IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

United States of America,	)

)	Civil Action No.: 1:05CV02102 (EGS)

Plaintiff,	)

)

v.	)

)

SBC Communications, Inc. and	)

AT&T Corp.,	)

)

Defendants.	)

)

)

United States of America,	)

)	Civil Action No.: 1:05CV02103 (EGS)

Plaintiff,	)

)

v.	)

)

Verizon Communications Inc. and	)

MCI, Inc.,	)

)

Defendants.	)

)

UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION TO SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR AMICUS CURIAE STATUS AND TO INTERVENE

The United States opposes the motion of Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint") for "amicus curiae status" and to intervene. Sprint's participation at this stage is neither necessary for the Court to conclude that the proposed Final Judgments are in the public interest, nor has Sprint established that its participation is likely to be helpful. Moreover, Sprint does not qualify for intervention under the requirements of Rule 24.

I.	Sprint's Belated Participation Here Will Likely Serve No Useful Purpose

Sprint, like many of the members of COMPTEL and ACTel, is a competitor to the merged firms and also purchases Local Private Lines from them. Like COMPTEL and ACTel,1 Sprint apparently wishes the United States had brought a different case challenging the mergers.2

Despite seeking "amicus curiae status" Sprint does not specify the purpose its participation would serve, or what form it would take.3 It appears that Sprint seeks participation in order to argue that the United States should have brought a different case; but Sprint's filing does not indicate that it could provide significant assistance to the Court in determining the efficacy of the proposed remedy in redressing the competitive problem relating to Local Private Lines as alleged in the Complaints.4 Given that Sprint does not propose anything specific that would be useful to the Court's task, its request for "amicus curiae status" should be denied.5

II.	Sprint Does Not Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 24 for Permissive Intervention

Sprint seeks to intervene in these proceedings "for purposes of filing an appeal,"6 but it has not even attempted to show that it meets the standards for intervention set forth in Rule 24, which governs intervention in Tunney Act proceedings.7 Indeed, Sprint does not even indicate the section of the Rule pursuant to which it is moving, and has identified no basis upon which to intervene either as of right or permissively.8 In the absence of any indication for the basis of Sprint's motion, the Court has no basis to evaluate its request and should deny its request for intervention.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court should deny Sprint's motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Laury E. Bobbish

Assistant Chief

/s/

Claude F. Scott, Jr. (D.C. Bar No. 414906)

Lawrence M. Frankel (D.C. Bar No. 441532)

Jared A. Hughes

Trial Attorneys

Telecommunications & Media Section

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000

Washington, D.C. 20530

(202) 514-5621

Attorneys for the United States

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 24th day of July, 2006, I caused a copy of the foregoing United States' Opposition to Sprint Nextel Corporation's Motion for Amicus Curiae Status and to Intervene to be mailed, by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the attorneys listed below:

FOR DEFENDANT

SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Wm. Randolph Smith

Crowell & Moring LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

FOR DEFENDANT AT&T CORP.

David L. Lawson

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP

1501 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

FOR DEFENDANT

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.

John Thorne

Verizon Communications, Inc.

1515 North Courthouse Road

Arlington, Virginia 22201

FOR DEFENDANT MCI, INC.

Mark C. Hansen

Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans

& Figel, P.L.L.C.

1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036	FOR COMPTEL

Kevin R. Sullivan

King & Spalding LLP

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

FOR ACTEL

Gary L. Reback

Carr & Ferrell LLP

2200 Geng Road

Palo Alto, CA 94303

FOR AMERICAN ANTITRUST INSTITUTE

Jonathan Rubin

1717 K St., N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

FOR NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF THE RATEPAYER ADVOCATE

Christopher J. White

Deputy Ratepayer Advocate

Division of the Ratepayer Advocate

31 Clinton Street, 11th Floor

P.O. Box 46005

Newark, NJ 07101
FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES

Kathleen F. O'Reilly

414 A Street S.E.

Washington, DC 20003

FOR SPRINT NEXTEL

Charles T. Kimmett

Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP

1200 Eighteenth St., N.W.

12th Floor

Washington, DC 20036	FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Jay L. Himes

Chief, Antitrust Bureau

Office of the Attorney General

120 Broadway

26C54

New York, NY 10271

/s/

Jared A. Hughes

Attorney

Telecommunications & Media Section

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

City Center Building

1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 8000

Washington, D.C. 20530