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.

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)

Hurricane Irene did its worst damage in inland areas of New England and Upstate New York

While hardly the “storm of the century,” damages from Hurricane Irene’s whirlwind tour up the east coast cannot yet be estimated because flood waters in the northeast are still rising this afternoon.

But while millions remain without electricity, some for up to several weeks, telecommunications infrastructure has fared better than expected in a number of areas hardest hit by the Category 1 hurricane.

A review of media reports finds the most substantial damage to cable TV and landline telephone service, mostly due to downed trees and flooding which brought down utility poles in a number of states.  The Federal Communications Commission also reported 1,400 cell sites along the coast were down, and several hundred were running on backup power.

North Carolina & Virginia

The most substantial wind-related damage impacted the states of North Carolina and Virginia where hundreds of thousands are still without electricity, cable, and landline telephone service.  Time Warner Cable, which dominates North Carolina, had 160,000 customers without service Saturday evening, primarily due to power outages and line damage.  As of this morning, 38,000 were still without service with the most damage in Wilmington, Newport, Morehead City, Jacksonville, Havelock, Elizabeth City, Murfreesboro and Ahoskie.  Outage information is available from 1-866-4TWCNOW (1-866-489-2669) for residential customers and 1-877-892-2220 for business customers.

Landline service outages are impacting more than 100,000 customers, and the wind damage has made the outages most severe in these two states.  CenturyLink, AT&T, and Verizon all report substantial damages to their respective networks in several areas.

At least 500 cell towers in North Carolina and Virginia are now operating on battery backup power, which guarantees cell phone outages will only grow worse as the hours progress.  Once battery power is exhausted, cell phone carriers either have to go without service or provision generators to deliver emergency power until normal electrical service can be restored, which is expected to take several days.  Physical damage to cell sites was reported to be minimal, however.  The biggest impact is loss of electricity.

[flv width=”670″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Crews Roll Out from Atlanta Ahead of Hurricane Irene 8-26-11.flv[/flv]

AT&T released this video to the news media showing the company’s preparations for Hurricane Irene, including putting trucks containing temporary cell sites on the road from Atlanta heading into North Carolina to restore wireless service knocked out by the storm.  (3 minutes)

Downed poles in neighborhoods are responsible for most of the outages impacting cable and phone companies. (Courtesy: WNYC)

Maryland, Washington, DC, Delaware, Southern New Jersey

A mix of wind and water damage has left sections of this region without electrical service, but damages are reportedly less severe than in North Carolina and Virginia.  The biggest impact is loss of electrical service which has left cell phone towers on battery backup and cable systems offline.  The more urban areas have less infrastructure damage due to underground wiring, but flood waters have created outages on their own.  In southern New Jersey, water damage is still occurring because of slowly rising rivers continuing to flood their banks.

Pennsylania, Northern New Jersey, New York City & Long Island

Substantial damage from excessive rain and downed trees, especially on Long Island, will leave some customers on lengthy waiting lists for service restoration.  Verizon on Long Island is telling some customers it will be at least two weeks before service calls can be completed to restore phone or FiOS service. Substantial neighborhood outages are impacting Cablevision customers on Long Island as well, mostly from downed trees.  At least 700 trees fell in Oyster Bay alone.  In Pennsylvania, the worst damage was actually further inland.  Suburbs of Philadelphia were particularly hard hit.  Electric service repair has been given top priority.  Cable service restoration will probably take longer, especially where utility poles have been damaged.

Upstate New York & New England

The worst damage of all is expected to be in upstate New York and New England, particularly in western Massachusetts and Vermont, unequipped to deal with the floodwaters which have set records in several areas.  A resident of Prattsville, New York escaped with his life and managed to finally reach emergency responders to report the entire community had been washed away in unprecedented flooding.  A great deal of utility infrastructure has gone with it, and the damage for New England’s FairPoint Communications, particularly in Vermont, is still being assessed.  Some communities in the region have been told it may take up to a month restore electrical service, longer for telephone and cable service.  Because large sections of the region are rural, there are fewer cell towers to cope with power outages, but the impact is much more readily apparent.  In some areas, there is only one provider delivering any significant service, and when battery backups fail, no cell service will function.

Verizon and Time Warner Cable all report service problems in the region.

Communities or infrastructure positioned near rivers are most at risk, and flood waters are still rising in many locations.  The damage, according to emergency officials, is likely to become worse before it gets better.

Although winds only achieved tropical storm-force in the region, they came in unusual wind patterns.  The National Weather Service issued high wind warnings as far west as Rochester in western New York in part because trees are unaccustomed to strong northerly winds and were much more likely to be damaged or uprooted from them.  Nearly one million New Yorkers, mostly east of Syracuse, remain without electricity this afternoon.  Some will wait 1-2 weeks before service can be restored in the most difficult-to-reach areas.

Service Credits Are Yours, But Only If You Ask

Telecommunications providers are notorious for providing service credits only when customers ask for them.  If your service was interrupted by the storm, make a note of when the outage occurred and remember to contact your provider for a service credit after service is restored.  In virtually all cases, providers will not automatically reimburse you for lost service and you will lose the chance to request it 30 days after service is back up and running.

If you’ve been affected by a serious storm, consider tree removal Raleigh NC to clean up the debris.

[flv width=”640″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Wireless Emergency Plan.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless encourages its customers to create a natural disaster response plan that includes the use of cell phones to stay in touch with loved ones and employers.  (4 minutes)

Thanks to a divided 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, customers trying to seek relief from unilateral fees and surcharges suddenly showing up on their Verizon cell phone bills will have to pursue individual arbitration claims with the cell phone company instead of joining forces in a class arbitration claim.

That Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, is turning out to benefit Verizon Wireless as much as AT&T, because the Supreme Court found merit in contracts obligating customers to seek individual arbitration to settle differences while forbidding customers from pursuing organized legal action.

Now the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has reversed an earlier ruling, reinstating a 2008 decision by U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson that delivered victory to Verizon Wireless.

At issue was Verizon’s decision in October 2005 to unilaterally impose an “administrative fee” of $0.40 and/or $0.70, as part of the monthly charges for each Verizon cell phone line.  Customers upset with the new fees felt they violated the principle that, as part of their two year contracts, Verizon would deliver a fixed-price service.  The cell phone company has since implemented a variety of fees and surcharges on customers that are pocketed by Verizon, regardless of the contract price.

All Verizon Wireless customers are obligated by contract to challenge any terms and conditions they disagree with through an arbitrator of Verizon’s choosing, at a place also chosen by the company.  That means Verizon could place an arbitrator on retention in a city potentially thousands of miles away, and demand the customer make their case there, to an arbitrator whose livelihood ultimately depends on retainer fees paid by the company.  Few consumers would make such a journey to protest a fee that amounts to less than $10 a year per line.

Lawyers Keith Litman and Robert Wachtel, representing Verizon customers, decided to try a different approach — a class action arbitration.  The two attorneys would represent potentially millions of impacted customers themselves, making any travel cost concerns incidental, and providing a seasoned challenge before arbitrators, who would also hear counter-arguments from Verizon’s own legal team.

Verizon’s attorneys argued such class action arbitration was specifically forbidden in the company’s contract with customers.  Normally, a judge might decide at that point a customer agreeing to those terms and conditions was effectively up the creek.  But a series of legal challenges in circuit courts opened the door to invalidating those terms.

Litman and Wachtel argued that because the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Del. (2006), has held that an arbitration provision in a consumer contract that precludes class arbitration of low-value claims is unconscionable under New Jersey law, similarly, the arbitration provision in Verizon’s contract is also unenforceable.

Unfortunately for the two attorneys representing consumers, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overrode that case, leaving Verizon on top with Judge Wolfson’s 2008 decision.

Wolfson

Wolfson’s written ruling on the case seemed unimpressed with claims that Verizon’s fees were unconscionable:

In this case, Plaintiffs are customers who chose Verizon as their wireless provider at least four years ago and continue to use Verizon today. They signed the customer Agreement with the arbitration clause and agreed to subsequent terms of service as added by Verizon. Plaintiffs do not allege that they did not understand the Agreement that they voluntarily entered into nor do they allege fraud or misrepresentation. The parties agreed “to settle [their] disputes . . . only by arbitration,” and the “agreement doesn’t permit class arbitration.” Therefore, [federal law] requires this Court to uphold the arbitration provision within Plaintiffs’ service Agreement.

But Judge Wolfson did recognize the effective impact of her decision:

“The Court recognizes the many hardships visited upon plaintiffs, such as in this case, based upon this ruling. First, it creates the opportunity for a different result depending on whether the case is brought in federal or state court. Second, it is also clear that compelling individual arbitration in this case will be tantamount to ending the Plaintiffs’ pursuit of their claims, as there is very little possibility that these Plaintiffs or any other plaintiff will pursue individual arbitration for claims that amount only to several dollars in damages. While this outcome is harsh, this Court is bound by Third Circuit precedent.”

Lately, Verizon Wireless customers have been seeking other forms of relief when Verizon unilaterally changes or implements new fees or surcharges.  Many are invoking the “materially adverse” clause found in Verizon’s terms and conditions, which theoretically allows customers to exit their contracts penalty-free if they do not agree to the changes Verizon is imposing on customers.  Verizon Wireless appears to be increasingly aggressive in fighting these claims, too, refusing to allow customers to leave without stiff early termination fees.  That may become the subject of another lawsuit at some point in the future.

Rumors are swirling Sprint will begin selling Apple’s iconic iPhone this October, bringing the number of carriers supporting the wildly popular phone to three.  Sprint shares soared 10 percent on the news.  But while Sprint customers and shareholders are celebrating the potential imminent arrival of iPhone, launching the phone on the Sprint network is no simple matter, especially for the last remaining carrier delivering truly unlimited data.

On the Plus Side

Apple’s iPhone has become a must-have for a significant number of consumers.  They won’t leave the phone behind to switch carriers, not even for Verizon Wireless, until they introduced the phone earlier this year.  Now Sprint can win its own share of iPhone devotees.

Sprint’s iPhone promotions could draw customers away from larger carriers, especially enticed by Sprint’s worry-free unlimited data plan that has become extinct at other wireless companies.

The iPhone locks customers into new two-year contracts with Sprint, helpful security at a time when AT&T threatens to further consolidate the wireless industry in its efforts to acquire T-Mobile.

On the Down Side

Sprint’s phone subsidy expenses will skyrocket with Apple’s iPhone, which commands the highest subsidies in the industry.  Analysts suspect AT&T currently shells out up to $425 for iPhone 4 and $375 for iPhone 3GS.  Then AT&T sells the phone to consumers for $200 or less, making the subsidy back over the life of the two year contract.  That hits AT&T’s cash on hand hard.  For Sprint, regularly accused by Wall Street of spending too much on customer promotions, it will only increase those costs.  Sprint pays less than $150 for its top of the line Evo phones in comparison.

One guarantee the iPhone always delivers: Lots of data hungry users.  The introduction of the iPhone may ultimately threaten Sprint’s unlimited usage experience because of demand placed on an already burdened 3G network.  There is also no guarantee the first Sprint iPhone will support Sprint’s 4G network.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KMBC Kansas City Sprint May Sell iPhone in October 8-24-11.mp4[/flv]

KMBC in Kansas City talked with customers looking forward to Sprint’s iPhone.  Sprint is a major employer in Kansas City.  (2 minutes)