Reception
Reaction to the announced merger generated both support as well as opposition among various groups and communities.
The merger garnered support from a wide number of civil rights, environmental, and business organizations. These included the NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), and the Sierra Club. Labor organizations such as the AFL–CIO, Teamsters, and the Communications Workers of America also voiced support for the merger. These organizations pointed to AT&T's commitment to labor, social, and environmental standards. Many of these organizations also cited how the merger was likely to accelerate 4G wireless deployment, thus helping underserved communities such as rural areas and disadvantaged urban communities. The NAACP, who received a $1,000,000 donation from AT&T in 2009 [18] said the merger would have "advance[d] increased access to affordable and sustainable wireless broadband services and in turn stimulate[d] job creation and civic engagement throughout our country."[18]
As of August 2, the governors of 26 states had written letters supporting the merger.[19] On July 27 the attorneys general of Utah, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming sent a joint letter of support to the FCC.[19] As of August 2011, state regulatory agencies in Arizona and Louisiana had approved the acquisition.
A diverse group of industry and public-interest organizations opposed AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. While AT&T's chief executive, Randall Stephenson, expressed his confidence in the deal being approved based on the benefit to the public of expanding wireless access and relatively robust competition in the wireless market, analysts said the deal stood a good chance of being rejected by federal regulators.[20]
Consumer groups including Public Knowledge, Consumers Union, Free Press and the Media Access Project were publicly opposed to the AT&T merger. These groups have influence with Democrats at the Federal Communications Commission and in Congress. These organizations feared that the merger would raise prices and stifle innovation by consolidating so much of the wireless industry into one company. Free Press and Public Knowledge started letter-writing campaigns against the deal.[20]
Internet companies were generally skeptical of the merger because it would have left them with fewer counter-parties to negotiate with for getting their content and applications to customers. The merger could leave them dependent on just two: AT&T and Verizon. The Computer & Communication Industry Association (CCIA), which included Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and eBay among its members was opposed to the merger. "A deal like this, if not blocked on antitrust grounds, is of deep concern to all the innovative businesses that build everything from apps to handsets. It would be hypocritical for our nation to talk about unleashing innovation on one hand and then stand by as threats to innovation like this are proposed," said Ed Black, head of the CCIA.[20]
The Rural Cellular Association (RCA), a trade group representing roughly 100 mobile carriers located in rural areas, expressed its opposition to the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, saying that the merger would stifle competition, harm innovation, and lead to higher prices.[21]
Sprint Nextel also announced its opposition to the merger. Sprint said the deal would severely reduce competition in the United States cell phone industry.[22]
Fight the Merger
Fight the Merger was a movement, started by the law firm Bursor & Fisher[23] to oppose the merger. The strategy of the movement was to recruit AT&T customers to file arbitration demands with the American Arbitration Association under the Clayton Antitrust Act against AT&T, pursuant to their arbitration clause.[24] Martha Neil, writing for the ABA Journal, described the movement as a response to the Supreme Court's April 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, in which the court upheld AT&T's arbitration clause that prohibited class actions.[25] The goal of the movement was to win an injunction against the merger by any arbitrator.[26]
AT&T criticized the strategy, saying that their clause did not give arbitrators authority to block the merger.
