DOJ Leans Against Approving T-Mobile's Takeover of Sprint:
The Justice Department is leaning against approving T-Mobile US Inc.'s proposed takeover of Sprint Corp., according to a person familiar with the review, even after the companies won the backing of the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
The remedies proposed by the wireless carriers earlier Monday don't go far enough to resolve the department's concerns that the deal risks harming competition, said the person, who asked not to be named because the investigation is confidential.
Opposition to the deal by the Justice Department's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, would mark a rare break with the FCC. The two agencies work side by side on merger reviews and typically emerge on the same page about whether to approve deals.
Earlier on Monday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said he would recommend approval of T-Mobile's $26.5 billion deal for Sprint after the companies offered a package of concessions, including spinning off Sprint's Boost pre-paid brand, to win regulators' blessing.
[...] More than a dozen states attorneys general are also investigating the deal and have raised concerns about harm to consumers. The states have signaled they may sue to block the deal even if the Justice Department clears it.
Related Stories
Judge approves $26 billion merger of T-Mobile and Sprint:
Shares of Sprint soared Tuesday after a U.S. District judge ruled in favor of its $26 billion deal to merge with T-Mobile.
The stock was up 75% Tuesday morning. It had risen after hours Monday after The Wall Street Journal reported the judge was expected to rule in favor of the deal. Shares of T-Mobile were up 10%.
The ruling clears one of the final hurdles for the deal, which still can't close until the California Public Utilities Commission approves the transaction. Tuesday's ruling also culminates a years-long courtship between Sprint and T-Mobile, which have made multiple attempts over the years to merge, only to abandon their plans fearing regulatory scrutiny.
Attorneys general from New York, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and D.C. originally brought the lawsuit to block the deal following approval from the Justice Department of Federal Communications Commission. The states had argued that combining the No. 3 and No. 4 U.S. carriers would limit competition and result in higher prices for consumers. The companies had argued their merger would help them compete against top players AT&T and Verizon and advance efforts to build a nationwide 5G network.
In his decision filed Tuesday, Judge Victor Marrero wrote, "The resulting stalemate leaves the Court lacking sufficiently impartial and objective ground on which to rely in basing a sound forecast of the likely competitive effects of a merger."
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 21 2019, @12:40PM (1 child)
How dare those Germans take over a honest 'murikan company? Didn't we beat them in WWII?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 21 2019, @08:30PM
We let the Germans buy up American companies, then we open the legal system's floodgates to suck out all their money. Dumb foreign fucks.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 21 2019, @01:51PM (7 children)
About time someone stood against monopolizing stuff further than it is.
It seems such a short time ago, when government broke up AT&T, and opened the doors for dozens of competitors. WTF happened since then? Instead of mergers, we need to see Evil Corp broken into splinters every time they claim to be having financial problems.
So, they broke AT&T into pieces, then most of those pieces became obsolete, (When is the last time you saw a payphone?) but it's alright to have all of America's cellular service run by a mere two, three, maybe four corporations?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 21 2019, @03:42PM
If the DOJ gave a shit about monopolies it would have stopped Disney from buying FOX.
If anything, preventing the third and fourth largest telecoms from merging into one that is still smaller than the top two only helps protect Verizon and AT&T's market position.
(Score: 3, Funny) by EvilSS on Tuesday May 21 2019, @04:47PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 21 2019, @06:08PM
Pai is not challenging the merger, clearly proving that it is fundamentally good for Verizon.
Conversely, Europe shows that prices can drop to 20 bucks per line with massive data allowances, if you truly have 4 competitors in the market (not 2+2). Using the same equipment, and with more extensive regulation and coverage requirements. Americans are getting milked, and not in the fun way.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 21 2019, @07:49PM (3 children)
A regular claim in mergers and acquisitions is that the new larger player will be better able to compete with the other companies in the market. This claim is always a complete lie, but it keeps on being made because it's a good excuse to make the market less competitive.
The reason Verizon/AT&T offer crappy service at ridiculous prices is because it's profitable for them to do so. That won't change if T-Mobile/Sprint gets as large as those 2 are: All that happens is that the price of services will go up for T-Mobile and Sprint customers until it's as expensive as Verizon and AT&T.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday May 21 2019, @09:00PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 21 2019, @10:16PM (1 child)
That suggests a change of rules is in order: The cost of controlling new bandwidth increases with the amount of bandwidth you already own. That would be a useful method for the FCC to encourage competition rather than oligopoly or even worse monopoly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday May 22 2019, @03:57AM
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Tuesday May 21 2019, @05:05PM
This is a sign the merger will absolutely happen. It's just the Trump administration looking for contributions/favors in advance of giving the go-ahead.
This is what happens when you think you want a businessman in the White House.
You are still welcome on my lawn.