Globe Telecom Inc. urged the Department of Justice (DOJ), which has recently been appointed by President Aquino as the Competition Authority, to follow the lead of its US counterpart in opposing a planned merger that it said would create a monopoly in the telecommunications market.

According to Yoly Crisanto, Globe corporate communications head, government intervention was “necessary to ensure that there is a level playing field and allow healthy competition to boost the quality of services for the benefit of consumers.”

The US Department of Justice has filed a civil antitrust lawsuit with the US District Court in Washington against AT&T for its $39-billion purchase of T-Mobile USA in what industry pundits described as raising the stakes in antitrust jurisprudence.

Crisanto said this development is seen as a welcome input to the Aquino administration’s strong anti-monopoly stance, which is aligned with his matuwid na daan or straight-path approach to issues involving corruption and the protection and promotion of public interest.

Based on Associated Press reports, the US Justice Department believed the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA  would “stifle competition and lead to higher wireless prices, less innovation and fewer choices for consumers.” These view was reiterated in a news conference by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who said the merger would result in “tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services.”

According to Globe, the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, under review by the Federal Communications Commission, bears a striking resemblance to the deal between Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) and Digital Telecommunications Philippines Inc., which is likewise under review by the Philippine regulator, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

NTC Commissioner Gamaliel Cordoba said the PLDT-Digitel deal is still under study. “I would rather not comment on the AT&T and T-Mobile case until we have finished our own review,” he said when sought for comment.

PLDT, when sought for comment, said the AT&T and T-Mobile merger is not the same as the PLDT-Digitel transaction.

“The legal and factual contexts of these cases are different. Our view is the Digitel transaction complies with Philippine law and will serve the public interest through better and more affordable telecom services in more areas of the country,” said PLDT Spokesman Mon Isberto.

According to Globe, the merged AT&T and T-Mobile will compete nationwide in 97 of the largest 100 cellular marketing areas. The PLDT-Digitel group, on the other hand, will get 70 percent of the total market and excess frequencies at a ratio of 4.5:1 versus Globe.

AT&T is being accused of “hoarding spectrum,” said to be sitting on top of a 700-MHz spectrum acquired in 2008 auctions and its Advanced Wireless Services spectrum to roll out 4G LTE service.

AT&T is said to be planning to cover 97 percent of the US population with 4G service if the merger is approved.

The AT&T purchase of T-Mobile, however, was alleged to have been a move to solve its spectrum issues brought about by the surge in mobile broadband use.  In fact, this issue of acquiring additional frequencies by merging is the target of investigation set by one of the famous ‘50 questions’ asked by the US Federal Communications Commission of AT&T.

Consistent with his anti-monopoly position, President Aquino had said, “Our interest here is to ensure that there is no monopoly and that we promised a level playing field, and about 85 million mobile-phone users can’t be tied to one provider.”

On June 9 this year Mr. Aquino signed Executive Order 45 designating the Department of Justice as the Competition Authority. He created the Office for Competition under the Office of the Secretary of Justice “to carry out duties and responsibilities such as the investigation of all cases involving violations of competition laws and the prosecution of violators to prevent, restrain and punish monopolization, cartels and combinations in restraint of trade as well as enforce competition policies and laws to protect consumers from abusive, fraudulent or harmful corrupt business practices.”