Hearing Committee on the Judiciary United States

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Hearing Committee on the Judiciary United States S. HRG. 112–96 THE AT&T/T–MOBILE MERGER: IS HUMPTY DUMPTY BEING PUT BACK TOGETHER AGAIN? HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 11, 2011 Serial No. J–112–20 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 68–170 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman CHUCK SCHUMER, New York MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut CAROLINE HOLLAND, Democratic Chief Counsel/Staff Director DAVID BARLOW, Republican General Counsel (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 6 Kohl, Hon. Herb, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............................ 1 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 4 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 Lee, Hon. Michael S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................. 2 WITNESSES Cohen, Larry, President, Communications Workers of America, Washington, DC .......................................................................................................................... 16 Hesse, Daniel R., Chief Executive Officer, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Over- land Park, Kansas ................................................................................................ 11 Humm, Philipp, President and Chief Executive Officer, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Bellevue, Washington .......................................................................................... 9 Meena, Victor H. ″Hu″, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cellular South, Inc., Ridgeland, Mississippi ................................................................................. 13 Sohn, Gigi B., President, Public Knowledge, Washington, DC ............................ 14 Stephenson, Randall L., Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President, AT&T Inc., Dallas, Texas .................................................................................... 7 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Larry Cohen to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ................ 43 Responses of Daniel Hesse to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Grass- ley, Kohl and Lee ................................................................................................. 46 Responses of Philipp Humm to questions submitted by Senators Kohl, Leahy and Lee ................................................................................................................. 54 Responses of Victor H. ‘‘Hu’’ Meena to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Kohl, Lee and Blumenthal ...................................................................... 63 Responses of Gigi Sohn to questions submitted by Senators Blumenthal, Kohl, Leahy and Lee ............................................................................................ 72 Responses of Randall L. Stephenson to questions submitted by Senators Kohl, Leahy, Grassley, Franken, Blumenthal and Lee ............................................... 97 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Antitrust Institute (AAI), Albert A. Foer, President and Richard M. Brunell, Director of Legal Advocacy, Washington, DC, May 16, 2011 letter ...................................................................................................................... 149 Cohen, Larry, President, Communications Workers of America, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 151 Desai, Parul P., Policy Counsel, Consumers Union, Washington, DC, state- ment ...................................................................................................................... 167 Hesse, Daniel R., Chief Executive Officer, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Over- land Park, Kansas, statement ............................................................................. 173 Humm, Philipp, President and Chief Executive Officer, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, statement ....................................................................... 187 Meena, Victor H. ‘‘Hu’’, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cellular South, Inc., Ridgeland, Mississippi, statement .............................................................. 190 Rural Broadband Policy Group, Knoxville, Tennessee, May 10, 2011, letter ..... 203 Sohn, Gigi B., President, Public Knowledge, Washington, DC, statement ......... 205 Stephenson, Randall L., Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President, AT&T Inc., Dallas, Texas, statement ................................................................. 229 Turner, Derek, Research Director, Free Press, Washington, DC, May 10, 2011, letter ............................................................................................................ 234 (III) VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC THE AT&T/T-MOBILE MERGER: IS HUMPTY DUMPTY BEING PUT BACK TOGETHER AGAIN? WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY, AND CONSUMER RIGHTS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Kohl, Leahy, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Lee, Grassley, and Cornyn. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HERB KOHL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Chairman KOHL. Good morning. Today we meet to consider a merger that is likely to have profound implications on the way mil- lions of Americans communicate. The proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile will bring together two of the four remaining national cell phone carriers to create the Nation’s largest cell phone network, with an estimated 43 percent market share. Should this deal be approved, AT&T and Verizon will control close to 80 per- cent of the national cell phone market. A deal creating such huge national market shares in an already highly concentrated industry, make it incumbent on you, Mr. Stephenson, and you, Mr. Humm, to justify why we should allow you to do it. An industry that began in the 1980s as luxury car phones used mainly by business people has today become the main way we com- municate—outpacing wired phones with nearly 300 million sub- scribers. Cell phones are increasingly the main way millions of con- sumers connect to the wealth of information found on the Internet. As anyone knows who has ever observed people in restaurants and social events, we are fast becoming a Nation addicted to the bright screens of our mobile phones. Just a few years ago, cell phone competition was a bright spot for American consumers. Consumers had the choice of no fewer than six major national cell phone companies. And as a result, ag- gressive competition led to declining prices and to the rollout of ever new services. Today the situation is quite different. This deal would leave us with only three national companies, two of whom— AT&T and Verizon—will control nearly 80 percent of the market. (1) VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 2 And there are real fears that the third—Sprint—will itself be sold to one of the big two and we would wind up with just a cell phone duopoly. An industry that once was a monopoly owned by AT&T in the last century is in danger of reverting to a duopoly in this new century. And so we must ask: Is putting the control of such a vital economic sector relied on daily by millions of people in just two or three companies good for our country? Today’s hearing will examine the critical questions: What will re- ducing the number of cell phone companies to three mean to con- sumers? Will they see ever higher phone bills, especially for critical services such as connections to the Internet? What will the absence from the market from the lower priced
Recommended publications
  • Ranking the World's Biggest Network Operators
    Global100 www.totaltele.com Business analysis for telecoms professionals November 2012 GROWING STRONG RANKING THE WORLD’S BIGGEST NETWORK OPERATORS BEST BRAND CAMPAIGN BEST NEW SERVICE: ENTERPRISE THE ALIREZA MAHMOODSHAHI Idea Cellular Limited Singapore Telecommunications TECHNOLOGY FORESIGHT AWARD Limited Ciena BEST CLOUD SERVICE World Communication Awards 2012... Orange Business Services BEST OPERATOR IN A THE GREEN AWARD DEVELOPING MARKET Vipnet d.oo BEST CONTENT SERVICE Unitel Türk Telekom BEST PLACE TO WORK BEST SERVICE PROVIDER Zain Jordan BEST CUSTOMER CARE Virtela Technology Services Inc ...The Winners Roshan CEO OF THE YEAR BEST WHOLESALE CARRIER Vittorio Colao: Vodafone BEST GLOBAL OPERATOR TeliaSonera International Carrier Orange Business Services USER’S CHOICE PROJECT OF THE YEAR Orange Business Services Congratulations to all the winners, BEST MOBILE OPERATOR Telstra Telstra Corporation Limited highly commended and finalists! SOCIAL CONTRIBUTION AWARD BEST NEW SERVICE: CONSUMER Etisalat Comviva And a big thank you to our sponsors. World Communication Awards To view the full list please visit www.worldcommsawards.com For global communications providers 13th November 2012 2012 Lancaster Hotel, London www.worldcommsawards.com Sponsors: Strategic Partner: Drinks Reception Sponsor: Media Partners: Organised by: BEST BRAND CAMPAIGN BEST NEW SERVICE: ENTERPRISE THE ALIREZA MAHMOODSHAHI Idea Cellular Limited Singapore Telecommunications TECHNOLOGY FORESIGHT AWARD Limited Ciena BEST CLOUD SERVICE World Communication Awards 2012..
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 1 to ITC Application for Transfer of Control of Sprintcom
    Attachment 1 to Application for Transfer of Control of SprintCom, Inc. from Sprint Nextel Corporation to Starburst II, Inc. Answer to Question 10: Please see attached Joint Application for Consent to Transfer International and Domestic Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended (“Joint Application”) at 3 for responses to paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 63.18 with respect to the transferor and the transferee. Answer to Question 11: See Joint Application at 4-5 for the name, address, citizenship, and principal businesses of each person or entity that directly or indirectly owns at least ten (10) percent of the equity of the transferee, and the percentage of equity owned by each of those persons or entities. Answer to Question 12: The transferee has no interlocking directorates with a foreign carrier at this time, and has answered Question 12 “no.” Following consummation of the transaction, the transferee’s answer to this question may change to “yes”; see Joint Application at 5. Answer to Question 13: See Joint Application at Exhibit 2 for a narrative of the means by which the proposed assignment or transfer of control will take place. Answer to Question 14: See Joint Application at 6. Answer to Question 15: See Joint Application at 6. Answer to Question 16: See Joint Application at 6. Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Applications of Sprint Nextel Corporation, ) Transferor ) ) SOFTBANK CORP., and Starburst II, Inc., ) Transferees ) File No. _______________ ) Joint Application for Consent to Transfer ) International and Domestic Authority Pursuant to ) Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, ) as amended ) JOINT APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO TRANSFER INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 214 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”), 47 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Western States Contracting Alliance
    Western States Contracting Alliance Wireless Voice Service, Wireless Broadband Service, Accessories and Equipment RFP #1907 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL April 4, 2011 Tab I Title Page A. Part I A– Technical Proposal for: “Wireless Voice Service, Wireless Broadband Service, Accessories and Equipment” B. Band of Service: Wireless Voice Service, Wireless Broadband Service, and Accessories and Equipment (Separate Tabs for Each Band per Amendment 2, Question #34) C. RFP No: 1907 D. Sprint Solutions, Inc. 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20196 E. Proposal Opening Date: March 28, 2011 April 4, 2011 F. Proposal Opening Time: 2:00 PM 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20196 March 29, 2011 Teri Smith State of Nevada, Purchasing Division 515 E. Musser Street, Suite 300 Carson City, NV 89701 Dear Ms. Smith: Sprint Solutions, Inc. (“Sprint”) has reviewed the State of Nevada Purchasing Division’s Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for Wireless Voice Service, Wireless Broadband Service, Accessories and Equipment. We understand that the State of Nevada is acting as the lead state for the Western States Contracting Alliance (“WSCA”). We have a long standing relationship with WSCA and a proven track record of providing services to your members nationwide. Sprint is eager to continue to build on our long-standing partnership and have provided this document in response to your need for Wireless Voice Service (Band 1), Wireless Broadband Service (Band 2), and Accessories and Equipment (Band 3). Separate Tabs for each Band are included in this proposal per Amendment 2, Question #34. By selecting Sprint, it will enable your WSCA members to benefit from a committed provider for voice, wireless and Internet services that offers a package of tailored solutions and innovations such as 4G service.
    [Show full text]
  • Printmgr File
    Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement To be held August 7, 2015 Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement It is my pleasure to invite you to attend our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders on Friday, August 7, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. Pacific time. We are very pleased that this year’s annual meeting will again be a completely virtual meeting of stockholders, which will be conducted solely via live webcast. We are proud to be nominating a new director, Julius Genachowski, for election to our board. You will be able to attend the 2015 Annual Meeting online, vote your shares electronically, and submit your questions during the meeting by visiting: www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/SprintCorp15. The purpose of the annual meeting is to consider and take action on the following: 1. Election of the nine directors named in the proxy statement; 2. Ratification of the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm; 3. Advisory approval of the Company’s named executive officer compensation; 4. Approval of the Company’s 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan; and 5. Any other business that properly comes before the meeting as well as any adjournment or postponement of the meeting. We are taking advantage of Securities and Exchange Commission rules that allow us to furnish proxy materials to you via the Internet. Unless you have already requested to receive a printed set of proxy materials, you will receive a Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Material, or Notice. The Notice contains instructions on how to access proxy materials and vote your shares via the Internet or, if you prefer, to request a printed set of proxy materials at no additional cost to you.
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon Letterhead
    Kathleen Grillo Senior Vice President Federal Regulatory Affairs March 5, 2014 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 400 West Washington, DC 20005 Phone 202 515-2533 Ex Parte Fax 202 336-7858 [email protected] Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings, WT Docket No. 12-269 Dear Ms. Dortch: Throughout this proceeding, Verizon has urged the Commission to correct the spectrum screen to include the full 194 MHz of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) spectrum. Some parties claim that the long and complicated history of these bands justifies their exclusion from the screen. To address these claims, the attached paper traces the evolution of these spectrum bands from their origins in the 1960s to today and demonstrates that continued exclusion of this spectrum, which is in use today for mobile broadband services, is no longer defensible. This letter is being filed pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission’s rules. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Attachment The Evolution of the 2.5 GHz Band and Its Success for Mobile Broadband Demand a Spectrum Screen Refresh As the Federal Communications Commission considers how to resolve the Mobile Spectrum Holdings proceeding, its threshold responsibility will be to determine which additional spectrum bands to incorporate into the spectrum screen.1 Just last year, the FCC issued a white paper that identified the full 194 MHz of the 2.5 GHz band (2496-2500 MHz) as among the “most commonly deployed mobile broadband spectrum bands” in the United States.2 And yet the FCC continues to exclude from the current spectrum screen more than 70 percent of the 2.5 GHz band, or 138.5 of that 194 MHz.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form
    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ————————————————————— FORM 10-Q ————————————————————— QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014 or TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File number 1-04721 ————————————————————— SPRINT CORPORATION (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) ————————————————————— Delaware 46-1170005 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 6200 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, Kansas 66251 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (855) 848-3280 ————————————————————— Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.
    [Show full text]
  • ELLIS = LAWHORNE John J
    ELLIS = LAWHORNE John J. Pringle, Jr. 803 343 1270 [email protected] July 16, 2012 FILED ELECTRONICALLY The Honorable Jocelyn D. Boyd Clerk SC Public Service Commission P.O. Drawer 11649 Columbia, SC 29211 RE: Assurance Wireless of South Carolina, LLC Annual Report ELS File No. 2231-11716 Dear Jocelyn: Enclosed please find a Telecommunications Company Annual Report for filing on behalf of Assurance Wireless of South Carolina, LLC (“Assurance Wireless”). Assurance Wireless makes this filing at the ORS’ request, even though it is clearly not a “telephone utility” required to file this particular report. S.C. Code Ann. § 58-9-280. Thus, Assurance Wireless makes this filing under protest and specifically to avoid being the subject of a Show Cause proceeding. Assurance Wireless considers Schedule 7 to be commercially sensitive and proprietary business information that should be exempt from public disclosure, and requests that the Commission and the ORS treat this attachment as confidential, pursuant to S.C. Code Regs. 103-804(S)(2) and S.C. Code Ann. § 58-4-55(C). Accordingly, Assurance Wireless has designated this schedule as confidential and is providing same in a sealed envelope per Commission Order No. 2005-226. Assurance Wireless requests that the Commission and ORS maintain the confidentiality of this information, and accordingly not publish or otherwise disseminate Confidential Schedule 7 or the information contained therein to any person in any form. Should the Commission or ORS intend to provide this information to any other person, I would ask that you contact me in advance in order that Assurance Wireless be given the opportunity to seek and maintain the confidential nature of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon Letterhead
    Kathleen Grillo Senior Vice President Federal Regulatory Affairs March 5, 2014 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 400 West Washington, DC 20005 Phone 202 515-2533 Ex Parte Fax 202 336-7858 [email protected] Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings, WT Docket No. 12-269 Dear Ms. Dortch: Throughout this proceeding, Verizon has urged the Commission to correct the spectrum screen to include the full 194 MHz of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) spectrum. Some parties claim that the long and complicated history of these bands justifies their exclusion from the screen. To address these claims, the attached paper traces the evolution of these spectrum bands from their origins in the 1960s to today and demonstrates that continued exclusion of this spectrum, which is in use today for mobile broadband services, is no longer defensible. This letter is being filed pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission’s rules. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Attachment The Evolution of the 2.5 GHz Band and Its Success for Mobile Broadband Demand a Spectrum Screen Refresh As the Federal Communications Commission considers how to resolve the Mobile Spectrum Holdings proceeding, its threshold responsibility will be to determine which additional spectrum bands to incorporate into the spectrum screen.1 Just last year, the FCC issued a white paper that identified the full 194 MHz of the 2.5 GHz band (2496-2500 MHz) as among the “most commonly deployed mobile broadband spectrum bands” in the United States.2 And yet the FCC continues to exclude from the current spectrum screen more than 70 percent of the 2.5 GHz band, or 138.5 of that 194 MHz.
    [Show full text]