an·ti·trust [an-tee-truhst, an-tahy-]
adjective
opposing or intended to restrain trusts, monopolies, or other large combinations of business and capital, especially with a view to maintaining and promoting competition: antitrust legislation.
Once upon a time, in a land not so very far away, our government actually enforced antitrust laws…you know, the ones designed to prevent one or two companies from completely dominating a market and thus setting their own asking price? Yeah, THOSE antitrust laws. While a noble concept and something that sounds great in concept, antitrust law leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to the execution end of the deal. Perhaps it’s just that whether or not to pursue enforcement against a business involves seemingly as much art as science…and if there’s one thing that federal antitrust lawyers don’t appreciate or understand, it’s art. The result, of course, is that the federal government has generally only pursued cases it knows it can win, meaning that antitrust law is to law what a Potemkin village was to the Russian czars- a pretty, albeit very hollow, shell.
AT&T’s proposed $39 billion assimilation of T-Mobile appeared to be just another instance of the feds standing by while yet another industry consolidates to the point of becoming almost completely anti-competitive (Hello, USTtransworldPanAmNorthwestEasternDeltaSouthwest Airlines….).
The new supercorporation-in-waiting would become the nation’s largest wireless carrier by perhaps tens of millions of customers and, according to the suits, allow them to expand high-speed broadband to 97% of the country. The deal had also just won support from the Communications Workers of America after AT&T promised to return 5,000 call-center jobs to the United States should it go through. AT&T had already paid off other advocacy groups. Who needs to worry about trifling inconveniences like antitrust law when you can just buy off any interested parties?
Surprisingly, the federal government has jumped into the fray, asking for a declaration that “AT&T’s elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market.” Somewhere along the line, someone in the Department of Justice managed to grow a pair, because, antitrust law or no, taking on a corporation with the money and political connections of AT&T is no small endeavor.
Of course, the FCC no longer considers the wireless industry “competitive,” but since DOJ doesn’t answer to, or at times even cooperate with, the FCC, their opinion and a $1.50 might score someone a latte. As it turns out, though, the FCC is actually being spurred into something resembling action, seeing as how the public comments on the proposed merger have been overwhelmingly negative. Go figure….
As an AT&T customer (you can have my iPhone when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers), I’m concerned about being contractually beholden to a behemoth that before long may be able to charge what it damned well pleases with neither recourse nor accountability. The raison d’etre for antitrust law was to prevent things like this from happening (e.g.- the airline industry). It’s nice to see DOJ finally stand up and at least attempt to enfore the laws currently on the books; it remains an open question as to whether or not they’ll prevail.
Please note that I’m not holding my breath on that count.
