It appears that anti-trust, which was rare to begin with, may now have been politicized.
For example, it's hard to understand why favoritism is shown to ISPs yet effort is put into breaking up large software companies. Especially in light of the difference in campaign contributions in 2018.
To be clear, I'm don't disagree with the Obama Justice Department's blocking of the Sprint/T-Mobile merger. Such a merger would certainly have reduced the competition in wireless markets, and would probably have led to higher prices and poorer service. But it's hard to characterize the decision to pursue telecom companies (while ignoring big tech) or the reverse (pursuing big tech while ignoring telecoms) as anything but political.
Wasn't it the ATT/T-Mobile merger? Which is a bit different from T-Mobile/Sprint in various aspects.
"Political" means that companies can avoid AT action by buying off politicians with campaign contributions, lobbying, and other forms of plutocratic and anti-democratic influence.
The political question is who gets targeted for action, who doesn't, and why.