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)

Any consumer who has ever paid an early termination contract cancellation fee to a wireless carrier might feel a little satisfaction today knowing AT&T’s languishing deal to acquire T-Mobile comes with its own $3 billion dollar penalty payable to Deutsche Telekom if the merger fails to come to fruition.

Sachin Shah, merger arbitrage strategist with Tullett Prebon Americas Corp., suggests that $3 billion dollar fee (and the spectrum giveaway that goes with it) delivers a real incentive for AT&T executives to find a way to force the deal through, and their next venue will likely be federal court in the District of Columbia to keep the government from getting a preliminary injunction against the merger deal.

For AT&T, any legal action will certainly cost far less than $3 billion dollars, so the company has little to lose rolling the dice trying to find a remedy in a district court that has become increasingly business-friendly.

Shah believes yesterday’s announcement by the Justice Department also provides additional paths for AT&T to consider:

• Renegotiate the deal: AT&T could go back to the bargaining table with T-Mobile and return to the DOJ with an amended proposal it hopes will be more acceptable to the government’s antitrust lawyers;
• Reboot the lobbying campaign: AT&T could claim scuttling the deal will cost American jobs — a particularly sensitive topic with unemployment around 9 percent;
• Re-engage AT&T Employee Unions: The Communications Workers of America are true believers in the AT&T/T-Mobile deal, if only because it is likely to broaden union membership to include T-Mobile workers.  Shah thinks the unions might speak to a more receptive audience among certain union-friendly lawmakers who have also been concerned AT&T will use the merger to clear-cut T-Mobile’s employees.

Shah thinks the Justice Department has not entirely slammed the door shut on AT&T’s proposed merger, and there have been precedents of DOJ lawyers changing their minds.

Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission, quieter than a church mouse ever since the deal was announced, apparently found cover from the DOJ decision, and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski delivered his own “me too” statement hours after the Justice Department announced their lawsuit:

“By filing suit today, the Department of Justice has concluded that AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would substantially lessen competition in violation of the antitrust laws,” Genachowski said. “Competition is an essential component of the FCC’s statutory public interest analysis, and although our process is not complete, the record before this agency also raises serious concerns about the impact of the proposed transaction on competition. Vibrant competition in wireless services is vital to innovation, investment, economic growth and job creation, and to drive our global leadership in mobile. Competition fosters consumer benefits, including more choices, better service and lower prices.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg DOJ Lawsuit Not Unexpected 8-31-11.flv[/flv]

Sachin Shah says the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit to block AT&T Inc.’s proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA Inc. does not mean the deal is dead.  He speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.”  (5 minutes)

The former head of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division reacted with some surprise about today’s announcement by his successors to object so strongly to the proposed merger of T-Mobile and AT&T.

“I am surprised, frankly, about the timing of this, in that this isn’t a merger that was about to close anytime soon,” said Don Baker, former head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. “Why they are filing it now is an interesting question.”

Baker suspects the Department may have been concerned about the long-term longevity of Sprint, dwarfed by its larger remaining competitors AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

“While this is nominally a four to three merger [removing T-Mobile from the market], the situation at Sprint seems seriously uncertain so it might well be regarded as a four to two merger,” Baker told CNBC.

Baker also believes Justice officials were unconvinced by AT&T’s arguments that the company would still face heavy competition from remaining regional wireless carriers.

“Roaming charges are a big deal for consumers,” Baker noted, suggesting few regional players could offer the kind of nationwide coverage larger players have.

But Baker, who served at the Department during the Carter Administration, said he wasn’t surprised with the eventual decision.  In fact, he says he is pleased.

“It seems to be a pretty strong antitrust case for the government,” Baker said.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Former DOJ Official Reacts 8-31-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviews former DOJ Antitrust Chief Don Baker about today’s developments with the AT&T and T-Mobile merger.  (6 minutes)

News Release

Justice Department Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block AT&T’s Acquisition of T-Mobile

Transaction Would Reduce Competition in Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Services, Resulting in Higher Prices, Poorer Quality Services, Fewer Choices and Fewer Innovative Products for Millions of American Consumers

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice today filed a civil antitrust lawsuit to block AT&T Inc.’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc.   The department said that the proposed $39 billion transaction would substantially lessen competition for mobile wireless telecommunications services across the United States, resulting in higher prices, poorer quality services, fewer choices and fewer innovative products for the millions of American consumers who rely on mobile wireless services in their everyday lives.

The department’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to prevent AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile from Deutsche Telekom AG.

“The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services,” said Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole.   “Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, benefit from competition among the nation’s wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers.   This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of that competition.”

“T-Mobile has been an important source of competition among the national carriers, including through innovation and quality enhancements such as the roll-out of the first nationwide high-speed data network,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.   “Unless this merger is blocked, competition and innovation will be reduced, and consumers will suffer.”

Mobile wireless telecommunications services play a critical role in the way Americans live and work, with more than 300 million feature phones, smart phones, data cards, tablets and other mobile wireless devices in service today.   Four nationwide providers of these services – AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon – account for more than 90 percent of mobile wireless connections.   The proposed acquisition would combine two of those four, eliminating from the market T-Mobile, a firm that historically has been a value provider, offering particularly aggressive pricing.

According to the complaint, AT&T and T-Mobile compete head to head nationwide, including in 97 of the nation’s largest 100 cellular marketing areas.   They also compete nationwide to attract business and government customers.  AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a disruptive force through low pricing and innovation by competing aggressively in the mobile wireless telecommunications services marketplace.

The complaint cites a T-Mobile document in which T-Mobile explains that it has been responsible for a number of significant “firsts” in the U.S. mobile wireless industry, including the first handset using the Android operating system, Blackberry wireless email, the Sidekick, national Wi-Fi “hotspot” access, and a variety of unlimited service plans.   T-Mobile was also the first company to roll out a nationwide high-speed data network based on advanced HSPA+ (High-Speed Packet Access) technology.  The complaint states that by January 2011, an AT&T employee was observing that “[T-Mobile] was first to have HSPA+ devices in their portfolio…we added them in reaction to potential loss of speed claims.”

The complaint details other ways that AT&T felt competitive pressure from T-Mobile.   The complaint quotes T-Mobile documents describing the company’s important role in the market:

• T-Mobile sees itself as “the No. 1 value challenger of the established big guys in the market and as well positioned in a consolidated 4-player national market”; and
• T-Mobile’s strategy is to “attack incumbents and find innovative ways to overcome scale disadvantages.   [T-Mobile] will be faster, more agile, and scrappy, with diligence on decisions and costs both big and small.   Our approach to market will not be conventional, and we will push to the boundaries where possible. . . . [T-Mobile] will champion the customer and break down industry barriers with innovations. . . .”

The complaint also states that regional providers face significant competitive limitations, largely stemming from their lack of national networks, and are therefore limited in their ability to compete with the four national carriers.   And, the department said that any potential entry from a new mobile wireless telecommunications services provider would be unable to offset the transaction’s anticompetitive effects because it would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, requiring spectrum licenses and the construction of a network.

The department said that it gave serious consideration to the efficiencies that the merging parties claim would result from the transaction.   The department concluded AT&T had not demonstrated that the proposed transaction promised any efficiencies that would be sufficient to outweigh the transaction’s substantial adverse impact on competition and consumers.   Moreover, the department said that AT&T could obtain substantially the same network enhancements that it claims will come from the transaction if it simply invested in its own network without eliminating a close competitor.

AT&T is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas.   AT&T is one of the world’s largest providers of communications services, and is the second largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the United States as measured by subscribers.   It serves approximately 98.6 million connections to wireless devices.   In 2010, AT&T earned mobile wireless telecommunications services revenues of $53.5 billion, and its total revenues were in excess of $124 billion.

T-Mobile, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bellevue, Wash.   T-Mobile is the fourth-largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the United States as measured by subscribers, and serves approximately 33.6 million wireless connections to wireless devices.   In 2010, T-Mobile earned mobile wireless telecommunications services revenues of $18.7 billion.   T-Mobile is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG.

Deutsche Telekom AG is a German corporation headquartered in Bonn, Germany.   It is the largest telecommunications operator in Europe with wireline and wireless interests in numerous countries and total annual revenues in 2010 of €62.4 billion.

Download a copy of the Complaint (PDF)

 

Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole Speaks at the AT&T/T-Mobile Press Conference

Washington, D.C. ~ Wednesday, August 31, 2011

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Cole Comments on Merger Opposition 8-31-11.flv[/flv]

Good morning.   Millions of Americans rely on mobile wireless telecommunications services in their everyday lives.   Whether you are a parent using a cell phone to check up on your teenager or a working professional using a laptop or smart phone to conduct business or surf the web, mobile wireless communications plays a vital – and increasing – role in our daily lives.

We all reap the benefits of this incredible technology because there has been fierce competition in this industry, which has brought all of us innovative and affordable products and services.

Cole

In order to ensure that competition remains and that everyone – including consumers, businesses and the government – continues to receive high quality, competitively priced mobile wireless products and services, the Department of Justice today filed an antitrust lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. to block AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile.

The Department filed its lawsuit because we believe the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for their mobile wireless services.

Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, have benefitted from competition among the nation’s wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers.   This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to reap the benefits of that competition.

Right now, four nationwide providers account for more than 90 percent of the mobile wireless connections in America, and preserving competition among them is crucial.   For instance, AT&T and T-Mobile currently compete head-to-head in 97 of the nation’s largest 100 cellular marketing areas.   They also compete nationwide to attract business and government customers.   Were the merger to proceed, there would only be three providers with 90 percent of the market, and competition among the remaining competitors on all dimensions—including price, quality, and innovation—would be diminished.

As can be seen in the Department’s complaint, AT&T felt competitive pressure from T-Mobile.   One example cites an AT&T employee observing that “[T-Mobile] was first to have HSPA+ devices in their portfolio…we added them in reaction to potential loss of speed claims.”

So as you can see, a merged AT&T and T-Mobile would combine two of the four largest competitors in the marketplace, and would eliminate T-Mobile, an aggressive competitor, from the market.

Although there has been a leadership change in the Antitrust Division, one thing has not changed – the Division will remain steadfast in its mission to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws.

And that’s what the Department has done today.   The leadership transition has been seamless and the right decision was reached in this case.

We are seeking to block this deal in order to maintain a vibrant and competitive marketplace that allows everyone to benefit from lower prices and better quality and innovative products.

I want to express my own deep gratitude for the efforts of so many members of the Antitrust Division staff who have tremendous expertise in this important industry.   And Sharis, I want to thank you for your leadership in this effort.   You and your team have done the right thing for consumers.

And now, Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis Pozen will say a few words.

 

Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis A. Pozen Speaks at the AT&T/T-Mobile Press Conference

Washington, D.C. ~ Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Thank you, Jim.   And thank you for your leadership and support on this case.

As the Deputy Attorney General mentioned, this is an extremely vital industry with more than 300 million feature phones, smart phones, data cards, tablets, and other mobile wireless devices in service today.   As you are well aware, the Department of Justice has significant experience in this industry going as far back as the original breakup of AT&T.   We know this industry well—inside and out.

Here, the Antitrust Division conducted an exhaustive investigation.   We conducted dozens of interviews of customers and competitors, and we reviewed more than 1 million AT&T and T-Mobile documents.   The conclusion we reached was clear.   Any way you look at this transaction, it is anticompetitive.   Our action today seeks to ensure that our nation enjoys the competitive wireless industry it deserves.

Sharis (Courtesy: Main Justice)

T-Mobile has been an important source of competition among the national carriers through innovation and quality enhancements.   For example, T-Mobile rolled-out the first nationwide high-speed data network using advanced HSPA+ technology and the first handset using the Android operating system.   It has also been an important source of price competition in the industry.   Unless this merger is blocked, competition and innovation in the mobile wireless market, in the form of low prices and innovative wireless handsets, operating systems, and calling plans, will be diminished—and consumers will suffer.

T-Mobile competes with the other three national providers to attract individual consumers, businesses, and government customers for mobile wireless telecommunications services. They compete on price, plan structure, network coverage, quality, speed, devices, and operating systems.   A combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would eliminate this price competition and innovation.   It would reduce the number of nationwide competitors in the marketplace from four to three.   Eliminating this aggressive competitor, which offers low pricing and innovative products, would hurt consumers, businesses, and government customers that rely on a competitive marketplace to provide them with the best products at the best possible price.

It is important to move expeditiously to preserve the lower prices and innovation resulting from T-Mobile’s competitive presence in this market.   That’s why we filed a lawsuit to block this transaction—our goal is to preserve price competition and innovation in this important industry.

I want to thank the Division’s Deputies for their expertise and counsel.   And I want to especially recognize the Telecommunications staff led by Chief Laury Bobbish and the many others in the Division for their tireless work on this important matter.   Consumers and businesses around the country owe you a great deal of thanks.   We also want to thank our partners in law enforcement, including the Federal Communications Commission and the state Attorneys General who have assisted and partnered with us in our investigation.