T-Mobile won by far the lion’s share of licenses in the FCC’s 2.5 GHz auction, but AT&T is saying “not so fast” in terms of the government granting them.
The auction, which closed in late August, raised a total of $428 million, most of which came from T-Mobile.
T-Mobile already has a huge position in the band, thanks to its acquisition of Sprint. AT&T argues that the FCC should deny T-Mobile’s long-form application or condition its grant on T-Mobile’s divestiture of some mid-band spectrum “to avoid harm to competition and the public interest.”
It’s an issue that has come up in the past. In a petition filed last year, AT&T urged the FCC to implement a spectrum screen for mid-band frequencies, in part citing T-Mobile’s large holdings.
AT&T is asking the FCC to revisit that petition.
“The 2.5 GHz auction has come and gone, and T-Mobile predictably emerged as the easy winner. With this long-form application, it is poised to win 90% of the available 2.5 GHz licenses for $304 million—orders of magnitude below the bid levels in prior, competitively neutral auctions—and perfect its long-term strategy to keep its competitors from closing the mid-band spectrum gap,” AT&T told the commission in its November 7 filing, which Communications Daily previously reported on.
The filing notes that counting all auctions except this one, the remaining three nationwide facilities-based carriers have the following mid-band assets on a weighted average basis:
- T-Mobile: 205 megahertz (165 megahertz of non-auctioned 2.5 GHz spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band, 27 in the C-Band, and 12 in the 3.45 GHz band).
- AT&T: 120 megahertz: (80 in the C-Band plus 40 in the 3.45 GHz band).
- Verizon: 161 megahertz: (composed entirely of C-Band).
According to AT&T, T-Mobile’s claim that it has locked in a spectrum advantage for “the entirety of the 5G era” should raise “significant concerns because there is no new mid-band spectrum in the auction pipeline that could equalize the current imbalance in mid-band assets.”
AT&T also complains that T-Mobile has told different audiences two contradictory stories about the competitive significance of its spectrum holdings. To policymakers, T-Mobile presents itself as a “scrappy and under-resourced upstart” struggling to compete against Verizon and AT&T. But it tells investors the opposite, boasting about its spectrum advantage over the other two and how its rivals don’t have a path to match T-Mobile anytime soon.
T-Mobile: Petition is “absurd”
In its response, T-Mobile said that AT&T’s petition “was plainly a calculated attempt to impede competition.”
“The petition absurdly boils down to a claim that T-Mobile paid too little for spectrum as part of a plan to make AT&T pay too much,” T-Mobile said in a November 14 filing. “There is no plausible foreclosure strategy at work in an auction where the total amount of T-Mobile’s winning bids is small in scale ($304 million) compared to the rival’s investment plans ($24 billion in 2022), and AT&T sat out the auction.”
T-Mobile also said AT&T’s request boils down to an attempt to rewrite the rules for an auction that already occurred. It calls it a delay tactic to prevent T-Mobile from deploying the 2.5 GHz spectrum to deliver its new Home Internet service, particularly in rural areas, where T-Mobile is competing more aggressively than ever against AT&T.
“Clearly, the minor, incremental screen overages resulting from the spectrum T-Mobile won at auction raise no competitive concerns,” T-Mobile told the commission.
Chances of success?
Interestingly, analysts at New Street Research (NSR) don’t think AT&T’s challenges to T-Mobile will be successful, and they cite a number of reasons.
For one, the FCC generally regards the 2.5 GHz band as part of mid-band spectrum, and in that larger band, AT&T has been able to aggregate more spectrum than T-Mobile, NSR policy analyst Blair Levin wrote in a report over the weekend. Further, AT&T previously opposed the kind of band-specific aggregation limit it proposes here, he said.
Plus, the FCC has never previously imposed a post-auction spectrum aggregation limit and “we don’t think it will do so here, as doing so would undercut the bidding certainty that is essential to a successful auction,” he said.
AT&T didn’t participate in the auction, which likely undercuts its credibility on the issue with the commissioners, and AT&T executives have publicly said – during presentations to investors – that it has a sufficient and advantageous spectrum position, undercutting its argument about T-Mobile’s spectrum advantage, the NSR report said.
NSR said they’re not sure why AT&T is pushing the issue, but it might be to slow the rollout of T-Mobile’s home broadband service in AT&T’s wired footprint, and/or AT&T is raising the issue to establish a precedent that might be useful when the next spectrum auction occurs.
Whatever the reason, “its odds of success in having this petition granted are very low,” Levin said.
Original article can be seen at: