U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

68–170 PDF 2011

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 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

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 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

CAROLINE HOLLAND, Democratic Chief Counsel/Staff Director 

DAVID BARLOW, Republican General Counsel 

(III) 

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, Overland 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, Grassley, 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, statement ...................................................................................................................... 167 

Hesse, Daniel R., Chief Executive Officer, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Overland 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 

(1) 

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 millions 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 percent 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 communicate—outpacing wired phones with nearly 300 million subscribers. Cell phones are increasingly the main way millions of consumers 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, aggressive 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. 

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 reducing the number of cell phone companies to three mean to consumers? 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 T-Mobile mean? Will AT&T 

and Verizon gain a stranglehold on the spectrum that competitors 

need? 

The merging companies argue that the proper way to analyze 

this merger is at the local level, where the presence of regional carriers adds to the number of competitors. But we must remember 

that these are mobile phones, which consumers use while traveling. 

In order to provide this service, these regional companies must pay 

‘‘roaming fees’’ to connect their customers to the national phone 

networks owned by their competitors. Does the fact that the small 

regional companies have to pay AT&T and Verizon millions of dollars in roaming fees seriously harm their ability to compete? Further, these regional phone companies often do not have access to 

the newest and most in-demand smartphones that consumers 

want. Can they compete with the national giants without offering 

the most up-to-date phones? 

AT&T also asserts that this deal will enable it to serve many 

rural areas so that it will cover 97 percent of the Nation. But on 

this point, we must ask whether it is necessary for AT&T to merge 

with one of its three main competitors in order to do this? Could 

it achieve this laudable goal by spending some of the $39 billion 

dollars it will spend to acquire T-Mobile to expand its network instead? 

In closing, the same rules of basic economics and common sense 

apply to this industry as in all others: Four competitors are better 

than three. The more competitive providers of cell phone service, 

the lower the price, the better the quality of service, and the more 

innovation that results. We must also keep in mind that the cell 

phone industry is a highly profitable and rapidly growing business. 

So the burden will squarely fall on AT&T and T–Mobile to convince 

us why this merger is desirable, how it will benefit consumers, and 

to put aside our concerns that it may very well harm competition. 

Now I will turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Lee, for his 

opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF UTAH 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the large number 

of witnesses that we have participating in this hearing and the 

complexity of the issues we will be confronting, I will keep my 

opening remarks as brief as possible so that we can have as much 

time as we need for questions. 

3 

The mobile phone market is a critical component of our Nation’s 

economy. According to some recent estimates, it is directly responsible for more than 250,000 jobs. It generates over $150 billion of 

economic activity each year and accounts for nearly $25 billion in 

annual capital investment. 

It is difficult to overstate the increasing importance of mobile devices in the lives of virtually all Americans. Many people rely on 

wireless phones as their principal means of chairman, with more 

than a quarter of the population having become wireless-only 

households. Mobile devices are also increasingly a primary means 

by which individuals access the Internet. Next year, smartphone 

sales are expected to be greater than the combined sales of both 

desktop and laptop computers. 

This explosion in demand for wireless services has led to significant capacity constraints that have affected the entire country. 

Most of us are all too familiar with dropped calls throughout the 

industry and occasionally sluggish data speeds. The strength of 

available wireless networks is vital to individuals, families, schools, 

businesses, public safety organizations, and virtually all aspects of 

modern communications. 

With the current capacity crunch in mind, the Obama administration announced last year in the National Broadband Plan a goal 

to lead the world in mobile innovation with the fastest and most 

extensive wireless networks of any country. 

An important question before our Subcommittee today is whether 

the proposed merger between AT&T and T–Mobile is a positive 

step along the path toward a world-class wireless broadband network throughout the United States. There are a number of reasons 

to believe that the merger could contribute to this goal. In many 

respects, AT&T and T- Mobile are unique in having roughly compatible networks, complementary spectrum holdings, and a wellmatched cell site system of grids. A merger between the two companies may provide significant and immediate efficiencies that will 

enable enhanced service quality, fewer blocked or dropped calls, 

and increasing data speeds. 

Ultimately the entire wireless industry will require additional 

spectrum to address the significant growth in demand for mobile 

broadband services. Until such spectrum is made available, the 

benefits of this proposed merger will enable AT&T to roll out its 

4G LTE network, and AT&T has committed to provide this more 

advanced wireless broadband service to 97 percent of the U.S. population. 

In addition to offering better services and speeds, 4G nationwide 

networks create opportunities for handset innovation and the development of data-rich applications. I favor market approaches 

rather than Government funding and intervention to develop a nationwide mobile broadband network. 

The U.S. wireless marketplace is in many ways less concentrated 

than in other industrialized nations. Some suggest that our National interests would not be served by restricting the American 

marketplace to a larger number of spectrum-starved providers illequipped to build the most advanced wireless networks. 

At the same time, I share some of the concerns expressed by my 

colleague the Chairman, Senator Kohl, and I believe it is our reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

sponsibility, along with the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Communications Commission, to ensure that 

the proposed merger would not produce damaging anticompetitive 

effects. 

The combination of AT&T and T–Mobile would create the largest 

wireless carrier in the Nation with roughly 42 percent of all wireless subscribers in the United States, and it would leave the market with only three rather than four major nationwide carriers that 

account for the vast majority of total subscribers in America. 

A critical question, therefore, is whether the smaller regional carriers can effectively compete in a post-merger market, helping to 

discipline prices, preserve consumer choice, and promote innovation. Two potential roadblocks to robust competition deserve special 

attention. 

First, regional carriers with limited spectrum holdings must rely 

on the large national carriers for data roaming access outside their 

own local areas. Although a recent FCC order mandates that major 

carriers offer commercially reasonable data roaming agreements, 

the terms and conditions of these agreements will largely determine whether smaller carriers can become a true competitive force 

in a nationwide market. 

Second, regional providers are often at a competitive disadvantage in gaining access to the most popular and desirable handsets 

in the system. National providers with large volume and advertising budgets are better positioned to negotiate exclusive contracts 

for cutting-edge devices like the iPhone and lower prices for other 

handsets purchased in bulk. 

In seeking to address these and other issues relating to the competitive position of smaller regional carriers, we would do well to 

remember the insight made famous by Robert Bork’s seminal work, 

‘‘The Antitrust Paradox’’: Competition must be understood as maximization of consumer welfare. 

Our analysis of the proposed merger between AT&T and T–Mobile should be guided by what will be best for consumers in the 

form of prices, service quality, and ultimately range of choice. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Lee. 

We turn now to the Chairman of our Committee, Senator Leahy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Chairman Kohl and Senator Lee. 

I thank you both for holding this hearing, and I will ask consent 

that a number of my questions be submitted for the record. 

Chairman KOHL. Without objection. 

Chairman Leahy. We are also doing a hearing in the Appropriations Committee with our military, a matter of some interest these 

days, and I have to be there. But when we talk about the competitive impact of AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T–Mobile, it would 

combine the Nation’s second and fourth largest providers of wireless communications. It goes without saying it will have a lasting 

impact on the wireless industry. At present, four companies control 

nearly 90 percent of the national wireless market, and this acquisiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

tion would further consolidate an already concentrated market for 

wireless communication. 

I am particularly concerned about what this acquisition may 

mean in rural parts of the country or a State like mine, Vermont, 

that is primarily rural. Too many parts of my State still have no 

wireless service. I live 5 miles from our State capital on a dirt road 

in a town adjoining Montpelier. It was only very recently I was 

even able to get a modest form of high-speed Internet. The two 

communities on either side of me, Montpelier and Waterbury, each 

had it. Our town did not. But we are typical of so many other 

places. 

AT&T began providing service in Vermont just a few years ago, 

after the Department of Justice required Verizon to sell spectrum 

it was to acquire as part of another merger. The Department’s 

scrutiny of that merger led to Vermonters having access to the 

iPhone for the first time. Now, if we are going to have acquisitions 

in this industry, they should provide similar consumer benefits. 

Today wireless carriers contend that a shortage in available spectrum limits their ability to both improve and expand wireless services. I have been told that in Vermont—I will use that as an another example. In Vermont, experts tell me both AT&T and T–Mobile have large blocks of unused spectrum in rural areas, and that 

leads Vermonters with more dropped calls and fewer cellular options in places where emergency responders have no way of communicating. 

Still, both AT&T and T–Mobile argue that their combined spectrum will enable them to provide a greater number of consumers 

with more advanced wireless technology than either could independently. AT&T represented to me that within 2 years this acquisition will result in 250,000 more Vermonters having access to its 

4G service than would otherwise be serviced by either company on 

its own. That is more than a third of the population of our State. 

Knowing how slowly things have moved in the past, I hope you will 

forgive me if I am a bit skeptical, and my questions that I will have 

on this issue, I would urge AT&T and others to respond in writing. 

I look forward to hearing more details on the basis for that representation. I want assurances that if this merger goes through, 

AT&T is going to follow through on that kind of buildout. 

Most Vermont cellular customers have never considered T–Mobile as a viable option since they have little, if any, retail presence 

in my home State. But at the same time, T- Mobile owns a great 

deal of wireless spectrum across the Green Mountains—spectrum 

that until the announcement of this acquisition was being built out 

by T–Mobile in an effort to grow its footprint in Vermont. As I said, 

AT&T also holds a great deal of wireless spectrum in Vermont. 

This is all spectrum that is not being used, I might say. While I 

have been impressed with their aggressive buildout to date—I will 

give them a compliment for that—I worry that many of the very 

rural areas of our State will continue to be left behind with or 

without this acquisition. 

This is extremely important because if we are going to create 

jobs in many parts of our State, one of the first things we hear 

from companies that want to go in there is what kind of wireless 

do we have here. 

6 

Now, there is no doubt that AT&T and T–Mobile are at the forefront of innovation in the wireless market. Each company has a 

history of developing new and creative and amazing ways to enable 

consumers to communicate wirelessly, and I do applaud their work. 

But it is this history of innovation that highlights the importance 

of the antitrust laws. Consumers ultimately benefit through more 

choices of better products at lower prices. That is why I am concerned about jobs, not just in Vermont but throughout our country. 

I expect the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission to conduct an exhaustive and careful analysis of 

this acquisition and its impact on competition, and certainly the 

Judiciary Committee will push them to do that. But specifically the 

analysis should include the impact the proposed transaction will 

have on consumer prices and choices for cell phone and wireless 

data plans and whether the acquisition will stifle or promote innovation. I expect that the Justice Department is wary of creating a 

market where additional companies need to merge in order to survive. 

So, again, I thank, Mr. Chairman and Senator Lee, both of you, 

for holding this hearing. I think it is extremely important. 

[The questions of Chairman Leahy appear under questions and 

answers.] 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

Now we turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. Clearly this is a very important matter that is 

going to get more attention as time goes on. I appreciate arguments 

that I have read in support and arguments that oppose the merger. 

There is still much to learn, but I think in grassroots America that 

people are beginning to take notice of this because in three of my 

33 town meetings that I had during the spring recess, this issue 

came up. People asked me what I thought of it. It was just announced at that particular time, so obviously, uncharacteristic of 

me, I have an answer to most of my constituents’ questions, but I 

did not have an answer to that one. And I asked each of the people 

that asked that question whether they were for it or against it, and 

none of them ventured a guess of whether they were for it or 

against it. So I did not learn from them either. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. But, anyway, this is something that particularly in rural America I think is going to get attention. So I look 

forward to the testimony we will receive today on the proposed 

merger. 

I hope that witnesses can explain the impact of a combined 

AT&T/T–Mobile will have on consumers through prices, competition, and access. And as you all know, there are many rural areas 

of the United States that are concerned about service, and particularly in my State of Iowa. So I want to hear how the proposed 

merger will help residents in my State gain access to faster and 

more dependable services, and I will have some questions along 

those lines. I would also have questions along the lines of whether 

7 

it will increase rates and whether it will help spur more consumer 

choice. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to be back and forth between this 

Committee and the Finance Committee because we have a hearing 

right now on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, but I would 

like to come back and answer questions and not lose my turn, if 

I could. 

Thank you very much for your attention on this. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. 

We would now like to introduce our panel of witnesses. Our first 

witness to testify today will be Randall Stephenson. Mr. Stephenson is the chairman of the board, president, and CEO of AT&T. 

Next we will be hearing from Philipp Humm. Mr. Humm has 

been the president and CEO of T–Mobile since 2010 and has also 

served as chief regional officer and a member of the executive Committee of T–Mobile International. 

Next we will be hearing from Daniel Hesse. Mr. Hesse is the 

CEO and president of Sprint Nextel Corporation. He is also chairman of CTIA, the wireless association. 

Our fourth witness today will be Hu Meena. Mr. Meena serves 

as president and CEO of Cellular South and was recently elected 

chairman of the board with the Rural Cellular Association. 

Next we will be hearing from Gigi Sohn. Ms. Sohn is president 

and co-founder of Public Knowledge, a public interest organization 

dedicated to promoting innovation and protecting consumers in the 

digital age. 

Finally, we will be hearing from Larry Cohen. Mr. Cohen has 

served as president of Communications Workers of America since 

2005. 

We thank you all for appearing at our Subcommittee hearing to 

testify today, and we ask our witnesses to rise and raise their right 

hand as I administer the oath. Do you all affirm that the testimony 

you are about to give before this Committee is the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I do. 

Mr. HUMM. I do. 

Mr. HESSE. I do. 

Mr. MEENA. I do. 

Ms. SOHN. I do. 

Mr. COHEN. I do. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stephenson, we will begin with you, and we ask that the 

panelists limit their comments to 5 minutes. Mr. Stephenson? 

STATEMENT OF RANDALL L. STEPHENSON, CHAIRMAN, CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND PRESIDENT, AT&T INC., DALLAS, 

TEXAS 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Lee and members of the Subcommittee. I am Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T, and I do appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about the consumer benefits of AT&T’s acquisition of T–Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom. 

First and foremost, this transaction is about consumers. It is 

about keeping up with consumer demand specifically. It is about 

8 

having the capacity to drive innovation and competitive prices. And 

most important, it is about giving consumers what they expect, and 

that is, fewer dropped calls, faster speeds, and access to highspeed, fourth-generation mobile Internet service—whether they live 

in a large city, a small town, or out in the country. 

Over a short period of time—in fact, just the last 4 years—we 

have seen a major revolution in wireless. Smartphones and mobile 

apps have exploded, mobile Internet usage has soared, and innovation has cycled at an amazing pace. Consumers and the economy 

have benefited, and our network, more than any other, has carried 

the load. 

Over the past 4 years, data volumes on our mobile network shot 

up by 8000 percent. 

To meet this demand, over this same 4-year period AT&T invested more in the United States than any other public company— 

some $75 billion in capital—and we continue to invest at a very aggressive pace, and that is because the next wave of demand is already on us, and it is on us in the form of tablets and service like 

mobile high-definition video. 

In 2015—and that is just 4 years from now—by the middle of 

February in 2015, we estimate our network will have already carried as much mobile data traffic as we carried for the entire year 

in 2010. That is 8 to 10 times higher than where we are today. 

That is an indication as to how fast the mobile Internet is now 

growing. 

Just about the only thing that we know of that can slow this 

cycle of innovation and growth is a lack of capacity to meet that 

demand. That is why there is such a focus right now on spectrum, 

and I do applaud the FCC and we applaud Congress for their leadership on this particular issue. 

As FCC Chairman Genachowski has said, and I would like to 

quote him, ‘‘[i]f we do nothing in the face of the looming spectrum 

crunch, many consumers will face higher prices—as the market is 

forced to respond to supply and demand—and frustrating service.’’ 

I do not think any of us wants those things. But the fact is that 

even with everybody’s focus and efforts, it will be several years before significant amounts of new spectrum are placed into service, 

and that is just the reality we face. 

So to meet growing consumer demand, we have to find ways to 

get more capacity from the existing spectrum, and that is exactly 

what this combination will do. Our two companies have very complementary assets, which means that combining them will create 

much more network capacity than if we were operating them separately. More capacity means improved service, fewer dropped calls, 

fewer blocked calls, and a faster, more reliable mobile Internet experience. And it is a very basic concept that in any industry greater 

capacity is a fundamental driver of competition and innovation. 

The U.S. wireless marketplace is among the most competitive in 

the world, and it will remain so after this transaction. 

Over the past decade, U.S. wireless prices have steadily and dramatically come down, and this transaction allows that trend to continue. 

With this transaction, we are also committed to providing LTE 

mobile Internet service to more than 97 percent of the U.S. popuVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9 

lation. That is nearly 55 million more Americans than our premerger plans, and it is millions more than any other provider has 

committed to at this point. 

We all understand the benefits this will bring to small towns and 

rural communities in areas like education, health care, and just 

general development. We will deliver these benefits with the only 

unionized wireless workforce of any major carrier in America, and 

current T–Mobile customers will be able to retain their existing 

rate plans, and they will gain access to LTE service, which is something T–Mobile had no clear path to offer to their customers. 

So that is a quick overview of this transaction’s logic and benefits 

and some of the reasons this transaction has won strong support 

from union, consumer, minority, and local representatives, as well 

as several industry experts. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson. 

Mr. Humm. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIPP HUMM, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T–MOBILE USA, INC., BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 

Mr. HUMM. Yes, thank you, Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member 

Lee, and members of the Subcommittee. Good morning. I am 

Philipp Humm, CEO of T–Mobile USA. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of T–Mobile USA. 

Coming from Deutsche Telekom in Europe, I joined T–Mobile 

USA in July 2010 and became CEO in November 2010. T–Mobile 

was facing revenue declines for 2 consecutive years due mainly to 

a weakened brand position. The management of T–Mobile has in 

the meantime implemented a new strategy that is aimed at leading 

the company back to growth. Results so far are still mixed: While 

revenues have stabilized, subscriber losses remain our No. 1 concern. 

Returning the business to growth, however, will not be sufficient 

to secure T–Mobile’s strategic future. As data usage continues to 

explode, spectrum is becoming a constraint to our business, with 

T–Mobile facing spectrum exhaust over the next couple of years in 

a number of significant markets. Moreover, our spectrum holdings 

will not allow us to launch LTE. T–Mobile also lacks the low band 

spectrum that would enable it to offer nationwide deep in-house or 

deep in-building coverage, particularly to reach homes in suburbs 

and in rural areas. In addition to these unresolved strategic issues, 

T–Mobile’s parent, Deutsche Telekom, is not in a position to finance the necessary large-scale investments in the U.S. for T–Mobile to really remain competitive. The combination with AT&T allows T–Mobile to address these challenges as well as to realize 

near-term benefits for its customers. The combination brings together two uniquely compatible companies, achieving extensive 

synergies, while greatly benefiting the American economy, consumers, and particularly T–Mobile customers. We have identified 

at least four major benefits for T–Mobile customers: 

10 

First, T–Mobile customers will enjoy improvements in their coverage through access to AT&T’s low-band 850 MHz spectrum. With 

the acquisition by AT&T, T–Mobile will be able to offer to nearly 

all its customers full access to 850 MHz AT&T spectrum, which 

will significantly improve deep in-building coverage to its customers. As T–Mobile already uses chipsets supporting 850 MHz, 

customers will be able to take advantage of these improvements 

shortly after the transaction closes. 

Second, the transaction will result in near-term network quality 

improvements for T–Mobile customers. As a result of AT&T’s and 

T–Mobile’s use of compatible GSM-based technologies and the companies’ complementary cell site grids, the combined company will 

be able to quickly merge their networks and pool spectrum. Significant operating efficiencies will be achieved through channel pooling, control channel efficiencies, and cell splits. For T–Mobile customers, this will mean better coverage, fewer dropped and blocked 

calls, and faster and more consistent data downloads, particularly 

at peak times and in high-demand locations. 

Third, the transaction will also give the combined company the 

resources and spectrum it needs to broadly deploy next generation 

LTE service. T–Mobile does not have sufficient spectrum to roll out 

a competitive LTE network while also continuing to support its existing GSM and HSPA+ networks. So by combining the spectrum 

of both companies, the entity will be able to support LTE and the 

two legacy technologies, GSM and HSPA+. It will allow LTE to 

reach more than 97 percent of the U.S. population, as stated by 

AT&T, which is something T–Mobile would not have been able to 

do on its own. 

Fourth, the transaction will allow the combined company to increase capacity and to significantly reduce costs, which will drive 

prices down and enhance opportunities for innovation, making the 

U.S. an even more dynamic and competitive market. The U.S. wireless marketplace is very competitive. Approximately three-quarters 

of Americans today live in areas contested by at least five facilitiesbased wireless providers. Competition has been particularly fierce 

for value-driven customers, which are the core of T–Mobile’s customer base. This highly competitive marketplace will ensure that 

consumers across the board benefit from the enormous cost savings 

and capacity increases that AT&T estimates from the transaction. 

We expect increased competition and lower prices for all consumers. By contrast, without the deal, a spectrally constrained 

AT&T and a spectrally and capital-constrained T–Mobile would be 

able to provide much less vigorous competition separately than 

would the more efficient, combined company. 

To conclude, I am confident that T–Mobile customers will experience significant and tangible benefits from the proposed combination with AT&T, both immediately and longer term. The transaction will provide our combined customers and the American public improved GSM, UMTS, and LTE services faster than either 

company could provide on its own. And the competition that has 

characterized this industry will continue and be even stronger post 

transaction. 

Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions you might 

have. 

11 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Humm appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Humm. 

Mr. Hesse. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. HESSE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, OVERLAND PARK, 

KANSAS 

Mr. HESSE. Good morning, Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member 

Lee, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Dan Hesse, the CEO 

of Sprint Nextel. Thank you for the opportunity to address the potential negative consequences that AT&T’s proposed takeover of T– 

Mobile could have on American consumers, innovation, and the 

economy. 

I would like to use my time to focus on how a vertically integrated duopoly would impact the wireless industry. I am not here 

to ask for a special break or conditions. I am here because, like all 

Americans, Sprint has a stake in the impact this acquisition would 

have on an industry that has prospered on competition and innovation, the very elements this transaction threatens. 

Sprint was born out of competition. We operate in an open, competitive environment where innovation thrives and technological 

advances and devices and services expand rapidly. An open, competitive environment benefits my company, but also every person 

who owns a wireless device. 

The competitive environment has driven tremendous growth. It 

took a hundred years to build a billion fixed phone lines, but only 

20 years to add 5 billion mobile subscribers. 

At the end of 2010, there were over 302 million wireless subscriptions in the United States representing about 96 percent of the 

U.S. population. Robust competition is driving prices down and 

quality up, so much so that as of June 30, 2010, one-quarter of all 

adults lived in wireless-only homes. 

The impact of wireless competition on our economy has been profoundly positive. In 2010, the wireless industry accounted for nearly $160 billion in revenue and approximately $25 billion in capital 

investment and employed, directly or indirectly, about 3.6 million 

Americans. If the industry remains competitive, productivity gains 

over the next 10 years will amount to almost $860 billion in additional GDP. 

Creating an entrenched, integrated duopoly will reverse this 

progress and stifle the vibrancy of the wireless industry. In the 

mid-1990s, Congress and the FCC opened the original wireless duopoly to competition, and the firms that became Sprint and became 

T–Mobile entered, and competition then began to make a noticeable difference. 

AT&T’s acquisition of T–Mobile will turn back the clock on wireless competition. It would, as the title of this hearing suggests, put 

Ma Bell back together again. 

Let us examine what the Twin Bells would control in a 

duopolistic, post acquisition world. Two companies would control 

over 80 percent of the U.S. contract customers and 88 percent of 

all wireless industry profits. Two companies would control most of 

our Nation’s vast wireline infrastructure and the critical last mile 

12 

that Sprint and the rest of the industry need to provide affordable 

rates and quality service. With control of nearly 80 percent of the 

market, the Twin Bells could discourage device manufacturers from 

partnering with anyone else for the next generation of smartphones 

and tablets. 

Two companies would largely control industry pricing. By controlling about 80 percent of the market, the Twin Bells would have 

significant unchecked leverage to increase prices for voice and data. 

Today Sprint and T–Mobile apply downward pressure to pricing, 

but with this deal, that pressure will diminish. The regional providers AT&T refers to as competition have less than 5 percent of 

the total postpaid subscribers and cannot discipline prices. But beyond what the Bells would control, this acquisition actually does 

very little to provide the benefits AT&T claims. 

Consider: Even without this transaction, AT&T has the largest 

licensed spectrum holdings of any wireless carrier in this country. 

But rather than building out its spectrum, AT&T is warehousing 

it. Verizon, which has more subscribers and less spectrum than 

AT&T, just weeks ago stated that it had sufficient spectrum to 

meet its needs until 2015. 

T–Mobile, by contrast, is using its spectrum heavily in the same 

high-demand areas in which AT&T claims to need capacity. AT&T 

does not use the spectrum it has, and adding T–Mobile spectrum 

would not give AT&T the relief it claims to need. 

AT&T already has the spectrum, reach, and resources it needs 

to serve rural America. Adding T–Mobile extends AT&T’s reach to 

only 1 percent more of the U.S. population. 

The wireless industry thrives on competition, which in turn 

drives investment, innovation, consumer choice, job creation, and 

U.S. global leadership in communications. If AT&T is permitted to 

devour one of the two remaining independent national wireless carriers while the rest of the world achieves advances in technology 

and innovation for the 21st century, the United States could go 

backwards to our last century’s Ma Bell. 

I respect Randall and Philipp. They are doing their jobs, maximizing value for their shareholders. Unfortunately, there are only 

three beneficiaries of the proposed transaction: the shareholders of 

AT&T, Verizon, and the sole shareholder of T–Mobile USA, Deutsche Telekom. 

The fundamental problems of a duopoly cannot be fixed through 

divestitures or conditions. In short, this merger is unfixable. The 

only remedy that can preserve competition is a vibrant wireless 

market, and we ask you to just say no to this takeover. 

Thank you for holding this hearing today. We urge the Department of Justice and the FCC to say no to the irreparable harm to 

competition, innovation, and the U.S. economy that could result 

from this merger. 

I thank you for your time and am prepared to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hesse appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Hesse. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Meena. 

13 

STATEMENT OF VICTOR H. ‘‘HU’’ MEENA, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CELLULAR SOUTH, INC., 

RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. MEENA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Lee. Thank you for inviting me to be here today. 

I have been in this industry for over 23 years and, with a lot of 

help, have literally built our company from the ground up. The 

U.S. wireless industry is at a pivotal point, and policymakers will 

determine the fate of the industry with their decision on whether 

to approve AT&T’s acquisition of T–Mobile. 

Over the past several weeks, we have carefully reviewed this proposed takeover. We can find nothing good about it. It is bad for 

consumers, it is bad for jobs, it is bad for competition. If regulators 

approve this acquisition, all that remains is the end game, where 

the remaining non-Bell carriers patiently wait their turn to be acquired or bled dry by the biggest two carriers. 

When I began in this business in the late 1980s, there was a 

local duopoly in every market. There are only two cellular licensees, which meant that consumers had just two choices for wireless 

service. This also meant that carriers virtually had no market incentive to innovate or improve service offerings. Therefore, this era 

is remembered as one of large brick phones and even larger customer bills. In a duopoly, the market can quickly reach equilibrium, and if both providers are reasonably happy with their position, that is how things will stay. 

But by the end of the late 1990s, as Dan referred to earlier, the 

U.S. wireless industry began to awaken when a new group of competitive carriers entered this market with PCS networks and 

launched what we refer to as ‘‘the competitive era.’’ Because competition was important to Congress at that time, the FCC auctioned PCS licenses to new entrants, who built networks, attracted 

customers, and just generally disrupted established markets. Suddenly, local duopolists were forced to respond to competitors with 

lower prices for service and phones, new coverage areas, better customer service, and more innovative offerings. 

In order to acquire and retain customers, Cellular South had to 

get creative. We did several things that were groundbreaking at 

the time, such as free nights and weekends, free incoming calls, 

and then after that, unlimited calling. We had not done these 

things before because, quite frankly, we did not have to in the era 

of local duopolies. In this competitive era, it was hard work to stay 

ahead of competition, but those that worked the hardest and were 

the most innovative were the ones that were rewarded. 

Unfortunately, all that started to change in the middle of the last 

decade. It was around that time that we began to see Humpty 

Dumpty being pieced together again. Through unfettered mergers 

and acquisitions, it was only a matter of time before the former Ma 

Bell reconstituted herself into two Bell sisters of the wireless industry—AT&T and Verizon. Not surprisingly, the concentration of 

market power has led to less choice for consumers and routine 

abuse of market power in an effort to prevent competition at every 

turn. 

AT&T specifically has done just that via exclusive deals on 

handsets that Chairman Kohl referred to earlier, and also they 

14 

have done it by withholding roaming agreements and by leveraging 

its control over device and infrastructure vendors to Balkanize new 

spectrum. This is only possible because regulators were asleep at 

the wheel for much of the last decade. 

So now we are at a decision point. As everyone in the industry 

analyzes every aspect of this acquisition, policymakers have this 

question before them: Are we entering the era of a nationwide duopoly? Or are we going to provide a landscape in which a second 

competitive era might blossom? 

There is no third option. Either AT&T will be allowed to acquire 

T–Mobile, paving the way for Verizon to possibly acquire Sprint, 

cementing a national wireless duopoly in place, or it will not. If 

this acquisition is approved, policymakers must begin preparations 

to regulate every aspect of the day-to-day business of the 

duopolists. 

In a nutshell, that is why this acquisition must be denied and 

why it is in consumers’ best interests to chart a new course toward 

a new competitive era of wireless. The fate of this acquisition determines the course of our industry. It is as simple and as critical as 

that. 

But, in closing, the very good news is that this takeover can be 

stopped, and you can lay the foundation for a new era of wireless 

competition, an era where jobs are created throughout the land, a 

truly competitive era when a wide variety of creative minds are 

stimulated to deliver affordable broadband wireless networks, highquality, high-speed networks, with the ubiquity the people of our 

Nation deserve and demand. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meena appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Meena. 

Ms. Sohn. 

STATEMENT OF GIGI B. SOHN, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC 

KNOWLEDGE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. SOHN. Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Lee, members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you. I would like to set the tone for my remarks with a brief video. 

[Videotape played.] 

[GIRL] Hi, I’m T–Mobile myTouch 4G. 

[GUY] And I’m an iPhone 4. 

[GIRL] Who’s your friend? 

[GUY] Oh, its the old AT&T network. 

[GIRL] That will slow you down. 

[GUY] That’s the price I pay for 3G speed. 

[GIRL] Bummer, 4G with T–Mobile lets me video chat practically 

anywhere. 

[MAN] Well, iPhone 4 can face time video chat from anywhere 

where there’s WI–FI, like say an airport. 

[GUY] You know, you suddenly feel heavier! 

[GIRL] The new T–Mobile myTouch 4G: video chat without needing WI–FI on America’s largest 4G network, T–Mobile. 

[Videotape over.] 

15 

Ms. SOHN. That commercial illustrates the situation we have 

today: a vibrant national market in which four companies feel free 

to sell consumers high-tech services while making fun of their competitors. However, if the merger of AT&T and T–Mobile comes to 

pass, the wireless market will be transformed into something quite 

different. We will go back to the days when this phone was in use. 

Only two companies ruled the cellular phone market, resulting in 

high prices for consumers and little innovation. 

In 1993, a year after this phone came to market, Congress created the wireless market we now enjoy by empowering the FCC to 

auction spectrum and create more competition. That policy worked. 

Prices dropped, innovation exploded, consumers benefited. Over the 

years, industry consolidation has gradually eroded that competition, but if this deal goes through, that era of competition and innovation will come to an end. 

Consumers know this already. Almost 5,000 individuals have 

written to the FCC in their own words to object to the combination 

of the No. 2 and No. 4 wireless carriers. T–Mobile customers are 

irate. A poll on tmonews, a blog for T–Mobile customers, shows 

that 77 percent, or about 7,300 consumers, are opposed to the deal 

after just a couple of days. After the deal was announced, people 

e-mailed and called Public Knowledge, unsolicited, asking what 

they can do to stop the transaction from going forward. More than 

1,000 people have signed our petition. These are not astroturf campaigns. These are real Americans seeking to preserve competition 

in a lower-priced competitor that rates far higher than AT&T in 

customer satisfaction. 

If this merger is approved, two vertically integrated companies 

will control nearly 80 percent of the market. Sprint will have just 

16 percent and will instantly become a takeover target. We should 

not go back to the future, back to duopoly. Worse than duopoly is 

monopoly, which is what would happen to GSM-based wireless 

services in the U.S. post merger. GSM handset manufacturers 

would be forced to negotiate with one national company—the new 

AT&T and T. 

Applications developers would also be subject to a limited noncompetitive market. Remember that while T–Mobile was the first 

carrier to sell devices using the open Android operating system, 

AT&T has a history of blocking innovative applications. 

I cannot stress enough that each of the supposed benefits of this 

merger can be accomplished without removing a low-cost innovative competitor. If AT&T is concerned about its spectrum capacity, 

it can stop operating three different types of networks, an inefficient system which, according to one analyst, results in 70 to 90 

percent of its spectrum being underused. Completely unused is onethird of its spectrum in the top 21 markets. Allowing AT&T to buy 

T–Mobile for the purpose of improving its inefficient networks and 

upgrading to 4G services would reward AT&T for failing to invest 

adequately. 

If AT&T wants to bring service to rural areas, it is free to do so, 

and they could do so now without any constraint. There are no 

spectrum shortages in rural America. AT&T is planning to spend 

$39 billion on this merger, money that could instead be spent inVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
16 

vesting in its network and bringing better service to more Americans. 

If AT&T wants to create jobs, it can do so without buying out a 

low-cost competitor. One would be hard pressed to find a merger 

that resulted in job growth, and this one will be no different as 

thousands of workers in retail stores, call centers, and sales staffs 

will be let go. 

This transaction is a pivotal moment in U.S. antitrust law. If 

that law means anything, this classic merger of one company buying out a smaller competitor in the same business must be denied. 

There are no conditions or divestitures that can make this deal acceptable. This merger is unfixable. 

I urge the members of the Subcommittee to oppose this merger 

after reviewing the facts. Thank you, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sohn appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you very much, Ms. Sohn. 

Mr. Cohen. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY COHEN, PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. COHEN. Good morning, Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member 

Lee and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Larry Cohen, President of the Communications Workers of America, representing 

hundreds of thousands of workers in both the network and content 

sides of this industry. 

We look forward to this review by the Congress, the FCC, and 

the Department of Justice, but at the end of these inquiries, we believe there are three key points: first, this merger represents an opportunity for this country to accelerate high-speed broadband deployment; second, the transaction, with conditions, can positively 

impact consumers; and, third, with the right conditions, it will increase jobs, both directly in the surviving company and in the economic development that the broadband expansion can bring to 

rural America. 

Four years ago, CWA launched our Speed Matters campaign to 

highlight the importance of high-speed broadband for our nation’s 

future. High-speed Internet is essential to economic competitiveness, job creation, and the quality of our lives. Telemedicine, distance learning, and smart grids have enormous potential, but they 

will remain beyond the grasp of tens of millions of Americans unless we are able to accelerate the development of true high-speed 

wired and wireless broadband networks. The U.S. now has fallen 

behind 25 other countries, including Romania, in the capacity of 

our broadband networks. The President highlighted this in the 

State of the Union, but we have no path whatsoever to closing this 

gap. 

Our view is that this merger, with conditions and with the commitments made by T–Mobile and AT&T, is a critical way to bridge 

the broadband gap that exists between the U.S. and the rest of the 

industrialized world. This is critical for rural America and critical 

for economic development. 

17 

As you have heard, AT&T commits to deploying next-generation 

wireless, which is 4G, which delivers speeds of 10 megabits per second downstream. These commitments would need to be included in 

merger approval conditions, that the 4G wireless network would be 

deployed to 97 percent of the people within the next 5 years. This 

is noteworthy because today only 25 percent of U.S. broadband subscribers connect to the Internet at this speed. Internet connectivity 

is about data speed. We saw that even today with Microsoft’s announcement to spend $8.5 billion to buy Skype. We would like to 

compartmentalize this industry. That is not the way consumers 

view it. There is data over cable, data over wireless, data over 

wireline, WiMax at Sprint is a major investor in clearwire. 

The effects of this merger are especially significant for rural 

Americans, most of whom are on the wrong side of the digital divide. We need maps, we need timetables, we need investment, we 

need speeds. Those can all be conditions of this merger. 

The real question this transaction poses is not whether T–Mobile 

will survive as an independent competitor. As Mr. Humm said, T– 

Mobile cannot be forced to make the investments to build a 4G network. 4G is the global standard, and the untold story here really 

is whether Sprint or AT&T acquires T–Mobile. And with all due respect to my colleague and friend Mr. Hesse, this is an open-andshut case. AT&T will commit, and conditions can be applied on the 

merger, that absolutely provide when investment will be made, 

what the speeds will be, what pricing will be within ranges, et 

cetera. That is an opportunity this country cannot afford to miss. 

We are falling woefully behind in the global economy, partially because of these infrastructure needs. 

AT&T has the financial resources to deploy 4G. Sprint does not. 

Sprint uses three different incompatible technologies, including the 

Clearwire WiMax investment, and they have not yet integrated 

their Nextel network. In this case, as you have heard, AT&T and 

T–Mobile have similar and compatible technologies, both GSM. 

Sprint does not. They have three other technologies. 

Finally, this merger is good for U.S. workers. Our experience in 

the mergers that formed AT&T Mobility is that workers have not 

lost their jobs in a single case. We believe that conditions can be 

applied to this merger, and the FCC did it in the AT&T BellSouth 

merger in which not only was there no loss of employment, there 

was renewed investment, and renewed commitment to the rural 

South in the BellSouth case. It was good for workers. It was good 

for those communities. We think similar conditions need to exist in 

this merger when it is, in fact, approved. 

In the long term, the expansion of AT&T’s 4G LTE network 

holds the potential to create thousands of new jobs both in this industry and in the rural communities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

We will now start rounds of questions at 7 minutes per Senator. 

Mr. Stephenson, one of the major concerns arising, of course, out 

of this merger is what it will mean for prices that consumers pay 

for service. You seek to acquire one of three national cell phone 

18 

competitors, reducing consumers’ choice from four to three. In addition, T–Mobile has been a price leader, in many cases undercutting 

prices offered by your company, Verizon, and Sprint. For example, 

T–Mobile right now offers an unlimited voice, text, and data plan 

for $35 less than the comparable plan of your company. 

So why is it not logical to assume that the loss of T–Mobile from 

the national cell phone market will cause competition to erode and 

prices to increase? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I will restate just briefly what I said in my 

opening comments, and that is, this is unequivocally one of the 

most competitive industries in the U.S. today, and in terms of wireless industries around the globe, probably the most competitive 

around the globe. And one of the best ways to evaluate that is obviously looking at pricing, to your question. And if you look at just 

the last 10 years in this industry, there has been a number of consolidations. Dan’s company has participated in some. 

Irrespective of that, over this 10-year time horizon, voice pricing 

in this industry has come down by 50 percent. And if you just take 

a snapshot of the last 4 years, which were in the area of mobile 

broadband, so it is all about mobile data now, just in the last 4 

years since we launched the iPhone, the pricing for a megabite of 

data on our network has come down by 90 percent. What is driving 

that? It is competition. If you look at the options for the customer 

today, regardless of what market you are in, 74 percent of the customers in the United States, when they go to shop for wireless, 

have an option of five or more wireless facility-based providers. 

So this is a vibrant, active market for competition. If T–Mobile 

and AT&T combine, I do not see—history would suggest that that 

does not change the trajectory of pricing in this industry. In fact, 

we are at a situation now, AT&T specifically, where we are capacity constrained. T–Mobile I know is as well. We have markets 

where we are within literally 1 to 2 years of failing to have sufficient capacity to continue growing our 3G networks. There is only 

one by-product of that, and that is a pricing or rationing by-product. 

Putting these two companies together unequivocally creates new 

capacity, and we can go into the details of that. But putting the 

two companies together, freeing up spectrum, allows us to continue 

to grow capacity. Capacity is the basis for moving prices down in 

this industry. 

So my expectation is that putting the two companies together 

creates capacity. Prices continue to move down through the competitive environment. 

Chairman KOHL. Mr. Hesse, in your testimony you said, ‘‘Going 

forward, if this happens, it would be difficult for any company to 

effectively challenge the Twin Bell duopoly even if the duopolists 

reduce quality, raise prices charged the content sellers for access 

to consumers or raise prices to customers...’’ So if this happens, 

what is going to—what I take your comments to mean is that you 

have real concern about your ability to maintain yourself as a national competitor in the market with your 17 percent of the share 

versus the 80 percent that the other two companies would comprise, and that, in fact, who knows what will happen to your comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 068170 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\68170.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
19 

pany in terms of its necessity to maintain itself, even perhaps 

someday selling out to one of the two majors. Is this conceivable? 

Mr. HESSE. It is conceivable, yes, Senator. 

Chairman KOHL. All right. 

Mr. HESSE. It clearly would make our position more challenging 

competitively. If you put 80 percent of the revenues in the hands 

of two companies, I believe they would have pricing power. Given 

that handsets are purchased, as was mentioned earlier, nationally 

and in bulk, it would give them tremendous scale advantages. They 

would become, if you will, a gatekeeper for new applications and 

OS’s, so they would, if you will, build it for one of the two Bells, 

and they would always get it first. But because of their size and 

scale in terms of innovation, that would make it more difficult. 

But what this hearing has not discussed and what has not been 

discussed enough is perhaps outside of the wireless industry, and 

that is the vertical integration of the two, and that is the control 

over the last mile. That is a huge piece of our cost structure and 

the cost structure of all wireless carriers. 

As was mentioned, I am the Chairman of the CTIA, and one of 

the issues the wireless industry has had is special access. What we 

pay—roughly, if you will, 30 percent of the cost of putting in a new 

cell site goes back to a local landline carrier in the form of payments for special access, and those rates are very, very high. I believe there is a fundamental conflict of interest between—and we 

see this at the CTIA as AT&T and Verizon are able to, if you will, 

block wireless industry initiatives to get the CTIA as a wireless industry to oppose and get its weight behind reducing special access 

because of, if you will, the Verizon and AT&T people who are not 

in the rooms, if you will, the landline piece. And as prices come 

down for special access to us, we could make wireless service less 

costly. As wireless service becomes less costly for consumers, it accelerates cord-cutting of the local landline. So the two Bells do not 

have an interest in accelerating, if you will, this cord-cutting or 

substitution of wireless for wireline services. 

So it does make us more of a takeover target over time as the 

competitive environment gets much more difficult for Sprint. 

Chairman KOHL. Mr. Hesse says we go from four to three, and 

then we may go from three to two. 

Mr. HESSE. That is correct, Senator. 

Chairman KOHL. All right. And obviously that is not something 

I believe we want to see happen, Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Humm. 

Mr. Humm, I would like you to respond to that and also respond 

to your comment on spectrum scarcity. Your Neville Ray, who is 

your chief technology officer, this year stated, and I quote: ‘‘I think 

there has been a belief that there is spectrum shortage at T–Mobile.’’ He goes on to say, ‘‘That is not the case in the near term or 

the medium term. If you look at your volume of spectrum that T– 

Mobile has today, our ability to grow in this wireless data space 

is much stronger than our competition. So we are in a good spot, 

and we do not have a shortage of spectrum.’’ 

Now, you said today you do have a shortage of spectrum. 

Mr. HUMM. Yes, I think both things are correct. What Mr. Ray 

was referring to is that we have on the short term sufficient spectrum to grow our data revenues. What is not mentioned in the 

20 

quote is that we do not have today, for example, enough spectrum 

to launch LTE in parallel to our HSPA+ and GSM networks. So we 

cannot start the LTE rollout in any sense because we do not have 

the spectrum. 

The other thing that is also important to realize is that it has 

historically taken us between 2 and 3 years to clear spectrum 

which we have acquired. We need spectrum now to be able to fulfill 

the demand of tomorrow. So from that point of view, we see ourselves as being spectrum constrained both because we cannot do 

LTE in the medium term, and the other constraint we have—and 

I mentioned that in my opening remark—is a capital constraint, to 

basically do it on our own in case spectrum would be available. 

Chairman KOHL. OK. We will turn to Mr. Lee now. I just want 

to make the point that if we go from four to three and then we go 

from three to two, that is pretty serious. And we will come back 

to that. 

Mr. Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to start with Mr. Stephenson, if that is OK. Mr. Stephenson, some of your critics have noted that AT&T has more unused spectrum than any other wireless carrier. So one question I 

have on that point is: Could you tell us why you have yet to fully 

utilize your existing spectrum holdings and you are instead seeking 

to acquire new spectrum through this acquisition and others? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I will be glad to. As we have discussed and as 

we have said publicly, we are aggressively moving to launch LTE, 

which is the fourth generation of mobile broadband technology. 

This is the technology that will begin to give us 10-, 15-meg type 

experiences for the consumer. 

Now, in our industry, we launch technology—and this is a very 

fast moving, innovative industry. Five years ago, we began to move 

from second-generation to third-generation technology. To make 

the move in technology, you have to have a clear block of spectrum, 

nothing in it, to deploy the new technology. We began deploying 3G 

technology, as you know launched the iPhone, smartphones, Androids, et cetera. That business is growing dramatically, as I said, 

8000-percent growth in the last 4 years. 

We now need to make the move to fourth-generation LTE, for a 

number of reasons—the speed benefits, but also it is just more efficient with spectrum. To make that move, once again, we have to 

have clear blocks of spectrum. 

Senator LEE. Unused spectrum. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Unused spectrum. Nothing can be in this spectrum. It has to be clear, unadulterated spectrum to make these 

moves. To do LTE, because of the data growth we are experiencing, 

we need 20 megahertz of what we will call contiguous spectrum 

combined. We have gone a number of places to piece together this 

footprint to allow this LTE conversion. We went into the Government auction. We spent considerably, $7 billion in the Government 

auction, to buy 700 megahertz spectrum. We call this ‘‘beachfront 

property’’ stuff. That is where we are going to put these really high 

performing networks now. We are building into that spectrum now. 

21 

We also acquired a company, Aloha Communications, which had 

a block of this spectrum that we were able to pair together with 

what we bought from the FCC, giving us that 20 megahertz. 

We still have a number of markets where we do not have a footprint of spectrum to deploy LTE, so we have been out pursuing and 

buying spectrum the best we can. We do not have enough spectrum 

to deploy this Nationwide, but this spectrum is unused today because we are putting—building now as we speak the technology 

into that spectrum that we will begin launching mid-year this year. 

Senator LEE. If you were unable to acquire T–Mobile, what 

would your options be as far as developing your 4G LTE network? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It is a long-term solution. Most of the rural 

communities that we are speaking to, we would not have the spectrum depth to do the conversion that we need. So this is one of the 

big determinants as to whether we can get to a lot of the rural 

communities with our LTE bill. We need spectrum in those communities. 

Classic case: They have a very nice footprint in West Virginia. 

That would be a good case. We do not have enough spectrum to 

launch in West Virginia. This would allow us to cover a large portion of West Virginia. 

Senator LEE. Is it your position that the Nation would be better 

served by a smaller number of providers with access to more spectrum than it would be by a larger number of providers each with 

access to smaller spectrum holdings? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. You know, that is a public policy question. 

What I would tell you today is there are a number of companies 

out there are aggressively deploying fourth-generation technology, 

and a lot of them are deploying it quickly because they are doing 

leap-frog approaches. A company Dan’s company owns the majority 

position in, Clearwire, just building all new fourth-generation technology. How can they do that? They do not have second-generation 

and third-generation occupying their spectrum with those customers they have to move out. MetroPCS is doing a leap-frog technology bill. So you have a number of companies—LightSquared. 

There was an article in the paper here this week. They are going 

to launch in Washington, DC., a fourth-generation LTE network. 

So I do not think fewer companies is necessarily better, but I do 

believe if we have a public policy objective of getting to 97, 98 percent coverage of mobile broadband with these types of speeds and 

capabilities—that is an additional 55 million people beyond what 

our current plan would allow us to do—we are going to have to 

think differently and allow companies to make better use and utilization of the spectrum. 

Senator LEE. OK. Let me ask a related follow-up question then. 

There are those who claim that your acquisition of T–Mobile, if it 

occurs, will result in a duopoly. I realize that you may disagree 

with that assertion, but I want to ask the question. Do you believe 

that further market concentration is likely to result in more regulation of your industry? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I cannot judge what happens with the regulation. From my viewpoint this is such a hyper-competitive industry 

that additional regulation does not seem warranted or likely. We 

have a history in terms of what happens to pricing in this industry. 

22 

I keep going back. The options available to the consumer in this 

industry are dramatic, and we keep talking about going from four 

to three or three to two. I mean, if you just look at the last quarter 

of results published in this industry, we tend to skip over 

MetroPCS. This is a viable large-scale competitor, a competitor 

that is out there saying, ‘‘We have people coming to us all the time 

with new handset solutions.’’ They added over 700,000 subscribers 

in the last quarter; Leap added 300,000 subscribers; Sprint, a million one. This is anything but four going to three or three going to 

two. This is a vibrant, active competitive environment. 

Senator LEE. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Hesse, some of your public comments have suggested that 

Sprint might not survive an AT&T/T–Mobile merger. Is that your 

position? 

Mr. HESSE. My position is that it would make it more difficult 

for Sprint compete. I have never said that we would not survive. 

But I think in that environment, I think the real question is: If this 

were approved, my view is if people are fundamentally making a 

decision this is a duopoly and it puts us in a position, I think, to 

be acquire. 

Senator LEE. OK. Well, Sprint is currently the third largest provider in this industry. 

Mr. HESSE. Yes. 

Senator LEE. It has recently and pretty substantially increased 

its subscriber base. It scores really well on customer service satisfaction surveys. It offers a wide array of popular products and 

handsets. It was the first to market with a 4G product, and it offers aggressively priced unlimited data plans. So in light of those 

circumstances, what obstacles stand in the way of Sprint continuing to play a role as a robust and very effective competitor in 

a post-merger market? 

Mr. HESSE. I think one thing that I mentioned earlier in terms 

of continuing to improve, if you will, the disadvantages we have in 

areas like special access, my ally is going to be silenced here who 

I work with in Washington to try to, for example, get access rates 

reduced. I think, though, at a certain time it becomes a bridge too 

far. And you asked the question earlier about regulation, and we 

traditionally have opposed increased regulation by the FCC in the 

wireless industry because we think the market, if competitive, is 

the best form of regulation in the market. 

But recently we supported the FCC’s re-regulatory approach to 

roaming, and the reason is because the roaming alternatives—in 

our case, Alltel was purchased by Verizon. AT&T bought Dobson 

and Centennial. So we are already seeing signs of more regulation 

in our industry, and this is the other downside as far as, you know, 

I am concerned about how big the pie gets, how robust and vibrant 

the entire industry is, as much as what our relative share is of that 

industry. And I think that with more regulation and less innovation, the pie will stop growing as rapidly, and there will not be as 

much investment. So companies would be—you know, financial 

firms, investors would be less willing and interested in investing in 

the growth of Sprint if the wireless industry becomes more regulated and does not grow as fast. 

23 

Senator LEE. Potentially leading to less competition. Is that your 

position? 

Mr. HESSE. Yes, it is. 

Senator LEE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KOHL. Senator Lee, thank you so much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all of you. I come at this, first of all, as someone 

who was in private practice for 14 years representing a number of 

different private phone companies and arguing that competition 

was really good for the market and that it would—both the local 

market and the long-distance market, that it bring prices down, 

which in many cases it has. 

Second, I come at it as a Senator that also serves on the Commerce Committee, has put forward a cell phone bill of rights, and 

has heard time and time again from the cell phone companies that 

that is not necessary because there is so much competition that we 

do not have to worry about things like early termination fees being 

pro-rated because competition will bring us there. 

So my first questions are of you, Mr. Stephenson. I wrote you a 

letter, and I know it was just a few days ago, and you are getting 

the answers together. But are you prepared to commit to offer your 

customers T–Mobile’s current pricing plans? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. As we have said before, the T–Mobile customers will be offered their own rate plans into the future. That 

is our history. We have always done that. 

When you think about the AT&T customers, they have—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Will the AT&T customers get T–Mobile’s 

current pricing plans? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. So AT&T customers, my view is if they wanted 

the T–Mobile pricing plans, they have had those options for a long 

time now. Specifically, though, the way this industry works is 

today we sell a $400 iPhone for $50. That means we put $350 into 

a product like that. We ask our customer to sign a contract—and 

you are actively involved; I know you are very familiar with this— 

generally a 2-year contract, just to establish a business relationship 

with that customer to ensure that the $350 investment we make, 

we have some opportunity of recouping that investment. So our 

customers, we will ask them to stay with their contracts, and just 

like we will honor the T–Mobile customers’ contracts into the future. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, how about if a T–Mobile customer 

needs a new phone? Let us just say I was a T–Mobile customer, 

I drop my phone into my husband’s open coffee cup—which has 

happened. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That happened to me, too. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I need a new phone. Would then I get 

to keep my T–Mobile rates? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. If you get a comparable phone to what you had 

with T–Mobile, our practice is you can stay on those T–Mobile 

rates.Senator KLOBUCHAR. How about the monthly customers with 

T–Mobile? Do they get to keep their same rates? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I am sorry. The monthly customers? 

24 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The monthly customers, the people that are 

not on a longer-term plan. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. OK. Yes, absolutely. What we will do is map 

those rates into our billing systems and allow them to remain on 

those rate plans. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So can you say here under oath that this 

is going to lead to lower prices for consumers and a better situation 

for consumers, this merger? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I can tell you that history has demonstrated 

that these mergers have traditionally generated significant cost 

synergies and capacity benefits which have translated into cost 

savings in the consumer’s pocket. Prices have consistently come 

down. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. In your testimony you discuss how AT&T 

believes regulatory officials should look at the proposed merger on 

a local or regional level. How many others believe the appropriate 

geographic market is a national one? I typically think of the wireless market as a national one, and part of my thinking is attributable to the marketing of national providers. If you look at your 

own website and it shows that your company likes to sell itself to 

consumers as a national company. I went to your website and 

found marketing material claiming that AT&T’s ‘‘national coverage 

footprint is getting even faster with 4G. AT&T already delivers the 

Nation’s fastest mobile broadband network.’’ And yet there is another Web page claiming that AT&T is superior to MetroPCS and 

Cricket because they do not have national networks. 

So I guess my first question is: Does AT&T sell different pricing 

plans for different regions of the country? Or does AT&T offer the 

same prices to customers regardless of where they live? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It is both. There are a number of markets specifically where we compete against—MetroPCS is a classic example 

where we do unique promotions, and Miami would be a classic example, where MetroPCS has more market share than T–Mobile 

does, according to our estimations today. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Sells handsets on a regional or statewide 

basis? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Sell handsets? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you sell your model handsets, different 

handsets, your own—— 

Mr. STEPHENSON. No. We tend to standardize our product set 

and our handset selections across our various geographies. What I 

would tell you is our company is set up—we have literally organized this company to compete on a localized basis. I have folks 

who run different regions of the U.S., and I have people who run 

specific cities because I need them responding, I need them promoting, I need them advertising and addressing the market on a 

local basis. 

The Department of Justice as well as the FCC have historically 

required us to review these transactions based on local markets because that is the way the customer’s decision is made. The customer goes into a store in Minnesota or Wisconsin and makes a decision based on the competitors in the marketplace at that time. 

And so each market is very unique. 

25 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. We will get back to that. I just wanted 

to finish up. 

Mr. Humm—— 

Mr. MEENA. Senator, could I say something on the regional real 

quick? Because we are a regional company, and we do not have 

any—we have no customers in regional plans. Every customer is 

interested in national plans. That is the way the market is driven 

today. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you for clarifying that. 

Mr. Humm, as concentration in the wireless industry has increased by almost 32 percent since 2003, capital investment has decreased from $25 billion in 2005 to $8.9 billion over the first half 

of 2009. In other words, it appears that less competition has led to 

less investment in new services and equipment. 

Do you expect this trend of declining capital investment to continue? And how would less competition help this if we have looked 

at the numbers? 

Mr. HUMM. We do not expect a reduction of capital investment, 

particularly as the industry is getting ready for the next generation 

of networks, so no. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No, what? 

Mr. HUMM. Is the answer. No, we do not expect that it will lead 

to a reduction in capital investments. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But would you acknowledge there has been 

less investment over time as competition has gone down? 

Mr. HUMM. No. As we have stated, we expect that with this 

transaction, as we are overcoming capacity constraints and as we 

are realizing synergies, competition will increase. And with the increase in competition, we should also then see investments, directly 

and indirectly in the industry. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Ms. Sohn, you had a different view on the 

spectrum issue. I just have a little bit of time left here, but could 

you discuss your view on the spectrum and this notion that has 

been discussed that this merger has to take place because of spectrum issues? 

Ms. SOHN. Right. Basically, AT&T has a lot of spectrum that has 

not built out. One-third of its spectrum in the top 21 markets has 

not even built out yet. 

Second, it uses the spectrum very inefficiently. It is now using 

three different generations of technologies, and there are technologies that they can use right now, and I want to get to that 20 

megahertz contiguous spectrum that Mr. Stephenson said was necessary. That really ignores channel bonding technologies that 

would allow companies to aggregate non-contiguous spectrum. It 

also ignores other technologies that improve spectrum efficiency, 

like femtocells, picocells, distributed antennas. It also ignores 

AT&T’s ability to reconfigure its networks to provide 20 megahertz 

contiguous for LTE. So I think the spectrum crunch, crisis, exhaust 

is a bit overstated. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Grassley. 

26 

Senator GRASSLEY. As I said in my opening comment, my State 

is rural, and there are some parts of my State where receiving consistent telephone service is questionable. And when they do, their 

service is often not as fast as what someone in a larger city would 

receive. And since announcing the merger, AT&T has said it would 

be able to bring faster network to rural areas. So for Mr. Stephenson, and maybe Mr. Meena would want to comment on this as well, 

but for sure Mr. Stephenson, how will this merger help rural constituents like mine get faster mobile service? And, second, rural 

carriers have to pay fees to the national providers when customers 

travel outside the rural coverage area. What effect would the merger have on prices consumers in rural areas have to pay? 

Mr. MEENA. I will take that one. First—I am sorry, Senator. 

Senator GRASSLEY. It does not matter. Either one of you. 

Mr. MEENA. OK. First, AT&T has the ideal spectrum today to 

serve rural areas. They have quite a significant holding of 850, 

which is a lower-band spectrum. Anything less than 1 gigahertz is 

considered low-band spectrum. They have significant holdings of 

850 and significant holdings of 700 megahertz. So there is nothing 

in the T–Mobile deal that makes build out rural any more attractive in the future than it would be today. So that speaks to the first 

part. 

And as far as the fees are concerned, one of the biggest challenges that we have faced is trying to get a roaming agreement 

with AT&T, especially a data roaming agreement at the 3G level. 

Even after the FCC mandated data roaming in their order back in 

April, we have not made any progress toward that. Now, April was 

just last month, but, you know, we have been told the roaming person is out of town. 

So to answer your question, it is very important for carriers to 

be able to provide service that allows their devices to work anywhere the user goes, anywhere in the country, rural, urban. It is 

awfully important for the voice and the data to work wherever they 

go. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Stephenson. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. First, in response to the rural roaming, we 

have a number of 3G rural roaming deals around the U.S. with 

rural providers. The FCC rules have established how that process 

should work, so we are open for business on roaming for rural 3G 

services. 

As it relates to Mr. Meena, he is on a different technology than 

AT&T operates on. I would be glad to talk to you after this. I will 

get something going. But we do not offer CDMA—— 

Mr. MEENA. We have a GSM property that we have been trying 

to talk to you about for quite a while. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. How big is that—— 

Mr. MEENA. We have a GSM property in northern Alabama. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Can you folks negotiate on your own time? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STEPHENSON. As it relates, though, to rural, you know, we 

are going to build out this 4G network. The T–Mobile acquisition 

actually does facilitate places particularly like Iowa. I will be very 

specific with it. As I mentioned earlier, there are two blocks of 

spectrum we want to build this LTE infrastructure into. One is this 

27 

700 megahertz, the low bandwidth. The other is what we call AWS, 

a higher bandwidth spectrum. That is where T–Mobile operates 

today. That is the elegance of this transaction, because with T–Mobile we are going to be able to do a number of things—and Philipp 

mentioned a number of them—to free up spectrum. Freeing up that 

AWS spectrum will allow us to bring LTE into that spectrum band 

in places like Iowa. Specifically to Iowa, Senator, we will add 181 

cities in Iowa to our LTE build. So that is rural broadband to 181 

new cities in Iowa that would not have it otherwise. We are going 

to focus primarily with our original build on rather concentrated 

areas. This will allow us to build out highways, get into most of 

your rural communities and, again, another 181 cities. That number nationwide is 55 million people. 

The uniqueness of this, why this is so important, we cannot get 

there because we do not have adequate spectrum to build out most 

of these rural communities. Our original build that we are focused 

on now, it is about 80 percent of the U.S. population, that is 14.5 

percent of the land mass of the United States. To get to 97 percent, 

that 14.5 percent of the land mass covered has to go to 55 percent 

of the land mass covered. That is where this spectrum is so vital 

and so critical to expanding this footprint and getting to rural 

America. That is why we think it is so important. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I think maybe you touched on this next point 

I want to ask, but it is specifically about one part of Iowa—Sioux 

City. That is western Iowa. That service is more limited there than 

in other areas, and T–Mobile does not even offer service in that region, which means that there would be no real change in the region. What then will the merger do to change the economics of providing service to rural America? AT&T has yet to upgrade service 

in these areas already, so is it there is just maybe something you 

cannot do anything more for Sioux City as an example? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Sioux City is going to require some effort, but 

I think we can do it. And for obvious reasons I looked at Sioux City 

before coming in here, and T–Mobile, their spectrum is held largely 

in a number of partnerships with companies around Iowa. I do not 

know exactly what those look like. We are going to have to get in 

and sort through those partnerships. But we need to get our 

hands—you know, have access through some medium, whether 

partnership or otherwise, to that spectrum to provide service on 

LTE to Sioux City. If not, we have 10 megahertz. It will take some 

risk in launching with 10 megahertz, but I have got a lot of homework to do on this, Senator, to know exactly what we can do with 

Sioux City. It is a little complex. 

Senator GRASSLEY. This will have to be my last question, and for 

Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Hesse: In 2008, the Justice Department 

and the FCC approved a merger between Verizon Wireless and the 

rural carrier Alltel. However, approval was granted on the condition that the combining companies divest spectrum assets in the 

overlapping markets. What are the differences and/or similarities 

between the present proposed merger and the Verizon/Alltel merger? And should spectrum be divested in the markets where AT&T 

and T–Mobile overlap? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Dan, do you want to go first? 

28 

Mr. HESSE. First, what is different is this consolidates much 

more power in the hands of two than the previous merger. And, of 

course, the acquisition target is much larger as well. 

The other thing this merger showed is it really actually did not 

do much for the competitive landscape because the primary beneficiary or buyer of what Verizon divested was AT&T. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. And so you want to add to that? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, those Alltel assets that we acquired, obviously it was given extensive review by Justice. What we acquired 

there was 850 spectrum, which is where our 3G networks do operate. And so that allowed us basically to put our own network infrastructure in place in a lot of these rural communities that go 

through Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, et cetera. So it gave us 

actually a footprint, network and a footprint in those markets 

where we did not even have a network and footprint before. 

We have converted those networks to our technology, our 3G 

technology and our 3G spectrum, and are aggressively converting 

the customer bases now. But that was 3G in nature. What we are 

talking about here is going to facilitate going to fourth-generation 

networks. 

If I could, it is relevant to this, but Ms. Sohn keeps making the 

comment about we are utilizing inefficient technology. I mentioned 

it before, but this industry, we launch services, and they obsolete 

very quickly. We launched second-generation service and by 2006 

we are putting in 3G. We cannot just go in and take millions of 

2G customers off the air and require them into 3G, buy new 

handsets. You know, Dan cannot afford to do that; we cannot afford 

to do that. In fact, if we were to do that, I suspect I would be having a hearing in front of you for entirely different reasons. But we 

have to be very elegant in how we transition technologies from 2G 

to 3G and to 4G, and they take time to work our customers 

through the various technological challenges. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I am done, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Chairman Kohl, for holding this 

very important hearing. I am sure I am not the only one here who 

remembers when Ma Bell controlled how we communicated with 

each other. I distinctly remember when I was a kid, every Sunday 

at exactly 9 a.m. in Minnesota, my grandmother would call from 

New York and talk to my father for precisely 3 minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. And, Herr Humm, my grandmother was German, and my Dad at 9 a.m. would pick up the phone and go, 

‘‘Liebchen.’’ And at 3 minutes that operator got on the phone and 

told her that the 3 minutes was up and the end of the call. And 

that was the only time she got to talk to her son and her grandchildren, and thankfully the break-up of Ma Bell forever changed 

the cost of long-distance service. Now we live in a world of voice 

over IP and videoconferencing that would not be possible without 

high broadband speed. 

But I fear that, if approved, the merger would take us one more 

step or just one step away from the monopoly market that we had 

under Ma Bell. It took the Department of Justice more than 35 

29 

years before they eventually broke up Ma Bell, so it is important 

to keep in mind the stakes of a merger of this size and scope. And 

I hope, Chairman Kohl, that this will be the first of several hearings on this proposed merger. We all know the merger is going to 

raise—or I believe it is going to raise prices for American families 

and may costs thousands of jobs, and I hope we will hold a second 

hearing on these consumer impacts once we have more solid economic data that demonstrates what this merger will mean for customers 5 or 10 or 15 years from now. 

Mr. Stephenson, I want to follow up on Senator Klobuchar’s comments on the national aspect of this deal, and I want to ask two 

questions that I want a yes or no answer to, and then after that, 

I promise I will let you actually respond. 

Mr. Stephenson, when you were seeking to acquire Verizon wireless spectrum in 2009, didn’t you state that, ‘‘Evidence shows that 

predominant forces driving competition among wireless carriers operates at the national level?’’ Yes or no. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I do not recall. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. You did. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I am sorry. I do not recall the comment. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Well, that was not—I said yes or no. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STEPHENSON. But it is an ‘‘I do not know.’’ I am sorry. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Let us try this one and see if you remember this one. And isn’t it true that you have seen a significant 

growth in new customers in large part—I mean, you do not have 

to remember this one—because you were able to negotiate an exclusive handset deal for the iPhone with Apple, a large national 

company that would not have even considered launching their new 

phone with a small regional player? Would that be correct? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. If you are asking yes on the quote, I do not remember the quote. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is not a quote. That is not a quote. I am 

saying, Isn’t it true that you have seen a significant growth in new 

customers in large part because you are able to negotiate an exclusive handset deal for the iPhone with Apple, a large national company that would not have even considered launching their new 

phone with a small regional player? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I would say no. I mean, look at Europe. You 

do not want any explanation, but I cannot say yes to the whole—— 

Senator FRANKEN. No, no. Well, now you can explain. You do not 

think that Apple gave you an exclusive on this because you are— 

they would have given an exclusive to a regional player and not to 

one national player? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It is not as likely, but in Europe—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Not as likely. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. In Europe, they did spread it around in Europe. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Well, my point here is, one, you did say 

the thing that you cannot remember whether you said it. You do 

advertise, as Senator Klobuchar said, as a national company, talking about how national you are. So my point is that your business 

is a national business, and that is in large part because the wireless market is a national market where you can achieve significant 

30 

competitive advantages from a national presence. So my question 

really is: How can you argue this deal should be analyzed locally, 

as you wrote in your written testimony—that this deal should be 

analyzed locally, which goes against the statements that you made 

before and in your advertising that Senator Klobuchar pointed to? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I understand your question. 

Senator FRANKEN. Good. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. First of all, this is the way the Department of 

Justice has required these transactions to be reviewed. They have 

established that these buying decisions are made at the local level. 

Our experience is that the buying decision is made at the local 

level. 

Is having national coverage, a national footprint important? I 

think it is very important. I believe that is why Mr. Meena advertises his national map off of his website. That is his national coverage map that he advertises, that he has national coverage. 

Mr. MEENA. Absolutely we do. We have to, to be—— 

Mr. STEPHENSON. But that is—— 

Senator FRANKEN. But I would love to see your National map 

compared to his national map. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It looks very comparable to that. I mean, it 

looks very comparable. So we all—— 

Senator FRANKEN. That is not what I have seen in advertising. 

I have seen your map. Oh, it is a great map. 

Mr. MEENA. We are in full agreement it is a national market. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It would look very similar to that map. 

Mr. MEENA. It should be evaluated that way. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Well, let us go to Mr. Meena then. I am 

still trying to get my head around all the technologies surrounding 

wireless spectrum, backhaul agreements, which I understand is 

using basically the Ma Bell hard infrastructure. Right? 

Mr. MEENA. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Roaming agreements, which we had some discussion about, and interoperability. But suffice it to say, I know 

that carriers like AT&T and Verizon have really a tremendous advantage over everyone else in large part because they own and control the infrastructure that was built by Ma Bell. Can you explain 

how this deal will give AT&T an unbelievable competitive advantage over smaller companies? And have you seen the effects of this 

over the last 15 years as AT&T has steadily gobbled up numerous 

Baby Bells in an effort to return to the dominance they once had 

as Ma Bell? 

Mr. MEENA. Yes, Senator, really to answer some of the questions 

that came up earlier, AT&T and Verizon—but we are here to talk 

more about AT&T today—have used their market power to obtain 

exclusive deals on handsets. There is no doubt. I think you mentioned one earlier. I think for that particular device it was about 

a 4-year exclusive period of time. So you have handsets. You have 

the special access issue that Dan talked about a minute ago, that 

huge advantage they have there. 

You have the roaming issue, which AT&T, Verizon, all of us—all 

of us in this industry used roaming agreements to ensure that we 

had a vibrant product for our customers to use for many, many 

years, for decades. And when AT&T and Verizon reached a size 

31 

where it became—it was not in their favor to offer those readily, 

then they began to become—it became very tough to negotiate with 

them on that. And we do have GSM technology, like Randall’s company does, and we have not been able to get a data roaming agreement in place with them. So you have special access. You have 

scale over devices. You have roaming issues. Also, next-generation 

technology, the beachfront spectrum that was referred to earlier, 

700 megahertz, that has been Balkanized by AT&T and Verizon 

where there is no interoperability in that band of spectrum. In all 

spectrum before in our industry, there has been interoperability. 

Any cellular device that came out in the 1980s would work on any 

network. Any PCS device that came out in the 1990s would work 

on any network. But now, with the market concentration that the 

AT&Ts and the Verizons of the world have, they can prevent interoperability across the 700 megahertz block. 

So those are just a few of our issues, and we are wanting to see 

this industry return to a competitive era once again. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

I think we can all agree that broadband access has been a very 

positive thing in terms of our country and the world and our ability 

to communicate, our ability to do business, and it is just mind-boggling, really, from the days that Senator Franken was talking 

about, his—I guess it was his grandfather? 

Senator FRANKEN. Grandmother. And I remember the days when 

we got all of our video communication through the three established channels, and we have come light years, obviously, there. 

Ms. Sohn, I remember those telephones, and I for one do not 

want to ever go back to that model. But I do not think there is any 

danger of doing that. 

I think as we approach this and we recognize this is a beginning 

of a process that is not really part of what Congress does, we legislate prospectively, not retroactively. We have written the law, the 

laws, as it is and now we have the FCC and the Department of 

Justice doing their job. And we look forward to this lengthy process 

where every side to this argument will be able to present their 

case, and we look forward to reviewing that. 

But I think for myself I feel like Congress ought to be very humble about our ability to predict the sort of innovation that is going 

to be created, particularly in your sector of the economy, and in 

terms of what sort of structures or rules we would apply, because 

we have seen life change so much and so dramatically just over the 

last few years in terms of communications and entertainment and 

the like. 

So I would just like to ask each of you perhaps—or let me start 

with Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Hesse, to comment on innovation. I 

know one of the concerns is that somehow innovation would be stifled or retarded by this merger, and I wonder, Mr. Stephenson and 

Mr. Hesse, if you would give us your views on that. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Senator. One thing that you cannot 

say about this industry is that it has lacked for innovation, and the 

32 

innovation in this industry is happening at every layer of service. 

The infrastructure players and the carriers, like all of us up here 

on this dais, are seeing innovation go at an incredible pace—I have 

already mentioned it—from 2G to 3G to 4G in a 5-year period of 

time. Each of those are multi-billion-dollar investments, and that 

innovation is happening very, very rapidly, and we are already 

talking about what comes after 4G. 

Now, you see this innovation playing itself out at the device 

level. There are 600 options for customers today to buy devices in 

the marketplace, and to actually think of an iPhone being launched 

in 2007 and today the customer can buy one for $50, that is innovation. And when the iPhone came out, what happened? You saw 

Google begin to deploy new, innovative devices, which Dan’s company is one of the first—I think you deployed the first Androidbased device on fourth-generation networks. So you are seeing that 

innovation run hard, and particularly at the software level. 

Now you are seeing RIM and BlackBerry with new OS’s. You are 

seeing Microsoft and new OS’s. And do not forget or do not miss 

the importance of what you read yesterday of Microsoft buying 

Skype. They run a very important wireless operating system that 

they have developed, combining that with a voice over IP capability 

now. 

This is going to be a very exciting and dynamic manifestation 

here. We are seeing applications hit the market at hundreds of 

thousands at a pace, being downloaded billions of times. 

And so when I stop and just think about this kind of innovation 

cycle, by virtue of T–Mobile and AT&T combining, I suspect Mr. 

Jobs will not delay 1 day the launch of his iPhone 5 or 6 or whatever number comes next. I do not think it will affect his launch by 

1 day of the next iPad. I do not think it will slow Google down one 

iota in terms of developing the new OS capabilities coming, or 

Microsoft. I do not think the infrastructure players are going to 

slow down, and Dan has done an incredible job bringing the first 

true 4G network to the United States. I do not see Dan slowing 

down as a result of T–Mobile and AT&T coming together. 

This is as dynamic and exciting an industry as one could ever 

hope to work in. I consider it a privilege. But I do not see that 

changing by virtue of our combination. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Hesse. 

Mr. HESSE. Senator—thanks, Randall, for the plug on Android, 

anyway, but I actually have to give credit to this innovator over 

here. T–Mobile USA launched the first Android device, and they 

would be, of course, removed from the market. We followed them 

shortly thereafter. 

A very short history of innovation in the wireless industry, because I have been in it for a long time. The U.S. led the world in 

1G, first generation, which was analog. That was the first cell 

phone called. It was invented at Bell Labs. We had U.S. companies 

like Motorola, and we had this duopoly. And it was important for 

the U.S. Government to respond and create more competition because we fell behind Europe. Digital technology, GSM, that was 

European, so we fell behind because of the lack of innovation in the 

U.S. wireless market, really had not innovated very much at all because it was a duopoly. 

33 

They opened up the U.S. market to more competitors, PCS providers. I disagree with Larry in terms of kind of where we stand 

in the world from a wireless point of view, and I gave this presentation as Chairman of the CTIA, the U.S. wireless association. The 

U.S. is now No. 1 in the world in terms of wireless technology. We 

have the most 3G customers of any country in the world. We are 

the first with 4G. We are, by far, far ahead in 4G. 

The companies that Randall talked about—Google and Apple and 

Microsoft, and all these innovative companies—they have developed on our shores for a reason, because this is a very vibrant market. My concern is if we go back to the duopoly, we will go back 

to pre-mid-1990s, and the U.S., in fact, will fall behind the world 

again like we once did. We will lose that edge that, you know, we 

have regained, if you will, over the rest of the world. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me ask one—my time is running out quickly here. Just one other topic. I think, Mr. Humm, you mentioned 

that T–Mobile did not have the capital to do the sort of infrastructure investment, which is one of the issues that motivated your 

company to engage in this acquisition, this merger. 

Mr. Stephenson, you talked about how much money AT&T has 

invested in broadband infrastructure. I remember that when the 

Congress passed the stimulus legislation, there was $7.9 billion included in that because of the desire of Congress to see somehow a 

buildout and expansion of broadband for all the reasons we understand and we have talked about here today. My personal preference would be to see the private sector make those investments, 

not the taxpayer have to make those investments. 

How does this merger affect, either positively or negatively, the 

ability of companies like yours to make that sort of investment? It 

strikes me this is a problem, and I would like to hear your views? 

Mr. Stephenson first. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I will go back to the President’s comment: establishing a public policy objective of 98 percent of America covered 

with mobile broadband capability. The elegance of this is this is a 

private market solution for a major public policy objective. This is 

all private capital that will be used to build this capability out. 

There will not be any universal service money, any subsidies, any 

taxpayer money involved in making this happen. This can become 

a reality purely with private capital. 

If you think about getting to 97-percent coverage, that means 

there is 3 percent of the U.S. that we still do not have the ability 

to cover through private market capabilities. 

If you think of the Universal Service Fund and the FCC’s priority 

for finding a mechanism for getting broadband to America, focusing 

on the 3 percent is a much more manageable objective than the 20, 

15, or even 10 percent that we are talking about now. 

So this is just a very elegant potential to address a public policy 

objective with private capital. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, could I 

get Mr. Hesse to respond, please? Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. HESSE. Senator, I made points earlier where we do not believe this merger facilitates this goal in any way. But even if you 

believed it were the case, at what cost? Is it worth eliminating a 

very robust, competitive, extremely important industry to the U.S. 

34 

economy in order to achieve that goal? And I think the answer is 

no. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn. 

Mr. Humm, in its filing with the FCC on this deal, AT&T states 

that it ‘‘does not view T–Mobile USA as a close competitor let alone 

as a major competitive threat.’’ My view is that this statement is 

incorrect given the large amount of competition that we see every 

day between these two companies. What is your view of that statement, Mr. Humm? Does T–Mobile view AT&T as a competitor? 

Mr. HUMM. We see overall the marketplace to be a very vigorously competitive marketplace. We define ourselves as a value competitor, meaning we compare ourselves mainly with companies like 

Sprint or what we call the ‘‘all you can eat’’ players, like Metro, 

Leap, and U.S. Cellular. 

Chairman KOHL. Now, look, you two are competitors, right? I 

mean, please. You two are competitors. 

Mr. HUMM. We are competing in the same markets. 

Chairman KOHL. You two are competitors. Mr. Stephenson, T– 

Mobile is a competitor. You are competing with that man every 

day. Is that correct? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, they are part of the competitive ecosystem 

in wireless technology. We are all competing. 

Chairman KOHL. I appreciate that, but you two are major competitors. That is almost incontrovertible. It does not mean that you 

do not have other competitors. We understand that. But you two 

are major competitors with each other. Please. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Senator, yes, sir, we are. 

Chairman KOHL. OK. Mr. Humm, on your Website you compare 

your prices for data service to AT&T’s and announced that your 

price for unlimited 4G data service is $5 cheaper than AT&T’s 

price for 3G service. You also promote the fact that your unlimited 

voice, text, and data service is $35 cheaper than AT&T. This is 

pretty good evidence that you view AT&T as a competitor. Is it not, 

Mr. Humm? 

Mr. HUMM. We compare ourselves—in the advertising you are referring to, we show the customers the savings they can make relative to being at Sprint, and we show that there is significant—— 

Chairman KOHL. Well, that is what we do with competition—— 

Mr. HUMM. And AT&T and Verizon, because that is where the 

biggest savings are. 

Chairman KOHL. Of course. 

Mr. Stephenson, how can you say that T–Mobile is not a close 

competitor? You both sell the same service, cell phone service on 

a national basis, and T–Mobile and you are the only two of the four 

companies that own and operate national phone networks. Is it 

really credible to come up here and sit here and tell us that you 

and T–Mobile are not close competitors? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. They are not our competitive focus. I will tell 

you that. If you look at just the last quarter, you can establish 

where our competitive focus is—Verizon adding over 900,000, 

Sprint adding over a million, MetroPCS adding over 700,000, Leap 

adding over 300,000. T–Mobile lost customers in the first quarter. 

They are not our competitive focus. 

35 

Chairman KOHL. Mr. Stephenson, consumer advocates like Ms. 

Sohn argue that one of the motivations for this deal was to remove 

the price competition offered by T–Mobile in the cell phone market. 

Do you deny that removing T–Mobile as a price competitor was not 

at least one element of your motivation for spending $39 million to 

acquire this company? Mr. Stephenson. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, I do deny that, Senator. That does not factor into the equation. Again, the focus of our competition right now 

is at the high end of the market because, frankly, we are limited 

in capacity. We only have a certain amount of capacity to put customers, and so we get very focused on what customers we go after. 

I will tell you, if we were to get this transaction done and we increase the capacity in the marketplace, that gives us an opportunity to move down market, and we are looking very much forward to competing against MetroPCS much more aggressively. 

Chairman KOHL. All right. Mr. Stephenson, AT&T has argued 

that it is incorrect to consider this merger a reduction of four to 

three competitors in the national market. Instead you argue that 

we should examine this merger on a local market-by-market basis 

where in many cases there are other local or regional cell phone 

providers. I find that your claim that this merger should be analyzed on a local market basis remarkable as this is directly opposite to the position that AT&T and your predecessor companies 

took in prior mergers. 

In its FCC filings, AT&T Wireless argued that its 2004 merger 

with Cingular ‘‘should be analyzed as national,’’ and AT&T argued 

in its 2008 merger with Centennial that, ‘‘The evidence shows that 

the predominant forces driving competition along wireless national 

carriers operate at the national level.’’ 

Why has AT&T now changed its position? Which is true, what 

AT&T said in 2004 and 2008 or what you are saying now? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Senator, we have to go by how the DOJ and 

the FCC have evaluated these transactions consistently, and they 

have consistently evaluated them at the local level. And at the local 

level, these are intensely competitive markets. In your State, in 

fact, in Wisconsin specifically, one of the regional carriers, U.S. Cellular, has a greater market share than AT&T and T–Mobile. So 

these purchasing decisions are made at the local market level. 

Chairman KOHL. You know—and I will turn this over to Mr. 

Lee—you would almost argue here to us today that what you are 

wanting to do is something in the national interest. And that is 

OK. I mean, you are here to run a business, and I am a businessman myself, and I appreciate it. But this is a business deal. This 

is a business deal to make your company more successful and more 

profitable. And I understand that. We all understand that. But, you 

know, we should discuss it in that context, not in the context of 

this is in the national interest. This is not your consideration. Your 

consideration is what is best for your company and for your company. And I appreciate that. But the discussion should be, in my 

opinion, handled on that level rather than try and say this is something in the national interest. 

Anyway, Mr. Lee, go ahead. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions 

for Mr. Meena. 

36 

I assume that, like other regional carriers, your company, Cellular South, relies to a considerable degree on roaming arrangements with national networks and that this is part of what enables 

you to have the ability to offer your customers access to nationwide 

coverage. 

In your view, what impact, if any, would this merger have on 

these roaming arrangements? 

Mr. MEENA. Yes, sir, that is a good question. One of the major 

impacts it would have, it would eliminate a potential LTE roaming 

partner. A few months ago, prior to the announcement of AT&T 

and T–Mobile, T–Mobile made an announcement that I think by 

2014 they would be installing an LTE network. LTE is the next 

generation, the worldwide standard that many carriers throughout—most carriers throughout the world will be going to. Without 

having a vibrant LTE roaming partner, one willing to work with 

us on a roaming agreement, it eliminates the ecosystem that you 

referred to that we must have in a roaming environment. So that 

is one effect of that. Also——Senator LEE. And you see that as an 

unavoidable consequence of this merger? 

Mr. MEENA. Yes, I do. If it happens, right. 

Senator LEE. Would the recent FCC order mandating commercially reasonable data roaming agreements alleviate the concerns 

that you have in this area? 

Mr. MEENA. It would not because of what is going on with the 

700 interoperability issue in our industry today, where AT&T has 

a proprietary band class and Verizon has a proprietary band class. 

So even with the roaming mandate, we are not able to have LTE 

devices that would work on their network in a roaming environment or work on Verizon’s network in a roaming environment. 

That is why it would be so important to have T–Mobile or someone 

else out there with a 4G LTE network that we could have the ability to roam. 

Senator LEE. Would any potential merger conditions alleviate the 

data roaming concerns you have that you have identified? 

Mr. MEENA. I cannot think of any. We were hopeful that with the 

Alltel/Verizon merger there would be conditions that would make 

the market competitive for us, and that did not occur. We do have 

a roaming agreement with Verizon. I cannot go into the specifics 

of that agreement, but it is not one in which—that would allow us 

to be competitive over a long period of time. 

Senator LEE. OK. Mr. Stephenson, would you care to respond to 

this point, particularly the point about the inevitability of the problem he identified? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes. I am confused with Hu’s point that we 

need to keep T–Mobile in play because that will give them an option to roam on an LTE network when T–Mobile has stated they 

are not building an LTE network and they do not have the spectrum to build an LTE network. So it does not seem that it is a likely fix for whatever concern that Hu has. 

In terms of LTE, obviously the FCC data roaming order will require us to open our networks for others to roam on them. There 

is nothing to preclude Hu from going out and buying a handset 

that works on our spectrum in our system. That is his prerogative. 

I think what Mr. Meena would like to do is require us to make our 

37 

handsets roam on his system, and that is a cost that I do not understand why our customer needs to incur. And at the end of the 

day, I understand Mr. Meena’s concern with this because we are 

going to build out a competitive LTE network to his network. This 

is competition. This is what we are looking for, more competitive 

networks being built. And having a concern that we build ours out 

and that we will not roam on his network, I do not quite grasp the 

logic of that. But we will open our network up for Mr. Meena and 

all other companies to roam on ours. 

Mr. MEENA. That is just not correct. We are not looking for 

AT&T to roam on our network, on our LTE network in the future. 

We would like to have the ability to roam on theirs. But because 

of this interoperability problem and the scale that AT&T and 

Verizon have, the scale that they have to control the device ecosystem, we do not have enough buying power to be able to put in 

place a 700 megahertz device that would roam within their band 

class. 

The reason this has not been a problem in the past is that in the 

cellular spectrum and in the PCS spectrum, all devices worked 

across all band classes within each spectrum grouping, and that is 

not the case here where AT&T has their own proprietary band 

class and Verizon has theirs in the 700 LTE spectrum. 

Senator LEE. So are you calling for us to go back to the 1990s 

where you had this complete interoperability? Is that—— 

Mr. MEENA. We have been calling for that for a couple of years. 

We have been wanting the FCC to act on that. We have had a petition in front of them for at least 2 years now, I believe, something 

close to that. So that is something that we would like to see, interoperability in the 700 megahertz among an all paired spectrum, 

just like it happened in cellular and just like it happened in PCS. 

Senator LEE. OK. Now, in referring to this merger in your written testimony, you said, ‘‘It must be stopped,’’ and, ‘‘The fate of this 

acquisition determines the course of this industry.’’ 

In contrast, there are other regional providers that view the situation with more hope than you do. U.S. Cellular has stated that 

it sees great opportunity for the merger, looking at its own expansion opportunity. MetroPCS has said, ‘‘We think that this is a really good time for Metro to put our head down and get down to business,’’ noting that the company very well could get a sharper focus 

from its infrastructure vendors, and that there would be one less 

operator for them to focus on. 

Help me understand why some of these regional carriers would 

view the merger as the end of competition or as the end of the 

world as we know it, the competitive Armageddon, so to speak, 

while others view it as an opportunity for growth. 

Mr. MEENA. I am not familiar with those quotes that you said. 

I am not doubting you. I am just not familiar with those quotes. 

But I am familiar with this: Both United States Cellular and 

MetroPCS are active members of the RCA, of which I am the chairman of the board, and RCA has taken a position that we are 

against this merger. 

Senator LEE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

38 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, everyone. 

Mr. Meena, you broke in when I was asking Mr. Stephenson 

about the national market issue. Do you want to elaborate a bit on 

that? 

Mr. MEENA. Yes. It is a national market. That is why we publish 

a map like that that shows the roaming arrangements that we 

have. I cannot remember how far back it would be when the customer asked us about a regional plan. It is just a—we happen to 

be a regional company in a national business, and that is what 

makes roaming agreements, et cetera, so important. But this deal 

should be evaluated on a national basis. Market by market makes 

no sense in today’s environment. And I admit, I am not an antitrust lawyer, but from a business perspective, it makes no sense. 

It is all about national market. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Stephenson, I know when we talked in Senator Kohl’s Subcommittee about the Delta/Northwest merger, I cared a lot about 

that because we had a lot of Northwest employees in Minnesota, 

and I know that there are a lot of employees out there that are concerned about how this merger will affect them. Could you comment 

on the employment levels, what you see how this will affect current 

employees of both companies? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes. Overall, with the CWA, Teamsters, SEIU 

yesterday, AFL–CIO, have all come out in support of this merger, 

and their track record is one of not supporting any issue that is not 

what I would call job creating in our industry, which it is not 

unique. You only hire where and when you invest. And where we 

are deploying and where we are investing are the areas where we 

are hiring. That today is mobility and it is broadband, and this particular deal, this particular transaction, we have made a public 

commitment and we are going to abide by this public commitment 

to deploy LTE. And, Senator, it is a public policy objective, but it 

is in our shareholders’ interest to deploy this National LTE network. It is an incremental $8 billion of investment to deploy this 

capability and this technology. 

So we view this as an incremental investment and over the long 

haul an incremental jobs opportunity at the go-down. These types 

of transactions, you do have overlaps and workforces. We are not 

going to need long term two finance organizations, we are not going 

to need two marketing organizations. We have done this a number 

of times. We think we have very elegant processes for making this 

happen. 

And, in fact, Larry Cohen and I over the last 5 or 6 years have 

developed what we think is a very unique, very time-tested ability 

of dealing with these types of situations. We negotiated, literally, 

the two of us together, a concept we call JOG. It stands for job offer 

guarantees. And so if there are situations where there is overlap 

of jobs or a particular business is shrinking and you need to 

downsize, we declare those positions surplus—we declare them surplus, but we do a job offer guarantee. We find a growth area of the 

business or another part of the business where we need to hire, 

and we give those employees opportunities to take those jobs in 

those areas. That has allowed us to manage our workforce we think 

39 

very elegantly and very gracefully move it out of the no-growth 

areas into the growth areas. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Let us go back to some of the consumer 

issues in a different context. According to the data collected by the 

FCC, in 2008 and 2009 AT&T accounted for nearly half of all exclusive smartphone launches compared to their one-third share of 

overall smartphone launches. This data just confirms what most 

people already assume: that AT&T has committed itself to using 

exclusive phone contracts to attract customers. 

If this merger is approved, not only would AT&T have 44 percent 

of all U.S. wireless subscribers, but AT&T would be able to demand 

exclusivity contracts from any phone maker seeking their business 

because of that enormous market share. 

Do you think that is a fair reading of the situation? And are you 

going to make any commitments about these exclusivity agreements going forward? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. When I look at 600 different options of 

handsets in the marketplace today, it tells me this is a vibrant 

marketplace. I think every carrier up here at one time or another 

has probably had some kind of exclusive arrangement. That is a 

means to get product to market faster, and when the marketplace 

is utilizing these capabilities, we will probably participate as well. 

But I think you are seeing fewer and fewer of these long-term type 

relationships. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So your answer is that the relationships are 

going down, but that you are not going to make any commitments 

about the merged company, the proposed merged company with exclusivity contracts? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It is a dynamic market. I mean, this is a 

hyper-dynamic marketplace. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Lee mentioned this roaming agreement issue. Will AT&T commit to offering smaller wireless carriers 

data roaming agreements at reasonable rates? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Absolutely. Of course we will. It is the law. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Very good. 

Mr. Meena, you look like you want to comment. 

Mr. MEENA. Yes. Well, Randall offered earlier that we can meet 

outside the door and talk about that roaming agreement. I look forward to talking with him about it because we have been trying to 

talk with this company about a 3G GSM roaming agreement. So 

maybe we will be able to work that out later on. 

Anyway, that is all I have to say. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Ms. Sohn, how does the concentration 

in this industry with this proposed merger compare to other large 

industries with high barriers to entry, like airlines or automobile 

manufacturers? 

Ms. SOHN. Well, it is about half. I mean, this industry would be 

twice as concentrated at the top two than the airline industry, the 

banking industry, the oil industry. So the concentration here—and 

if you look at the Herfindahl-Hirschman Indexes both locally and 

nationally, in some places with this merger it is over 3,000. In 

some markets it will go six—I think in the national market it will 

go 600 to 750 points higher, and the Department of Justice says 

40 

that 200 is an anticompetitive increase. So when you compare it to 

other industries, it is off the charts. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. In Canada, only three companies dominate 

the wireless market. If the merger goes through, can we expect a 

similar situation, in your view? And what lessons can we draw 

from Canada’s wireless market? 

Ms. SOHN. I have to say I am a little bit bemused by folks looking at other countries and saying, well, those countries are more 

concentrated, so why shouldn’t we get more concentrated? But they 

have to remember that many of those countries are—the telcom 

providers there are highly regulated. There is price regulation. 

There is wholesale access regulation. The carriers—does Mr. Stephenson want to go back to that? I really, really seriously doubt 

that. 

On the whole, U.S. citizens pay more, and I do find it ironic, 

since every time there is a study that shows that the U.S. is 25th 

or 20th in broadband adoption and in value, the carriers say, Oh, 

no, no, those are all wrong and the countries are all different. You 

know, they are different, they are rural. But here they want to look 

internationally. I find that a supreme irony. I do not think we want 

to go there. I think we want to stick with competition rather than 

regulation. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Just understand—you are from Minnesota—we can see Canada from our porch. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Anyone else want to comment on the international comparison? 

Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. First I want to point out that when I talked 

earlier about where the U.S. is in global broadband, I am talking 

about the totality of the industry. So what is the industry? It is not 

a wireless industry per se. It is wireless/wireline. It is well documented in the FCC report last year about the U.S. lagging other 

countries. So, again, I disagree totally with Dan on that. We are 

far behind. We are getting further behind every day. Countries like 

Korea we will not catch up to in our lifetime. It is particularly true 

in rural Minnesota, rural Wisconsin, or rural Utah, the kind of 

broadband speeds that are available are unthinkable in most of the 

other OECD countries. 

So I think that from our point of view, No. 1 is: What is available 

to U.S. consumers in terms of economic development? And is there 

a way to have conditions on this merger that will deal with the fact 

that the U.S. is absolutely falling behind all the time in terms of 

broadband speeds, regardless of what mode we are talking about. 

That is a large part of the reason, the primary reason, we think 

the merger is that kind of an opportunity and, again, with safeguards and conditions, why we should go forward. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And just the one thing that disturbs me 

there—and I am sure we can do some more discussions about this 

with everyone on the panel after this hearing, but it is just those 

numbers that show that the investment has gone down in recent 

years while competition has gone down. And so no one wants more 

than me to stop having dropped calls in Stapes, Minnesota, and 

stop having to carry two different kinds of phones to hope that one 

41 

of them will work when I am on the road. But I am not convinced 

that less competition is going to bring us there. 

Ms. SOHN. Could I just add that AT&T has in 2009 invested 1 

percent of Cap X in its wireless infrastructure while Verizon has 

invested 10 percent of Cap X. And it is interesting to note that 

Verizon is not complaining nearly as much about the spectrum 

crunch. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And Verizon has less spectrum, is that—— 

Ms. SOHN. Right. And it is interesting. Craig Moffett, who is a 

very well respected industry analyst, has called AT&T a ‘‘serial 

acquirer.’’ All right? And that is what they are. They acquire new 

companies. They do not invest adequately. And that is why they 

are having the problems they are having today. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. I think Mr. Hesse wanted to add something, and if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, I think we will let 

Mr. Stephenson—— 

Mr. HESSE. I want to respond to Larry’s comments because I 

think we are mixing up apples and oranges. 

In the wireline world, wireline broadband access, dominated by 

AT&T and Verizon, we are behind the rest of the world. 

In wireless, we are well ahead. We are the leader. And that is 

a very important distinction. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. The issue is that for rural America there is no 

wireline opportunity. So as the President said in the State of the 

Union, this is the opportunity for rural America to catch up. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. Stephenson, did you want to reply? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Just the investment issue. I will say it again. 

AT&T has invested more in the United States than any other public company, much less any other telecommunications company, 

$75 billion in the last 4 years. The 1 percent, I do not know where 

that number comes from. Last year we invested about $9 billion, 

$8 to $9 billion, just in the wireless business by itself. Then there 

is obviously what we call fixed-line investment, backhaul, and IP 

backbone capacity and so forth that are serving the wireless business. But the statement is inaccurate, and we have invested more 

in the U.S. than any other public company. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman KOHL. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

One last question for you, Mr. Stephenson. Some say that if the 

merger is approved, it is likely to be approved with a number of 

conditions. I think that is probably undoubtable. But, Mr. Stephenson, would you accept as a condition of the merger a prohibition on 

AT&T from using any Universal Service Fund money for a 

broadband buildout? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. For this LTE buildout, yes, sir. 

Chairman KOHL. All right. Anybody want to make any comments 

before we close this hearing? Yes, Ms. Sohn. 

Ms. SOHN. Can I just make a comment about the national versus 

local market because this was driving me crazy. Have you ever 

seen AT&T advertise against MetroPCS or Cricket? Have you ever 

seen a local pricing plan? I mean, clearly, saying that a behemoth 

like AT&T competes against—sorry, Cell South or U.S. Cellular or 

42 

Cricket is like saying that Walmart competes against the momand-pop store. Yes, you know, has the Justice Department looked 

locally in the past? Yes. That is the past. But we have an increasingly consolidated market. We have a maturing market. And, in 

fact, the FCC and the Alltel merger and Centennial mergers actually did start to look at the national market. 

So, clearly, the market here is national, and I suspect that the 

Department of Justice and the FCC will look at that based on the 

facts of this case. This is an unprecedented merger. 

Chairman KOHL. Mr. Hesse. 

Mr. HESSE. Senator, I would like to add to this because I have 

not commented on the issue of national markets. I can speak for 

Sprint, and I do not think we are that different than the Big Four: 

99.7 percent of all of our customers are on national rate plans. 

That is more than the Ivory soap percentage. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HESSE. 99 percent of our advertising is national. Our 

handset deals are all national. Business customers buy national, 

and they want to see the maps. If you look at national advertising, 

what are the key messages? We cover 97 percent of all Americans. 

In Verizon, it is the Map War. Those are not county and State 

maps. Those are national maps they are showing on television. 

Also, from a retail distribution point of view, we sell more of our 

devices through the national retailers—Best Buy, Radio Shack, 

Walmart, et cetera—than we do through our own stores. So if this 

is not a national business, I do not know what is. 

Chairman KOHL. Good. Mr. Humm. 

Mr. HUMM. Maybe just also one last comment to national versus 

regional. At T–Mobile we were nationally oriented up to last year, 

and we decided to move to a regional market model because we 

simply noticed that the regional differences are too big for us to be 

successful only nationally. So we went to an organization where we 

now have 23 different regions to really approach the markets region by region. 

Just a few facts to support that point. Just take, for example, a 

company like Metro, they have in Miami, the DMA of Miami, 25 

percent market share; in other markets they have zero percent 

market share. Take Sprint. They have 49 percent in Jonestown, 

Pennsylvania, and in South Dakota they have zero percent market 

share. Take T–Mobile, we have 21 percent in Salt Lake City, and 

we have zero percent in West Virginia. 

So that simply shows you how different we are and what kind 

of different competition we face from one DMA—from one market— 

to the other. 

Chairman KOHL. Good. I want to thank you all for being here 

today. It took a lot of your time and effort and energy, and it is 

a very important issue, so your coming here does serve the national 

interest, and thank you for being here. Thank you all for being 

here. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

43 


68170.001
44 


68170.002
45 


68170.003
46 


68170.004
47 


68170.005
48 


68170.006
49 


68170.007
50 


68170.008
51 


68170.009
52 


68170.010
53 


68170.011
54 


68170.012
55 


68170.013
56 


68170.014
57 


68170.015
58 


68170.016
59 


68170.017
60 


68170.018
61 


68170.019
62 


68170.020
63 


68170.021
64 


68170.022
65 


68170.023
66 


68170.024
67 


68170.025
68 


68170.026
69 


68170.027
70 


68170.028
71 


68170.029
72 


68170.030
73 


68170.031
74 


68170.032
75 


68170.033
76 


68170.034
77 


68170.035
78 


68170.036
79 


68170.037
80 


68170.038
81 


68170.039
82 


68170.040
83 


68170.041
84 


68170.042
85 


68170.043
86 


68170.044
87 


68170.045
88 


68170.046
89 


68170.047
90 


68170.048
91 


68170.049
92 


68170.050
93 


68170.051
94 


68170.052
95 


68170.053
96 


68170.054
97 


68170.055
98 


68170.056
99 


68170.057
100 


68170.058
101 


68170.059
102 


68170.060
103 


68170.061
104 


68170.062
105 


68170.063
106 


68170.064
107 


68170.065
108 


68170.066
109 


68170.067
110 


68170.068
111 


68170.069
112 


68170.070
113 


68170.071
114 


68170.072
115 


68170.073
116 


68170.074
117 


68170.075
118 


68170.076
119 


68170.077
120 


68170.078
121 


68170.079
122 


68170.080
123 


68170.081
124 


68170.082
125 


68170.083
126 


68170.084
127 


68170.085
128 


68170.086
129 


68170.087
130 


68170.088
131 


68170.089
132 


68170.090
133 


68170.091
134 


68170.092
135 


68170.093
136 


68170.094
137 


68170.095
138 


68170.096
139 


68170.097
140 


68170.098
141 


68170.099
142 


68170.100
143 


68170.101
144 


68170.102
145 


68170.103
146 


68170.104
147 


68170.105
148 


68170.106
149 


68170.107
150 


68170.108
151 


68170.109
152 


68170.110
153 


68170.111
154 


68170.112
155 


68170.113
156 


68170.114
157 


68170.115
158 


68170.116
159 


68170.117
160 


68170.118
161 


68170.119
162 


68170.120
163 


68170.121
164 


68170.132
165 


68170.133
166 


68170.134
167 


68170.135
168 


68170.136
169 


68170.137
170 


68170.138
171 


68170.139
172 


68170.140
173 


68170.141
174 


68170.142
175 


68170.143
176 


68170.144
177 


68170.145
178 


68170.146
179 


68170.147
180 


68170.148
181 


68170.149
182 


68170.150
183 


68170.151
184 


68170.152
185 


68170.153
186 


68170.154
187 


68170.155
188 


68170.156
189 


68170.157
190 


68170.158
191 


68170.159
192 


68170.160
193 


68170.161
194 


68170.162
195 


68170.163
196 


68170.164
197 


68170.165
198 


68170.166
199 


68170.167
200 


68170.168
201 


68170.169
202 


68170.170
203 


68170.171
204 


68170.172
205 


68170.173
206 


68170.174
207 


68170.175
208 


68170.176
209 


68170.177
210 


68170.178
211 


68170.179
212 


68170.180
213 


68170.181
214 


68170.182
215 


68170.183
216 


68170.184
217 


68170.185
218 


68170.186
219 


68170.187
220 


68170.188
221 


68170.189
222 


68170.190
223 


68170.191
224 


68170.192
225 


68170.193
226 


68170.194
227 


68170.195
228 


68170.196
229 


68170.197
230 


68170.198
231 


68170.199
232 


68170.200
233 


68170.201
234 


68170.202
235 


68170.203
236 


68170.204
237 


68170.205
238 


68170.206
239 


68170.207
240 


68170.208
241 


68170.209
242 


68170.210
243 


68170.211
244 


68170.212
245 


68170.213
246 


68170.214
247 


68170.215
248 

Æ 


68170.216