AT&T/T-MOBILE DEAL
SHORT-CIRCUITED BY REGULATORS
______________________________________________________________________________________
Key Points
Regulators often consider market concentration when determining whether an M&A will drive up
prices and reduce consumer choice and product/service quality.
What is an acceptable level of concentration often is difficult to determine.
Concentration may be an outgrowth of the high capital requirements of the industry.
Attempts to limit concentration may actually work to the detriment of some consumers.
______________________________________________________________________________________
United States antitrust regulators have moved aggressively in recent years to block horizontal mergers (i.e.,
those involving direct or potential competitors) while being more lenient on vertical deals (i.e., those in
which a firm buys a supplier or distributor). These actions foreshadowed the likely outcome of the deal
proposed by telecommunications giant AT&T to acquire T-Mobile for $39 billion in cash in early 2011.
Despite the unfavorable regulatory environment for horizontal deals, AT&T expressed confidence that it
could get approval for the deal when it accepted a sizeable termination fee as part of the agreement if it did
not complete the transaction by March 2012. However, the deal would never be completed, as U.S. antitrust
regulators made it clear that a tie-up between number two, AT&T (behind Verizon), and number four, T–
Mobile (behind Sprint), would not be permitted.
On December 20, 2011, AT&T announced that it would cease its nine-month fight to acquire T-Mobile.
AT&T was forced to pay T-Mobile’s parent, Deutsche Telekom, $3 billion in cash and a portion of its
wireless spectrum (i.e., cellular airwaves) valued at as much as $1 billion. T-Mobile and AT&T did agree
to enter into a seven-year roaming agreement1 that could cost AT&T another $1 billion. The announcement
came shortly after AT&T had ceased efforts to fight the Justice Department’s lawsuit filed in August 2011
to block the merger. The Justice Department would not accept any combination of divestitures or other
changes to the deal, arguing that the merger would raise prices to consumers and reduce both choice and
service quality. Instead, the Justice Department opted to keep a “strong” fourth competitor rather than allow
increased industry concentration.
But T-Mobile’s long–term viability was in doubt. The firm’s parent, Deutsche Telekom, had made it
clear that it wants to exit the mature U.S. market and that it has no intention of investing in a new high-
speed network. T-Mobile is the only national carrier that does not currently have its own next-generation
high-speed network. Because it is smaller and weaker than the other carriers, it does not have the cash or
the marketing clout with handset vendors to offer exclusive, high-end smartphones to attract new
customers. While competitors Verizon and AT&T gained new customers, T-Mobile lost 90,000 customers
during 2011.
In response to these developments, T-Mobile announced a merger with its smaller rival MetroPCS on
October 3, 2012, creating the potential for a stronger competitor to Verizon and AT&T and solving
regulators’ concerns about increased concentration. However, it creates another issue by reducing
competition in the prepaid cell phone segment. MetroPCS’s low-cost, no-contract data plans and cheaper
phones brought cellphones and mobile Internet to millions of Americans who could not afford major–
carrier contracts. While T-Mobile announced the continuation of prepaid service, it has an incentive not to
make it so attractive as to cause its own more profitable contract customers to shift to the prepaid service as
their contracts expire. While T-Mobile also announced plans to develop a new high-speed network, it will
be late to the game.
1 Roaming agreements are arrangements between wireless companies to provide wireless service to each
other’s subscribers in areas where a carrier’s coverage is spotty.