Sounds like the lawsuit brought by several states is the remaining possible stumbling block.
At least we'll have several years of watching to see whether promises (including the vague ones with no teeth) are kept, and what the impact is on consumer prices, rural access, 4th network competition, etc.
The gist: AT&T and Verizon had the capability of advocating against the merger, but chose not to. Analysis: AT&T & Verizon may think the merger is a good thing for them, reducing downward price competition.
The financial markets seem to agree at this point, since AT&T and Verizon stocks moved up slightly on the DOJ announcement.
I have found the reasoning process used in that twitter conversation helpful when looking at confusing and controversial proposals-- look to see who (companies or powerful individuals) support which side of the issue, and decide whether their interests align with yours. In this case, if the merger is good for AT&T and Verizon, there's a good chance it won't be good for my wallet.
My biggest concern is that there have been a lot of assurances offered from T-Mobile to various concerns, and almost no teeth to back up those assurances.
The Dish deal seems typical, where Dish seems positioned to profit regardless of whether or not they follow through with commitments made, and T-Mobile ends up in a good position to buy back the spectrum they've agreed to divest should Dish decide not to compete, or fail at competing.