toggle

AAPL Stock: 122.77 ( -1.73 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.com

AT&T filing hints only $3.8b, not T-Mobile, needed for goals

updated 04:50 pm EDT, Fri August 12, 2011

ATT filing hints T-Mobile merger claims inflated

AT&T on Thursday accidentally posted a filing (since pulled, available below) that called into doubt one of the core arguments for its buyout of T-Mobile. While it has publicly said it could only get to 97 percent coverage of the US population with LTE by spending $39 billion to buy T-Mobile, an estimate included in the document instead showed that it would only need $3.8 billion in network expenses to go beyond the 80 percent it wanted otherwise. Senior management claimed that the deal would let it "better absorb the increased capital investment," according to AT&T counsel Richard Rosen, but couldn't explain why spending ten times more on a T-Mobile deal made this sound.

The same document also notes unusual timing. AT&T had decided against building to 97 percent on the cost argument at the start of January but was already making a proposal to buy T-Mobile on January 15, two months before it reached a deal in public. Its process implied, though didn't confirm, that AT&T had withheld the expansion to make it an incentive to put in front of the FCC.

Marketers at AT&T knew that they would be at a competitive disadvantage to Verizon if the LTE coverage didn't grow.

AT&T would likely still get incidental benefits from the deal, such as wider coverage in existing areas, but this too has been disputed by a Sprint proposal that suggests many of the immediate coverage complaints could be solved through tapping unused spectrum and moving customers over sooner to technology less likely to face congestion.

The statements, if not disproved through substantial countering evidence, could throw a Department of Justice review of the case in jeopardy. To approve a merger where reduced competition is a concern, the DOJ has to find that the benefits of the merger would offset the drawbacks. Eliminating a major competitor without the resulting regional expansion benefits would leave relatively minor advantages while giving AT&T control it might not easily give back. [via Wireless Week and BBR]




by MacNN Staff

toggle

Comments

  1. Jonathan-Tanya

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +1

    yep

    what makes it sound is the anticompetitive nature of the deal.

  1. facebook_Anthony

    Via Facebook

    Joined: Aug 2011

    -2

    uh oh

    Its a bit of a circus. You can always go to Boost Mobile :) www.boostmobilereview.com

  1. facebook_Anthony

    Via Facebook

    Joined: Aug 2011

    -2

    uh oh

    Its a bit of a circus. You can always go to Boost Mobile :) www.boostmobilereview.com

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook

toggle

Most Popular

Advertisement

Recent Reviews

15-inch MacBook Pro with Force Touch

Apple's 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro continues to be a popular notebook with professional users and prosumers looking for the ultimate ...

Typo keyboard for iPad

Following numerous legal shenanigans between Typo -- a company founded in part by Ryan Seacrest -- and the clear object of his physica ...

Entry-level 27-inch Retina iMac

The 27-inch Apple iMac with 5K Retina display is already one of the best value-for-money Macs that Apple has ever released. It was som ...

toggle

Most Commented