"Bigger is better in a commodity game," said Phillip Redman, an analyst at Gartner who follows the wireless carriers. "Four providers were too many. This may help [third-place] Sprint as it becomes the standalone low-cost provider, and it makes more sense than a Sprint-T-Mobile deal."

Redman said the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission will both "take a hard, long look at it, but in the end it will be approved." With three major providers -- Verizon, AT&T and Sprint --Redman added, "I think there is plenty of competition...This is the last of the big mergers" in the wireless industry.

The companies sought to deflect concerns about reduced competition with the combination of two large carriers, noting in a statement: "The U.S. wireless industry is one of the most fiercely competitive markets in the world and will remain so after this deal. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where a large majority of consumers can choose from five or more wireless proviers in their local market ...The competitiveness of the market has directly benefited consumers."

Shortly after the takeover was announced, consumer rights group Free Press issued a statement condemning it. "Don't believe the hype: There is nothing about having less competition that will benefit wireless consumers," said Free Press research director S. Derek Turner. "And if regulators approve this deal, they will further cement duopoly control over the wireless market by AT&T and Verizon."

Turner noted that the top four companies already control 90% of the wireless business. If two of the four merge, that means "nothing but higher prices and fewer choices, as the newly engorged AT&T and Verizon exert even more control over the wireless Internet."