throbber
,‘
`.(‘v-
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 173
`Case 1:179-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02' “M"
`
`'
`
` yLECTRONICABL
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`___________________________________ X
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
`
`'
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`" against -
`
`DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG, et al.,
`
`“{W‘m
`'7
`:134Li1LED:Aw§Ef*L'
`up 2
`,
`, 31-1-
`
`’
`3
`
`19 Civ. 5434 (VM)
`
`-
`
`DECISION AND ORDER
`
`.
`Defendants.
`___________________________________ X
`
`VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT .................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`SPECTRUM AND MOBILE WIRELESS NETWORKS .......... 12
`
`1.
`
`Spectrum .................................. 12
`
`2. Mobile Wireless Network Infrastructure ....14
`
`B.
`
`GENERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR MOBILE WIRELESS
`
`SERVICES ....................................... 17
`
`C.
`
`COMPETITION IN THE RMWTS MARKET ................ 19
`
`1. Mobile Network Operators .................. 20
`
`Verizon and AT&T ..................... 20
`a.
`TnMobile ............................. 21
`b.
`Sprint ............................... 23
`c.
`2. Mobile Virtual Network Operators .......... 25
`3.
`DISH as_a Potential Market Entrant ........ 26
`THE PROPOSED MERGER ............................ 28
`
`REVIEW OF AND CHALLENGES TO THE PROPOSED
`
`MERGER ......................................... 30
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`E
`i
`i
`i
`E
`E
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434—VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 173
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Federal Regulatory Review ................. 30
`
`Plaintiff States’ Challenge ............... 33
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .................................. 34
`
`A.
`
`PLAINTIFF STATES' PRIMA FACIE CASE ............. 36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Relevant Product Market ............... 36
`
`The Relevant Geographic Markets ........... 46
`
`3. Market Share Analysis ..................... 52
`
`B.
`
`DEFENDANTS' REBUTTAL CASE ...................... 54
`
`1.
`
`Efficiencies of the Proposed Merger ....... 57
`
`a. Merger Specificity ................... 66
`
`b. Verifiability ........................ 72
`
`2.
`
`Sprint’s Status as a Weakened
`Competitor .; .............................. 84
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Sprint’s Network Quality and
`Customer Perception .................. 86
`
`Sprint’s Financial Difficulties ...... 91
`
`Other Competitive Means Available
`
`to Sprint ............................ 94
`
`3.
`
`Federal Agency Review and DISH as a New
`Entrant .................................. 102
`
`a.
`
`FCC and DOJ Review and Remedies ..... 102
`
`b. Market Entry by DISH ................ 106
`
`i.
`
`Sufficiency of DISH’s Entry ....109
`
`ii. Likelihood of DISH’s Entry ..... 117
`
`iii. Timeliness of DISH’s Entry ..... 123
`
`C.
`
`ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF ANTICOMPETITIVE
`EFFECTS ....................................... 127
`
`1.
`
`Coordinated Effects ...................... 129
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 173
`
`2. Unilateral Effects ....................... 138
`
`D.
`
`PARTICULARITIES OF THE WIRELESS
`
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ................... 143
`
`1.
`
`The RMWTS Market is Exceptional .......... 144
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Complexity of the Relevant Market ...144
`
`Dynamics of the Relevant Market ..... 147
`
`c. Market Dynamics in the Courts ....... 148
`
`d.
`
`Dynamics of the Wireless
`Telecommunications Industry ......... 151
`
`e. Market—Specific Behavior in
`Complex and Dynamic Industries ...... 154
`
`f.
`
`New T—Mobile's Likely Postherger
`Behavior ............................ 159
`
`g.
`
`The Posture of Sprint .............. '.163
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................... 167
`
`ORDER ........................................................ 170
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 4 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 4 of 173
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`the States
`
`of
`
`New York, California,
`
`Connecticut,
`
`Hawaii,
`
`Illinois,
`
`Maryland,
`
`Michigan,
`
`Minnesota, Oregon,
`
`and Wisconsin,
`
`the Commonwealths
`
`of
`
`Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiff States”), acting by
`
`and
`
`through the
`
`respective Offices
`
`of
`
`their Attorneys
`
`General, brought
`
`this action against Deutsche Telekonl AG
`
`(“DT”),
`
`T—Mobile US,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“T—Mobile”),
`
`Softbank Group
`
`Corp.
`
`(“Softbank”),
`
`and Sprint Corporation (“Sprint,” and
`
`collectively with DT, TwMobile, and Softbank, “Defendants”)
`
`seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Sprint by T—
`
`Mobile (the “Proposed Merger”). Plaintiff States claim that
`
`the effect of the Proposed Merger would be to substantially
`
`lessen competition in the market for retail mobile wireless
`
`telecommunications services
`
`(the “RMWTS Market” or
`
`“RMWTS
`
`Markets”),
`
`in violation of Section '7 of
`
`the Clayton Act,
`
`codified at 15 U.S.C. Section l8 (“Section 7”). Defendants
`
`counter
`
`that
`
`the Proposed Merger would in fact
`
`increase
`
`competition in the RMWTS Market and that Plaintiff States
`
`have thus failed to state a claim for relief.
`
`The Court held a bench trial to adjudicate Plaintiff
`
`States’
`
`claim from December
`
`9
`
`to December 20,
`
`2019 and
`
`heard post—trial
`
`closing arguments
`
`from both
`
`sides
`
`on
`
`January 15, 2020. The Court now sets forth its findings of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 5 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 5 of 173
`
`fact and conclusions of
`
`law pursuant
`
`to Rule 52(a) of
`
`the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`INTRODUCT I ON
`
`Adjudication of antitrust disputes virtually turns the
`
`judge into a fortuneteller. Deciding such cases typically
`
`calls for a judicial reading of the future.
`
`In particular,
`
`it
`
`asks
`
`the
`
`court
`
`to
`
`predict whether
`
`the
`
`business
`
`arrangement or conduct at
`
`issue may substantially lessen
`
`competition in a given geographical
`
`and product market,
`
`thus likely to cause price increases and harm consumers. To
`
`aid the
`
`courts perform that murky
`
`function demands
`
`a
`
`massive enterprise.
`
`In most cases,
`
`the litigation consumes
`
`years
`
`at
`
`costs
`
`running
`
`into millions
`
`of dollars.
`
`In
`
`furtherance of their enterprise,
`
`the parties to the dispute
`
`retain battalions of
`
`the most
`
`skilled and highest—paid
`
`attorneys in the nation.
`
`In turn,
`
`the lawyers enlist
`
`the
`
`services of other professionals —— engineers,
`
`economists,
`
`business
`
`executives,
`
`academics —~ all ybrought
`
`into the
`
`dispute to render expert opinions regarding the potential
`
`procompetitive
`
`or
`
`anticompetitive
`
`effects
`
`of
`
`the
`
`transaction.
`
`The
`
`qualifications
`
`of
`
`litigants’
`
`specialists,
`
`impressive by the titles they have held and the tomes their
`
`CVs
`
`fill,
`
`can be humbling and
`
`intimidating. And
`
`those
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 6 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 6 of 173
`
`witnesses’ authoritative views stated on the stand under
`
`oath in open court
`
`can leave
`
`the lay person wondering
`
`whether word so expertly crafted and credentialed can admit
`
`room for error or even doubt. Together, counsel and experts
`
`amass documentary and ‘testimonial
`
`records
`
`for
`
`trial
`
`that
`
`can occupy entire storage rooms to capacity.
`
`Multiplying the complexity of antitrust proceedings,
`
`while also adding to the outlay of
`
`time and resources they
`
`demand,
`
`is the role of
`
`the federal government.
`
`In many
`
`cases, as occurred in the action at hand,
`
`the United States
`
`of America steps into the fray. Acting through the United
`
`States Department
`
`of
`
`Justice
`
`(“DOJ”)
`
`or
`
`regulatory
`
`agencies, or both,
`
`the government
`
`intervenes to express its
`
`interest
`
`for or against
`
`the underlying transaction,
`
`filing
`
`objections or support, or
`
`imposing conditions
`
`that could
`
`affect its viability.
`
`Perhaps most
`
`remarkable about antitrust
`
`litigation is
`
`the blurry product
`
`that not
`
`infrequently emerges
`
`from the
`
`parties'
`
`huge expenditures
`
`and correspondingly exhaustive
`
`efforts. Each side, bolstered by the mega records of fact
`
`discovery and expert reports it generates, as supplemented
`
`by
`
`the
`
`product
`
`of
`
`any
`
`governmental
`
`investigation and
`
`resulting action,
`
`offers
`
`the
`
`court
`
`evidence
`
`the party
`
`declares should guide the judge in reaching ea compelling
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 7 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 7 of 173
`
`and irrefutable decision in the declarant’s favor.
`
`In fact,
`
`however, quite often what
`
`the
`
`litigants propound sheds
`
`little light on a clear path to resolving the dispute.
`
`In
`
`the final analysis, at
`
`the point of sharpest
`
`focus
`
`and
`
`highest clarity and reliability,
`
`the adversaries’
`
`toil and
`
`trouble reduces
`
`to imprecise
`
`and somewhat
`
`suspect aids:
`
`competing crystal balls.
`
`The case now before the Court
`
`follows
`
`the pattern.
`
`Plaintiff States contend that T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint
`
`will likely stifle competition in the RMWTS Market, even in
`
`the short
`
`term,
`
`forcing consumers to pay higher prices for
`
`use of their cell phones.
`
`In support,
`
`they cite the results
`
`of
`
`their experts’ spectral efficiency studies, engineering
`
`modeling,
`
`and
`
`computer—run
`
`data
`
`analytics. Defendants,
`
`similarly reinforced by their stellar cast of authorities,
`
`proclaim with equal conviction and no less intensity that
`
`after the merger, under a market newly energized by New T—
`
`Mobile’s more vigorous competition,
`
`the prices
`
`consumers
`
`will pay for wireless services likely will not only not
`
`increase,
`
`but
`
`actually will
`
`decline. Accordingly,
`
`the
`
`parties’ costly and conflicting engineering,
`
`economic,
`
`and
`
`scholarly business models,
`
`along with
`
`the
`
`incompatible
`
`visions of the competitive future their experts’
`
`shades—of—
`
`gray forecasts portray, essentially cancel each other out
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 8 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 8 of 173
`
`as helpful evidence the Court could comfortably endorse as
`
`decidedly affirming one side rather than the other.1
`
`The
`
`resulting stalemate
`
`leaves
`
`the Court
`
`lacking
`
`sufficiently impartial
`
`and objective ground. on which,
`
`to
`
`rely in basing a
`
`sound forecast of
`
`the likely competitive
`
`effects of a merger. But
`
`the expert witnesses’
`
`reports and
`
`testimony, however, do not constitute the only or even the
`
`primary source of
`
`support
`
`for
`
`the Court’s assessment of
`
`that question. There is another evidentiary foundation more
`
`compelling in this Court’s assessment
`
`than the abstract or
`
`hypothetical versions of
`
`the relevant market’s competitive
`
`future that
`
`the adversaries
`
`and.
`
`their experts
`
`advocate.
`
`Conceptually,
`
`that underpinning supports
`
`a projection of
`
`what will happen to competition post—merger
`
`that emerges
`
`from the evidence in the trial record that the Court heard,
`
`admitted through the
`
`testimony of
`
`fact witnesses,
`
`and
`
`1 This outcome recalls the heated conflicts over what the Founders meant
`
`in framing particular provisions of the Constitution, often engendering
`unproductive textual, historical,
`and doctrinal debates
`about which
`Justice Robert
`Jackson,
`remarked:
`“A century and.
`a half of partisan
`debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies
`more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any
`question. They largely cancel each other.” Youngstown Sheet
`& Tube Co.
`v.
`Sawyer,
`343 U.S.
`579,
`634—35
`(1952)
`(Jackson,
`J.,
`concurring).
`Nonetheless,
`in the discussion below the Court
`thoroughly considers the
`trial
`testimony and related. documentation. offered by all
`the expert
`witnesses
`and
`explains where
`and why
`it
`found the presentations
`convincing in some respects, but
`in others unconvincing and on balance
`not sufficiently creditable.
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 9 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 9 of 173
`
`evaluated with respect to its credibility and the weight it
`
`deserves.
`
`How the future Amanifests
`
`itself and brings
`
`to pass
`
`what
`
`it holds
`
`is a multifaceted phenomenon that
`
`is not
`
`- necessarily guided by theoretical
`
`forces or mathematical
`
`models.
`
`Instead,
`
`causal agents
`
`that engender knowing' and
`
`purposeful
`
`human
`
`behavior,
`
`individual
`
`and
`
`collective,
`
`fundamentally shape
`
`that narrative. Confronted by
`
`such
`
`challenges, courts acting as
`
`fact—finders ordinarily turn
`
`to traditional
`
`judicial methods
`
`and guidance more aptly
`
`fitted for the task. Specifically,
`
`they resort to their own
`
`tried and tested version of peering into a crystal ball.
`
`Reading what
`
`the major players involved in the dispute have
`
`credibly said or not said and done or not done,
`
`and what
`
`they commit
`
`to do or not
`
`do concerning the merger,
`
`the
`
`courts are then equipped to interpret whatever
`
`formative
`
`conduct and decisive events they can reasonably foresee as
`
`likely to occur.
`
`For this purpose, however,
`
`the courts rely less on the
`
`equipoise
`
`of mathematical
`
`computations,
`
`technical data,
`
`analytical modeling, and adversarial scientific assumptions
`
`that the litigants proffer. Rather,
`
`they apply the judge’s
`
`own
`
`skills
`
`and
`
`frontline
`
`experience
`
`in
`
`weighing,
`
`predicting,
`
`and
`
`judging
`
`complex
`
`and often
`
`conflicting
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 10 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 10 of 173
`
`accounts of
`
`human
`
`conduct,
`
`those actions
`
`and
`
`inactions
`
`drawn
`
`from the
`
`factual
`
`evidence.
`
`In
`
`performing.
`
`that
`
`function,
`
`courts
`
`employ various behavioral. measures
`
`that
`
`even the most exhaustive and authoritative technical expert
`
`study could not adequately capture or gauge as a reliable
`
`prognosticator of likely events set
`
`in motion fundamentally
`
`by
`
`business
`
`decisions made
`
`by
`
`various
`
`live
`
`sources:
`
`relevant market
`
`competitors,
`
`other market participants,
`
`public agencies, and even consumers.
`
`Evaluation of
`
`the
`
`likely competitive effects of
`
`a
`
`prospective business merger
`
`implicates these observations.
`
`The
`
`task provides the Court occasion to engage in such a
`
`prophetic role. To this end,
`
`the Court weighs what actions
`
`taken by the parties to the merger and other proponents
`
`could substantially influence
`
`consumer
`
`choices
`
`and
`
`thus
`
`affect
`
`competition and product pricing in the
`
`relevant
`
`markets.
`
`In this context,
`
`several considerations
`
`emerge
`
`from
`
`the evidentiary record that the Court regards as especially
`
`relevant
`
`and
`
`compelling.
`
`Foremost
`
`among
`
`them is
`
`the
`
`plausibility and persuasiveness of particular witnesses’
`
`trial presentations based on various behavioral guideposts
`
`that the Court details in Section II.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 11 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 11 of 173
`
`During the two"week trial of this action the Court had
`
`ample occasion to observe the witnesses and assess their
`
`credibility and demeanor
`
`on
`
`the witness
`
`stand,
`
`and to
`
`consider the weight
`
`their testimony warranted in the light
`
`of the pointers referred to here and articulated below.
`
`As
`
`elaborated,
`
`in crafting the framework for its decision, and
`
`applying the evidence and governing legal principles,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`took those considerations
`
`into account. The Court
`
`adopted
`
`this
`
`course
`
`because
`
`it
`
`regards
`
`as
`
`a
`
`guiding
`
`principle
`
`the
`
`proposition
`
`that
`
`behavioral
`
`drives
`
`and
`
`motivational
`
`forces
`
`such
`
`as
`
`those
`
`suggested
`
`serve
`
`to
`
`actuate
`
`as well
`
`as
`
`to restrain personal
`
`and business
`
`practices. Hence,
`
`they
`
`can
`
`function
`
`as
`
`a
`
`forecasting
`
`device, providing the Court substantial guidance about how
`
`the corporate officers and companies
`
`involved in the case
`
`are likely to conduct
`
`themselves under particular market
`
`conditions prevailing after a merger.
`
`The
`
`approach
`
`detailed above
`
`assists
`
`the Court’s
`
`adjudication
`
`by
`
`shedding
`
`light
`
`on
`
`a
`
`basic
`
`question
`
`presented here that was
`
`intensely debated by the parties,
`
`and that
`
`is central
`
`to a
`
`resolution, of
`
`their dispute:
`
`whether
`
`a deeply embedded, pattern, of
`
`commercial
`
`conduct
`
`closely and publicly associated with a company or executive
`
`is likely to be abandoned or substantially altered after a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 12 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 12 of 173 ,
`
`merger
`
`so as
`
`to openly embrace
`
`a materially conflicting
`
`course, eSpecially in the short term.
`
`More
`
`significant
`
`for
`
`the purposes
`
`of deciding the
`
`issues before
`
`the Court
`
`is
`
`another
`
`salient point.
`
`The
`
`considerations
`
`the Court
`
`references
`
`here
`
`as
`
`supplying
`
`persuasive guidance also figure as judicial stock-in—trade,
`
`encompassing
`
`things
`
`courts
`
`commonly weigh
`
`in rendering
`
`predictive rulings
`
`such as,
`
`for
`
`instance,
`
`the
`
`judgment
`
`calls they routinely make in determining whether a rational
`
`person would or would not behave in a particular way, or
`
`whether
`
`'to grant
`
`(n: deny bail, or
`
`11)
`
`impose ea custodial
`
`sentence, where
`
`in
`
`each
`
`case
`
`the
`
`likelihood
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendant’s reoffending if released comes into question.
`
`Weighing the evidence in the trial record, and mindful
`
`of
`
`the considerations described here,
`
`the Court
`
`rejects
`
`Plaintiff States’ objections
`
`on
`
`three essential points.
`
`First,
`
`the Court
`
`is not persuaded that Plaintiff States’
`
`prediction of
`
`the future after the merger of T—Mobile and
`
`Sprint
`
`is sufficiently compelling insofar as it holds that
`
`New T—Mobile would pursue anticompetitive behavior
`
`that,
`
`soon after the merger, directly or
`
`indirectly, will yield
`
`higher
`
`prices
`
`or
`
`lower
`
`quality
`
`for
`
`wireless
`
`telecommunications
`
`services,
`
`thus
`
`likely to substantially
`
`lessen competition in a nationwide market.
`
`Second,
`
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 13 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 13 of 173
`
`Court also disagrees with the projection Plaintiff States
`
`present contending that Sprint,
`
`absent
`
`the merger, would
`
`continue operating as a strong competitor in the nationwide
`
`market for wireless services. Similarly,
`
`the Court does not
`
`credit Plaintiff States’
`
`evidence
`
`in arguing that DISH
`
`would not enter
`
`the wireless services market as
`
`a viable
`
`competitor nor
`
`live up
`
`to its
`
`commitments
`
`to build a
`
`national wireless network,
`
`so as
`
`to provide services that
`
`would fill
`
`the competitive gap left by Sprint's demise.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the Court concludes
`
`that
`
`judgment
`
`should. be
`
`entered
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of Defendants
`
`and Plaintiff States’
`
`request to enjoin the Proposed Merger should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT2
`
`This is a case about competition in the retail market
`
`for mobile wireless
`
`telecommunications
`
`services.
`
`The
`
`significance of
`
`these services,
`
`as described in greater
`
`detail
`
`in Section II.D. below, has increased greatly since
`
`their inception roughly four decades ago,
`
`transforming from
`
`solely a method of voice communication to a critical means
`
`for consumers
`
`to manage countless
`
`facets of
`
`their daily
`
`lives. Among the variety of consumer uses enabled by these
`
`2 While the Court has reviewed and considered all of the live testimony
`and accompanying exhibits admitted in evidence in connection with the
`trial in this matter,
`the Court addresses only those portions of
`the
`evidence relevant to its legal conclusions.
`
`10
`
`
`
`L
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 14 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 14 of 173
`
`services are transportation applications such as Uber and
`
`Lyft, applications enabling mobile banking and transactions
`
`with various
`
`retail outlets,
`
`and personal entertainment
`
`uses such as streaming audio, video, and high—speed gaming.
`
`As mobile wireless
`
`telecommunications
`
`services
`
`now also
`
`enable
`
`consumers
`
`to communicate with each other
`
`through
`
`voice, video,
`
`and text
`
`in various ways,
`
`the importance of
`
`such services is hard to overstate.
`
`Consumers
`
`choose
`
`retail
`
`mobile
`
`wireless
`
`telecommunications
`
`services
`
`(“RMWTS”)
`
`providers,
`
`or
`
`“carriers,” based on several considerations. These include
`
`the nominal price of
`
`the services, whether
`
`those services
`
`are bundled with consumer services in other retail markets,
`
`and the terms on which those services can be extended to
`
`consumers’
`
`families.
`
`Of
`
`equal
`
`or potentially greater
`
`importance,
`
`consumers also choose carriers based on
`
`the
`
`quality
`
`of
`
`the
`
`carriers’ wireless
`
`telecommunications
`
`networks,
`
`including the speeds and consistency of coverage
`
`provided
`
`by
`
`those
`
`networks
`
`as well
`
`as
`
`the mobile
`
`applications
`
`that
`
`can be used given the quality of
`
`the
`
`networks. Because carriers compete on these dimensions of
`
`network quality, and because it is important
`
`to understand
`
`how these dimensions of network quality are determined,
`
`the
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Es‘4‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 15 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 15 of 173
`
`Court provides below 2a brief overview of nmbile wireless
`
`network design and mobile wireless technological standards.
`
`A.
`
`SPECTRUM AND MOBILE WIRELESS NETWORKS
`
`1.
`
`Spectrum
`
`Mobile wireless telecommunications services basically
`
`entail voice or data transmission via radio waves, which
`
`are generally referred to as spectrum. Because spectrum is
`
`necessary for the transmission of data,
`
`it is potentially
`
`the most critical resource for any aspiring RMWTS provider.
`
`Tr. 1152:3—9. Spectrum is a fixed resource that
`
`is limited
`
`in quantity, and its availability and use is thus regulated
`
`by the Federal Communications Commission
`
`(“FCC”). The
`
`FCC
`
`licenses spectrum in order to ensure the unique use of each
`
`radio
`
`frequency, without which
`
`there would
`
`be
`
`signal
`
`interference
`
`that
`
`would
`
`render
`
`mobile
`
`wireless
`
`telecommunications
`
`incomprehensible. Tr.
`
`1152:l0—21.
`
`The
`
`FCC also determines which frequencies of spectrum will be
`
`dedicated to specific communications
`
`industries,
`
`such as
`
`wireless
`
`telecommunications,
`
`cable
`
`television,
`
`and
`
`satellite services, as well as to other users such as the
`
`United States Department of Defense. The
`
`FCC occasionally
`
`reapportions
`
`certain spectrum frequencies
`
`to different
`
`industries based on their relative importance to consumers,
`
`and
`
`it may
`
`then auction the
`
`reapportioned spectrum.
`
`to
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 16 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 16 of 173
`
`service
`
`providers
`
`in
`
`the
`
`relevant
`
`industry.
`
`Service
`
`providers may also privately transact
`
`in spectrum among
`
`themselves,
`
`although the
`
`FCC may
`
`need
`
`to approve
`
`the
`
`transfer of the relevant Spectrum licenses.
`
`The
`
`radio
`
`frequencies
`
`used
`
`for mobile wireless
`
`telecommunications
`
`services
`
`can be broadly divided into
`
`three categories of
`
`spectrum:
`
`“low—band,”
`
`“mid—band,” and
`
`“millimeter' wave”
`
`(“mmWave”)
`
`spectrum.
`
`Low—band
`
`spectrum,
`
`defined
`
`as
`
`covering
`
`frequencies
`
`below one
`
`gigahertz
`
`(“GHZ”),
`
`can cover broad distances of up to 18 miles and
`
`penetrate into buildings effectively.
`
`It may thus be used
`
`to effectively provide mobile wireless telecommunications
`
`services in both urban environments with many buildings and
`
`less
`
`densely
`
`populated
`
`rural
`
`areas. However,
`
`low—band
`
`spectrum is in scarce supply because it is also used for
`
`television and radio broadcasting,
`
`and because the mobile
`
`wireless telecommunications networks that were built in the
`
`industry’s infancy primarily used low—band spectrum. Def.
`
`Ex. 8180 at 3; Tr. 1153:8w20.
`
`Mid—band spectrum covers
`
`frequencies between one and
`
`six GHz and has a maximum effective range of between two to
`
`six miles. While it does not have the same broad coverage
`
`or
`
`in—building
`
`penetration
`
`capabilities
`
`of
`
`low—band
`
`spectrum,
`
`it
`
`is plentiful
`
`in comparison
`
`and currently
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 17 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 17 of 173
`
`supports the majority of mobile wireless network traffic in
`
`the United States. Although,
`
`5G,
`
`the latest
`
`technological
`
`standard for mobile wireless
`
`telecommunications
`
`services,
`
`is primarily being deployed across
`
`the Had—band
`
`spectrum
`
`worldwide,
`
`this
`
`type of deployment has been
`
`relatively
`
`difficult
`
`in
`
`the United
`
`States
`
`because
`
`additional
`
`undeployed midwband spectrum is not readily available. Def.
`
`Ex. 8180 at 3; Tr. 1153:21—1154le.
`
`MmWave spectrum covers frequencies above 20 GHz and is
`
`relatively new to mobile wireless
`
`networks.
`
`It
`
`is
`
`in
`
`plentiful
`
`supply and
`
`can be used to create additional
`
`capacity and higher
`
`speeds
`
`for consumers, but
`
`it has
`
`the
`
`least
`
`capability to penetrate buildings
`
`and
`
`the most
`
`limited range of all
`
`three spectrum bands,
`
`reaching only
`
`300 yards at best._Def. Ex. 8180 at 3; Tr.
`
`llS4:l4—ll55:4.
`
`2. Mobile Wireless Network Infrastructure
`
`Data and voice communications are transmitted between
`
`consumers’ mobile phones, or “handsets,” through a complex
`
`and
`
`expensive
`
`set
`
`of
`
`infrastructure
`
`developed
`
`and
`
`maintained by certain RMWTS providers. Consumers’ handsets
`
`transmit and receive data through radios that are hosted on
`
`“cell sites," which are either large steel
`
`lattice towers
`
`l4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 18 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 18 of 173
`
`or antennas and related equipment mounted on rooftops.3 Cell
`
`sites connect
`
`to each other
`
`through,
`
`fiber cables called
`
`“backhaul,” which also connect
`
`the cell sites to a central
`
`set of computing hardware called either the “mobile core”
`
`or “core network.” The mobile core serves as a centralized
`
`station
`
`that
`
`manages
`
`network
`
`traffic
`
`and
`
`directs
`
`communications between handsets through the interconnected
`
`network of cell sites. Def. Ex.
`
`8180 at 2; Tr.
`
`504:14—
`
`505:15, 1150:8—1151:21.4
`
`The
`
`reliability and quality of
`
`a
`
`consumer’s mobile
`
`wireless telecommunications services depend largely on the
`
`coverage and capacity of the underlying mobile network. Tr.
`
`505:22—506213, 1143:16—25. Coverage refers to the range in
`
`which a carrier’s customers can use their mobile wireless
`
`services;
`
`it
`
`is a
`
`function of both the location of
`
`the
`
`carrier’s
`
`cell
`
`sites
`
`and
`
`the
`
`effective
`
`range
`
`of
`
`the
`
`spectrum. deployed. at
`
`'those cell sites. Because consumers
`
`generally desire Hmbile services that do not
`
`limit
`
`their
`
`freedonl of movement,
`
`the ideal netw0rk will have
`
`enough
`
`\\
`n
`can be supplemented by
`sometimes called macros,
`3 These large towers,
`smaller devices called “small cells, which cover smaller distances but
`are less expensive to install. Radio equipment may also vary based on
`the type of cell site and the radio frequencies that it will
`receive
`and transmit.
`
`If
`
`4 The portions of_this network infrastructure that specifically relate
`to radio transmission are sometimes
`referred to as
`the Radio Access
`Network (“RAN”).
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 19 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 19 of 173
`
`cell
`
`sites
`
`and
`
`spectrum to ensure
`
`consistent
`
`coverage
`
`wherever a carrier’s customers are likely to travel.
`
`Capacity refers to the amount of traffic that a mobile
`
`wireless network can support. Capacity is a Hmltiplicative
`
`function of
`
`the number of cell sites in a network,
`
`the
`
`amount of
`
`spectrum deployed per cell site,
`
`and “spectral
`
`efficiency,” which determines the amount of data that can
`
`be transmitted over a given quantity of spectrum. “Traffic"
`
`is a function of both the number of consumers
`
`that use a
`
`particular
`
`amount of
`
`spectrum and
`
`how much data
`
`those
`
`consumers' applications require.
`
`In other words,
`
`the more
`
`consumers who use a given amount of spectrum,
`
`the less data
`
`each consumer will be able to use at any given'point
`
`in
`
`time. Consumers experience these data limitations either in
`
`the form of caps on how muCh data they can use or
`
`in the
`
`form of
`
`lower
`
`speeds
`
`that may
`
`limit
`
`or prohibit _the
`
`consumers’ ability to use data—intensive applications such
`
`as streaming video.
`
`RMWTS carriers seek to avoid exceeding
`
`their maximum capacity,
`
`and consequently dOanrading the
`
`quality of
`
`their service,
`
`by acquiring‘ more
`
`spectrum or
`
`building more
`
`cell
`
`sites
`
`to utilize
`
`their
`
`existing
`
`spectrum, either of which increases the carriers’ capacity
`
`to carry additional network traffic. Def. Ex. 8180 at
`
`6—7;
`
`Tr. 1163:2—15, 1165le~1l66:3,
`
`ll67:2—ll68:l7.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 20 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 20 of 173
`
`The preceding summary indicates
`
`that
`
`RMWTS carriers
`
`would like as much
`
`spectrum and as many cell sites as
`
`possible
`
`in
`
`order
`
`to
`
`have
`
`consistent
`
`coverage
`
`and
`
`sufficient
`
`capacity
`
`to
`
`ensure
`
`reliable,
`
`high—quality
`
`services. However,
`
`as noted above,
`
`spectrunl
`
`is a
`
`scarce
`
`resource and consequently costly to acquire. Cell sites are
`
`similarly expensive to construct
`
`and connect
`
`to network
`
`infrastructure,
`
`and they can take months or even years to
`
`build because of the time—consuming process of securing the
`
`permitting and
`
`licenses necessary to build and operate
`
`them. Tr. 1144:13—22, 1167:2—1168217.
`
`B.
`
`GENERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR MOBILE WIRELESS SERVICES
`
`The applications
`
`that
`
`RMWTS
`
`consumers
`
`can use also
`
`depend upon the technological standards that apply to the
`
`spectrum deployed on
`
`the mobile wireless network. There
`
`have
`
`been
`
`five
`
`generations
`
`of wireless
`
`technology
`
`standards,
`
`each
`
`of which
`
`has
`
`significantly increased
`
`spectral efficiency and thus facilitated increasingly data—
`
`intensive consumer uses.
`
`The first generation of wireless technology standards
`
`governed the first mobile phones, which could only provide
`
`voice services, during a period that corresponds roughly to
`
`the 19805. The second generation,
`
`referred to as 2G,
`
`came
`
`into operation,
`
`in the 19905
`
`and saw the development of
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 21 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 21 of 173
`
`basic non—voice data, services;
`
`the archetypal
`
`ZG service
`
`was
`
`text messaging.
`
`BG developed in the 20008 and featured
`
`a more comprehensive rollout of data services that allowed
`
`users of mobile devices
`
`to access
`
`email
`
`and, browse
`
`the
`
`internet.
`
`4G, also called LTE (for “long term evolution”),
`
`developed in the last decade. Coupled with the advent of
`
`smartphones,
`
`4G has enabled data services far beyond basic
`
`internet browsing,
`
`including the creation of applications
`
`for
`
`varied
`
`consumer
`
`uses
`
`such
`
`as
`
`personal
`
`finance,
`
`entertainment,
`
`health and
`
`fitness,
`
`and much more. Tr.
`
`1155:5—1157:4.
`
`The
`
`RMWTS
`
`industry is currently in a
`
`transitional
`
`period,
`
`as providers begin to roll out
`
`5G,
`
`the fifth—
`
`generation wireless
`
`technological
`
`standard, Although the
`
`full
`
`impact
`
`of
`
`SG
`
`remains
`
`to
`
`be
`
`seen,
`
`it
`
`promises
`
`significant increases in the speeds available to consumers,
`
`lower consumption of mobile devices’ batteries, and reduced
`
`latency,
`
`or
`
`the time
`
`required for
`
`a mobile device
`
`and
`
`mobile network to communicate with each other.
`
`5G will
`
`likely enable consumers to use augmented reality (“AR”) or
`
`virtual reality (“VR”) applications and to stream video at
`
`a significantly higher picture quality referred to as
`
`4K.
`
`SG may
`
`also
`
`facilitate
`
`the
`
`development
`
`of
`
`various
`
`applications that may not strictly fall under the umbrella
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 22 of 173
`Case 1:19-cv-05434-VM-RWL Document 409 Filed 02/11/20 Page 22 of 173
`
`of
`
`retail
`
`services,
`
`such
`
`as
`
`autonomous driving,
`
`near—
`
`simultaneous translation,
`
`and healthcare applications that
`
`require minimal delays in networkwto—device communication.
`
`Tr.
`
`927:11—928z6, 1157:20~1159:2.
`
`In total,
`
`consumers are
`
`projected to demand more than five times as much data for
`
`5G services as they currently demand for 4G services. Def.
`
`Ex. 8l80 at 4.
`
`The
`
`implementation of
`
`such a significant
`
`change
`
`in
`
`technological
`
`standards
`
`is
`
`costly
`
`and
`
`timewconsuming.
`
`Industry estimates place the cost of deploying

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket