ReadWriteEnterprise

Since last August's move by the U.S. Justice Dept. to block AT&T's proposed acquisition of competing wireless carrier T-Mobile from parent Deutsche Telekom (DT), there has been renewed debate in Congress and in the public discourse over the role of government in regulating the affairs of private enterprise. Last month, policy analysts -- evidently just learning to use these search engine things you read so much about -- appeared to strike a gold mine: a report from the Economic Policy Institute (PDF available here) that appeared to not only confirm but bolster AT&T's claim that the merger would lead to net jobs creation.

Usually when something is repeated enough times over the Web, it becomes the truth -- or at least gets added to Wikipedia, which for many is the same thing. But in the wake of criticism of what appeared to be the authors' jobs creation claims, the EPI responded that it never made such claims to begin with. That led the Federal Communications Commission last Thursday to begin probing how those claims were invented, by whom, and why.

It's a familiar argument in anti-merger proceedings against two prospective partners, and you've probably read it plenty of times before: With a manageable plurality of competitors in any market, it's easier for the market to settle upon competitive price points. But when you make an argument any number of ways, any number of times, at some point you're bound to say something that your opponent just may be able to poke a hole in.

That's what might have happened yesterday with the U.S. Justice Dept.'s objection to AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile, filed yesterday in D.C. District Court. The DOJ team was making a point about the positive, beneficial state of affairs in the current wireless market.