and deliver these services, then you'd have to consider an acquisition. but it's a very bold acquisition looking at all of the factors in play. >> very quickly, the equipment exclusion deals, do you think they will go away from the d.e.o. and doj when it comes to the wild west as a carrier? >> it's hard to say. that's a difficult issue because it's involves agreement between two private parties. i think there will still be a push for it. one thing that you can guarantee is that if the deal goes through, and the number of national carriers is reduced from 4-3, that verizon and at&t

for sure will gain that much more leverage in dealing with handset providers. >> same question, mr. bell. >> i don't see that as being an area that we're going to have a lot of department of justice interference with. we still are going to have a number of equipment providers and at least three national purchasers. so i think that's more an area for the fcc to be involved in than the doj. this is c-span communicators program. discussing the at&t-t-mobile usa deal, jeffrey silva of medley global advisors, and robert bell who practices antitrust law for which firm? >> case schuyler.

>> how does it lead to the deal that is were blocked? there was a sprint and directv and echostar. >> directv, echo star was really a 2-1 transaction. it would have been a merger to monopoly. i think it was a fairly easy decision on the part of the department of justice to move to block it. the mci transaction i'm less familiar with. it's a long time ago. and i can't really dredge up the details. here you have a very close call, i think, because mergers like this do two things simultaneously. on one hand, they create a stronger competitor, one that has as we've been talking about more spectrum, a better ability to expand and into new technologies, better service for customers, and cost savings. on the other hand, a transaction

like this has the ability to impose higher costs on consumers and to create a marketplace where you have less innovation and perhaps less quality of service. and the department of justice has to weigh those things and look very, very carefully at a transaction like this. i can't emphasize enough how detailed the review is. these parties are going to submit literally millions of documents and there will be data bases that will be reviewed and this will be looked at in incredible detail in order to try to figure out whether it is going to cause consumer price increases, as some people are certainly concerned about, or whether on balance, it's actually going to cause prices to stay the same or go down because of the efficiencies that the transaction generating. >> now last may, the federal

communication commission concluded in an annual wireless report that the wireless sector is not effectively competitor. that was the first time in 14 years that they drew that conclusion. >> i think what they did, they didn't reach any conclusion where previously they had said the market was competitor. >> right. >> when they issued that report, i believe it was commissioner cause was very concerned about the overall increase in concentration that's taken place over the last five or ten years. you know, he sort of telegraphed that the commission needs to be careful about allowing additional concentration in the wireless markets. and, you know, i think that statement alone was one the reason that is you've seen a lot of people say that this could have a very difficult time at the federal communications commission. >> just to follow up, do you think the fccs determination about competition, the wireless

market will impact the agencies review of this transaction? >> i think it will. i think again it will make the fcc at least start from a presumption that this is a highly concentrated market already and that additional concentration is something that has to be viewed, you know, some skepticism. >> gentleman, we are out of time. finally to both of you, if the deal goes through, how significant is it, mr. bell? >> it's certainly significant from at&t's perspective, it will be a very significant display of what the obama administration is really going to do in the antitrust area, i think this is the biggest test the administration has had. it's the first really major, purely horizontal transaction. and so naturally, a lot of people are looking at it very carefully. >> mr. silva. >> i would agree with that as well.

i think this will have a major impact throughout the whole mobile broadband ecosystem, and on the political land, i think as has been suggested, it'll be the major policy, antitrust policy challenge of the obama administration, and, you know, that'll have implications going forward as other deals come down the pipe. >> jeff silva, robert bell, thank you for being on the communicators. our discussion will continue. we have representatives from the consumers unions and the communications workers up next. >> as we continue our look at the at&t, t-mobile usa proposed deal, we are now joined on the communicators by debbie goldman of the communication workers of america, and parul desai. if we can start with you, ms.

goldman. the cwa has supported this deal, why? >> we think it's good for the consumers and workers. right now we are moving in the wireless industry and into the next generation of wireless technology. and that's going to take both tens of billions of dollars in investment to get us there and it's going to require a lot more spectrum. right now people are aware that on their wonderful mobile divisions that they want to stream video, that they want to get on the internet and search with web pages. in many places, they are experiencing their dropped calls. there's a great need for more spectrum and a great need for the capital to invest in the next generation networks. we see that this merger will enable the merge to at&t to do that. so that's good for consumers. >> how is it good for cwa,? >> it's good for workers because right now behave experienced a

situation in mitigating circumstance where we've seen declining living standards for working people over the past three decades. a lot of that is tied to the fact that many of our own employees have seen they want to keep unions out of the workplace, not share their profitability with their working population. at&t is an exception to that. atat&t is the largest union employee in america. almost 140,000 of our cwa members are union members. this is allowed them, men, women, and people of color, to raise their living standards, have good wages, good benefits. unfortunately, at t-mobile, while their part -- the deutsch telecom that owns t-mobile usa is a union company in germany, in fact, the union sitting on the board in germany, they have taken a different posture in america, creating fear among workers who do want

representation. we have an agreement with at&t through our contract that any acquisition would come under our neutrality agreement, the fear that has been promoted by other wireless companies would not provide, and our experience has been when at&t make other acquisitions, they have the freedom to choose and able to get collective bargaining and representation. >> parul desai with the consumers union. what's cu's position on this deal? >> we have a lot of concerns about the deal. the one thing that's important to remember is combined at&t, t-mobile, plus verizon would control 80% of the market. that's a level of concentration we haven't seen in any other industry at the current time. whether it's the oil, banking, it's a very high level of concentration we don't see in any other industry. i think it's also important to

note not only do two companies dominated, it would be an unregulated market. i think that's an over arching point that we have to keep in mind. overall, obviously eliminating one competitor reduces choice for consumers. we are also concerned that the limitation of choice will then lead to an increase in privacy for all -- increase in prices for all consumers. we are worried it will result in higher price for all consumers. whether it's within network the, competitor, there's little innovative to innovate in the network. overall, a lot of people are using mobile wireless for communication. where it's businesses, whether it's consumers, more people are relying on the mobile broadband market to whether it's purchase things, whether it's for social reasons, economic reasons, and we are greatly concerned that a combined entity would result in higher prices and lower choices.

>> david hatch, national journal, is also with us still. >> debbie, there's an expectation that there merger, if it goes through, is going to result in a lot of job losses. do you have an estimate as to how many there would be? and are you comfortable with the fact there would be layoffs? >> we will obviously be looking at that carefully. our first priority as a union is to ensure the employment security of workers at the companies. our experience thus far has been when at&t and singular merged in 2005, increase in employment and membership. similarly, at&t bought centennial. we saw an increase in employment and membership. we will be watching it closely. we care a lot about this. these are the things that we pay attention to in the context of a merger. >> parul, if this deal is

approved, do you think it would be crafted in a way that there will be condition that is are satisfactory to consumers union that is would protect both competitors and consumes? >> i think right now -- there's a lot more information to come. the way