State AGs, Commissions Eye T-Mobile/Sprint
State attorneys general are showing interest in T-Mobile’s proposed Sprint buy, though it's too soon to say if it will lead to an antitrust challenge of the $26 billion deal, observers told us. Also expect action at some state commissions, with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission the latest to give itself extra time to do a thorough review, they said. States bring “a unique role and perspective to look at these larger mergers and to tease out the impact ... on their specific constituents and consumers,” particularly vulnerable populations, said Christine Mailloux, managing director-San Diego for The Utility Reform Network (TURN).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Communications Workers of America last week urged state AG antitrust probes. Recent FCC filings show state AGs at least eyeing T-Mobile/Sprint in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Mississippi, New York, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia (see 1809140045 and 1809040033). They sought access to confidential numbering resource utilization and forecast and local number portability data.
State AGs can bring suits on behalf of citizens on antitrust grounds, said NARUC General Counsel Brad Ramsay. When challenging past mergers, interested state AGs filed one lawsuit together, said a National Association of Attorneys General spokesperson. T-Mobile didn’t comment.
“It is not unusual for state AGs, and even other state agencies, to want more information about a proposed merger,” said former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, now at Cooley and who has done work in support of the deal. “This is a rather common practice and it would be surprising if they did not seek more data.”
Multiple data requests at the FCC show “a great deal of interest” by state AGs from both political parties, said CWA Telecommunications Policy Director Debbie Goldman in an interview. CWA contacted AGs because the state attorneys “play a very important role in protecting the residents of their states both in terms of their own state antitrust laws” and “consumer protection,” and they “have become very active in a number of arenas,” Goldman said. Ideally, the state AGs and DOJ would work “in concert,” sharing information and filing a legal challenge together to block the deal, she said. State AGs also could do a multistate investigation and challenge the deal in court independently of the department, she said.
State AG reviews occur independently from state commission reviews, which are more open proceedings that are focused on public interest, Goldman said. CWA plans to intervene in New York Public Service Commission and California Public Utilities Commission reviews, and maybe others, she said. Telecom authority varies by state, but California and New York tend to interpret their power broadly, she said.
The CPUC has broad statutory power to review if deals are in the public interest, said TURN's Mailloux. TURN with the Greenlining Institute, and separately the California Public Advocates Office, filed protests urging the CPUC to do a detailed review of the wireless deal (see 1808200030). Protesters are waiting for assigned Commissioner Cliff Rechtschaffen and Administrative Law Judge Karl Bemesderfer to set the scope and schedule of its review, including what legal standards must be met to find the merger acceptable, Mailloux said.
State AG interest isn’t uncommon but underscores the deal’s significance, Mailloux said. California statute encourages AGs to get involved in telecom mergers and the AG was “quite involved” in California reviews of other recent deals including Frontier’s buy of Verizon wireline assets, she said. In that case, the AG contacted parties and the CPUC to compare notes, Mailloux said. That hasn't happened in T-Mobile/Sprint, but it’s early days, she said. “I do anticipate cooperating with them.” The AG usually focuses on antitrust aspects, she said.
The Pennsylvania PUC extended its deadline “indefinitely” to review T-Mobile/Sprint “so that it may fully complete its review of the application,” the PUC told Sprint in a Wednesday letter in docket A-2018-3003259. The commission had until Oct. 5 before the extension.
The New York PSC announced a “detailed” review earlier this month (see 1809060045). “The review continues,” the agency’s spokesperson emailed Thursday. Last month, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska said it would decide by Jan. 16, though also would consider T-Mobile’s request that RCA decide by Nov. 17 (see 1808090003).
The carriers secured one state commission OK earlier this month in Colorado where their application was unopposed. The transfer of control isn’t contrary to the public interest, said the 3-0 decision.