Today the Justice Department filed suit to block AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile.
In announcing the suit, Sharis Pozen, the DoJ's top antitrust enforcer, said, "Any way you look at it, this deal is anti-competitive." We at Free Press couldn't agree more. And for once, policymakers put the law above politics and stood up to a powerful company.
This victory simply wouldn't have happened without intense public pressure generated by calls and letters from hundreds of thousands of activists. And thanks to the support of our members, we filed thousands of pages of research to tear down the mountain of AT&T propaganda and deflate the air of inevitability surrounding the merger in Washington.
The DoJ lawsuit is built on the arguments that Free Press, our allies and the public have been making since this disastrous deal was first announced: If you remove a competitor from an already concentrated market, the results are bad for industry, bad for consumers and bad for society. And they're bad for jobs and the economy, too.
In today's Washington, corporations too often dictate policy. But what's good for AT&T isn't good for the rest of us. With this decision, we see it's possible to challenge the most powerful corporations and make policy that actually serves the public interest.
AT&T has already invested millions in this deal, and it's going to play every card in the deck to try to win this suit and get this merger through. We hope instead that AT&T will drop this disastrous deal and invest in expanding its network and improving its woeful customer service.
We've turned Washington in the right direction on this merger, and now we've got to keep pushing until we have a media and communications system that serves our needs rather than the aims of a few giant corporations.
But for today, let's celebrate!
Follow Craig Aaron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/notaaroncraig
Harold Feld: DoJ Says "No Ma Cell"; What Happens Next?
Would definitely like to see more of this under Obama.
The government should limit compensation for all public corporate employees, and should tax those with overseas operations on all the profits made overseas. All non-essential expenses should not be deductable, and all political contributions prohibited. Paying a CEO millions while the company loses money is idiocy... minimum wage would be more appropriate, along with a letter of termination if he balks.
This particular market has to be dominated by large corporations because of the nature of the equipment and costs. You can't have small providers (unless they lease network from the big ones), so stopping this merger or allowing it won't make a damn bit of difference to the consumer.
That was extremely funny.
F&F
I am glad the deal has been hampered. I was with TMobile before and I used an old phone which did not have internet. but just voice. The service was terrible with dropped calls, very bad connections, etc. It is unbelievable these companies are number 2 and number 4.
2. There is plenty of competition in this market. It is highly competitive,
3. What is non competitive is the government buying into the auto industry, changing the rules to favor the companies they acquired, and forcing their vision of green cars down the throats of the American people. (It's not working by the way.)
That's anti competitive.
Change is coming.
2. Even if the merger occurred, would all those people have kept their jobs?
3. If T-Mobile can't survive on their own, why did AT&T want to buy for 39 billion and why not wait until they fail and get it for a cheaper price.
4. Cars and Mobile phones are apples to oranges.
5. You bet change is coming, but I don't think it will be to your liking.
2. I assume not. There are synergies created when companies merge. It is why they do mergers. Also there is accretive value created.
3. They wanted their technology. Again, because T Mobile USA is part of an International corporation the German parent would not fail. They will likely break it up...sell off the technology...or find a buyer outside of the clutches of the US department of injustice. I do not have access to their financials so this is pure speculation.
4. It was not a product comparison...it was an explanation of what happens when government gets involved where it should not. And it was an exceptionally clear comparison. I'm surprised you did not get it.
5. You can pretend November 2010 never happened. You can pretend the President's approval ratings isn't in the 30s. You can pretend he is not way under 50 % with women and independents. You can pretend the latest congressional generic ballot did not have the republicans +9 (highest ever). You can pretend there isn't plus 9 % unemployment, obscene debts and deficits.
I live in the real world.