The deal between AT&T and T-Mobile is still alive, but given the hurdles facing the proposed $39 billion transaction, it is pretty close to Dead Merger Walking. That would be an unfortunate setback to telecommunication innovation.

So far, the Federal Communications Commission and Justice Department appear to be measuring competition in old-school ways while engaging in distracting side spats over whether the merger would add or eliminate jobs. Let’s take a reasoned guess of the job impact based on merger history in virtually every industry: Some jobs will be lost, and some jobs will be added. That’s the way vibrant industries reload.

The latest evidence of the chasm between the government’s reviews and business realities surfaced last week when the FCC took the unusual step to seek a trial-like hearing. In response, AT&T withdrew its application to the FCC to live long enough to fight another day and to focus on an upcoming legal showdown with the Justice Department. Now, the carrier’s hope is that a win at the Justice Department, which is far from a slam-dunk, will give AT&T enough clout to later confront the FCC on stronger footing.

Rigorous reviews are necessary, but what seems to be absent from these assessments are serious discussions of the role of efficient innovation. Simply declaring that a big telecom firm is getting bigger, that big is always bad and that jobs might be lost ignores the economics of scale and other technological and procedural efficiencies that lead to new products and services.

There is no question that the merger would speed development of high-speed wireless services nationally. AT&T would have access to a wireless-spectrum network that otherwise would take it years to build.

Presumably, that would benefit consumers and fit with a national strategy of making wireless services more accessible. In the long run, the ability to move data quickly and affordably translates into thousands of new jobs and more efficient commerce.

Also, if this merger is rejected, it is questionable whether an independent T-Mobile would be strong enough to provide the real competition that regulators want.

Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Mobile’s parent, wants out of the wireless business in the United States and would look for another buyer, with no guarantee that the next suitor wouldn’t confront similar objections from regulators. Likewise, AT&T would still be prowling for spectrum to keep pace with the growth of data-intensive products.

In the long run, competition might be better served by a key shift in focus on whether industrywide early termination fees and two-year contracts are greater impediments to consumer choice than the prospect of a large wireless carrier getting even larger.

The nation’s current approach to antitrust doesn’t mirror the business realities that are happening today. That needs to change.