On Oct 16, as a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, I voted to block the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, the country’s third- and fourth-largest wireless carriers. But I am only one of five votes at the agency, and a majority of my colleagues have already voiced their support for this transaction. On top of that, the Department of Justice recently reached an agreement with the carriers, giving them a green light to combine. The largest wireless merger in history is now headed toward approval. If you own a mobile phone—as 96 percent of American adults do—that’s bad news.

Shrinking the number of national providers from four to three will hurt consumers, harm competition, and eliminate thousands of jobs. In deciding to overlook these harms, the FCC and the Department of Justice have been wooed by a few unenforceable concessions and hollow promises from the two companies involved. Our existing wireless market will devolve into a cozy oligopoly dominated by just three carriers.

Three commissioners at the FCC publicly conveyed their full support for this transaction before they even had any in-house legal, economic, or engineering analysis to review. Then, once we had a document produced by the commission’s expert staff, key parts were rewritten by political leadership without any opportunity for public comment. This is not how good government should operate.  If this merger succeeds, consumers will pay the price.

The expert staff of the Commission and the Justice Department have agreed that the merger between TMobile and Sprint, as originally submitted, would likely harm competition and raise prices. Rather than denying that merger, however, the majority has turned to the parties for paper-thin commitments that they contend will expand broadband access and the deployment of 5G. But these promises cannot mask reality. You don’t need to be an expert to know that going from four wireless carriers to three will hurt competition. This merger takes a bad situation and makes it worse. Higher prices and fewer options across the country will inevitably result. Quite simply, the effects of this ill-conceived merger will hit low-income and rural communities hardest of all. This proceeding also has had unprecedented procedural irregularities. The deal approved today has changed significantly from the one that was originally proposed – twice. I have been clear: where there is a fundamental change in the structure of a proposed merger, it must be set out for public comment. This administration previously adhered to that practice, and our failure to do so here raises legal issues. Moreover, today’s approval comes despite our on-going investigation of Sprint for what appears to be the largest unlawful collection of universal service funds in FCC history. But instead of waiting until we have all the facts, we haphazardly push forward and hope for the best. The rush to judgment here is exemplified by the fact that it was only in response to questions from my office that the draft was amended at the last minute to explicitly preserve liability for these and any other potential violations. The Order concludes that the transaction will likely harm competition and raise prices, but that the parties’ commitments to expand service and divest assets will mitigate these harms. But the analysis of how the benefits outweigh the harms is vague and unconvincing. The obligations imposed on the parties are so loosely drafted that meaningful enforcement will be impossible. The financial penalties for noncompliance will not effectively deter a company with billions of dollars in annual revenue. And the Order characterizes any penalties as tax-deductible “voluntary contributions,” meaning the American taxpayer will be left holding the bag for at least some of any penalties imposed on New T-Mobile.

In short, I believe that T-Mobile and Sprint have not proven that their merger will benefit the public interest. Vague promises do not change what was true when this deal was first proposed and what remains true today – the harms from this merger are not overcome by any condition imposed in the majority’s order. While I hope for the sake of consumers that I am wrong, I fear that we will one day look back at this decision and recognize it as a moment that forever changed the U.S. wireless industry, and not for the better.

Bridging the digital divide can help address our nation’s persistent health disparities. Rural Americans not only face limited access to health-care facilities, but “suffer from higher rates of obesity, mental health issues, diabetes, cancer, and opioid addiction.” But the tie that also binds is the lack of high-speed broadband connectivity in low-income communities, too. Rural America, as you know, is facing a physician shortage and low-income and rural populations are less likely to have choice when it comes to broadband providers. Allow me to be more direct: in those places where there is a wealth and/or population gap, there is a health care and broadband availability gap. While the challenge is clear, the cure is even clearer. With broadband connectivity, patients with virtually any condition can be seen remotely by a specialist without having to drive anywhere at all. So should come as no surprise that 52 percent of hospitals now use at least some form of telehealth, another 10 percent are just ramping up and we expect more to come on board. What does this make clear?  That a healthy America is a connected America. Conversely, if we fail to fully address America’s broadband connectivity gap – when it comes, to health and wellness in rural America -- none of us, will be completely well. Real, High-Performance Broadband can help solve some of health care’s most enduring problems and intractable challenges... and it can do so by delivering massive cost-saving opportunities. It can slow runaway health-care cost growth, enable patients to harness a new generation of connected-care devices that help them live longer and more productive lives and extend connected care everywhere while closing the rural health-care gap.

[Mignon Clyburn served as a Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from 2009 to 2018, including a term as Acting Chairwoman in 2013. She currently serves on the Benton Board of Directors]