DISH DISH Network Corporation

By Drew FitzGerald 

WASHINGTON -- If America's tech and telecom giants have an opinion about T-Mobile US Inc.'s plan to reshape the wireless industry by taking over Sprint Corp., most are keeping it to themselves.

Few large companies have gone on record to back or oppose the roughly $26 billion merger, which would combine the country's No. 3 and No. 4 carriers. Fewer still are using their lobbying prowess to fight the deal behind the scenes, people familiar with the matter said.

"I don't think you're going to have any entity that has motive and means to oppose this deal" among big business, said Blair Levin, an industry analyst at New Street Research LLC. A lack of organized opposition favors the companies as they seek approval from the Federal Communications Commission and U.S. Department of Justice to close the deal.

The FCC deadline for opponents to make petitions to deny the transaction passed Monday, and many groups waited until the last minute to file. Representatives of Sprint and T-Mobile have met with FCC and Justice Department lawyers several times to sell the deal and don't expect to be able to close it until next year, according to people familiar with the meetings.

Dish Network Corp., the satellite-TV provider that also controls swaths of spectrum that could be used for cellphone services, threw its weight against the deal. The company said in a filing the move would drive up prices, citing analysis from its own economists and consultants.

"Sprint and T-Mobile's strength as independent companies comes from their efforts to attract and retain customers by competing head-to-head, " Dish wrote to the FCC.

Other companies are taking a middle road. AT&T Inc. said in an FCC filing that it wouldn't opine on whether the agency should approve the deal, though it defended its own network upgrade plans and said the "rush to deploy the best 5G service the fastest will continue with or without the T-Mobile/Sprint merger."

In a joint statement, the merger partners said, "We are confident that the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile will create more competition and will be incredibly positive for consumers. These filings are part of the normal FCC open comment process."

Major cable companies, some of which held deal talks with Sprint before it fell into T-Mobile's arms, have remained neutral. Comcast Corp. and Charter Communications Inc. both offer wireless service that runs atop Verizon's network, yet neither has taken a position on the latest wireless deal.

Rivals and potential partners have several strategic and political reasons for holding their fire, Mr. Levin said. Wireless and cable companies tend to avoid making statements about competition that could come back to hurt them when they seek regulators' approval for their own transactions. The same goes for big tech companies that are often at odds with the telecom industry but are facing increased scrutiny of their power over various markets.

Neutrality is hardly a given in the wireless industry. Sprint sued in 2011 to stop AT&T from buying T-Mobile, a deal that ultimately fell apart amid opposition from the Obama administration. A range of companies lined up to fight Comcast's 2014 attempt to buy rival Time Warner Cable Inc. Charter ended up buying most of Time Warner instead.

In the case of Sprint and T-Mobile, several public interest groups asked the FCC to delay its review process, a request the agency denied. The Rural Wireless Association urged the commission to reject the deal and warned that its members would lose the beneficial roaming relationships they have with Sprint.

The industry's largest labor union, the Communications Workers of America, opposes the deal and warned in its filing the transaction would nix about 24,000 jobs at overlapping stores and cut another 4,500 headquarters positions. Employees at Sprint and T-Mobile don't belong to any unions.

Both Sprint and T-Mobile have promised to add more jobs than they cut, mostly by beefing up staffing at customer-support centers.

State officials are split on the deal. Attorneys general in California and New York told the FCC they are investigating the transaction, which is often a first step toward filing a lawsuit to block a deal or join a federal effort against it. State AGs in Utah and New Mexico wrote the FCC to support the deal, however.

Several prepaid wireless brands that run atop the big carriers' networks could be constrained by the deal. Many have avoided speaking about the deal to avoid antagonizing two companies they must do business with even as they compete, according to Boost Mobile founder Peter Adderton, who is urging T-Mobile and Sprint to divest some of their prepaid operations.

Prepaid brands without network assets of their own are unlikely to make noise, Mr. Adderton said, adding that taking a public stance would be like telling "a prison warden what you think of your prison, and you've got five years left on your sentence."

Write to Drew FitzGerald at andrew.fitzgerald@wsj.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

August 28, 2018 15:11 ET (19:11 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2018 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.