@jbtaylor on tech

Once again, Sharis Pozen, the Justice Department's Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division sent a very clear message that the Department isn't playing games when it comes to its lawsuit seeking to block AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile.

Today in an event at the Georgetown Law Center, Pozen said, "We have alleged that this transaction violates the law, and we are going forward and preparing for that lawsuit. I wouldn't call it a pre-emptive lawsuit of any kind."

"It is very much our standard course,” Pozen said. “When we determine a merger violates the laws we inform the parties and take action."

Not that AT&T is listening. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson is reported to have told a Wall Street gathering today that the company still hopes to convince the Justice Department to settle the case.

But let's roll the tape back.

When Judge Huvelle issued her minute order with some very standard language inviting the parties to come to discuss a proposed trial schedule and "prospects for settlement", AT&T's PR team convinced media that a settlement would be discussed yesterday.

I was in the court room yesterday and the notion of a settlement was never discussed.

Not once.

Yet, AT&T is STILL trumpeting this illusive settlement offer. And media are STILL dutifully taking dictation rather than asking critical questions.

Folks, if there was going to be a settlement offer, we would have heard about it yesterday. AT&T should stop playing games and the media should call them on it.

Or alternatively, AT&T should start listening to the Justice Department.

I go back to what Pozen said earlier: "We don't file lawsuits to posture, we file them when there are violations of the law."

Got that, AT&T?

Remember that children's book about the boy named Alexander and his bad day? The full title of this classic is, "Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day."

The story goes that Alexander has so many things go wrong with his day that he decides he wants to run away and move to Australia. At the end, Alexander's mom assures him that everyone has bad days, even people in Australia.

AT&T had just that kind of day today.

This afternoon, Bloomberg reported that, for the first time, a group of 32 analysts polled by the firm Stifel Nicolaus now predicted that the proposed T-Mobile takeover has less than a 50 percent chance of gaining regulatory approval.

Following that news, media reported than an AT&T attorney mistakenly disclosed confidential documents which were meant to be redacted before being uploaded to the FCC's website. The documents were removed from the FCC's site quickly, but not before news media saw them and reported their contents. The big disclosure is that AT&T considered, then rejected a $3.8 billion proposal to build out 4G to 97 percent of all Americans prior to offering $39 billion to Deutsche Telekom to takeover T-Mobile. All of that confirms what takeover critics have said all along: AT&T doesn't need to takeover T-Mobile to build out 4G. The elected officials who have endorsed this takeover were told flatly that purchasing T-Mobile was the ONLY path to 4G. Now we know that isn't true. So it begs the question, what's AT&T's true motivation?

The day got worse when the Wall Street Journal reported that AT&T has hired Bank of America and Merrill Lynch to explore divesting assets worth an estimated $8 billion in an effort to secure regulatory approval. Given that the FCC's regulatory review and the Justice Department's investigation is still in its early stages, this begs the question, is AT&T finally admitting that this stinker of a deal really stinks?

Oh and before the day ended, the California Public Utilities Commission has made a rather extensive data request of AT&T, T-Mobile and other wireless carriers in the state in a effort to learn more about the impact on consumers. Earlier today, the Commission announced that it was pushing back the schedule of its review by about a month in an effort to learn more about AT&T's "new" economic model being used to justify the transaction. As Bloomberg reported earlier this week, California is conducting what one industry observer called, "the most in-depth review [among the states]."

The good news for AT&T is that today is over. The bad news is that as the public learns the truth about this proposed transaction, their opposition is only increasing. To date, this proceeding has generated more comments at the FCC from individual citizens than any other in FCC history. And unfortunately for AT&T, people are opposed to them by about a 10 to 1 margin.

No matter how many elected officials and civic groups AT&T trots out to call for approval of this stinker of a deal, the public who they purport to represent are calling for the government to reject AT&T outright.

If I were AT&T, I'd consider moving to Australia.

The Boston Globe has just published an editorial critical of GLAAD, the NAACP and the NEA for weighing in at the FCC on a AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile. The Globe pointed out that all three groups received donations from AT&T.

The Globe writes of GLAAD, the NAACP and the NEA in part:

"Shilling for AT&T makes them seem more like paid lobbyists than clarions of justice; it carries more than a whiff of hackery."

"Many nonprofits seek corporate sponsorship, especially in today’s financial climate, but their fund-raising operations shouldn’t drive their advocacy. And if AT&T or any other corporation wants to support civil-rights groups or a teachers’ union, it should do so out of a commitment to those causes, not as a down payment on future favors."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) still has questions for AT&T about its bid to takeover T-Mobile. So do the Senator's constituents.

Since the Senator recorded this video, over 250 Iowans from across the state have taken the time to weigh in at the FCC on the transaction. Unfortunately for AT&T, nearly everyone doing so is opposed to the elimination of T-Mobile from the marketplace.

Even one of T-Mobile's own subsidiaries, Iowa Wireless, has asked the FCC to block AT&T from buying T-Mobile, basically telling the Commission that it doesn't trust anything AT&T has promised them would happen should the government approve the merger.