According to numerous sources close to the situation and after regulatory pressure, Groupon will amend its S-1 public offering filing to remove references to an unusual accounting treatment that has attracted controversy.

Sources said the new filing by the social buying company, which is helmed by CEO and co-founder Andrew Mason (pictured above), will likely occur as early as Monday.

It can’t come a minute too soon regarding a metric called ACSOI, or adjusted consolidated segment operating income, which the Chicago-based Groupon used when it filed its S-1 documents in June.

As I wrote at the time about the odd use of ACSOI:

Let’s be clear, this is a number that does not include important costs, such as critical online marketing expenses to attract new customers to Groupon.

Such accounting is called non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

In 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, Groupon said its Adjusted CSOI was $60.6 million and $81.6 million, respectively.

On a GAAP basis, Groupon lost $413.4 million for 2010 and $113.9 million in the first three months of 2011.

And, indeed, questions from the media, investors and, most importantly, the Securities and Exchange Commission about how Groupon accounts for its revenue and profits using ACSOI were swift and decidedly negative.

Hence, a furious debate — along with much internal tension — within Groupon about what to do. At first, in another S-1 amendment, the company backed away from using ACSOI as a “valuation metric.”

But that was apparently not enough for the SEC or anyone else, so Groupon’s top managers finally thought it best to rid itself of the term entirely. That will happen next week, sources said.

And, in coming weeks, sources added, the company will be filing additional financial information about both its growth and costs, which will undoubtedly also be put under a microscope by the media, investors and regulators.

A Groupon spokesman declined to comment when asked about the removal of ACSOI from its public offering documents.

As these companies are wont to do in the middle of the night, Yahoo, SoftBank and the Alibaba Group have reached an agreement in their nasty dispute around the Alipay payments unit, and they are ready to talk about it.

Well, not Alibaba’s CEO Jack Ma (pictured here), Yahoo’s CEO Carol Bartz or SoftBank’s Masa Son, but their functionaries are all set to discuss the deal.

The issue has revolved around the spinning out of Alipay by the Chinese Internet giant Alibaba, without the approval of large stakeholders Yahoo and Japan’s SoftBank, which the pair felt was a big no-no.

Much mishegas followed, but the trio has been hard at work on a settlement, which is here now.

Of course, had the three companies cooperated in the first place as joint owners and board members of Alibaba, this all would have been unnecessary.

5:48 am PT: The call starts without all kinds of regulatory info about what can and cannot be said, before being thrown to Yahoo CFO Tim Morse.

One interesting wrinkle is that SoftBank’s Ron Fisher cannot speak at all, due to some Japanese laws, which are unexplained. But, said Morse, he’s there to show his support.

Go, Ron!

Alibaba’s CFO Joe Tsai is up first to talk about the deal over Alipay, which he stresses does not really make much money now. As he says, it is “marginally profitable.”

Tsai walks through the facts that they have already outlined earlier today, including a variety of payments from Alipay to Alibaba, since — let’s be clear — it used to be part of Alibaba.

But Alibaba said it had to spin it out in order to get critical regulatory approvals from the Chinese government, which caused this mess.

Morse now comes on, noting the whole squabble really had “no direct impact” from a financial point of view on Yahoo or SoftBank at this time related to its Alibaba assets.

Well, shareholders of Yahoo might beg to differ, considering the huge hit the stock has taken due to the fight. Wall Street has long considered Yahoo’s Asian assets its most valuable part.

But Morse is pleased the complex agreement has finally been reached — I am guessing it was not easy to negotiate among three different countries with so much pressure.

5:59 am: Time for Q&A!

The first question is about more deets and also about the possibility of a liquidity event for Alibaba or its various units.

Tsai underscores that there might not be one or there might be one. In other words, the Chinese assets of Yahoo may or may not ever pay off.

The next question is about why Yahoo and SoftBank should have a cap on an asset they used to own 100 percent of. Good point!

Neither Morse or Tsai really answers the question, except for Tsai talking about how certain rules over foreign ownership of payment companies in China means it had to be like this.

“If you own 100 percent of the business that cannot operate, you own 100 percent of zero,” said Tsai.

Translation: That’s China, folks, so suck it up!

The next question is a promissory note, which Tsai says has value, even though it actually does not have value right now. China!

The analysts still are stuck on this fact that, under terms of the agreement, Yahoo will only get 37.5 percent of an IPO or other liquidity event, when it used to be owner of 100 percent of Alipay.

Good point: Will this happen to other Alibaba units, such as its Taobao commerce unit?

China is a good place to be, assures Tsai, which is cold comfort right now.

A lot of swirl around preferential terms in the deal for Alipay with Alibaba’s units, which seem to be the same as before. In other words, nothing has changed, except a lot of stock loss for Yahoo and less technical ownership of Alipay.

The Wall Street analysts on the line continue to be riveted to the idea of a liquidity event for Alipay and other Alibaba units, especially Taobao, and keep asking different versions of this question.

The last question is about more deets of the deal and new business ideas for Alibaba.

Tsai talks about a cloud-based system rolling out, for example.

The questioner moves to, you guessed it, a liquidity event.

“I don’t think we want to get into it at this point,” says Tsai.

Well, we do, but apparently Yahoo shareholders are not going to.

That said, the deal is finally settled, which has already given Yahoo shares a small bump today. And that’s not nothing.

Yahoo, SoftBank and the Alibaba Group have reached an agreement in their contentious dispute around the Alipay payments unit.

The trio have been in extended talks since Alibaba’s CEO Jack Ma spun Alipay out from Alibaba without the approval of Yahoo and Japan’s SoftBank, which own large stakes in Alibaba.

At the time, he said he did so in order to get critical regulatory approvals from the Chinese government. The move prompted an ugly fight between Alibaba and its partners.

In a statement, the trio said:

“The agreement is consistent with the two agreed-upon principles established at the outset of the negotiations: structure the inter-company relationship between Alipay and Taobao in order to preserve the value within Taobao and, by extension, within Alibaba Group; and provide that Alibaba Group is appropriately compensated for the value of Alipay.”

Under terms of the agreement, the three companies said that Alipay will continue providing payment services to Alibaba’s Taobao commerce site and other subsidiaries; Alibaba will be paid almost half of Alipay’s pretax income; and Alibaba will get between $2 billion and $6 billion — or 37.5 percent of the total equity value — in the event of an Alipay IPO or other liquidity event.

Yahoo has also filed a very detailed account of the deal here with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which you can read here and especially here.

Yahoo’s stock has risen 3.6 percent on the news so far this morning, but it is still just below $14 a share.

There will be a call at 5:45 am PT to explain it all, which I will be liveblogging, but here’s the full press release:

alipay

Earlier today, CNBC reported that the regulatory review of Groupon’s questionable use of certain accounting metrics in its IPO filing was delaying its offering until later in September.

While more questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission about how it accounts for its revenue and profits might indeed eventually push the IPO debut out, according to sources I have interviewed for months now, an offering in mid to late September was actually when the social buying company was planning to take its company public.

It makes sense, since August is seldom used for road shows for companies headed for an IPO — think Wall Street in the Hamptons and you’ll get why.

That said, the continued scrutiny by the SEC is not a welcome development for Chicago-based Groupon, which filed its S-1 documents in June.

In coming weeks, sources said, the company will be filing new financial information about both its growth and costs, which will undoubtedly be put under a microscope by investors and regulators.

That’s no surprise since the contents of the original filing immediately caused controversy, especially over the amount of its venture funding paid out to insiders and also over an unusual accounting treatment called adjusted consolidated segment operating income, or Adjusted CSOI.

As I wrote at the time:

Let’s be clear, this is a number that does not include important costs, such as critical online marketing expenses to attract new customers to Groupon.
Such accounting is called non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

In 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, Groupon said its Adjusted CSOI was $60.6 million and $81.6 million, respectively.

On a GAAP basis, Groupon lost $413.4 million million for 2010 and $113.9 million in the first three months of 2011.

Said Groupon about its accounting in its S-1 filing: “We believe Adjusted CSOI is an important measure of the performance of our business as it excludes expenses that are non-cash or otherwise not indicative of future operating expenses.”

Definitely sketchy enough to attract an SEC look-see, which caused Groupon to back away from Adjusted CSOI as a “valuation metric” in a recently amended S-1 filing. Groupon also stepped back a sloppy comment made after the filing by its Chairman Eric Lefkofsky — in a interview he apparently thought was off the record — that the company would be “wildly profitable.”

One thing is certain: There will surely be more amending of the Groupon S-1 in the weeks ahead as it stumbles toward its IPO, which will be one of the most prominent of the Web 2.0 era.

Yahoo turned in another weak performance in the second quarter, with yet another decline in revenue.

This time it was five percent, compared to last quarter’s six percent. In other words, at least things are looking up as they go down!

While earnings per share rose smartly, Wall Street is still looking for strong sales growth from the Silicon Valley Internet giant, which seems unable to provide it.

Blamed most this time for the revenue fall: Yahoo’s changes in its display sales operations in the key Americas region, reasons for which were largely unspecified in the initial company press release. (You can see the damage in this slide deck from the company here.)

Maybe Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz will explain it all in its upcoming conference call with analysts (or she could try the I-don’t-know approach taken by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch in PhoneGate hearings in Britain earlier today!).

2 pm PT: It starts with the usual regulatory blah-blah, which I always enjoy.

Bartz gets right into it, opening with the key problems with China’s Alibaba Group, as well as its display and search revenue weaknesses.

The fight with Alibaba is over its Alipay payments unit, which was spun out of the Chinese company without Yahoo’s say-so. Yahoo is a big shareholder.

Bartz says that the company was working on a settlement night and day.

But she quickly gets onto how display did not perform as expected in its key Americas arena. “Obviously, I am not happy,” she said.

Obvi! Neither are shareholders, Carol.

She says it was not about new competitive development. It was not about the economy. It was not about engagement.

So what was it? Changes in its sales leadership and organization, says Bartz, which has included talent walking out the door in droves.

A lot more than Yahoo expected, but no surprise to anyone who has been paying any attention to the brain drain at the company.

Bartz promises a new approach to sales, part of its endless turnaround, which is beginning to feel like a digital version of “Waiting for Godot.”

Search revenue, though, says Bartz, was better than expected.

2:11 pm: CFO Tim Morse is on now, running through the numbers and the display shortfall in the Americas region.

“We simply did not have appropriate coverage,” says Morse, noting consumer products, tech and autos as weak spots in the advertising market.

Thank goodness, then, for the guarantees from search revenue in the Microsoft partnership deal.

More numbers and then it is back to Bartz to talk about search, which is going better than the last quarter, when it was the culprit for the revenue decline.

She says that Microsoft and Yahoo were working together to improve the issues.

“We’d like to be further down the road,” says Bartz about the goal of search revenue per search growth, as well as settling all the other problems, such as the Asian issues.

And, by further, I am presuming she means actual forward movement, which is what roads are actually for.

2:27 pm: Q&A time, the part of our program where Wall Street analysts do not ask the questions that need asking (and where I win fancy journalism awards for pointing this delta out!).

Therefore, Bartz is first thanked for providing “color” about the display disaster and is not asked about more specifics of the disaster itself.

The second question still does not get to it either, but she does note Yahoo’s sales force has to sell beyond “Gee, we’re big” and come up with better ad solutions.

“The issue is we did not have enough sales people in front of the big clients,” says Bartz.

That’s because all those former Yahoos are now working at Groupon, LivingSocial, Facebook and on down the line and now in front of big clients for those hotter companies.

2:34 pm: Question about its Asian assets. Yahoo’s talks with Yahoo! Japan and Alibaba are separate, says Bartz, although I would add that they have non-movement in common.

And also a question about Yahoo’s interest in the acquisition of the Hulu premium online video service.

Bartz winks verbally and says nothing, which translates into: Of course, it is interested.

More on the reasons for the display fall-off, which Bartz makes clear is not due to big competitive threats, but internal issues.

Maybe she’s saving big competitive threats as the reason for a revenue decline in the third quarter!

I look forward to the quarter I get the finger pointed at me for causing revenue to fall, due to my snarky posts.

Now, we are into softball questions about improvements in engagement. It’s up, but no one asks why Yahoo is still not doing anything very cutting edge in product innovation compared to competitors.

I believe Google has launched at least 14 new social networks since this Sunday, along with its strong quarterly performance last week. And Apple, well, blew away its quarter today as it is about to release more cool new stuff later this week.

And that might be the crux of the issue for Yahoo, which might not solve its woes by throwing a more focused sales army at the issue.

That’s because Yahoo’s products are simply not nearly has social as Facebook or even Google right now, which might be the true problem as old customers move on to new advertising solutions.

Whatever the reason, Yahoo clearly needs a refresh of its ad products and how it sells them, especially in its fast-growing mobile, video and communications products.

Bartz talks about getting better expertise, a tighter regional focus and other issues of going to market, which is perhaps something she might have realized many, many quarters ago.

After all, she’s been in charge for a while, and these issues are not new.

In fact, in an earlier quarter, Bartz was stressing “tentpole” events and anchor media properties and the power of the size of Yahoo as a selling point.

This was in April, in fact, in the first quarter of this year.

As I wrote then:

“CEO Carol Bartz excited was the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s traffic gusher for big tentpole events such as the Super Bowl and the Oscars. In fact, Bartz practically sounded like a gushy “Entertainment Tonight” flunky when talking to Wall Street analysts about Yahoo’s Oscar news, games and other offerings. She proudly noted the site’s efforts generated more than a billion pages views.”

Now big is out! Moving on!

The last question is another about Yahoo’s talks with its Asian partners.

“It’s complex,” says Bartz.

You can say that again.

So exactly how fecund is “FarmVille”?

If reports hold, we’ll all find out today what the yield is from the online gaming phenom Zynga, which will finally be filing its regulatory documents sometime today.

The S-1 for a public offering valued at up to $20 billion, which will contain all kinds of juicy information about the San Francisco-based start-up’s business, is likely to come out after the markets close. Zynga is expected to raise $2 billion in the offering.

Before everyone gets to see what’s in it, there’s a lot that investors should be looking out for, based on recent IPO filings by similar companies, such as Groupon.

Digging Up New Accounting Ground

As Tricia Duryee pointed out, Zynga will be the “first major U.S. company supported primarily by the sale of virtual goods” to file.

That’s what will likely make the Zynga filing very interesting, from an accounting point of view.

How Zynga handles its accounting is sure to be much scrutinized, especially since Groupon attracted all kinds of ugly from its unusual treatment of its financial results.

To defocus from its money-losing under GAAP acounting, the Chicago-based social buying service used the more attractive “Adjusted CSOI,” which is defined as adjusted consolidated segment operating income.

My definition: Sketchy!

Zynga’s finances are expected to look better, reportedly generating about $400 million in profit last year on about $850 million in revenue.

It will be important to pay attention to the breakdown of those revenues and about what period of time the company accounts for them.

As Duryee wrote, Zynga has several choices:

Game-based model: The company recognizes revenue over the life of the game.

User-based model: Revenue is recognized over the estimated life a user plays the game.

Item-based model: Revenue is recognized based on the implied or explicit life span of the item — in other words, how long it would last in the real world. Examples of more durable goods are virtual vehicles, furniture or weapons. Revenue from these would be recognized for as long as the player stays active in the game. Revenues from a more consumable item, like a virtual cup of coffee or a jolt of energy, would be recognized almost immediately.

And there are still other factors to take into consideration, such as whether the goods were paid for with virtual currency or real cash, and how much information a company has for establishing the averages.

In the Revenue Weeds

Another interesting thing to study will be the revenue breakdown for Zynga, especially as it relates to its biggest platform provider, Facebook.

Such as: How many in-game items are purchased directly on Facebook versus through gift cards purchased in the store? How big (or small) is Zynga’s advertising business? What about mobile games? Will the profitability of individual games be called out, with details about their performance?

And, of all its various distribution platforms for its games, where does it get the most mojo?

That’s important, since Zynga will be seen as a proxy for Facebook’s business. Thus, a lot of investors might find some nuggets of information, since the pair are so tightly intertwined as businesses.

Facebook, of course, has been famously trying not to IPO, so any indication of the social networking site’s business will be carefully studied.

Reaping the Insider Rewards

Lastly, it’ll be important to see who is selling what and when among current Zynga investors.

Groupon ran into a buzz saw of criticism from the giant payouts its founders took out of the company from its massive venture funding rounds.

As Peter Kafka wrote:

Groupon raised a total of $946 million in two funding rounds last winter. It kept $136 million of it to help run the money-losing company. The remaining $810 million was paid out, via stock purchases, to CEO Andrew Mason and some of his backers, including Eric Lefkofsky, and, notably, the Samwer brothers, who sold their CityDeal company to Groupon in 2010 … Of note: This wasn’t the first time Groupon had raised money and taken cash off the table. In April 2010, the company raised $130 million, and handed $120 million to many of the same people.

My definition: Even sketchier!

Along with its founder and CEO Mark Pincus, Zynga investors are the pantheon of venture players, including Digital Sky Technologies, Kleiner Perkins, Union Square Ventures and angel investors LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and Peter Thiel.

How much Pincus and others inside the company have taken out and are selling should be one of the first places new investors should look.

Because with the hyped valuations that many of these Web 2.0 companies are getting, who’s zooming who should be a key sign to pay mind to.

Back in April of 2009, like all the rest of the parts of the Chinese Internet giant Alibaba Group, its Alipay unit was listed this way on its Web site: “Alipay is wholly owned by Alibaba Group.”

And right now, describing the online payments platform? (my italics): “Alipay is an affiliate of Alibaba Group.”

Memo to Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz: You might have noticed that critical change in Alipay’s corporate status, which happened last August, given the company you lead owns 43 percent of the Alibaba Group.

More to the point, Alipay accounted for $1.7 billion of Yahoo’s valuation.

Not surprisingly, Yahoo shares are down more than six percent in after-hours trading, likely in reaction to an unusual statement by Yahoo yesterday, in which the company said it had no idea until March 31 that Alibaba CEO Jack Ma had transferred ownership of the Alipay unit to a separate entity.

Sources said that apparently happened in a letter from Alibaba to Yahoo’s accounting department. Since then, the company said it has been trying to figure it all out.

Said Yahoo:

On March 31, 2011, Yahoo! and Softbank were notified by Alibaba Group of two transactions that occurred without the knowledge or approval of the Alibaba Group board of directors or shareholders. The first was the transfer of ownership of Alipay in August 2010. The second was the deconsolidation of Alipay effective in the first quarter of 2011.

Yahoo! disclosed this restructuring in its 10-Q after discussions with Alibaba Group and obtaining a better understanding of this complex situation.

Yahoo! continues to work closely with Alibaba and Softbank to protect economic value for all interested parties. We believe ongoing negotiations among all of the parties provide the best opportunity to achieve an outcome in the best interest of all stakeholders.

Translation: Alibaba’s Ma–who cites upcoming new rules about foreign ownership from People’s Bank of China related to operating its payment business–just snookered us and we need to play dumb until we decide whether a lawsuit will be one disaster too many for our much-beleaguered investors.

Really pissed off shareholders is more like it–BoomTown has been on the receiving end of an explosive series of calls from Yahoo’s investors today asking a variety of questions.

They include:

1. How could Alibaba have reported its results with Alipay consolidated in, even though it was a separate entity since last year? And does that spell trouble for Yahoo, since it used those numbers in its own regulatory filings in the U.S.?

2. How could Ma initiate such a transaction without approval from shareholders and its board, as Yahoo claims?

3. In any case, why weren’t Yahoo execs paying more attention to the swirling changes related to foreign ownership in China, especially since Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang is on the Alibaba board, anticipating that there could be real problems ahead?

4. Why did Yahoo execs not tell shareholders about the situation immediately or even at its April earnings call? Or perhaps before David Einhorn’s hedge fund Greenlight Capital hedge fund took a big position in Yahoo last week, specifically noting the value of the company’s Asian assets as highly attractive.

5. Does this move mean that those pretty Chinese assets Yahoo has touted are not so pretty after all, given that these kinds of things can happen there?

6. Should U.S. investors remove themselves from that Chinese market, given that these kinds of things can happen there?

7. Is Bartz’s extraordinarily tense personal relationship with Ma a big part of the problem, creating a distasteful public feud over issues better left to quiet backroom negotiations?

There will be plenty more, of course, especially around Yahoo’s disclosures to investors.

Yahoo execs will argue that it did disclose in the proper manner from a filing point of view and that it did not reveal the fissure so as not to put its negotiations with Alibaba over the situation at risk.

But–especially given the myriad of continued missteps by Bartz that have worked investors’ last nerve–that probably is not going to fly.

In fact, that irked sentiment will surely be on display at Yahoo’s upcoming investor day on May 25.

Yahoo had hoped to show off its new team of execs and talk about some legitimate momentum the company is making.

Now, it will doubtlessly all be about China and what happened there.

So, Bartz has to have a better line than a take on a Hollywood classic: “Forget it, Wall Street. It’s China.”

Maybe so, but it’s her problem to solve now.

And here’s my favorite version of that line:

The paperwork is the first step in gaining regulatory approval for the proposed $39 billion acquisition. The Department of Justice also must approve the deal.

AT&T’s filing includes both the transfer application and supporting documents making the company’s now-familiar arguments that the deal will improve access to next-generation networks and make better use of limited spectrum. AT&T has said it is posting a redacted version of the filing on its merger Web site.

“The bottom line is that our merger with T-Mobile USA will offer significant benefits to American consumers,” AT&T said in a blog posting. “It will address capacity constraints that both of our companies face, which will enable the combined company to provide improved services in the many urban, suburban, and rural markets where the enormous surge in broadband usage is fast consuming available capacity. What this means is fewer dropped calls, fewer failed call attempts, and better data throughput.”

Sprint is opposing the deal and CEO Dan Hesse has promised to fight hard to get the deal blocked. The New York attorney general and Congress have also said they plan to scrutinize the deal closely.

Non-profit group Free Press also lashed out at the deal in a statement on Thursday.

“No matter how many high-priced lobbying firms AT&T hires, it won’t be able to fool Americans into thinking the reconstitution of the Ma Bell monopoly is a good thing,” Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner said in a statement. “Make no mistake, this deal is about eliminating a competitor and nothing more. AT&T has chosen the marketing slogan ‘Mobilize Everything’ to sell this competition-killing deal, but it’s clear their real goal is to ‘Monopolize Everything.’”

Unlike a carrier-favored approach, known as femtocells, signal boosters work with all flavors of cell signal as opposed to a single network. However, the industry says that improperly designed gear can lead to signal oscillation, which can cause interference.

In a statement, FCC Commisioner Mignon Clyburn said the devices can help address an important issue with regard to service gaps, while ensuring they don’t cause interference.

“These devices have demonstrated they can help address the coverage gaps that exist within the wireless service areas in both rural and urban environments,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn praised the commission for working with the cellular industry and the makers of the gear to come up with rules that should help minimize the chance of interference. Among the proposed rules is one that would require devices to shut themselves down if they are operating outside of technical guidelines.

However, the cell industry says it is still worried about interference.

“While we have yet to read the (proposed guidelines), we remain concerned that poorly manufactured or improperly installed boosters can do much more harm than good for both consumers and public safety officials,” Brian Josef, CTIA vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a statement. “The record is full of examples of such harm. One of the leading advocates for changes in the commission’s rules, who also happen to be one of the leading manufacturers of boosters, has marketed and sold devices that have caused significant harmful interference.”

Sellers of such gear, meanwhile, applauded the ruling.

“In short, the FCC is formalizing what most of us have known all along: cellular coverage is not good enough,” The Repeater Store said in a blog posting. “In the modern age we are ever more reliant on our phones for important calls and increasingly data services. The FCC recognizes that the task of providing this service cannot fall on the carriers alone and is moving to make cellular signal boosters part of the solution.”

Lloyd R. Meese, CEO of Wi-Ex, which makes such a booster, praised the move, noting his company’s gear already complies with the proposed regulations.

“We recognized from the beginning that oscillation could be an issue and developed patented technology as a solution to the problem,” Meese said in a statement.

In a blog post, AT&T expressed hope that the new proposal would at least clarify the rules and make it easier to go after offending equipment.

This action comes in addition to a separate move by the commission to require carriers to allow data roaming of rivals onto their networks at terms set by the commission. Verizon and AT&T had opposed that move, though Sprint praised the decision.

Instead, it launched an aggressive advertising campaign, poking fun at its competitor’s network holes. Verizon gained significant notoriety by altering Apple’s well known marketing slogan to come up with “There’s a map for that.”

Now Verizon will have to make an even bolder move if it wants to keep AT&T from becoming the nation’s–and even the world’s–largest wireless carrier.

Most speculation is that Verizon wouldn’t be a candidate to buy Sprint because it wouldn’t pass regulatory muster.

True.

But what if that was the plan?

If Verizon Wireless made a bid for Sprint, regulators would face a serious dilemma.

In fact, it could have the unintended–or, umm, intended–consequence of blocking AT&T’s $39 billion bid for T-Mobile USA.

“They cannot say no to one and approve the other, and they cannot approve both of them,” observes Chetan Sharma, who operates his own wireless consulting firm. “I would do that if I was playing the strategy card, and I would be surprised if they don’t do it.”

There’s no indication that Verizon Wireless is considering this strategy, and it would have to be willing to live with the consequences if the deal somehow were approved.

However, it might be an easy bluff since Verizon and Sprint have a number of synergies, including operating a network on the same CDMA technology. Additionally, there may be enough compelling reasons for Verizon Wireless to play hardball.

For instance, if AT&T and T-Mobile merge, the two will leapfrog Verizon Wireless to become the largest carrier in the country in terms of subscribers. Furthermore, AT&T and T-Mobile will become the world’s largest carrier in terms of revenues, and specifically data revenues.

At the end of last year, Verizon Wireless was the largest in the world in terms of data revenues, edging out NTT DoCoMo. AT&T was No. 3, and T-Mobile was No. 8, according to Sharma’s research.

Given that kind of scale, Sharma said: “There’s no way Verizon will be able to catch up with AT&T without an acquisition, or until a major shakedown happens in the industry, like a break-up. Verizon had good momentum because of its LTE rollout and recent device launches, but all a sudden momentum has shifted to AT&T and T-Mobile. They lose the luster of having the bragging rights of being the biggest operator in the country.”

Phillip Redman, a research VP at Gartner Research, agrees that a Verizon Wireless-Sprint merger would be nearly impossible to pass antitrust concerns if an AT&T and T-Mobile merger is approved, saying, “This is the last of the big mergers. Sprint will have to look outside to Comcast or Google to have a chance.”

Right now, Sprint’s looking like a bargain, too. The company’s stock is down nearly 14 percent today to value its market capitalization at $13 billion.

Here is an edited transcript of our conversation.

How did this deal come about and why does it make sense?

De La Vega: The first thing is, this deal alleviates the impending spectrum exhaust challenges that both companies face. By combining the spectrum holdings that we have, which are complementary, it really helps both companies.

Second, just like we did with the old AT&T Wireless merger, when we combine both networks what we are going to have is more network capacity and better quality as the density of the network grid increases.

In major urban areas, whether Washington, D.C., New York or San Francisco, by combining the networks we actually have a denser grid. We have more cell sites per grid, which allows us to have a better capacity in the network and better quality. It’s really going to be something that customers in both networks are going to notice.

The third point is that AT&T is going to commit to expand LTE to cover 95 percent of the U.S. population.

T-Mobile didn’t have a clear path to LTE, so their 34 million customers now get the advantage of having the greatest and latest technology available to them, whereas before that wasn’t clear. It also allows us to deliver that to 46.5 million more Americans than we have in our current plans. This is going to take LTE not just to major cities but to rural America.

You guys are already pretty big, already right up there with Verizon. How do you address any regulatory concerns that arise?

We are very respectful of the processes the Department of Justice and (other regulators) use.

The criteria that has been used in the past for mergers of this type is that the merger is looked at (for) the benefits it brings on a market-by-market basis and how it impacts competition.

Today, when you look across the top 20 markets in the country, 18 of those markets have five or more competitors, and when you look across the entire country, the majority of the country’s markets have five or more competitors. I think if the criteria that has been used in the past is used against this merger, I think the appropriate authorities will find there will still be plenty of competition left.

If you look at pricing as a key barometer of the competition in an industry, our industry despite all of the mergers that have taken place in the past, (has) actually reduced prices to customers 50 percent since 1999. Even when these mergers have been done in the past they have always benefited the customers and we think they will benefit again.

The other big concern with any merger is that you become busy with integration issues. Obviously this is a fast moving industry. How do you make sure that you guys are still doing what you need to do, rolling out the latest stuff, while you are handling a merger of this size?

I did this before when I combined the old AT&T Wireless with Cingular Wireless. I was the chief operating officer for Cingular.

Within three years we had reduced the churn rate in half and we had improved margins by 1,000 basis points. At the time of the merger, back in 2004, they said that we would lose customers and we would be too busy doing the merger integration process. The first process out of the chute, we led the U.S. industry in total net adds for that quarter, the fourth quarter of 2004. We have the same team. I am here and we are going to make sure this great AT&T team does exactly that again.

More Coverage

• AT&T Wraps Self in Flag, Says T-Mobile Deal Essential to U.S. Competitiveness
• The AT&Terminator: Rise of Ma Bell
• Sprint: AT&T’s T-Mobile Buy Would “Dramatically Alter” Market
• First Casualty of AT&T Deal: T-Mobile Drops From CTIA Panel
• What AT&T Owes T-Mobile if Deal Doesn’t Go Through
• T-Mobile USA: No, We’re Not Getting the iPhone Yet
• T-Mobile’s Memo to Staff on the AT&T Deal
• AT&T’s President on Why T-Mobile Deal Should Pass Muster and Won’t be a Customer Nightmare
• T-Mobile: We Were Totally Kidding About AT&T’s Crappy Network!
• AT&T Agrees to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

Under the shareholders’ agreement, Mr, Bernabe–whose three-year mandate expires in April–will become executive chairman, retaining powers over extraordinary operations, legal issues, regulatory and institutional relations, the people said.

The agreement comes ahead of Telecom Italia’s shareholders meeting, which on April 12 will appoint the company’s new board and management.

Mr. Patuano, who now heads Telecom Italia’s domestic operations, will be promoted to the role of CEO overseeing the Italian market, while TIM Brasil CEO Luca Luciani will oversee the Latin American operations as chief operating officer. Both Messrs. Patuano and Luciani will report to Mr. Bernabe, the people added.

Read the rest of this post on the original site