Arkansas is the next state to support the T-Mobile-Sprint merger


After one state attorney general came out against T-Mobile and Sprint’s merger last week, another state AG is coming out in support of the deal this week.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has announced her support of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger. She’s the eighth state AG to get behind the merger, joining Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah.

“Arkansas stands to benefit from the T-Mobile merger with Sprint which will increase competition, especially in rural areas that have been deprived of reliable wireless service,” AG Rutledge said. “From our evaluation, the merger will result in increased quality and more competitive prices for Arkansans by expanding rural broadband access and expediting 5G technology to provide an essential service for a desperately underserved population.”

On the other side of the merger battle is a group of 17 state AGs that’ve sued to block the merger. They argue that it will lessen competition, raise prices, and result in a “substantial loss” of retail jobs. The group includes AGs from states like New York, California, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, Connecticut, and Illinois. The lawsuit involving these state AGs is set to begin on December 9.

Source: Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge

Tags: , ,

  • JG

    8 for, 17 against… That’s half of the nation (25 states). I wonder where the other 25 stand…

    • Roger Sales

      It’s really not about the number of states. the states with a higher population are against the merger because they are losing more than they’re gaining(-Jobs, already have decent coverage). Smaller states are supportive because they need better coverage and Sprint and T-Mobile as they currently exist don’t have the scale to make bigger network investments to properly compete with AT&T and Verizon. It sucks that people are going to lose jobs, but Sprint is unviable longterm regardless of what happens.

      • Acdc1a

        For every 2 duplicate retail positions in urban areas there’s at least 1 position where no T-Mobile or Sprint retail footprint exists. The job losses won’t be big.

      • SirStephenH

        T-Mobile already has coverage on par with Verizon. This merger isn’t going to magically expand coverage or make a sizable expansion possible over what is already done that isn’t possible now.

    • riverhorse

      Plus at least another 5 territories.
      Even though supposedly independent and apolitical office in theory, in practice there could be political risks, reasons and considerations for picking or not a side, for making it public – – who already has a substantial base (employee / voter, lobbyist / contributor), who may in the future.
      Why antagonize anyone even mildly affected plus needlessly waste resources( or conversely feel compelled to placate voters and contributors), as the merger is essentially a done deal– I can’t fathom the Supremes nixing the merger.

      • SirStephenH

        Puerto Rico is the only territory effected by this and it has a lot more pressing issues right now.

  • VapidRapidRabbit

    I live in Arkansas. Both T-Mobile and Sprint suck here, in cities and damn well in rural areas. How will we benefit when both barely have coverage and haven’t been serious about LTE? Why should we take their word that their 5G rollout will be any better? Rutledge is such an idiot.

  • SirStephenH

    Another flyover state joins in. Whoop-de-doo.

    • Ummon

      Found the lib.

  • Jon Smith

    Supposition by AGs without any data that supports that any nefarious outcome will result if the merger goes through.