Opposing view: Hang up on this anti-competitive merger

Sprint and T-Mobile executives must be tired this week, having spent the past few days on Twitter and TV advancing the unenviable argument that their proposed merger — which would cut the number of major national wireless carriers from four to three — will somehow increase competition in the telecom industry.

Time and again, corporations promise that mergers will bring untold benefits to consumers. But it doesn’t take an advanced degree in economics to understand that when our choices — already so meager that they can be counted on one hand — are further slashed, the results are usually the same: Competition is slackened, innovation is dampened, and prices go up.

Increased consumer choice paired with decreasing prices is what a competitive market looks like. We’ve seen how competition serves us and our economy in the wireless arena: Prices have indeed dropped in recent years, and when T-Mobile introduced its unlimited plan, AT&T and Verizon were forced to roll out rival options. Remove a competitor from the field, and the incentive of the remaining three to compete on plans, price and quality shrinks in turn. It’s not just basic economics. It’s basic history, too.

It’s crucial that the wireless market remain competitive. Having access to affordable, reliable service is no longer a luxury, nor should it ever be a privilege. Consumers depend on it for far more than calls and texts. They use their phones for business, school, in case of emergencies and for everyday activities such as directions and shopping. Moreover, many low-income households are “smartphone-only” Internet users due to the high cost of broadband.

Regulators have been rightly skeptical of mergers like these in the past. Only seven years ago, they blocked AT&T’s bid for T-Mobile.

This merger would fail consumers for the same reasons, and we hope that regulators remain logically skeptical of any deal that leaves Americans with fewer choices for wireless service.