Sprint Formally Opposes AT&T/T-Mobile, in Opposition Filed at FCC

Sprint, which would be left as one of only three national carriers along with AT&T and Verizon Wireless if the transaction is approved, was one of several groups to hold media briefings Tuesday, though company executives spoke only on background. The Sprint opposition runs 132 pages without appendices.

"The purported public interest benefits of the proposed transaction are either wholly illusory or vague, without support in theory or practice, and, in any case, limited to the shareholders of AT&T and [Deutsche Telekom],” Sprint said. “By comparison, the public interest harms are material, demonstrable, and irreversible.” The deal would “fundamentally alter the structure of the wireless industry and eliminate the possibility of more robust competition from a stronger third or fourth carrier,” Sprint said.

The carrier addressed many of the claims AT&T and T-Mobile have made in support of the deal, saying many of them have an “Alice in Wonderland quality.” For example, AT&T says the merger would lead to wider deployment of broadband, a key FCC goal. “AT&T’s network already covers 97 percent of the U.S. population and it currently holds the spectrum necessary to make LTE available to its entire existing customer base without acquiring T-Mobile,” Sprint said. AT&T does not need to buy T-Mobile to give it suitable spectrum for nationwide roll out, Sprint said. The merger “would increase AT&T’s concentration of spectrum in the PCS and AWS bands by approximately 50 MHz,” Sprint said. “If the Commission approves the proposed takeover, AT&T would hold a nationwide average of 144 MHz suitable for mobile telephony/broadband services, far exceeding even Verizon’s holdings."

MMTC found plenty of reasons to support the merger, identifying “significant public interest benefits,” according to a filing by the group. The merger, if approved, “will benefit minority broadband consumers by allowing AT&T to address capacity constraints and deploy advanced LTE service to more than 97 percent of consumers,” the filing said. “As a democratic society, the nation simply cannot afford to guess wrong and see the digital divide widen -- especially at a time when minorities are poised to become the nation’s majority.” MMTC also praised AT&T for its “extraordinary track record” in hiring and prompting minorities, its “diversity best practices,” and “neutrality towards unionization.” AT&T also has the best minority procurement program “in the wireless industry,” the group said. MMTC said it could still revoke the endorsement as the record develops.

MMTC President David Honig explained in a call with reporters why the group supports the merger. “The merger would buy the nation the time it needs to implement a long-term cure for the spectrum crunch through such mechanisms as incentive auctions, which ... we enthusiastically endorse, and repurposing of some government spectrum,” he said. Honig fielded questions on whether AT&T paid for the group’s endorsement. He replied that AT&T paid about $100,000 to underwrite the group’s recent broadband conference, but that amount is a small part of MMTC’s budget and AT&T asked for nothing in return. “A decision that MMTC makes to take a position on every issue is never influenced by who supports us,” he said. “AT&T, to their credit, would never try to purchase our support."

MAP said in a filing it is opposing the merger, in part because of the effect on minorities. “The merger likely would cause the most harm to traditionally unserved and underserved populations, including members of communities of color and rural residents, who rely to an even greater degree on affordable and innovative wireless broadband service offerings to access the Internet and partake in its benefits,” MAP said. T-Mobile is a “maverick” among carriers and the merger would be harmful to innovation, the group said. “It would ... interfere with the development of new avenues for creative expression. This would be especially harmful to independent creators and others who use the Internet, and increasingly, use mobile wireless broadband access thereto, to create and distribute all manner of video programming and other types of artistic works and political expression."

MetroPCS and NTELOS didn’t ask the FCC to reject the deal outright. If approved, they said jointly that the agency should require the combined company to sell off “significant” amounts of unencumbered spectrum to “viable competitive carriers,” agree to provide voice and data roaming at “just, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates and terms” and agree to not buy handsets that are unavailable to smaller competitors. “If such conditions are not agreed to, the FCC must deny the merger,” said MetroPCS CEO Roger Linquist.

Merger opponent Free Press also filed in advance of Tuesday’s deadline. “Make no mistake: AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile will cost jobs, stifle innovation and kill competition in the wireless market, sticking consumers with the bill,” said President Craig Aaron. “The FCC’s mandate is to ensure this merger is in the public interest, and thus it has no choice but to block the deal."

Meanwhile, the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) endorsed the merger during a call with reporters. ACT members were emphatically supportive of the merger during a recent meeting in Washington, said Morgan Reed, executive director. “We had 30 apps developers from all over the United States,” Reed said. “Their level of interest on this issue was extreme. ... They really see it as the first step toward creating the network that they believe is essential for them. It’s got to be a nationwide network and it’s got to be fast.” Reed said the group does not currently receive funding from AT&T.

On Friday, the Wireless Bureau asked AT&T to provide all analyses and plans it has in place to address spectrum shortages. The questions key in on various claims AT&T made in seeking FCC approval of the deal. The bureau also lobbed dozens of questions at T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom. The document is at http://xrl.us/bkqdzb.