Dish, Others Make Closing Arguments Against T-Mobile/Sprint
Dish Network replied to the FCC that T-Mobile buying Sprint looks worse now than when it was announced. Many others also replied, opposing the transaction (see 1810310051). “Applicants have not come close to demonstrating that the merger as currently proposed…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
would serve the public interest,” Dish said in docket 18-197. “The Opposition, as well as the internal documents produced by the Applicants, set their case back significantly.” The companies don’t deny the deal will mean higher prices, Dish said: “They argue that consumers should not care about the higher prices they will pay for their plans because they allegedly will have more data and greater speeds at their disposal.” Regional carrier C Spire said it “simply is asking the Commission to follow its own precedent by putting concrete conditions in place to guarantee that the vague assurances New T-Mobile offers to competitive carriers will be realized if the Commission permits the Proposed Transaction.” C Spire said: “’Trust us!’ is not an adequate public interest showing.” The deal “raises serious concerns about further market concentration in a market in which the four leading incumbents -- T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T -- account for around 98 percent of [U.S.] mobile wireless service revenues,” commented the AFL-CIO. New America’s Open Technology Institute said the deal would create “a consolidated wireless market that is conducive to coordinated effects between the remaining three dominant providers” -- it "would not only eliminate a significant competitor, thereby making it easier to reach a consensus among competing firms and sustain coordination, but also create a more homogeneous market structure.” OTI disputed claims Sprint needs the deal to survive financially: "Both companies have years of statements to investors and the public claiming that they are more than capable and in the process of preparing their mobile 5G networks across the country.” “Applicants offered an inadequate response to NTCA’s concerns about the public interest harms arising out of the proposed transaction, including most notably the negative impacts upon consumers in rural areas,” the group said, asking the deal be denied. But the Enterprise Wireless Alliance said the parties "provided ample documentation demonstrating that approval of their request would promote competition in the nationwide commercial wireless marketplace and accelerate the deployment of a 5G network covering much of the population of the country."