worried your AT&T bill will increase as a result?  If you are an AT&T on-contract customer, the New York law firm of Bursor & Fisher wants to talk to you.

Scott A. Bursor, the founding partner of the firm, says he wants to represent AT&T customers to help stop the proposed merger, or win significant financial concessions on behalf of those who could face skyrocketing cell phone bills as a result of reduced competition in the marketplace:

AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile would turn back the clock to the era of the Ma Bell monopoly. The deal would give AT&T and Verizon control over 80% of the wireless market, would stifle the competitive market forces that would otherwise help to keep prices down, and would stifle new products and innovation.

AT&T’s claim that the takeover will help improve network quality makes no sense. T-Mobile’s network overlaps almost entirely AT&T’s. And AT&T already has more spectrum than any other company. In most areas, AT&T already holds at least 40 MHz of spectrum it is not even using. AT&T is keeping that spectrum off the market, which prevents competitors from using it to provide better service at lower prices.

Turning back the clock to the Ma Bell monopoly era will allow AT&T and Verizon to dictate what type of phone you can use, how you can use it, and what you will pay. It will destroy competition, leading to higher prices and worse service.

Since AT&T’s wireless contracts specifically prohibit customers from suing the company for any reason, the law firm seeks to pursue the alternative “mandatory arbitration” specified by AT&T in an effort to either derail the merger or force the price much higher.

Customers who retain the law firm on their website can expect the firm to follow four steps that could bring arbitration awards as high as $10,000 per customer:

First, when you sign up, you will receive a confirmation email with a copy of our retainer agreement. We will also provide you with the an email address where you can contact us if you have any questions or concerns about the process.

Second, shortly after you sign up, we will send a letter on your behalf by certified mail to AT&T giving them notice that you intend to file an arbitration seeking to enjoin the takeover of T-Mobile. This is the first hoop you have to jump through to bring an arbitration under the fine print of AT&T’s Arbitration Agreement. We will send you a copy of that letter by email.

Third, if AT&T does not agree to cease and desist from completing the merger within 30 days, we will file a demand for arbitration on your behalf with the American Arbitration Association. The demand will include extensive evidence and legal authority we have gathered to prove that AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile will harm competition in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act. We will email you a copy arbitration demand when it is filed.

Fourth, our team of lawyers will litigate your arbitration case aggressively to make sure that your arbitration rights, and your rights under the antitrust laws, are protected. If we are successful, we may seek a $10,000 payment for you.

Bursor

AT&T scoffs at the effort, releasing a statement calling Bursor & Fisher’s actions “completely without merit.” Company officials also claimed arbitrators have no standing to block a corporate merger, hinting the endeavor may be more about winning the law firm a substantial payout than representing the interests of consumers.

Bursor & Fisher are not pursuing AT&T for free.  The attorneys will deduct 50 percent of any award as their contingency fee — a percentage considerably higher than the more common 33-40 percent attorneys usually deduct, and this does not include further reductions to cover any “costs” advanced by the firm.

We found this somewhat curious, considering AT&T’s own arbitration legalese already provides for an attorney premium in their award — twice the amount of any legal fees and reimbursement of expenses.  So deducting an additional 50 percent and taking fees from any consumer awards seems like a case of unfair double-dipping.

But since you are not obligated to pay a cent in fees, anything you might manage to walk away with is more than you started with.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT T Mobile Merger.flv[/flv]

Free Press has some fun at AT&T and T-Mobile’s expense with these four video ads opposing the merger.  Of course, the expense is all yours if the merger succeeds in further reducing wireless competition and allowing the all-new AT&T to raise prices even higher.  (3 minutes)

Phillip "Not Paid by AT&T" Dampier

When asked if the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile will limit customer choice, NAACP’s local executive director Stanley Miller told a Cleveland, Ohio television station, “I don’t think that’s an issue in today’s environment; I think the companies are smarter today and they will make people understand and give them the beneficial services that they’ll need.”

The civil rights group had nothing to say about how much AT&T will charge for these “beneficial services.”

At least WEWS-TV in Cleveland is bothering to ask the question.  Most of America’s television news has either ignored the enormous merger on offer from AT&T and T-Mobile, or didn’t wade much further beyond AT&T’s press release about the “benefits” the merger will bring.  Unfortunately, the television station never bothered to alert viewers to the fact the civil rights group receives substantial financial support from AT&T.

Miller’s performance trying to tout his parent organization’s unqualified support for the merger sent a very clear message to anyone watching NewsChannel 5 — he doesn’t really understand what he is talking about.

On the issue of expanding wireless service into rural Ohio, Miller was left tongue-twisting his way into advocating a monopoly because they’ll be best equipped to get service to those who need it.  That’s a fascinating prospect — a monopoly spending money expanding service where it is unprofitable to provide.  That’s the reason companies like AT&T have ignored rural America, and will continue to do so — merger or not.

Miller (WEWS-TV)

In fact, AT&T’s claim that it needs the network of T-Mobile to stop the persistent problems of dropped calls and slow data service doesn’t make much sense either.  Verizon, AT&T’s closest competitor, doesn’t seem to be suffering those problems, perhaps because it has made investments in upgrades AT&T has avoided.

In California, consumer advocate Jon Fox was taking an equally skeptical look at AT&T’s claims on behalf of CalPIRG, the California Public Interest Research Group.  Fox noted AT&T’s promotion of the merger in his state came at invitation-only cheerleading sessions run by company officials:

Earlier this month, AT&T California President Ken McNeely explained to an invitation-only audience that the proposed merger with T-Mobile will create new jobs, help communities and improve wireless phone service. AT&T preferred not to take questions from the general public on how that vision fits with AT&T’s history of consolidation, layoffs and aggressive market behavior.

Nearly 30 years after regulators broke up AT&T’s unprecedented control over the U.S. wired phone market, consumers are asked to believe that this time things will be different. This notion defies both experience and common sense. Unless significant market regulation is put into place that encourages a competitive wireless arena to flourish, this proposed merger will be bad for consumers, innovation and economic growth.

Fox notes the wireless marketplace in the United States is hardly a paragon of competitiveness today.  If the merger were approved, 76 percent of Americans would receive wireless service from two providers — AT&T and Verizon.  Fox observed America’s next-most-hated conglomerate — the oil and gas industry — wishes it could have that sort of market power.  The top two oil companies in the U.S. have a combined market share of only 24 percent.  America, he notes, wouldn’t tolerate that kind of consolidation in the gasoline market, so why should we tolerate it in the mobile market?

The California Public Interest Research Group

Fox advocates more competition, not less.  He suggests the government force AT&T and Verizon to open their cellular networks to independent third party competitors at fair prices, and let everyone compete.  That could germinate competition that would end the chorus of rate increases from the largest players and allow for innovative pricing plans that don’t force customers into the nearly identical service plans AT&T and Verizon want to force you to accept.  T-Mobile already provides the most innovative pricing in the wireless marketplace, and AT&T is about to swallow that innovation whole.

What ultimately happens to a well-dwarfed Sprint remains an open question, but one many on Wall Street have already answered, suspecting America’s third largest carrier simply won’t be in a position to compete.  Fox thinks the situation is dire when two companies will have a virtual lock on wireless data services Americans increasingly depend on.

That’s not the view of the NAACP, of course.  But then the NAACP is hardly an independent observer, being the recipient of a considerable amount of money and executive talent from AT&T.  That counts for a whole lot more than the rank and file members of the organization, who will be paying the increased prices AT&T has in store for everyone.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEWS Cleveland ATT T-Mobile Merger 7-14-11.mp4[/flv]

WEWS-TV in Cleveland investigates the ramifications of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.  More than 94% of all Ohioans filing comments with FCC oppose the merger, but groups like the NAACP support it.  NewsCenter 5 wanted to find out why.  (3 minutes)

The state of California is in receipt of a letter from AT&T objecting to a state workshop on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger that included 70 minutes for a panel of academic experts to share their views of one of the state’s largest wireless mergers in years.

J. David Tate, AT&T’s general attorney and associate general counsel, sent the letter in response to news California regulators would open the workshop to a presentation from academics about the impact the merger would have on California consumers, ranging from competition to roaming access to spectrum issues.

Tate called that inappropriate and asked the California Public Utilities Commission to ban their testimony:

“AT&T is raising objections to the panel because having a panel of ‘academic experts’ present at this workshop will pose significant risk of tainting the record with potentially uninformed and biased opinions. These opinions do not constitute the facts upon which the transaction should be reviewed.

“[…] Allowing academicians with unknown expertise in the wireless telecom industry the opportunity to place on the record their personal opinions regarding AT&T’s planned purchase of T-Mobile USA is procedurally improper, unfairly prejudicial to the parties, and contrary to due process principles.”

Instead of allowing those outside of the industry to present their views on the merger, AT&T suggested the best solution would be to allot the 70 minutes originally given to the academics to AT&T (and the three remaining panels AT&T does not object to) instead.