On the New York Times DealBook blog, eight technology companies and 10 venture capital firms have submitted the letters to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They argue that the merger is in the best interest of all concerned, as a new company will give a GSM-based 4G network that covers 97 percent of the country. In a way, that argument still makes sense, except that there may be ways for government to expand coverage without the approval of 4G fusion.
The letters echoed the sentiment of AT & T Randall Stephenson Director General, who testified before Congress with a straight face last month that the merger would be good for consumers because, you know, less competition is always great for consumers, right?
As Wayne Rash said in a recent post in CTO of edge, letting the deal go through effectively create a duopoly in the mobile phone market dominated by AT & T and Verizon. He says that even if you are not a customer of T-Mobile, the lack of competition will bite (and I agree).
In fact, upon learning of the offer, GigaOM Om Malick written in March thinking it was bad for almost all concerned consumers to handset manufacturers, network equipment providers, and even Google (which does not appears to have signed the letter to the FCC noted above).
But Alan Reiter found good and bad elements of the operation. In particular, likes the wider network coverage, both for AT & T and T-Mobile customers, but also recognizes that would kill competition in many markets.
With all signs indicate that this is a terrible idea for anyone who promotes real competition - you know, the hallmark of a capitalist system - that the government might approve. On the other hand, could veto the deal and still build the 4G network.
Say the letters to the FCC believes that a 4G network was really big in the best interest of all. However, it could kill the deal, and then force all parties to share the network and companies compete for other reasons besides the quality of the network - and the best customer service.