Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reply Comments of Public Knowledge Re: AT&T/T-Mobile

Reply Comments of Public Knowledge Re: AT&T/T-Mobile

Ratings: (0)|Views: 212|Likes:
Published by Public Knowledge
Public Knowledge's Reply Comments on the Applications of AT&T Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG for Consent To Transfer Control of the Licenses and Authorizations Held by T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries
Public Knowledge's Reply Comments on the Applications of AT&T Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG for Consent To Transfer Control of the Licenses and Authorizations Held by T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries

More info:

Published by: Public Knowledge on Nov 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/27/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 i
Before theFederal Communications CommissionWashington, D.C. 20554
 Applications of AT&T Inc. andDeutsche Telekom AG for ConsentTo Transfer Control of the Licensesand Authorizations Held by T-Mobile USA, Inc. and ItsSubsidiaries))))))WT Docket No. 11-65
REPLY COMMENTS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
Harold Feld
 Legal Director 
John Bergmayer Sherwin SiyMichael Weinberg
Staff Attorneys
Avonne BellJoe Newman
 Law Clerks
 Public Knowledge1818 N St. NW, Ste. 410Washington, DC 20036June 20, 2011
 
 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSSUMMARY.......................................................................................................................1
 
I.
 
BECAUSE GRANT OF THE APPLICATION WOULD VIOLATE SECTION314 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, THE COMMISSION MUST DENYTHE APPLICATION.......................................................................................................7
 
A.
 
The Transaction Involves A Wireline Common Carrier and A Competing WirelessCommon Carrier, Both of Whom Carry International Traffic As Common Carriers.......8
 
B.
 
The Transaction Will Substantially Lessen Competition In the Provision of International Common Carrier Traffic And Other “Lines of Commerce.”......................10
 
1.
 
Foreign GSM-based providers will lose a significant international roaming partner, andin some geographic areas the number of providers will be reduced from two to one...........11
 
2.
 
In addition, the transaction will create monopoly or substantially lessen competition inother lines of commerce with international effects................................................................14
 
II.
 
APPLICANTS’ EFFORT TO RETREAT FROM THEIR PUBLICCOMMITMENT TO ACCEPT A USF CONDITION RAISES GRAVE CONCERNREGARDING OTHER ‘VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS’ ON DEPLOYMENTAND JOBS.......................................................................................................................17
 
III.
 
APPLICANTS FAIL TO ADDRESS SEVERAL ARGUMENTS MADE BYPUBLIC KNOWLEDGE...............................................................................................21
 
A.
 
Applicants Fail To Address That FCC Examined the Number of NationalCompetitors In Sprint/Nextel..................................................................................................22
 
B.
 
Applicants Fail To Address the Argument That The Merger Will FrustrateEnforcement Of Commission Rules and Congressional Policies Favoring Competition..23
 
IV.
 
APPLICANTS FAILED TO REBUT ARGUMENTS THAT THEACQUISITION WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM, WITHOUTYIELDING SIGNIFICANT OFFSETTING BENEFITS...........................................26
 
A.
 
The FCC Should Reject Applicants’ Claim That Traditional ConcentrationMeasures Are Meaningless, Especially In The Absence Of Any Suggestion As To WhatOther Metric Might Be Appropriate......................................................................................26
 
B.
 
Applicants Theoretical Argument That They Have Neither Incentive Nor Ability ToInfluence Handset Manufacturers, Applications Providers, Or Otherwise ExerciseMonopsony Power Is Negated By The Empirical Evidence That AT&T HasDemonstrated An Ability To Exercise Such Power Even At Existing Levels of Concentration...........................................................................................................................28
 
C.
 
AT&T’s Claimed “Spectrum Congestion” Problems Are Not Solved By The Merger.31
 
D.
 
T-Mobile’s Claimed “Spectrum Paucity” Problems Are Not Solved By The Merger,And Can Be Resolved In Its Absence.....................................................................................32
 
E.
 
AT&T’s Lack of Towers And Cell Sites Is No More Likely To Be Relieved As aResult Of the Merger Than Otherwise...................................................................................34
 
F.
 
The Proposed Merger Is Unlikely To Result In Net Creation Of Jobs Or Investment.35
 
G.
 
T-Mobile Is A Significant Competitor To AT&T, And Other Small Carriers WouldNot Be Substantial Competitors To The Merged Entity......................................................36
 
 
 iii
H.
 
The Merger Will Harm International Roaming Provision..........................................37
 
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................38
 
DECLARATION OF HAROLD FELD........................................................................40
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.....................................................................................41
 

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->