Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: DOJ says states have no business trying to block T-Mobile-Sprint merger

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    BTA-44: MTA-29: MSA-41: PEA-40: CMA-41: BEA-78: MEA-24
    Posts
    5,755
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S10+ (unlocked), Galaxy S8, LG K7, iPhone 6S, iPhone 6, iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, iPhone 3G
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0

    DOJ says states have no business trying to block T-Mobile-Sprint merger

    If that's true then why can they just go ahead with it!?

    https://www.phonearena.com/news/us-a...-deal_id122059


    Makan Delrahim, the head of the Justice Department's antitrust division is concerned about the lawsuit filed by several state attorneys general that seeks to block the $26.5 billion merger of T-Mobile and Sprint. The plaintiffs argue that by reducing the number of major U.S. carriers by 25%, the remaining wireless operators will be able to raise prices more easily. There are a number of reasons why this is not true and we will explore them later in this article.


    According to Bloomberg, Delrahim is concerned that by trying to put the kibosh on the merger, the states are diverging from federal regulators and are trying to block the deal on their own. The FCC and the DOJ are the two main federal regulatory agencies that needed to sign off on the transaction and both have done so. T-Mobile persuaded the FCC to give the merger a thumbs up by promising to cover 97% of the country (85% of rural America) with low-band 5G signals within the first three years after the merger closes. The carrier also said that during the same time period it would cover 75% of the U.S. with 5G signals; this would be accomplished by employing the 2.5GHz mid-band airwaves it would acquire from Sprint. Among other promises made, T-Mobile told the FCC that within the first three years after the merger closes, 63% of its customers in the states will be able to access download data speeds of 100Mbps or faster verifiable through a drive test.

    Justice Department's antitrust chief says that the states should not be allowed to muck up a "national settlement"


    To placate the DOJ, Sprint agreed to sell Dish Network its prepaid businesses for $5 billion in an attempt to turn the satellite television provider into a replacement for Sprint. Dish will also receive 9.3 million customers, 7,500 retail locations, 400 employees and 14MHz of 800MHz spectrum. It also will sign a seven-year MVNO agreement with T-Mobile that will allow Dish to start selling wireless service under its name while it builds a standalone 5G network.


    Delrahim made a speech in Washington, complaining that if the states are allowed to block a national settlement from going through "that will wreak havoc on parties' ability to merge and the government's ability to settle cases, and cause real uncertainty in the market for mergers and acquisitions." During the speech, Delrahim said that his argument isn't that states shouldn't have the ability to enforce merger laws. The point of his argument is that the courts shouldn't block a deal or agree to a settlement that is "incompatible with the relief secured by the federal government."


    Sometime this month, Judge Vincent Marrero will announce his decision. During the bench trial (no jury was present), former Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure testified that if the merger with T-Mobile is blocked, Sprint will have to raise prices. DING! That rings a bell, doesn't it? The outcome of a victory for the states would result in the very thing that they are suing to prevent. And if you can wrap your head around that, another Sprint executive says that if the deal does not get done, Sprint might have to shut its doors. DING! The states are concerned that if the merger goes through, Sprint will disappear reducing the number of major U.S. carriers to three. But here is a Sprint executive who says that the same thing could occur if the states are successful in blocking the merger. And frankly, we can't imagine that Judge Marrero doesn't see this either.


    The spread between the theoretical value of Sprint if the deal were to be approved and the actual value of the company's stock right now has ballooned to $3.82. The higher this spread, the more skepticism on Wall Street that the deal will close in its present form. On January 2nd the spread was $2.84 after hitting a low of 53 cents just one month after the deal was announced on April 29th, 2018.


    Besides the lawsuit filed by the state attorneys general, the merger needs to be approved by California's Public Utility Commission and the deal between Sprint and Dish that the DOJ gave thumbs up to must be reviewed by Judge Thomas Kelly under the Tunney Act. The latter calls for an independent review of any agreement made by the Justice Department to make sure that it is in the public interest.



    Sent from my SM-G975U1 using HoFo mobile app
    AT&T Unlimited & More w/ 2 Lines
    AT&T TV w/ HBO

    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,696
    Device(s)
    LG G7
    Carrier(s)
    Google FI
    Feedback Score
    0
    Ahhh, Okay then we can just shut down Court rooms nationwide and let AG's decide cases all by their lonesome - because they say so.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,157
    Feedback Score
    0
    Fine with me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Samsung S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    If the FCC and the DOJ had actually done their job then there would have been no need for the state AGs to sue. Since they didn't, they did. Period.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    539
    Feedback Score
    0

    DOJ says states have no business trying to block T-Mobile-Sprint merger

    States hold just as much power to sue to stop a merger that the DOJ does, as long as the company does business in the state suing. It is purposely set up this way, and frankly should be this way. Our whole government is set up with not one single entity holding absolute power. Again, this is how it should be. Not sure what Delrahim is trying to say here, but disagree with states have no business suing, they do, and they did. If he’s confident their decision was in the public’s best interest, what’s he worried about a lawsuit for then.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,885
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    If the FCC and the DOJ had actually done their job then there would have been no need for the state AGs to sue.
    Your definition of "their job" is to kill the merger so that the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon remains unchallenged. Unlike the AG's the DOJ and the FCC aren't in the back pocket of AT&T and Verizon.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,588
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hofonewb9 View Post
    States hold just as much power to sue to stop a merger that the DOJ does, as long as the company does business in the state suing. It is purposely set up this way, and frankly should be this way. Our whole government is set up with not one single entity holding absolute power. Again, this is how it should be. Not sure what Delrahim is trying to say here, but disagree with states have no business suing, they do, and they did. If he’s confident their decision was in the public’s best interest, what’s he worried about a lawsuit for then.
    It is questionable in law if states can control a national company that crosses state lines. Granted we have Judges that ignore the US Constitution that gives power of business that cross state lines to the US Dept of Commerce. Just like Congress took away the power of any states to tax shipping by laws on any shipping on navigable body of water in the nation since it effected commerce to all people in the country. Even if the that river doesn’t cross any other state lines. This became law that interstate commerce is in the power of the federal government.

    Just like the FCC has removed by law the ability of cities to tax and control small cells ( not sure about towers). Now cities are suing the FCC as revenue grab by federal government. The federal government argued that cities are impending commerce. Don’t think Sprint or T- Mobile merger if the states win are going to appeal the ruling. However in the cities require ing high taxes on small cells this will be appeal many times.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,935
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    It is questionable in law if states can control a national company that crosses state lines. .......
    I seem to recall that anyone can sue to block a merger, not just government entities.
    Donald Newcomb

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    417
    Feedback Score
    0
    T-Mobile will be much better for competition with sprints resources. Without T-Mobile att and verizon would be reaming the customers more than they already are. All T-Mobile wants is a more level playing field.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    If the FCC and the DOJ had actually done their job then there would have been no need for the state AGs to sue. Since they didn't, they did. Period.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,588
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    I seem to recall that anyone can sue to block a merger, not just government entities.
    True just like any one can sue to block fossil fuel to be sold in the country but doesn’t mean that person can win. Where does it stop, can a city sue to block a merger of two national companies? Sure but do they have legal standing is the question to be successful. Let’s remember that AT&T was denied a merger with Time Warner that AT&T won in court.

    Show me where Any of those states have legal standing to block this merger in Florida or any state that isn’t in the lawsuit? There is a simple fix just let Sprint go out of business in only the AG’s states in the lawsuit. That eliminates those AG states Legal standing in the merger. After the merger then those AG could restrict T-Mobile but then it would result in those states having only two networks.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,534
    Feedback Score
    0
    The DOJ said how high?
    If my actions include deeds of philanthropy in charity and acts of loving kindness I am living in my Faith.

    Red Pocket (AT&T) UTnT 5GB exp 09.27.20
    Good2Go (AT&T) UTnT recurring $13.50otd/mo
    T-Mobile Gold Rewards $10yr exp 01.11.21
    Tello x2 (Sprint) $5 1-use/3mo no exp by 04.11.20

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    True just like any one can sue to block fossil fuel to be sold in the country but doesn’t mean that person can win. Where does it stop, can a city sue to block a merger of two national companies? Sure but do they have legal standing is the question to be successful. Let’s remember that AT&T was denied a merger with Time Warner that AT&T won in court.

    Show me where Any of those states have legal standing to block this merger in Florida or any state that isn’t in the lawsuit? There is a simple fix just let Sprint go out of business in only the AG’s states in the lawsuit. That eliminates those AG states Legal standing in the merger. After the merger then those AG could restrict T-Mobile but then it would result in those states having only two networks.
    Any state or individual can sue under grounds that a merger violates the Sherman act or Clayton act. This isn’t a DOJ choice only, and stripping states rights or even individual rights away just because T-Mobile wants to buy sprint is pointless.

    How about instead, T-Mobile is prohibited from doing business in the states that sued, how long you think T-Mobile lasts, and how far do you think their stock drops if they are kicked out of New York and California alone? I doubt T-Mobile would want this option. I’m sure they would much rather take their chances in court, and if they lose, life will go on for them.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Your definition of "their job" is to kill the merger so that the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon remains unchallenged. Unlike the AG's the DOJ and the FCC aren't in the back pocket of AT&T and Verizon.
    Lol, so they are in the back pocket of TMobile then? Oh wait....that's a secret....we got to pretend TMobile doesn't pay lobbyists like the evil Verizon and at&t does.....shhhhhhh I won't tell anyone......here I'll play along. TMobile is the little guy!!! Fighting for you the common man and woman!!!! They don't partake in those underhanded shenanigans like Verizon and At&t!!!!! On a serious note, do people actually believe that nonsense? The problem with playing the "little guy" card and pretending to be different is, eventually you become the big guy. Remember when apple was the "little guy" vs. Microsoft? How about Google's android vs. iOS? There's only so long TMobile can claim they are "different" than Verizon and At&t.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Device(s)
    iPhone X, iPhone SE, iPhone 6s
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, RP
    Feedback Score
    0
    U.S. District Judge Expected to Rule in Favor of Sprint-T-Mobile Merger, Sources Say
    iPhone 11 is my current primary phone. I have older model iPhones and Moto phones available on other lines. Currently prepaid, though would consider postpaid on right plan.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    539
    Feedback Score
    0
    I haven't seen that report, but it wouldn't surprise me. I said about a week ago that with all the negative buzz around the merger that I wouldn't be shocked at all if the judge ruled in favor of it. When all the reports say one thing, expect the opposite.


    Edit: just saw it. Seems we are getting an announcement Tuesday. The interesting part is there may be some conditions attached. Wonder what those could be.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1072
    Last Post: 01-30-2020, 11:51 AM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-23-2019, 08:58 AM
  3. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-26-2019, 10:29 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 08:20 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-24-2002, 06:31 PM

Bookmarks