As a consumer advocate, I should be against this one. Concentration of economic power corrupts. Having only one phone company (or two) means higher prices, less choice, onerous contract terms and stifled innovation. Didn’t we break up the "old" AT&T for this precise reason? (Harold Greene, the Federal Judge in Washington who presided for over a decade over the breakup, must be rolling in his grave.)
But this might be different: maybe I buy the efficiencies of having one better infrastructure — for all those PDF files and full-length movies, not to mention tens of thousands of mobile apps — flying through the wireless sky. And maybe it means less television commercials and massive media campaigns, encouraging us to switch our service. Finally, I do believe in the power of technology. Five years from now, who knows how we will be communicating? So give AT&T the market power it seeks to buy for a cool $39 billion. Because there is some kid in some dorm room somewhere in the Midwest, or more likely India, cooking up something that will change the telecommunications paradigm. (Who had ever heard of "Skyping" 5 years ago?)
So my early thoughts are in favor of the merger with some protections. No arbitration clauses, no early termination fees and plenty of consideration for rural communities.