Texas joining states’ lawsuit to block the T-Mobile-Sprint merger

texas-ag-ken-paxton

The states’ lawsuit to block T-Mobile and Sprint’s merger gained another member today.

Texas state attorney general Ken Paxton has announced that he is joining the group of states that have sued to block the T-Mobile-Sprint merger. Paxton is the 15th state attorney general to get involved in the lawsuit, joining AGs from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington D.C.

Here’s what Paxton had to say about joining this lawsuit against the T-Mobile-Sprint merger:

“While we appreciate the time and effort that went into the agreement between the parties and the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the Texas Attorney General has an independent obligation to protect Texas consumers. After careful evaluation of the proposed merger and the settlement, we do not anticipate that the proposed new entrant will replace the competitive role of Sprint anytime soon. It is the Attorney General’s responsibility to preserve free market competition, which has proven to result in lower prices and better quality for consumers. The bargain struck by the U.S. Dept. of Justice is not in the best interest of working Texans, who need affordable mobile wireless telecommunication services that are fit to match the speed and technological innovation demands of Texas’ growing economy.”

The state AGs’ lawsuit, which was originally filed on June 11, argues that the merger will reduce competition, raise prices for consumers, and harm jobs. While the T-Mobile-Sprint deal did recently get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice and has also gotten support from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the AGs still have concerns about the deal.

Following the DOJ’s announcement of its approval of the merger, New York attorney general Letitia James argued that Dish “has never shown any inclination or ability to build a nationwide mobile network on its own and has repeatedly broken assurances to the Federal Communications Commission about deployment of its spectrum.” James added that the state AGs “have serious concerns that cobbling together this new fourth mobile player, with the government picking winners and losers, will not address the merger’s harm to consumers, workers, and innovation.”

A federal judge said today that the trial will begin in December. T-Mobile and Sprint previously agreed not to close their merger until a judge rules in the trial, but T-Mo CEO John Legere also recently said that they expect the merger to close in the second half of 2019. The WSJ notes that closing the merger after January 2 would make T-Mobile and Sprint amend their merger agreement, which could mean higher borrowing costs and other complications, so the companies would probably like to complete their merger before the calendar flips to 2020.

Sources: Texas Attorney General, WSJ

Tags: , , ,

  • John Doe

    I think they should just complete the merger and let the states kick rocks.

  • Fabian Cortez

    I guess this must be another Democrat AG and/or duopoly-funded AG/state.

    /latestTmoNewscommentsectionconspiracytheory

  • Mike Taylor

    I wonder what they will say if they block the merger and Sprint goes under?

    • Fabian Cortez

      I wonder what they will say if they block the merger and Sprint goes under?

      Let Dish or Google or Amazon, etc. pick them up.

      It is not T-Mobile’s job to save Sprint. Are we all just going to forget about SoftBank?

      • Ummon

        You keep going back to this, but Tmo isnt doing this to “save” Sprint…they want that sweet sweet spectrum. SB could pile money on top of Sprint, but they wont. Masa bought that sucker to flip it.

        • Fabian Cortez

          You keep going back to this, but Tmo isnt doing this to “save” Sprint…they want that sweet sweet spectrum. SB could pile money on top of Sprint, but they wont. Masa bought that sucker to flip it.

          I know exactly why T-Mobile wants to merge with Sprint. I have zero illusions.

          I was simply commenting on one of the many reasons people want this merger to proceed; Sprint allegedly needs a white knight.

        • Ummon

          Yeah, I think they DO need this more than any other party involved. Certainly not at the expense of tax payers as some have suggested.. All this aside, I really enjoy internet-debating with you…your temperament never changes. /applaud /respect

        • Fabian Cortez

          Yeah, I think they DO need this more than any other party involved. Certainly not at the expense of tax payers as some have suggested.. All this aside, I really enjoy internet-debating with you…your temperament never changes. /applaud /respect

          This is true. Sprint absolutely needs this. Their concubine of sorts is no longer interested in their investment failure.

          If Sprint fails then Sprint fails. Someone will purchase what’s left. Customers can decide which carrier to move on to.

          Dish was very interested in Sprint in 2013.

    • Mike Smith

      Good riddance?

    • npaladin2000

      “Oops.”

    • marque2

      Seems to be the plan. Sprint spectrum would then be reauctioned and Verizon and AT_T would then get most of it.

      • SirStephenH

        Nope, such acquisitions would be blocked by the feds and the states. T-Mobile, Dish, the regional carriers, and possibly a new entrant would be the winners in the case of Sprint going under.

  • John

    Out of all 15 state attorney Generals suing to block the merger. Only Paxton is a Republican AG all the other 14 states have democrat AG that are suing to block the merger

    • Fabian Cortez

      Ken Paxton’s party affiliation is not relevant.

      But his statement is (emphasis mine):

      “While we appreciate the time and effort that went into the agreement between the parties and the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the Texas Attorney General has an independent obligation to protect Texas consumers. After careful evaluation of the proposed merger and the settlement, we do not anticipate that the proposed new entrant will replace the competitive role of Sprint anytime soon. It is the Attorney General’s responsibility to preserve free market competition, which has proven to result in lower prices and better quality for consumers. The bargain struck by the U.S. Dept. of Justice is not in the best interest of working Texans, who need affordable mobile wireless telecommunication services that are fit to match the speed and technological innovation demands of Texas’ growing economy.”

  • Radical Millennial

    Yep, we’d likely have a true duopoly by now if AT&T were to acquire T-Mobile. It seems that many here have forgotten this.

    It really seems that people who are in support of this merger are either libertarian types or people that just want to blow a load in seeing their phones do over a gig on a speed test which would be meaningless once data buckets come back.

    • Jose Mendoza

      Or, it’s a bunch of stock investors getting excited over breadcrumbs. Gotta love “trickle down” economics though!

      • marque2

        I get paid pretty well because I got a real degree in college and found ways to expand my skillset afterwards. A little effort into your life and your reward will be greater. Companies pay market rates for your skills. If you don’t have any – or became a sociology major so the skills you have aren’t in demand – you will get crumbs then whine about it on Disqus boards. I don’t earn CEO rates but then I don’t want their responsibility either – and am living just fine.

    • What is it with you and your psychological hangup on libertarians? Were you offended by one in some way? Is their ideology frightening compared to the “We Love Money / Destroy America” ideology of the Democrats or the “We Love Money & Guns” ideology of the Republicans? Just curious.

      • Josh Schoonover

        Libertarians are just Republicans that are OK with smoking pot, and jerk off to Ayn Rand.

        • marque2

          Libertarians are their own personal breed of nuttiness.

        • And environment policies of the tree huggers. I read that somewhere.

      • Radical Millennial

        Oh my friend, I could write an entire book on the issues with market fundamentalism. I’m no communist/socialist and the fact that I have to clearly state that speaks volumes about those with libertarian views and pretty much most of everyone with right wing views.

        One issue I have with such is their inability to see anything beyond black and white. Essentially, they have binary thinking. There’s no concept of a mixed economy in their minds. Anything less than total and pure laissez-faire economics is pure socialism in their minds. It gets turned into a straw man argument usually along the lines of “we’re turning into Soviet Russia”.

        The other issue I have with them is clearly apparent in these comments. Everything to do with the government is a conspiracy theory. Everything! This is not what you call healthy skepticism. Politicians that generally care about their constituents regardless of party actually exist. Don’t take this as me saying that all politicians generally care. It seems that this crowd has no skepticism for this merger though. It seems it’s reserved only for the AGs/gov’t. Yeah, there’s absolutely no bias there. /s I have skepticism for both sides. Do you?

        Actually I wouldn’t even call it skepticism on their part. Skeptics raise questions, they don’t jump to conclusions.

        As the one guy here keeps saying, Sprint has SoftBank which means they do have access to capital, if SoftBank chooses to invest. I feel that once Sprint realizes that they can’t be sold off, SoftBank will start to take Sprint seriously instead of waiting around for a buyer. They could of course declare bankruptcy, but then SoftBank loses everything so I don’t see that happening honestly. They know they can position Sprint to be profitable with their spectrum, they’re just trying to take the easy way out.

        So there you guys go, there’s your argument against this merger. No bailouts needed.

        • marque2

          The fact you have to clearly state you aren’t socalist/communist is that your other words belie that statement.

    • Francisco Peña

      No. I support the merger because Sprint is going to die regardless.
      TMo’s coverage is lacking. Many industry pundits say Spring has great spectrum, but lacks the capital to build out.

      After ATT’s failed bid that gave TMo a few Billion, TMo used it to build out, and from a 4th place carrier (at that time), they are now firmly in 3rd.

      Getting Sprint, and its spectrum, would allow Tmo to build out their network quicker than if they had to wait for additional auctions, and enough capital themselves.

      They would never get to be a real threat on anything other than price. The other 2 continuously market their networks as being larger, and thus justifying the cost.

      Now what would happen if TMo jumps to the big boys table and can build a network just as big as the others? Sure, some pricing might go up, but what do you really think if there are 3 large carriers, with equal coverage. One of those three wants to be the big dog, and you think they all will offer the same pricing as each other? no. If TMo still offers TMo Tuesdays, and better unlimited pricing than VZW (who just adjusted their lineup again), would VZW stay pat? Remember, by then, TMo’s coverage will be better.

      If you take out the one trump card that VZW and ATT have over TMo, coverage, what then could you compete with on? Pricing and features.

      There is no incentive now for the big 2 to adjust their pricing down, or offer additional features.

      So yeah, let’s do this merger. I had VZW before and if I wanted to go back, I’d be paying over $160 (on GoUnlimited) before taxes and phone charges for 3 lines. I have TMo and am paying $85 including taxes for 3 lines of unlimited. I have full HD streaming and 6GB LTE Hotspot. I’d pay more if I got better coverage. And if TMo were to go up to $160 like VZW, then I’d just go to whoever gave the best deals or goodies at that point.

      So thinking TMo will raise their prices as much as the other two is absurd. They never have. And if their coverage is as good as ATT/VZW, those will adjust to match pricing or offer better deals.

      • Fabian Cortez

        No. I support the merger because Sprint is going to die regardless.
        TMo’s coverage is lacking. Many industry pundits say Spring has great spectrum, but lacks the capital to build out.

        Sprint has the capital (see SoftBank). They just lack the execution. They also have serious debt liabilities.

        And if T-Mobile’s coverage is lacking, they should use the billions they intend on using for this merger to instead build out.

        After ATT’s failed bid that gave TMo a few Billion, TMo used it to build out, and from a 4th place carrier (at that time), they are now firmly in 3rd.

        This is 100% false and you need to stop spreading it. The only thing T-Mobile USA received from AT&T was unused AWS spectrum ($1 billion worth) and a 7-year 3G roaming agreement. The $3 billion in cash went to Deutsche Telekom.

        Getting Sprint, and its spectrum, would allow Tmo to build out their network quicker than if they had to wait for additional auctions, and enough capital themselves.

        This is false as well. T-Mobile is building out their network with 700 MHz and 600 MHz. Sprint offers nothing as it relates to usable sub-1 GHz spectrum. T-Mobile’s buildout is constrained by the 600 MHz TV station phases.

        They would never get to be a real threat on anything other than price. The other 2 continuously market their networks as being larger, and thus justifying the cost.

        This is absurd in 2019. AT&T and Verizon are not that much more expensive than T-Mobile. T-Mobile has also changed the entire industry by eliminating service contracts, revitalizing unlimited data, and increasing competition. Ironically, none of this could have been accomplished had the government not sued to block the merger.

        Now what would happen if TMo jumps to the big boys table and can build a network just as big as the others? Sure, some pricing might go up, but what do you really think if there are 3 large carriers, with equal coverage. One of those three wants to be the big dog, and you think they all will offer the same pricing as each other? no. If TMo still offers TMo Tuesdays, and better unlimited pricing than VZW (who just adjusted their lineup again), would VZW stay pat? Remember, by then, TMo’s coverage will be better.

        T-Mobile can do that soon, without Sprint. As they forge ahead with their 600 MHz buildout and continue to bring in at least 1 million new subscribers per quarter for the past 25 consecutive quarters (that’s 75 months in a row).

        If you take out the one trump card that VZW and ATT have over TMo, coverage, what then could you compete with on? Pricing and features.

        Welcome to everyday business from grocery stores to automobiles.

        There is no incentive now for the big 2 to adjust their pricing down, or offer additional features.

        There is. And T-Mobile has proved this for the past 75 months in a row. That’s 6.25 years now.

        So yeah, let’s do this merger. I had VZW before and if I wanted to go back, I’d be paying over $160 (on GoUnlimited) before taxes and phone charges for 3 lines. I have TMo and am paying $85 including taxes for 3 lines of unlimited. I have full HD streaming and 6GB LTE Hotspot. I’d pay more if I got better coverage. And if TMo were to go up to $160 like VZW, then I’d just go to whoever gave the best deals or goodies at that point.

        No, let us not “do this merger.”

        You saving some money every month does not justify the loss of a true fourth carrier/competition, the potential (almost guaranteed) for prices to rise (ironic since you’re touting your low-cost plan), and job losses (what the state AGs are also protecting).

        So thinking TMo will raise their prices as much as the other two is absurd. They never have. And if their coverage is as good as ATT/VZW, those will adjust to match pricing or offer better deals.

        T-Mobile has absolutely raised their prices in the past 6.25 years (since Un-carrier 1.0). And they absolutely will raise their prices should this merger proceed. They have only committed to not raising prices for the next three years.

        There isn’t a for-profit company out there that doesn’t raise their prices post acquisition or merger.

        • marque2

          It’s not false when you say something is false and then restate what the person said plus more.

          This post of yours shows that you have really lost it. You know – maybe you could get out of the basement, take a walk, meet a girl (or boy or whatever you like) instead of angrily posting massive essays in support of these sad AGs. They are just hoping for handouts, they aren’t legitimately opposimg the deal.

      • marque2

        ATT also had a temporary extended roaming agreement as part of the failed takeover.

    • Fabian Cortez

      Yep, we’d likely have a true duopoly by now if AT&T were to acquire T-Mobile. It seems that many here have forgotten this.

      Duopoly? No, more like a monopoly if it weren’t for antitrust laws.

      One existed before. They were called AT&T. And they were broken up by the government in 1984.

      • Acdc1a

        Yet AT&T has acquired almost every baby bell created …

        • marque2

          Well not the ones bought by Verizon – itself a former baby bell.

    • marque2

      Doubtful. If prices went too high – there is a lot of spectrum owned by cable companies – and interestingly I believe Comcast offers cell service and is growing rapidly.

      TMobile /Sprint is at a huge disadvantage as well because they can’t bundle service the way ATT and Verizon do. ATT & Verizon have
      the cable/Internet/phone/Cell bundles. TMobile doesn’t own a cable or dsl service so can’t offer a bundle.

  • Jose Mendoza

    Anti trust laws are basically the only way capitalism can some what function as a “free market”. Other than that, capitalism would be “winner take all” which is what lots of older generations want considering their life has been going great thanks to the same laws they’re now trying to repeal because they want to enjoy their last year’s screwing over the newer generations.

  • francob911 .

    Dish should just merge with Sprint and Spectrum TWC or Frontier should merger with T-Mobile

    • Mike Smith

      It’s remarkable that no one wants US Cellular.

      • marque2

        Is US Cellular for sale? That is probably the first question to ask. They aren’t in trouble like Sprint either.

        • Mike Smith

          Huh? It’s a public corporation right? So YES it’s “for sale”?

        • marque2

          You are being pedantic – but I will explain in more detail anyway. Has US Cellular indicated it wants to be absorbed by another company – either by upper management or shareholder proxy? It is much more difficult and expensive to purchase out a company in what is called a “hostile takeover” (hostile takeover is when a company or person(s) try to buy a 51% stake of a company on the open market without shareholder approval)than it is when management recommends the merge and puts it up for shareholder vote.

        • Mike Smith

          Sounds like you don’t understand corporations? What “management” wants is irrelevant, they report to the shareholders. US Cellular underperforms, has no growth prospects, and is ripe for acquisition.

          But back to my original post… no one seems interested.

        • marque2

          You have no idea. Since anyone with any background knows that would be called a hostile takeover as undescribed above. Please read a book on business or find the Wiki page on corporate mergers before you continue to comment.

        • SirStephenH

          No, it’s only a hostile takeover when a company buys more than 50% of a company’s stock in order to force a merger. This is possible because the company then has the majority vote on such a merger. A merger can also be obtained by simply working to get the support of shareholders together holding over 50% of a company’s stock (no hostile takeover required).

    • Tom@L

      that was not allowed before by DOJ.

      • Fabian Cortez

        that was not allowed before by DOJ.

        What wasn’t allowed by the DOJ?

        Dish made a $25.5 billion bid for Sprint in 2013. They were then outbid by SoftBank, who made an initial bid in 2012. Sprint was the third largest carrier at the time.

  • npaladin2000

    They need to get over themselves. If they want 4 carriers, this is the best way. Otherwise, Sprint goes out of business, its assets get split between AT&T and Verizon, T-Mobile gets marginalized again, and then we’re at 2 carriers and a wannabe.

    • Mike Smith

      I din’t think that would happen, they’d surely block that too.

      • npaladin2000

        If Sprint files for bankruptcy and liquidation, they wouldn’t be able to block it.

        • Mike Smith

          Maybe, but it would just attract anti-trust action which could force them to divest.

        • Tom@L

          So who else will jump in then? Google? Charter? Tmobile without sprint’s spectrum will also suffer. This merger is the best chance to fight verizon and at&t and force them to lower prices.

        • Fabian Cortez

          So who else will jump in then? Google? Charter? Tmobile without sprint’s spectrum will also suffer. This merger is the best chance to fight verizon and at&t and force them to lower prices.

          How exactly will T-Mobile suffer?

          T-Mobile purchased a substantial amount of 600 MHz spectrum, which they stated would be used for “5G.” They also participated in the recent (May 2019) mmWave (24 GHz to 28 GHz) auction. The FCC is also pledging to auction off more.

        • Tom@L

          because that sweet 2.4ghz spectrum from sprint is way better than mmwave spectrum for 5G. Tmobile will never have the capital to massively deploy mmwave towers like at&t and verizon will do. They will suffer. And 600mhz is not 5g sexy enough it is mainly for range, not 5G speeds that everyone is looking for.

        • Fabian Cortez

          because that sweet 2.4ghz spectrum from sprint is way better than mmwave spectrum for 5G. Tmobile will never have the capital to massively deploy mmwave towers like at&t and verizon will do. They will suffer. And 600mhz is not 5g sexy enough it is mainly for range, not 5G speeds that everyone is looking for.

          LTE isn’t going away for a long time. It will continue to be developed upon just like HSPA is/was. This means that future LTE advancements will improve LTE efficiency (see better use of spectrum).

          T-Mobile has nationwide 600 MHz which it will use to deploy a nationwide 5G network. Rural America has zero need for 100 MHz of 5G. Cities, where 5G will be crucial, are already being densified via the installation of small cells for LTE. Make no mistake that these investments can be purposed for 5G as well.

        • SirStephenH

          Band 71, if used in a 5G network, IS 5G. 5G is defined by the technology, not the spectrum.

        • marque2

          You don’t know much about how spectrum or 5g works. You’re just mouthing off. 600Mhz alone does not allow for a true 5g network.

        • SirStephenH

          I don’t think YOU know how 5G works. There is no such thing as spectrum for “a true 5g network”. 5G is defined by the technology it uses, not the spectrum. 5G utilizing band 71 is just as “true” as 5G utilizing mm wave.

        • Fabian Cortez

          If Sprint files for bankruptcy and liquidation, they wouldn’t be able to block it.

          The airwaves belong to the American people. Carriers purchase licenses.

          The FCC also maintains a spectrum screen.

          From an article dated April 28, 2014 (emphasis mine):

          The FCC currently uses the screen as a factor when reviewing spectrum transactions to determine whether they are in the public interest. If a carrier acquires too much spectrum and violates the screen, the deal is more closely scrutinized. Currently, the screen is different for each proposed transaction. The FCC has been reviewing changes it should make to the screen since 2012.

          The screen can trigger a more detailed competitive analysis by the FCC, and currently the trigger occurs when a wireless provider holds one-third or more of the available spectrum in a given market. As the Journal noted, the new screen would cause Sprint to hit or exceed the one-third threshold in most major markets.

          The proposed changes will keep using the one-third spectrum holding factor. The proposed rules would also continue to use a case-by-case review for transactions involving spectrum below 1 GHz.

          The new spectrum screen rules will only affect transactions after the upcoming spectrum auctions, for AWS-3 spectrum later this year and the 600 MHz auction, planned for mid-2015.

        • npaladin2000

          This is SUCH an interesting statement to examine, let’s think about it. So, the stated policy is for four carriers, for competition’s sake, right? Yet the trigger is more than a THIRD of the spectrum in any one market. Not a FOURTH, a THIRD. So as long as three carriers agree to split a market by thirds, they can shut out a fourth carrier anyway.

        • Fabian Cortez

          This is SUCH an interesting statement to examine, let’s think about it. So, the stated policy is for four carriers, for competition’s sake, right? Yet the trigger is more than a THIRD of the spectrum in any one market. Not a FOURTH, a THIRD. So as long as three carriers agree to split a market by thirds, they can shut out a fourth carrier anyway.

          I politely suggest you read up on the FCC’s spectrum screen for mergers and acquisitions.

        • npaladin2000

          I politely suggest you do so as well, in addition to merger law, and all of the books on business that I had to read to get my business degree. Then get back to me. You’ll be a while.

        • Fabian Cortez

          I politely suggest you do so as well, in addition to merger law, and all of the books on business that I had to read to get my business degree. Then get back to me. You’ll be a while.

          All of that has nothing to do with this merger and the FCC’s spectrum screen which you still fail to comprehend (see emphasis) based upon your statement of “[y]et the trigger is more than a THIRD of the spectrum in any one market. Not a FOURTH, a THIRD. So as long as three carriers agree to split a market by thirds, they can shut out a fourth carrier anyway.

          So I will amend my statement: Please read up on the FCC’s spectrum screen and please read up on how wireless carriers purchase spectrum licenses and how they’re used.

          in addition to merger law,

          You don’t seem to understand merger law either as the hoops required to jump through to even get the DOJ to approve of this deal were ridiculous. Dish getting involved to create a “fourth” carrier, requirements of divesting subscribers and spectrum, etc.

          No need to get back to me. I have no aversions to comprehension.

        • marque2

          Your entire post is a non sequitur.

    • SirStephenH

      Sprint is not nearly as close to going out of business as the conspiracy theorists would have people believe. Sprint still has options for funding and presumably SoftBank would work to improve Sprint like T-Mobile did post failed merger if the government puts an end to its hopes of a buyout. Right now Sprint isn’t focused on improving, it’s focused on selling off everything.

      Even *if* Sprint went bankrupt it would be forced to reorganize before being allowed to close its doors for good and even *if* it actually went out of business AT&T and Verizon would not be allowed to scoop up a significant portion of its assets. It would be mostly T-Mobile, Dish, and regional carriers that would get the majority of Sprint’s assets.

  • Jay Holm

    If it is ok for ATT and Verizon to have 120 plus million customer’s, and not be anti-competitive, then it isn’t anti-competitive for T-Mobile….that is bias towards TWO companies

    • SirStephenH

      You know what you call T-Mobile stealing customers from AT&T and Verizon quarter after quarter after quarter? Competition.

  • Jay Holm

    It is becoming abundantly clear that there is a clear bias in this country for two companies, very, clear at this point.

    • Fabian Cortez

      It is becoming abundantly clear that there is a clear bias in this country for two companies, very, clear at this point.

      100% fabrication on your part.

      The FCC chairman worked for Verizon and approved the deal.

      • marque2

        No Verizon and AT&T were allowed to buy back all the baby bells and several wireless companies to grow to where they are now. But now for some reason there is angst. Can’t say it is all due to AT&T Verizon meddling isnce AT&T TMobile did fail – but it does seem like the two Biggie’s are of the opinion if we they can’t eat the small ones – noone should be allowed.

  • Jay Holm

    Yep, it is a speedbump…. ultimately a judge will be smart enough to realize that the DOJ and FCC has approved the deal. . .and dismiss it, and headlines like this will be in the past.

    • Fabian Cortez

      Yep, it is a speedbump…. ultimately a judge will be smart enough to realize that the DOJ and FCC has approved the deal. . .and dismiss it, and headlines like this will be in the past.

      Thankfully for all of us, you included, that’s not how court cases adn judges work.

  • Jay Holm

    Umm, nobody seemed to have a problem with ATT & Vzn swallowing up companies in the past three decades to become as huge as they are. . .at this point in time, there is a huge, and clear bias in this country towards TWO companies.

    • Mike Smith

      To be fair, the companies they bought weren’t in the same . business.

      • npaladin2000

        You mean like Cingular Wireless, Dobson Cellular, West Virginia Wireless, Ramcell, those companies that weren’t in the same business?

        • Jay Holm

          As many as you listed, I am sure there were many others on ATT & Vzn’s way up to 120-130 million customer’s. . .all these states AG’s never contested.

        • npaladin2000

          Oh those are for both Verizon and AT&T, and yes, there were many more. All in the same business, despite what Mike Smith said.

        • Jay Holm

          Exactly! And like I said, during all those mergers, and aquisitions, no state AG’s ever contested. . .

        • marque2

          Exactly!

      • marque2

        Yes they were the same. AT&T and Verizon bought back all the baby bells. Many of the cell companies were subsidiaries of the baby bells at the time.

    • Fabian Cortez

      Umm, nobody seemed to have a problem with ATT & Vzn swallowing up companies in the past three decades to become as huge as they are. . .at this point in time, there is a huge, and clear bias in this country towards TWO companies.

      Back when there was still some competition.

      The FCC was clear about their four carrier threshold. Hence the reason for the fake creation/parading of Dish as a fourth carrier to replace Sprint.

  • Francisco Peña

    Anyone want to guess where teh headquarters of ATT is?
    Dallas TX.

  • Francisco Peña

    Dallas is the HQ for ATT. just saying.

    • Fabian Cortez

      Dallas is the HQ for ATT. just saying.

      And New York City is the headquarters of Verizon. Seatte is the headquarters of T-Mobile. Kansas City is the headquarters of Sprint.

      All facts that have zero relevancy to this lawsuit.

      Now, if you’re trying to imply that AT&T has a hand in this, then why didn’t Texas bring the case from the onset?

      • npaladin2000

        Why do so unless you need to? At the onset the DOJ and FCC weren’t going to approve it. Now they have. Now it makes more sense to pull out any remaining stops. If you’re AT&T anyway.

        • Fabian Cortez

          Why do so unless you need to? At the onset the DOJ and FCC weren’t going to approve it. Now they have. Now it makes more sense to pull out any remaining stops. If you’re AT&T anyway.

          Please provide evidence or leave the conspiracy theories someplace else.

        • npaladin2000

          I don’t have to provide evidence regarding a generic point about timing, and you know it. If you want to give in without making it look that way it’s better to not try and hide it behind a “conspiracy theory” accusation, which looks petty and childish.

        • Fabian Cortez

          I don’t have to provide evidence regarding a generic point about timing, and you know it. If you want to give in without making it look that way it’s better to not try and hide it behind a “conspiracy theory” accusation, which looks petty and childish.

          So no evidence. Good to know.

        • marque2

          By demanding evidence you lost the argument. Start by providing your own.

        • marque2

          Yeah the cry of evidence please by a person when that person hasn’t provided any either is a strong sign of that person losing the argument. And it is rather silly on informal boards like this.

      • Francisco Peña

        You don’t throw all your chips in to start, do you? if it was a GOP governor from a state that ATT (surprise) didn’t have a HQ, then that be something. But now they jump in. hmmm

        DOJ/FCC/ and 18 of 19 public utility commissions approve.

        • Fabian Cortez

          You don’t throw all your chips in to start, do you? if it was a GOP governor from a state that ATT (surprise) didn’t have a HQ, then that be something. But now they jump in. hmmm

          DOJ/FCC/ and 18 of 19 public utility commissions approve.

          So when the facts don’t fit your narrative, you now want to change/expand the conspiracy theory/narrative.

          No, I will not entertain that.

    • marque2

      Dallas is also a left wing nut town. Sadly to only major conservative town in Texas is Fort Worth.

  • Mike

    How much money did Dallas based AT&T pay him?

    • none

      $50,000 in 2018.

      • Fabian Cortez

        $50,000 in 2018.

        Do you have any supporting documentation?

        • none

          I just checked on votesmart(dot)org, which says AT&T donated $50,000 to his campaign in 2018.

        • npaladin2000

          Ignore him, he’d only accept an image of the cancelled check as “documentation” anyway.

        • Fabian Cortez

          I just checked on votesmart(dot)org, which says AT&T donated $50,000 to his campaign in 2018.

          Thank you for that information.

          Ajit Pai (FCC chairman) was a lawyer for Verizon. Yet he approved the merger…

    • Fabian Cortez

      How much money did Dallas based AT&T pay him?

      How much money did Verizon pay ex Associate General Counsel at Verizon and now FCC chairman Ajit Pai to block the deal?

      Oh wait…

      • Mike

        FCC isn’t the DOJ. Just saying.

        • Fabian Cortez

          FCC isn’t the DOJ. Just saying.

          This is an irrelevant fact.

          Traditionally, both DOJ and FCC approval is needed. Not one or the other, both.

      • marque2

        Yeah – how much did Google pay to brainwash millennials into thinking “Net Neutrality” was something more than just saving Google tons of money at the expense of ISPs? You know the ISPs greatly reduced Internet expansion during the NN period but now that it is repealed it is growing again at the same much faster preNN rate.

  • none

    Hmm, according to votesmart, Ken Paxton received $50,000 in donations from, drum roll please… AT&T, during the 2018 election….

    • Fabian Cortez

      Hmm, according to votesmart, Ken Paxton received $50,000 in donations from, drum roll please… AT&T, during the 2018 election….

      This sounds like another unfounded conspiracy theory.

      AT&T also contributed to Maryland AG Brian Frosh ($10,000) and Mississippi AG Jim Hood ($1,000). Were they just early to the party or was Ken Paxton late?

      Using your own website, all other AGs received zero funding from AT&T and no AG received funding from Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon.

  • Miken

    Why Texas? Because AT&T owns the legislature. No kidding.

  • Fabian Cortez

    The vocal few have mentioned outlandish conspiracy theories as it relates to AT&T and Verizon. I suggest brushing up on antitrust laws. The same laws used to save T-Mobile USA (this site wouldn’t be here if AT&T succeeded).

    Ken Paxton’s words are clear. Jobs jobs jobs:

    “While we appreciate the time and effort that went into the agreement between the parties and the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the Texas Attorney General has an independent obligation to protect Texas consumers. After careful evaluation of the proposed merger and the settlement, we do not anticipate that the proposed new entrant will replace the competitive role of Sprint anytime soon. It is the Attorney General’s responsibility to preserve free market competition, which has proven to result in lower prices and better quality for consumers. The bargain struck by the U.S. Dept. of Justice is not in the best interest of working Texans, who need affordable mobile wireless telecommunication services that are fit to match the speed and technological innovation demands of Texas’ growing economy.”

    • SirStephenH

      People declared then that the T-Mobile/AT&T merger was the only way to save T-Mobile. The deal fell through, forcing T-Mobile to step up and focus on becoming better instead of holding back investment and waiting for a buyout. Now T-Mobile is in a virtual tie or better with Verizon in every metric. There’s nothing saying that the same wouldn’t happen with Sprint once SoftBank gets this idea out of its head that all it has to do is sit back and wait for a buyout.

      • ASolzhenitsyn

        Sprint has much more debt as a % to their current market cap vs. what T-Mobile had back then.

  • Keith

    The opposing GAs are great at complaining about what they dont want, but have not presented a counter plan. Maybe they will band together and “bail out” Sprint when it fails, like the government did for the big banks that were “too big to fail”. They cant have it both ways. The Sprint/Tmobile merger is a good plan. Dish is the wildcard here. They have the plan presented on a silver platter for success, it’s the deployment of that spectrum that’s the key. I bet John Ledgere would love to run Dish competing against the ATT, Verizon, and T-Mobile, and based on his track record, he would provide the best prices, lowest churn, and soon overtake all 3 carriers.

    • Kevin

      Sprint is not going to fail. SoftBank won’t let that happen because they own too much of Sprint. Right now, they are playing this failing firm game to get the merger through. TMobile has been down this road before with Att. Look what happen afterwards.

  • Reagan1

    Yes

    • marque2

      This is the cry of a person losing an argument whensomeone starts demanding evidence from everyone else when that person didn’t provide any evidence to begin with at all.

  • NardVa

    Do most Texans have T-Mobile or Sprint? The majority of their population is probably using AT&T or Verizon. So he’s gone pick a fight with T-Mobile because Verizon and AT&T is raping his constituents with high prices. It’s sounds like his problem is with AT&T and Verizon.

    • SirStephenH

      It’s their fault if they pay more for service virtually in no way better than the cheaper third option. This merger or lack there of isn’t going to change this.

    • marque2

      I can tell you TMobile is excellent in DFW area. Not sure why but never ever had problems.

  • Robert Roll

    In the end i look for the merger to go through. The state AGs are just delaying the inevitable for political purposes. Been quite a few news snippets out there that alot of Anti-Trust lawyers have commented that the states face a big uphill battle on blocking it considering the DOJ and the FCC and the other federal entities like cifus and team telecom and the various state utility commissions have all approved it (never did hear if California did) including the states that these AGs represent (i.e. New York) and the burden of proof is on the states.

  • Kevin

    There is no guarantee TMobile will be the un-carrier after the merger. Things can change anytime. If TMobile becomes a carrier, then there will be no place for customers to hide. For the people who supports this merger, be careful what you wish for.