Competition takes a holiday
- By Lisa Crawford
- Sep 04, 2000
The proposed merger between WorldCom Inc. and Sprint has been dead for a
short while. In its wake, a careful review of its impact on the government
market is in order.
In the press conference announcing the Justice Department's injunction
against the merger, the attorney general's office noted numerous markets
that would suffer from a lack of competition if the merger were consummated.
Absent from that list was the U.S. government market.
The size of that market is unparalleled. The laws and regulations related
to mergers are there to protect and defend the public interest. Their single
thread of commonality is free market competition.
The merger would not have advanced competition, but what few have noted
is that the threat of the merger caused equal competitive harm. The merger's
failure has lulled many into believing two viable competitors remain in
place, WorldCom and Sprint. In the government market, nothing could be further
from the truth.
Since the October 1999 announcement of the proposed merger, Sprint has
been notably absent from key government bids, lethargic in transitioning
customers to their FTS 2001 service and passive in pursuing new customers.
The FTS 2001 program, designed to provide long-distance telecommunications
services to federal agencies under competitive bidding, may have been irreparably
harmed. Sprint's lack of aggressive marketing in the government sector has
left the government with only one or two bidders on too many acquisitions.
Expectations for a speedy transition, the prompt addition of new and
enhanced services, and significantly reduced prices ran high. The award
to Sprint alone was to save the government $4 billion during its potential
If FTS 2001 is to be salvaged, the government must recapture the program's
competitive origins, serve the taxpayers and protect the public interest.
That could be accomplished by making significant changes to the FTS 2001
* Reconsidering the minimum revenue guarantee of $750 million per vendor.
* Limiting aspects of the contracts that eliminate the possible addition
of local services and expansion to state and local governments.
* Establishing another telecommunications contract as the vehicle to
provide a competitive spark to the FTS 2001 program.
* Encouraging the acquisition of Sprint's federal government business
by a player — other than AT&T Corp. to avoid further market concentration — that has the competitive "fire in the belly" to aggressively serve the
No new authority is required to enact these or other changes
that could uphold the current competitive market structure. But failure
to act could spawn a return to the monopoly-provider era.
Even as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 models to the world how competition
can underpin global competitiveness, the government's own services cannot
support a return to the past.
—Crawford is president and chief executive officer of The Crawford Group
in Washington, D.C.