The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) arguments against the
merger have significant merit – T-Mobile has acted as a disruptive competitor
in the market, pioneering new service plans and devices and putting significant
competitive pressure on the three largest operators. AT&T’s intention to
acquire T-Mobile was motivated primarily by spectrum and network concerns, but
there is no doubt it also would have alleviated that competitive pressure. The
DOJ advises AT&T to instead invest in its own network, but it is not clear
whether AT&T has all the resources – especially spectrum – in house to do
this.
The lawsuit also leaves T-Mobile USA in a difficult
position. Although its “4G” rollout has been somewhat successful, it
has struggled to differentiate itself since smaller regional competitors began
targeting the low-spend and prepaid markets more aggressively on a national
basis. For both T-Mobile USA and its owner Deutsche Telekom, the AT&T
merger was a great way out of this difficult situation, providing a big payoff
for Deutsche Telekom and a way forward for T-Mobile. Now, Deutsche Telekom
faces the prospect of hanging onto its unloved US asset for a while longer with
only the breakup fee for comfort, while T-Mobile USA ends up potentially going
back to the drawing board for a new strategy.
This is not the first case to be known as United States
vs. AT&T – an earlier case in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to the
breakup of the then-monopoly AT&T into eight separate companies. AT&T
and other companies have been working hard over the last ten years to put many
of those pieces back together, beginning with the mergers of Pacific Telesis,
Ameritech and Southwestern Bell, and followed by the acquisitions of AT&T,
BellSouth and Cingular by SBC. The fact that the Department of Justice is
stepping in now is a sign that it wants to draw a line in the sand and forbid
further consolidation among major players in the industry, and especially
AT&T.
By Jan Dawson, Chief Telecoms Analyst, Ovum
[email protected]