Was the battle over AT&T-Mo a fight worth having?

[Commentary] The government scored a huge victory for consumers when it defeated AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile, preserving a wireless landscape with four nationwide competitors. Now that the dust has settled, though, there’s a lingering question in my mind: Was the fight worth it? Would we have been better off if the AT&T-Mo saga never happened, or are we better off that AT&T tried and failed? Here are three reasons why the merger’s failure shaped the U.S. wireless market for the better.

1. We know what to watch for: Regulators, lawmakers and a large part of the public now realize that preserving what remaining competition is left in the U.S. wireless market is vital. Just as AT&T can’t buy T-Mobile, Verizon can’t buy Sprint, and either would face stiff opposition if it tried to pick up a smaller regional operator like MetroPCS or Leap Wireless. And AT&T and Verizon now know better than to try.
2. Regulators have grown fangs: After a decade of nearly unfettered consolidation in the wireless industry, regulators took a huge stand against the most egregious anticompetitive deal of them all, showing AT&T absolutely no deference. What’s more, those regulators don’t appear to be returning to hibernation. John Hane, an antitrust lawyer with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, said that we may be witnessing the rebirth of much more aggressive Department of Justice, one that is willing to examine every telecom deal through a trust-busting lens.
3. Dormant spectrum is finally being put to use: Though AT&T has claimed that the U.S. is facing a spectrum crisis, the deplorable fact remains that it and many other operators have been hoarding frequencies for years. If operators can no longer buy networks from their competitors, they will have to build them.