make sure the common understanding of what's going on and it also provides a window into washington dc that those of us who are distant -- a far distance away can see what's occurring. >> we really believe that it's important to offer these things to our customers, because we believe in the network's mission to be an unfiltered media support. we proudly support their efforts to inform on education, politics and current events. >> be sure to join us july 21st and 22nd when we'll feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska on c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. the heads of t-mobile and sprint appeared before a senate committee to propose their merger. it would create the nation's

third largest wireless carrier. at this hearing, we heard from consumer advocates who raised concerns on the impact on competition and prices. back in june, a federal judge ruled in favor of the merger, despite a lawsuit from the justice department. this is just under two and a half hours. [ inaudible conversations ]. >> welcome to this hearing on the subcommittee on antitrust policy and consumer rights. before we start, i want to thank our ranking mentor, senator clavachar for her staff and

their outstanding assistance in their preparation for this hearing. i also want to take the chairman of the full judiciary committee senator grassly for his support for this hearing. after we each have an opportunity to give some opening remar remarks, we're going to hear from our panel of witnesses. we'll be hearing from each one of you. and i'll introduce each one of you briefly before that happens. and then after each of you has had a chance to speak, we'll have a series of seven minute question rounds from members of the subcommittee. we've come a long way since the very firstha handheld telephone came along 35 years ago. these handheld cell phones were revolutionary. they were very different than they are now. that first device was ten inches long. it weighed over two pounds. and it allowed for a whooping 20

minutes of talk time before the battery just up and died. today you can place a phone call or surf the internet using a mobile device that fits in your pocket or even fits on your wrist. and you can use it for 18 hours before it needs a charge. over the past two decades, growth in wireless technology and connectivity has been truly astounding. surpassing what almost anyone could have imagined back then. according to the cellular telecommunications and internet association, ctia, wireless subscribers have grown from 110 million in 2000 to more than 395 million in 2016. today more than 95% of american adults own a cell phone. moreover, a majority of u.s. households are now wireless only, meaning that they rely exclusively on their cell phones

for telephone connection. having abandoned the old land line, which reminds me of the fact that a few years ago my son james once came up with an odd suggestion. he said because people lose phones and they can't find them, someone should invent a telephone. one that is actually connected with the wire to the wall. [ laughing ] >> he was dead serious. the volume of wireless data being transmitted is also expanded exponentially. according to ctia between 2014 and 2016, the amount of wireless data traffic grew from about terabits to almost 14 terabits. that's an increase in two years. with the number of connected devices to exceed 30 billion by 2023, wireless traffic will continue to grow significantly, substantially at a breath taking rate in the future.

these figures demonstrate the importance of wireless services to american consumers and to american businesses. neither of which could really survive or thrive in today's world without wireless services. mobile services impact many parts of our modern lives, from recreation to health care to commerce, just to name a very few. thanks to wireless technology. you can now check your e-mail and stream music or buy concert tickets and register to vote away from your home or office all on your mobile device. sim lateral, businesses -- similarly, businesses can use mobile devices to increase their mobile ability by wirelessly tracking inventory, managing fleets of vehicles or efficiently connecting with employees in the field and monitoring their progress and their productivity and what they're doing with their time. competition among wireless service providers has helped to

increase the availability of such services both geographically and also financially. these benefits have included expanding access to wireless services to those in rural areas and ensuring the fooshlt -- affordability of these services to americans with lower incomes. the resulting rise in consumer demand for wireless services has promoted development and implementation of some really innovative technology. consumers of wireless services, whatever their walk of life, therefore have a strong interest in ensuring that competition continues to deliver such benefits to them. and to do so in a way that makes them affordable. and, therefore, accessible. today's hearing is intended to consider these issues with regard to the proposed merger of t-mobile and sprint. two of the four large nationwide providers of wireless services. the two companies have stopped

to combine for a number of years. most recently last fall. earlier merger discussions in 2014 were apparently ended after the obama administration signaled that such a deal would face strong opposition. in april of this year, however, t-mobile and sprint agreed to the transaction that is the basis of today's hearing. the transaction is a horizontal merger, one that would combine competitors offering the same product in many of the same geographic markets within the united states. the nation's antitrust laws forbid combinations of firms that may substantially lessen competition because this is all about the consumer. what happens to the consumer as a result of diminishing competition. the government agencies that analyze such transactions recognize, however, that mergers offer the potential to generate significant efficiencies, which

could enhance the merged firm's ability to compete and also its incentive to compete. our purpose today is to hear from the merging parties and from our panel of distinguished experts to ask them questions about what they believe to be the primary issues the public should be thinking about when considering the likely competitive impact of this proposed merger between t-mobile and sprint. critics of the merger note that it would reduce the number of nationwide wireless carriers from 4 to 3, leaving the new t-mobile to compete with just verizon and at&t. a bonus of the deal point to t-mobile as an aggressive competitor, one that has sought to gain market share with its uncarrier marketing strategy. their fear is that the transaction will reduce the incentives of the merge firm to

continue aggressive competitive efforts that have benefitted consumers. the most vocal critics of this proposed transaction claim that it will eliminate the head to head rivalry between the merged parties prepaid brands metro pcs and boost. consumers purchased prepaid services up front with deductions made against the amount of minutes and data initially purchased. prepaid plans often are used by consumers who are unable to provide the credit history required for post paid subscriptions used by more americans. opponents of the transaction claim that competition lost because of the merger will hurt poor consumers the hardest since they rely on prepaid services the most. rather than diminish their competitive spirit, t-mobile and

sprint insist that the merger will super charge their efforts to disrupt the wireless marketplace. they claim that by putting t-mobile's uncarrier strategy into over drive, the merger will increase the ability to compete with verizon which will reduce rather than increase the amount consumers will have to pay. in particular, the parties argued that combining their network assets, that includes spectrum holdings and it also includes cell sites, that they merged resulting firm will greatly increase network capacity, which will create long standing and very strong incentives to compete aggressively for customers in both the short-term and in the long-term. the parties also claim that the transaction will accelerate the adoption of 5 g wireless technology. the telecom industry expects that the move to 5 g, the latest

generation of wireless technology will deliver data at greater speed with lower latency and will also deliver the ability to connect many more devices at the same time. t-mobile and sprint argued that their proposed merger will help this process along, since they'll be the only carrier capable of delivering nationwide 5g in the very early stage of innovati innovation. as with any antitrust analysis, the inquiry is always very fact intensive. mergers are particularly complicated in this respect as they require prediction about the future. they're not simply static. we can't just assume all of today's market forces. because the market, itself, is dynamic. in any event, we're not here today ourselves empowered with the ability to decide the fate of this merger. i do believe, however, that the

hearing we're holding this afternoon can help frame the relevant issues and arguments for the public by offering a public forum for us to discuss some of the most important issues. i look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses and hearing questions from my colleagues and any answers you may be able to provide. senator, you now have the floor. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will vote the chairman was promoting the fact that justice kennedy didn't wait until after our hearing to make this announcement. but we're pleased to see so many people here. and i would just note that we hope the president will find someone who is someone who carries on the tradition of being someone who makes decisions based on the law and someone who makes decisions based on precedent. and we will await this announcement. but actually when you look at

this merger in front of us, when you look at all of the decisions that were made in the last week, this is a very important position. so now we turn to the matter at hand, which is very important to many people in our country. in fact, there's many customers. i was looking at the numbers for the tens of millions of customers of these companies. and so this matters. more than three-quarters of american adults, as the chairman was noting, now own smart phones. they are so common that many of us take for granted that we are essentially walking around with little super computers in our pockets. but these increasingly sophisticated devices would not be nearly as useful if they weren't connected to the powerful wireless networks that crisscross our country. it's these wireless networks that let us do extraordinary things. i'll mention a few of them. share pictures, share videos, order rides, watch movies, read

the news and really reach the entire world. as these wireless networks have become more powerful, and as new generations of technology have allowed us to do more and more things on our phones, wireless network connectivity has become essential for the vast majority of americans. many of us can't imagine how we would do our jobs or stay in touch with loved ones without them. you think about the last time your phone was missing. well, that's what it would be like if we didn't have them. millions of americans, particularly low income americans, depend on wireless networks for their primary connection to the internet. according to the peer research center, 20% of americans rely exclusively on their smart phones for home internet access. that's up from 13% in 2015. you wonder why this is a big deal. well, think about that. 20% of americans, that is the only way that they get their home internet access, and you have three-quarters of americans

using smart phones. it's essential that we have access to reliable wireless at fair and competitive rates. and it's also essential that we continue to promote innovation. and so let's be clear, we need competition and innovation. we need consumer choice and 5g. but we should not have to choose between them. what we're here to discuss today is a proposed merger that could reshape the wireless market in various ways. and let me explain my own personal background in this. before i came to the senate, i did have a life before that, i was a prosecutor for eight years. but before that, i was in the private sector for 14 years. and starting as a brand new lawyer, one of my first big clients was mci. and it was at a time when they were trying to get into the market and battling monopolies to do that. they were young, innovative company that was determined to drupt -- disrupt the industry by

competing with local carriers. and it was excited to be representing a company like that. their scrappy lawyers viewed themselves as cowboys of sorts, fighting for consumers and lower prices. i still remember at one of my first regulatory hearings i made the comparison between the stories -- the story of the first words of alexander graham bell when the first telephone worked and he said come here, watson, i need you. but in the fast moving world of mci, when they actually got their first connection to work between st. louis and chicago, one of their benefactors memorialized the great moment and said, i'll be damned, it actually works. [ laughing ] >> but without antitrust law, mci would never have worked. mci took on bell operating companies and at&t and ultimately helped break up a monopoly. this breakup, as we all know, lowered long distance prices and also spawned this incredibly

competitive cellular arena. what we saw then in the long distance market was really a bit of a precursor to what we see now in the cell phone market. today, we are on the cusp of a new revolution in wireless telecom. and just as in the long distance market, antitrust law is front and center. the wireless market has gone through a great deal of change since the turn of the century. a lot of that has to do with technological advancement. but we've also seen consolidation. we went from 7 carriers in 2002 to just four in 2009. the push to consolidate continued until 2011 when the justice department blocked the at&t attempt to buy t-mobile. and we have had the same four carriers ever since, which i note is the exact number of monopoly railroad companies on the monopoly board. despite at&t's arguments in 2011 that the transaction was

necessary to unleech the next generation wireless network, the four remaining carriers have all introduced 4g service throughout most of the country. a sprint-t-mobile merger has been discussed for years. they discussed it in 2014 and was told that the deal would face opposition at both agencies, so the proposal was dropped. but the idea didn't go away. it came up again last year. and, again, former doj and fcc officials warned the public about the potential anti-competitive effects of the merger. i wrote a letter to the doj and the fcc last fall before there was even a signed deal with a group of other senators raising concerns about the potential deal. after the deal was announced, the parties have been very forthcoming with their views, and i appreciate their answers to many of my questions. at the same time, i still have

concerns. first four competitors is not very many given all of the public use of cell phones. but over the last three years, we've still seen vigorous competition in part because of the companies before us today. most of this competition has been driven by the maverick behavior of t-mobile and sprint. and out of necessity, they've competed hard to take market share from each other and from the two larger players verizon and at&t. they've lowered prices. they've offered innovative plans, and they've certainly offered innovative outfits. so first we need to ask, will a combined t-mobile sprint need to compete as hard? will that competitive energy remain when the lowest cost provider is gone and the merged company is similar in scale to verizon and at&t? second, how would the merger affect prices and service for consumers who rely on lower

cost, prepaid plans or who live in rural areas? and, third, what will be the proposed merger's effect on innovation. those are the things i thing we need to consider. mr. chairman, i realize there could be some potential benefits. we've heard about this with 5g. but merging parties and the investment community often promise millions, sometimes billions of dollars in efficiency and cost saving. and the question is whether consumers will actually see the promised lower prices or improved quality when the deal is done and consumers have definitely fewer carriers to choose from. this is an important transaction with long-term implications for consumers. and i'm glad that we're having this hearing, and we'll hear from the witnesses today. thank you. >> thanks so much, senator clobuchar. we're now going to be turning to our witnesses, and i'll give you

both a chance to speak. i'll move to my left and then my right. i'll introduce first. john ledger is the chief executive officer of t-mobile u.s. a position he's held since september 2012. he keeps the theme consistent, by the way, with making sure his pearl reveals the company for which he works. mr. legere has years of experience working in the telecommunication and technology industries. prior to joining t-mobile, mr. legere sefrrved as ceo of mobile crossing. he held positions with del and with at&t. mr. legere has a bachelor's degree in business administration from the university of massachusetts, a master of science degree from mit as a master of business administration degree from ferrell dickinson university.

marcel is the chief operating officer of soft bank group. soft bank group, the japanese multi-national conglomerate that owns a majority steak. mr. claure founded bright star corporation. 20 years later, bright star, which is now majority owned by soft bank, has annual revenues in excess of $10 billion. an immigrant to the united states from bow live yeah -- bolivia, he earned a degree in bentley, massachusetts. vice president of technology systems, architecture and client group and general manager of next generation and standards with intel. she is responsible for investigating and delivering the technologies that intel is

pursuing in the 5g arena. she has more than 17 years experience leading and managing wireless and mobile broadband technology and product areas. she holds the degree in computer engineering from bombay university in india and an ms degree in computer science from clemson university. gene kemelman served as director of the internet freedom and is chief counsel for the u.s. department of justice's antitrust division. mr. kimmelman is a graduate from the virginia university of law school where he received the portsman fellowship. dr. rozland dayton is a scholar where she focuses on technology for communication and digital technologies. she is also a visiting

researcher at the center for communication, media and information technologies. and a vice president at strand council, both in denmark. she served on the 2016-2017 federal communications commission presidential transmission team. dr. layton has a phd and an mba from the rotterdam school of management and a ba of business management. george clover is in the washington office where he helps develop and coordinate the organizations comments related to its advocacy across a wide range of policy issues, including safety, telecommunications, energy and finance. he also oversees anti-policy issues. he has three decades of federal policy with service in all three branches of the federal government. mr. slover holds a j.d. and a

masters of public affairs from the lbj school. before we begin, i would like to swear you all in as witnesses. if you'll stand and raise your hand. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give to the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. mr. legere, you may begin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman lee, ranking member klobucr klobuchar, thank you for inviting us to talk about anti-crust trust and consumer rights and i look forward to answering your questions. at t-mobile, we are all about doing right by customers and putting them first. customers are at the heart of our culture and our business model. their needs truly drive the decisions we make. as i've said many times, we set

out to fix a stupid broken arrogant industry. so far, we've ended two year contracts. we've made it easier for people to upgrade to new devices. and we freed people to travel with roaming left on. and we even pioneered unlimited data. we have done all of that while delivering lower prices than the big carriers at&t and verizon. however, while we've made a positive impact on behalf of customers, there's still a lot of work to do, especially in this converging marketplace. today i'm pleased to tell you how we want to super charge the uncarrier and end the unacceptable status quo while further increasing competition, creating jobs and promoting u.s. leader ship in 5g. i've submitted a formal statement for the record, but i want to talk to you today about a ceo that is both passionate and optimistic about the future and the massive benefits our merger will create for american

consumers and our economy. i've had the privilege to meet with most of you personally in advance of this hearing, and many of you asked if the new t-mobile will mean more competition, provide better service, create jobs and drive product innovation. my answer to these questions is an emphatic and absolute yes. first and foremost, we will make sure america wins the global 5g race. this is so important, because 5g will unlock communication well beyond anything we've seen so far. 5g is about enabling amazing innovation and then ensuring that these new capabilities and services are both available and affordable to everyone. 5g will completely transform the way americans live, work, travel and play. 5g means real time virtual navigation. downloading a movie in seconds. instant language translation and much more. nearly every business in america

will be able to use 5g to revolutionize how they create and deliver goods and services. to make this happen and deliver on the full promise of 5g, we need to combine sprint and t-mobile now. in a moment, marcelo will share how the combined networks for the new company. as you'll be able to see from the charts and maps we have here in the room, with the new t-mobile, consumers will have broad and deep nationwide coverage. that's what this transaction is about. the benefits of 5g leadership won't just flow to big markets and big cities, combieping these two companies will bring the benefits to consumers everywhere, especially rural america. we will open at least 600 new retail stores and up to five new call centers in rural and small towns. and this transaction will be job-positive from day one. ultimately creating thousands of american jobs. when we do this, at&t and verizon will be forced to react and follow our lead.

and we will happily take their customers and give them more value and better price. in reality, when we invest, they must invest. when we lower prices, they must lower prices. and when we innovate, they must innovate. trust me, the new t-mobile will not stop. we will be relentless. we will also bring more competition to enterprise customers where at&t and verizon control nearly 90% of the market. we will fiercely attack this market with greater network and selling resources. we will also take on at&t, comcast and charter in the in home broadband market. we will be an alternative for the cable cord cutters who want better service, more choices and better value. we will finally offer an alternative to this uncompetitive market and provide an opportunity for millions of american consumers to free themselves from the grip of the traditional in home broadband providers. in closing, t-mobile is a proud disrupter. it's in my dna. it's what drives my

customer-loving employees who embrace the brand and what it stands for. it's been our recipe for success, and we have no plans of changing that now. if we keep true to who we are, and i can promise to you today under oath that we will, the new t-mobile team will deliver for consumers and for our country. thank you, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. legere. >> mr. claure. >> thank you. it's an honor to be here today. i'm incredibly excited about a sprint's proposed merger with t-mobile. i will tell you why this merger is good for american consumers, sprint employers and the next entrepreneurs. after i graduated college, i brought a cell phone shop in boston and grew into a leader of cellular phones. two years later i started a cell phone distribution center called bright star. it grew into a $10 billion company and became the leader in

the wireless industry. i'm proud to say that bright star also became the largest business in u.s. history. i later sold bright star and joined sprint. as you're aware, sprint has faced a lot of challenges in recent years. the company has lost over $25 billion in the last ten years. i was hired in 2014 to reverse that trajectory and turn around sprint. and i could not be more proud of what our sprint team has accomplished in making sprint a stable company for the first time in many years. we're able to achieve this mainly by significant cost reductions. however, many challenges still remain. we still struggle to attract new customers. and once we attract them, we struggle to keep them. customer perception still trails for competitors. and to be blunt, we lack the resources to challenge the two dominant players at&t and verizon. and now our industry getting ready for a new wave of investment in order to deploy 5 g which presents a tremendous

opportunity but it will require sprint to make massive new investment in the network, even as we haven't even finished paying for 4 g. as a stand alone company, sprint would need to invest between 20 and $25 billion in the next five years to deploy 5g, and that will only support 5g with coverage largely limited to metropolitan areas as you can see on the map. sprint already operates with $32 million in net debt and we have a struggle to break even and we have to invest another 20 to $25 billion just to be able to work for 5g in limited areas. we most likely will have to increase prices in order to pay for this investment in 5 g. given the situation we face, i have analyzed all options available to sprint. including the fact of a stand alone company. what i have found is this merger is the best option for employees, shareholders, but more importantly for the american consumer. in business, that means everything. and today the stars are aligned

for us. what makes this merger so exceptional is our combined network and spectrum assets will allow to take advantage of the rapid emergence of 5 g and american leadership. i'm a firm believer that best partnerships come when both sides meet each other and the strength of this merger. neither of our two companies can do this alone. we need t-mobile, and t-mobile needs us. so with this merger, we're committed to build the world's most advanced 5g network with true nationwide coverage urban, suburban and rural. the combined company will invest $30 billion over the next three years. this new network will power safer driving cars, smarter farming, life saving medicine and society changing innovations. because of this new growth, we will create thousands of new jobs starting from day one. and that combining our network, we will grow our capacity six times. meaning that we will vastly increase the amount of gig bites

that the combined company will have available for american consumers. to be successful, we will need to fulfill this capacity by gaining market shares. this new network will give us the ability to compete and disrupt the dominance of verizon and at&t. because of its high capacity and incredible fast speed, we also plan to challenge the dominant cable companies, like comcast and charter. both monopolies and accelerate the current trend. because of this verizon and at&t are going to need to invest more to be able to compete with us. now they'll be forced to react, invest, compete harder, and that will be good for consumers of innovation. in addition, the new company will be able to compete in many new cities and towns all over rural america and allow us to challenge in the enterprise and government segment. when u.s. led the world in developing 4g, american companies led in 4g. america should not let countries like china or south korea take

away the leadership. in closing, i believe this will be one of the most beneficial mergers in american history. we're committing to building the world's most advanced 5g network, expand our corners to every corner of america, stimulate innovation that we can only dream of. thank you, again, for inviting john and me here today and giving us the opportunity to showcase our merger. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, sir. >> chairman lee and ranking members of the subcommittee, thank you for talking about 5g. with 4g, we worked hard to connect everyone. and now that 5g, we connect everyone to everything economic to scale. if you think about that, everyone and everything, it's truly phenomenal and transfor malings because the -- transformational because the

technology is predictable but what human beings do with it is not. what do i mean by that? let's take a step back. 2 g was about voice. however, then the smart phones came along and there's an app for that came along and the data revolution started happening. so then we created the 4g network which was supposed to be about data. many new companies with 4g started innovations and today how we hail cabs, how we travel, everything is done by companies that didn't exist a few years ago. and so, now, these applications have fundamentally changed and, indeed, improved our daily lives. we also then couldn't stop producers -- we are consumers but then we started producing and separating more data. and then we also want to start connecting too because we want to use technology in how we do agriculture or other things. and this led to the need for 5g, which is actually one of the

world's first global cellular standards. as scale 5g networks, they can drive this type of installation across many different industries, enabling an even bolder and broader transformation. these span global economy from industry to agriculture to cities and the list goes on and on. estimate about 3 million jobs over the next ten years and 500 billion to the gdp. to do this, we have to rethink everything from the add interface to how the network is defined. we're no longer just inside your computer. we're in things like phone to being inside your computer to the things that follow the cloud all the way, including the infrastructure. in addition to the interface, what we also need is we need to

ensure that the transform and go from a more proprietary fixed function to a softer defined function where we can enable lower cost services and intel is involved here. to date, because of this merge of industries and cellular and consumers, we have worked on trials around the world. we have 25 plus trials in countries around the world looking at different use cases all the way from connected cards to remote tractors to residential, broadband use and all kinds of things. the winter olympics we showcased a lot of these with about -- and i've given some of the details and the testimony. just on father's day a couple of weeks ago at the u.s. open, we actually were able to transmit 4g video to people's home using wireless without any backup. and then one of the next things i want to talk about is

spectrum. without spectrum, we can't do anything in wireless. it's the crux of wireless communication. every operator will need access to low, mid and high to enable access. when i talk about low band spectrum, think of it as maybe a very long distance. they might not be able to go as fast, but they can cover long distances. on the other hand, high band can be seen as sprinters. they can go extremely fast but over shorter distance. mid band is also important because then it enables a mix of speed and range. in the i.t. triangle, you can see there's a variety of use cases. and we have to enable all of these. by having these types of spectrums available in a timely manner, the diversity of 5g applications could be able to benefit society. without this, we will not be

able to reap the full benefits of 5g. the u.s. has made very good progress in low band and high band spectrum for commercial use making more spectrum available especially in the mid band is critical for u.s. policy makers and congress and fcc and i.t. must take action on this now. we're on the cusp of initial commercialization and 5g. it's important to note that the global standards efforts will continue in the future as more features are added. thank you. >> thank you, miss keddy. mr. kimmleman. >> thank you. on behalf of public knowledge, i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. senator, your comments about your past reminded me about bill mcgowan, the great leader of mci. and here we have leaders making

a lot of promises and presented an image of highly competitive approach. that was the essence of bill mcgowan and mci. but that was bought by verizon, and that company is not the bill mcgowan and maverick company that mci. was. so i start with that saying this issue is not about promises. there's a lot of things that need to be thoroughly investigated by the department of justice in reviewing a merger. this is about law enforcement. this is about what the clayton act requires as passed by congress. the justice department to en force the law. -- enforce the law. and in doing that, promises are interesting and are certainly thoroughly reviewed. but what is fundamental is what is the market structure that we're looking at? and what is the impact a merger

will have given that market structure. and what are the post market incentives. and that's why i bring up bill mcgowan. sometimes can change. that's what needs to be thoroughly investigated by the justice department here. notwithstanding what has been said, i believe there really are four competitors leading the way in the wireless market today. and it's a highly concentrated market. the combination of these two firms would substantially increase that concentration. what does that mean in reality? generally it means that we have found historically across markets but particularly in wireless, it creates an incentive to inflate prices. harms innovation and quality. not necessarily raise prices, because they've been falling in this market. leave prices higher than what a competitive marketplace would bear. so i think that is the burden on these parties as they go before the justice department. and that's why we are at this

juncture based on a reading of the clayton act against moving from 4 to 3 against the combination of sprint and t-mobile. and the history bears out why this is an important issue for consumers. when the justice department rejected or was about to reject the at&t, t-mobile deal, we saw massive market adjustments as the parties withdrew their application and the markets responded. led by t-mobile. but also led by sprint. millions of people have changed carrier from t-mobile to sprint, sprint to t-mobile. at&t to t-mobile. t-mobile to at&t. all through this system. it's not just the market shares. it's the vibrancy of the activity, as mr. legere described. wonderful competition. that is what we got. we got enormous investment. we got massive innovation.

we got rid of a lot of high-priced plans, two year commitments, connection of phone with the actual service plan. all of that blown away forced by direct competition between sprint and t-mobile and upward pressure on at&t and verizon. that is what we fear would be lost with this merger as well. so in this kind of market structure with this kind of impact, 5g is important. there's lots of ways to get to 5g. these companies are the leaders, in fact, so far. and while i totally understand their desire to combine assets, the question is whether that combination actually weelds the investment they claim, the benefits they claim, or in plated prices for consumes -- inflated prices for consumers. i think it would lead to a

presumption against benefit. a presumption that consumers would end up worse off. i'm confident that when the justice department looks at this, it is likely to find with all of the factors taken into account, there are other ways four players can survive in this market. there are other ways and they will agree that it's necessary to preserve four players. thank you. >> thank you, mr. kimmelman. dr. latent. >> chairman lee, senator hatch, thank you for the opportunity to testify. my comments reflect my own opinion. i have no financial relationships with the party, nor do i own their stocks. let me make a quick summary on competition and price and investment for this hearing called game of phones. critics say it will reduce competition that works in markets with identical products

and strategies. imagine in the actual game of thrones, if you reduce the number of parties, you would actually increase competition. who wins the throne is a function of technology and innovation, the better weapon or the superior strategy. what matters in a competitive market is rivalry, not the number of phones. sure, mobile operators would like to increase price with the launch of 3g in 2000, they dreamed they could double the price. but the opposite happened. network traffic has exploded 1,000%. speed and quality has increased. that is the impact of a technological transformation and it is the global trend. as for investment, mergers reduce cost redundancy across forms. sprint and t-mobile only offer wireless. their competitors offer broadband, television and wireless. the larger firms can spread their costs across many products. the pure plays can't. now, the 4 to 3 argument we just

heard is rooted in a study from the 1950s and typified by the organization. the risk of our ceo and the grey flannel suit. today's ceo is a maverick in magenta. and let the know it's t-shirt and shoes. we can see this maverick strategy in which the upstart challenges an incumbent in many countries. it was used against t-mobile in germany, as well as in japan. now, the study of antitrust has been revolutionized by chicago harvard's game theory and behavioral economics. we have moved away from bright line rules because of too many false positives. now we put greater focus on the empirical evidence of competitive effects. some fear this merger would create collusion but mavericks by definition don't cooperate. particularly when you don't have standard products or strategies. and there's no guarantee that the market would not reduce to

three networks anyway. if the cable company could buy sprint or sprint could go out of business. it's a real risk for them if they're not acquired. now, some assert today that we have this competitive market because doj rejected at&t's bid for mobile. i disagree. doj said at&t reached maximum sufficiency and couldn't get more value. they based their assumption on 2g and 3g before the launch of iphone or 4g. now we have a decade of data to prove otherwise. how about blockbuster and hollywood video? the classic horizontal merger in the brick and mortar retail business denied by the 1950s mind set. there are no dvd stores anymore and netflix has 125 million customers and $150 billion market cap. it could swallow sprint and t-mobile and create its own distribution channel. now, there's no penalty for antitrust authorities when they get it wrong. they get to keep their jobs. but many jobs and firms are lost because of their decisions.

the other critique is it leads to high prices. that's also wrong. the only reason we have high prices is because of misguided regulatory policy, forcing consumers to pay most of the cost. when netflix sent dvd by the u.s. mail, they paid the postage. now they're online, they get to send the bill to broadband providers who have to get the cost from all of their customers, whether or not they subscribe to netflix. it's a pretty nice setup to get the networks for free when they deliver one-third of the traffic. now, mobile operators want to lower prices, but they were blocked by reg larts -- regulators under practice. what was the response of the prior fcc and now the california legislatu legislature? shut down the consumer program -- shut down the program consumers love. this cost our economy almost $40 billion a year, four times what we spend on the universal service fund. we could have closed the digital

divide years ago had we prioritized the welfare of the poor over the profits of silicon valley. now, we won't get 5g if we don't have two sided markets. consider tesla. it sells 3,000 cars a month and it's a smart phone on wheels. they prepay the mobile data. the u.s. is less than 5% of the population and it enjoys 25% of the world's network investment. that's the kind of spending that got us 4g. and we have to keep it up with 5g. and we're already behind. while we sit around here talking about magic numbers, china is about to eat our lunch in the internet economy. not only has the edge on 5g, it's the world's largest app market by down loads and revenue. amazon make facebook, google -- make facebook and google look tame. now, in closing, game of thrones was inspired by the 15th century england. the rise of commerce and the merchant class and people being able to own their property and

monetize their labor and inventions. the very same up lifting power of free enterprise is exactly what's going on in this merger. and posing a number on the mobile market is denying what consumers want and technology can create. it's central planning disguised as consumer -- as competition policy. consumers have never had it better than they do today, and that trend will only continue with this merger. >> thank you, doctor layton. >> chairman lee, senator klobuchar, senator hatch, senator blumenthal. thanks for inviting us for this hearing. millions want to stay in touch with friends and family, get information they need, find goods and services and get help in an emergency. mobile wireless is already highly concentrated, and yet

consumers are benefitting from a fair amount of competition. the reason is sprint and t-mobile have been trying to jump out ahead of each other and bring consumers the best plan options at the best prices. in fact, they are each other's main competitors. what keeps them on their toes is not so much having to worry about what verizon and at&t will do next, it's about what each other will do. that's what consumers stand to lose with this merger. competition gets consumers the leverage of meaningful choice. the power to take their business elsewhere when they can get a better deal. it's a basic fact in antitrust with the more concentrated the market gets, the less room for market to work. and the concentration level here and the changes in the numbers that would result from this merger are all in the red zone. sprint and t-mobile say those numbers don't tell the story. but we are not convinced. they say the merger will help them build and did he employ the promising -- deploy the

promising 5g network faster and farther. maybe. independent technical experts will need to look at that. but sprint and t-mobile don't need to combine forces to build a new 5g network. they both already independently committed to building that network with plans already under way. at most, the merger is a shortcut. and just because the shortcut is good for their business plan doesn't mean it's good for consumers or for the overall economy. even for consumers who might be eager for 5g, they don't need their own carrier to have 5g coverage everywhere in the country. they just want it where they live and maybe where they travel. sprint and t-mobile may want it everywhere understandably. but the whole premise of merger enforcement under the clayton act is that it's better for consumers and for the economy for companies who want it to build it.

not buy it. to compete with each other, not combine with each other. making a company stronger, faster does not justify making the marketplace weaker. it's ultimately better for consumers to have sprint and t-mobile both racing to build 5g networks and then competing to offer good deals on those networks they've built. a few years ago, we were in the same situation but with a different pair of giant wireless carriers seeking the merge and different promising new network. the merger was denied and the new network was built by each of the four carriers building their own. and that's what we want to see again now. and also a few years from now when there will surely be another promising new network that needs to get built and deployed. the focus needs to be not on today's latest object, which will come and go. it needs to be on the enduring benefits of preserving

meaningful competition. sprint and t-mobile also say they need to be big like verizon and at&t to have an impact. but we don't see that. both have nationwide networks. and as we have seen, each of them can and has forced at&t and verizon to pay more attention to consumers and to offer better and more affordable service. and each has been a competitive spur to the other. that's where the benefits to consumers come from. not from just creating another big carrier like number one and two. sprint and t-mobile also say this market is about to explode wide open. their revolutionary market convergence is upon us with tech giants posed mobile phone service as we know it. here comes comcast and google. maybe. we'll see. we've heard those same kinds of confident predictions in every telecom merger pitch over at least the last 20 years. some of these predictions come

to pass. raerl -- ratherly rely on the pd schedule. and in hopes that new competition might soon fly in the window. finally, the stakes are particularly stark for the roughly 50 million prepaid wireless customers. many of them have trouble affording the cost of a regular monthly mobile phone plan and they depend on the lower cost prepaid service with limited use. these customers buy prepaid minutes from resalers, but it depends on the four carriers being willing to sell those in the first place. and the two carriers who are most willing it turns out and who offer the best prices are sprint and t-mobile. they compete vigorously against each other now. but after the merger, that competition would evaporate. in sum, to us, the claimed advantages of giving sprint and t-mobile a shortcut to increased capabilities do not seem enough to overcome the harms to

competition and consumers that we believe would result. . . . the two largest carriers, at&t and verizon together occupy about two-thirds of the market in terms of subscribers. >> thank you for the question, senator. after listening to the protection statements of my fellow panelists who bring up a very good point, at&t and verizon after the culmination of this merger between sprint and t-mobile a new t-mobile would e one half to one-third the size of at&t and verizon, and one-eighth of the pre-cash flow of at&t. from the customer standpoint as well as an economic standpoint,

these units are much, much bigger. >> but as of right now there two-thirds of the subscribers? >> more than two-thirds. >> t-mobile is currently in position three in terms of number of subscribers? >> yes, senator. >> recently advance of number four. >> from number four to number three, and again we acquired metro pcs five years ago was the number five. some number five and number of working together and ultimately we know to number three. >> in your testimony you said you still haven't been able, that within the fact you've gone from number four to number three in terms of subscribers, that quote we've not been able to make much of the date and a two-thirds market share held by the two leading carriers, at&t and verizon. does that mean t-mobile has been primarily taking market share away from sprint?

>> center, more than 50%, approximate%% of the new postpaid customers come from at&t. on a daily basis right now the postpaid porting ratios, we had to customers a day to one that we sent to verizon. to customers a day from at&t and the ratio is much lower with sprint. >> okay. dr. layton, i'd like to turn to you next if i could. according to the parties estimates, estimates provided by the two companies that would like to merge, the new t-mobile would have almost twice the capacity as the two standalone companies would combined if they were left standalone. and now, mr. kimmelman and mr. slover, a question whether the merger would, in fact, result in savings being passed along to consumers, even if their inefficiencies were reached.

let's assume for a moment that the deficiencies are, in fact, reached or at least that by combining t-mobile assets with sprints assets, that that would result in a significant increase in the overall capacity of the two firms, relative to their remain in the marketplace as independent, freestanding companies. how do you think that would affect the merged firms incentives post merger? in other words, assuming that capacity assumption holds, assuming that's true, what would make it more likely that they would compete aggressively and cut prices rather than take advantage of the market share that they have and raise them? >> so even in the last five years we've seen prices fall by 20% and i think it's extremely

difficult to try to raise prices in this particular market, especially when their competitors are being able to offer a bundled solution. so i'm very skeptical they could be able to raise price, especially after all as far as they had, decided throughout the strategy that worked for them to throw it out the window. in terms of incentives they have a high incentive to steal market share from the larger players. the other thing i would say is the kind of investment they want to do, if anything it will have to expand the kinds of products they offer, not just in the consumer market but particularly and wholesale market. they do an amazing this is with wholesale customers all over the united states, and i think that will explode for them, particularly when you look at the sort of services. i reference the tesla example because when we look at devices, we're moving away, we talked

about -- were would move into r of the device and just to assume we'd have broadbent on the phone i think is an outdated idea. we will get our broadband in a variety of ways, and we would even be thinking about it, the phone in first place. maybe ms. keddy my government expand on that. >> thank you. mr. slover, how do you respond to her conclusions? >> well, i think the premise, the supposition that you're asking us to accept is that one plus one is three or four. and that's pretty you don't accept the initial premise of the increase capacity? >> that is it, that the two combined will find synergies and capabilities that overwhelm even what they could do separately. if you combine them, the new capability will come from the

combination that wasn't there before. but i think there are, what i think you want to look at is what the alternatives would be. not just looking at the two companies as they are now but with the two companies could be if the merger was denied and they go forward with their plans to each built their own networks and they seek investment to enable them to do that, and they enrich the capacities. so i think what we want to do is have as many in the nexus as we can. >> i get that. >> senate -- >> it's the governments job to decide which companies merger would undertake which strategy, but governments have role in deciding what to do when two comes what to merge. >> would add something? >> go ahead. >> actually the physics involved are that one plus one equals

six, and this is something we understand in detail. what happens is when you put these networks together you have three characteristics. one is you have a much denser site network. so we would have 110,000 sites on the network that we would choose 75 and then at ten. with 84,000 macro site. the site density increases. spectrum per site goes up dramatically, and then the third component is the efficiency of 5g versus previous services. actually the physics are the one plus one actually is closer to six, and what we will have is in 2024 we will have seven times the capacity of what t-mobile and sprint have today, and we will have three times the 5g capacity of the several companies would have an double the overall lt. so the physics do about the fact that supply will be up dramatically, and price, unit cost per gigabyte of data will good at approximately 55%.

>> could i just take under challenge and say i accept for a moment that they have all the synergies. their profit maximizing firm like anyone else. once you save $10 billion, $20 billion, you have to combine these networks, a lot of cost and moving these things ran. the physics are different but they are not new. look at what happened when sprint and nextel merge on the dating merge they said all this would be fluid and transparent and greater efficiencies, but accepted that they have them, they are still profit maximizers. not all of this has agreed one pocket. they can build up the networks. they can shift pricing. they could offer different planes. if they don't face competition from each other, what we learned historically as we learned with airlines when we lose them, you often see fee see the increasew charges. use parallel behavior on firms. that's the danger here. >> with the intelligence of the ranking member on going to

follow through on this even though my time has expired. okay, unlike mr. slover you willing to accept the premise speedy i'm willing to accept that that could be true. >> that could be the case. >> but there still are a lot of problems that need be looked at in terms of corporate and profit maximizing incentives. >> if we accept the assumption that as mr. ledger would put it, one plus one equals six and we have this significant sort of exponential expansion and capacity, you are still saying that wouldn't translate to lower prices but wouldn't that really almost require us to assume that there would be content with idle capacity? rather than stretching their offerings of the capacity so they can get more customers which would in turn require price competition. >> what ms. kinney described was a potpourri of low middle high band spectrum that all the

carriers have to navigate net as they get to 5g. there are combinations of the bigots not just one simple capacity. there are towers that they can get efficiency by moving spectrum around but if long-term leases on something. they can't make the costco. there are a variety of factors here as to how you take any synergies you get, any deficiency you get and you apply them. you can apply them to greater investment, return to shareholders, you can apply across a number of business strategies. my point is without them, by eating at each other with low-cost plans and new options, at&t and verizon not doing it, they have incentives also to price after the leaders follow the leaders. >> we will follow up on that more later. senator klobuchar. >> and keeping much mr. chairman. mr. ledger, , there are only for significant wireless carriers left there we talked about this.

this transaction would reduce it to three. much of the competition to your credit, both of you, and your predecessors in this market as prickly been driven by t-mobile and sprint. the two companies introduced no contract and unlimited plans as well as lower price options forcing verizon and at&t to do the same, in my mind. a combined t-mobile/sprint would have customer base of 127 million people making it the second-largest of the three potential carriers. why would a combined t-mobile/sprint continue to compete as aggressively with fewer competitors in the space? >> i have said this. what are the things i would like to put forward, especially in the notion of this being four o three is a strongly this is moving from two two to three. this is creating a viable

competitor who can compete with at&t and verizon, who has shown historically that the only response when forced to respond. we shouldn't be punished for our competing aggressively in the past, and stopping from having the ability to create the arsenal of weapons that can take this innovation and competition to the next level. the last thing i would say is 5g in the country is lagging, and the investments that we would make him $40 billion in the first three years, will be driven mostly from the synergy that we attain by putting the two companies together. and i strongly believe that before at&t and verizon to respond in the innovation and investment in 5g, bringing the country to position that is very necessary, both competitively and security was. >> maybe before you answer, trevor i will get a little more specific. even with the recent improvement that your company sprint has made to its network of the remains very aggressive on price.

for example, reports indicate sprint has recently offered an unlimited plan for $60 per month, compared with $160 for similar plan on t-mobile. sprint offered a pipe or $15 unlimited data promotion to attract new customers which is less expensive than what t-mobile has done. if t-mobile does not see the need to match sprints lower pricing rate now at this moment, why should we expect t-mobile to offer low pricing if the merger is approved? back to you, mr. legere. >> one item i would submit, senator, is the average revenue of per user of sprint as much-t-mobile. the new t-mobile would strictly honor all of the pricing commitments that the sprint customers have. so it would be a tremendous savings for all sprint customers in addition to a tremendous increase in coverage and service from day one by handsets that are already compatible. >> so that's the commitment, and sleep both commit to have lower

prices, that you will take each other's lower prices and a combined deal. >> with the new t-mobile has said that will be honoring sprint's committed pricing. our pricing by the way, senator, one of the things i like to point out for historical purposes, i've been ceo a ceo r six years and not just promises as a track record. from the time that we purchase metro pcs i heard all these stories about what's going to happen to that brand as we took it over. i would just say after five years, twice as many customers, twice as many doors, five times as many locations, three times the employees and pricing for metro pcs customers have gone down between 17%-25% while tremendously increasing what the user data to actually be more than an average t-mobile customer because many of them have that as a only wireless covers. our track record in putting networks together also, we put the t-mobile metro pcs networks

together in two years as opposed to three committed, , and we had 40% more synergy than estimated. our track with a guy doing the exact pretty good. >> mr. claure, without an independent sprint couldn't a new company set prices just below verizon and at&t and still maintain or even throw its customer base, given the size? >> senator, this is a highly competitive market in which an order for us to gain market share with the new network that will be built, we are going to have to lower prices in order to be able to fill that capacity. i mean, that is crucial to this entire merger. just a couple of very important points. one is, imagine if you have a factory and you able to produce something for about 164 one-eighth of the cost. business comes in a you reduce your prices in order for you to gain more market share. you've got to think of the combined company have six times did not have capacity at a cost

of 16 to produce the gigabyte, so different, since thousands we will go ahead and lower prices in order to attract new customers. >> what is it incentive when a customer had to get a lower-priced service if this isn't right? urges the three. >> able stay with their current carrier. the best way that without a note to mood and is by providing amazing products and services and be able to reduce the price. that is the magic formula to get customers to come. secondly, when you look sprint as as a whole, or to make it clear, in order to build a 5g network that we have announced it is a different type of 5g network. it is going to be mainly in cities that are large enough. we cannot go to rural america and we will have to invest about $25 billion in order for us, for sprint to invest $25 billion and pay for investments, most likely will have to raise prices. i've been very clear about that for a long time. >> thank you. ms. keddy, my understanding is

that the views to deploy 5g that the fcc is going to need to make some additional spectrum available, is that right? is that -- okay. when you say there's a delay in making the mid-band spectrum available is the key factor holding back 5g? >> i would say that if for any operator to succeed in the world they need a combination of low band, mid-band and high band. in the u.s. they have made progress on low band and high band, and we need to make immediate progress on enabling in a sufficient mid-band spectrum to all operators. >> mr. kimmelman, you talked about the issue of the prepaid wireless. maybe you want to respond to what that new ceo said first and the pricing and i see this but in addition to that, how you see the combination under common

ownership may affect price of prepaid. if you could talk a bit in response to what you heard. >> certainly. mr. legere, nobody, certainly i, do not want to punish you for your great success. i did not suggest that you merge with sprint. you suggested that. i just want law enforcement to enforce the law. that's all. you say it's a market that is two to three but you also say it's 827. i can don't think you can have it both ways. one of you says it's highly competitive, the other one says it's competitively broken. which is it? there's a problem here in the whole presentation of what's going on, and i think that's what it's important to look at the incentive. again, i have no doubt about the intentions and the willingness to make commitments and promises. the prepaid market is

particularly difficult, and these companies in their effort to try to take on at&t and verizon, which is laudable, and then you'll would work to to offer lower-priced plans, to lower income, marginalized households. and it's a wonderful benefit. the question will be, going from four to three with certainly at&t and verizon showing no particular appetite to serve that segment of the market, will one company preserve those prices, preacher of those options? if they are moving to a 5g network there could be tremendous efficiencies, but there also are dangers with all the costs associated with getting from here to there, and you will note that asked for a five-year timeframe to review with the overall plan is. that's a long time for the justice department to look, but if it's going to take five years, there are enormous costs in the interim. when you want to fly we don't

want to fly the concord supersonic, and the prices you have to pay. some people just want a plain old airplane. so 5g is great. 5g will be wonderful. everybody is going for it. everybody is trying to do it, but mixing and matching the kinds of spectrum in the kinds of networks we have may be formatting options what that better than three. >> why don't you ask prepaid ones? asset later if you want to go. thank you. >> okay. let's go back to you, dr. layton. mr. kimmelman and mr. slover at both argued quite passionately and particularly that the benefits that the parties claim are themselves to uncertain, or at least sufficiently uncertain so that we can't assume that

there won't be competitive harm. in other words, we know that we will be in a sense of the mandating a competitor and the elimination of a competitor can't come at the risk associate with that can't be offset by the possibility of the procompetitive impact. there's been a lot of talk about, i've heard a lot of ratios discussed in this discussion in the days leading up to it. summits of this essay four the three transition mac transition to others is that it's a two the three transition to other sets that it's eight to seven. others assert its zero to one transition. we could do a whole lot of how have a whole lot of fun just with that. but this contrast all of it with something is it in your written testimony, which is your point in response to all of this is that is not just the number, shouldn't be about the number of competitors as it should be about the actual empirical evidence of what's going to happen to competition. what empirical evidence can you

point to that suggests that the merged firm will actually be a stronger competitor to the big two and, therefore, likely to bring about more price competition? >> thank you, senator for the question. i think it is important, well, i invite everyone to see the 2018 revised version of antitrust textbook which is excellent, giving a lot of these examples. they key take away is that we have relied so much on this predictive, , predictions about the future, and we haven't looked at the actual evidence. part of the reason is, to be fair to regulators and antitrust authorities, the tools are quite blunt. the numbers are very imprecise and that is one of the challenges when you try to study pricing data. they love all the different prices for every kind of different offer in the same thing. -- lump.

higher price and so in a space on. it isn't, that's very often what the consumer does not pay. quite frankly especially as they described here, a sprint customer with the onboard into the mobile. they would maintain the existing price, and so the actual sticker price wouldn't be what they would pay. and then of course you have to add income other subsidies for phones, other services being brought in. it's very difficult to look at those things. so that's why it's important that we look back. the other thing i would say, mrw enforcement. we are flawed the coming out of her ears, all kinds of remedies, all sorts of ways to address if there's concerns about leaving the market. part of the advantage of the u.s. approach, , why with the country innovation, we don't have a precautionary principle for everything. we get parties the benefit of the doubt, particularly when they did miss it it would allow to try.

that's the essence of our innovative economy. you are allowed to fail, you are allowed to try. you can intervene if you find there's competitive harm, if it actually happens which are making a huge assumption on using the models from the old telephone network, where, in fact, it was the same kinds of products and services, very monoculture, network, and here you are also bring in a significant, when you talk to prepaid, cable companies. you have satellite companies and also fixed wireless solutions. there's many come and understand that makes it difficult for me numbers perspective if that's what i think we have to resist falling back to the rule of thumb. we have to challenge ourselves to be able to say let's review the data. as a final backstop that are the existing antitrust enforcement to intervene if harm does result. >> thank you.

ms. keddy, you bring some technical expertise to this that most of us are not familiar with, actually i should speak only for myself after senator klobuchar knows all of the physics behind this. now, in your written testimony you indicated that the development of 5g is going to require sufficient access to certain spectrum. specifically i think you referred to the 3.7-4.2 gigahertz spectrum and the exit gigahertz bands. you said those would of the esl to enabling applications across ig scenarios. is that a fair characterization? >> yes. i mean, yes, it is. >> but with this merger minus danny, the parties intend to build out the 5g network relying primarily on t-mobile 600 megahertz spectrum and

sprint's 2.5 gigahertz spectrum bands. does this mean that even this combination of the spectrum will be adequate in terms of giving them adequate access to 5g 5g capabilities? >> so i cannot talk to the specifics of the data that sprint and t-mobile have since it's not public, but what i will say is you need what low band spectrum is about 1.5 gigahertz or less. mid-band spectrum is is six gigahertz or less, and high band is generally like millimeter base. so to answer your question, any operator to succeed needs a combination of spectrum in the low band, in the mid-band and in the high band. and they need all three. >> pray for you want respond to that and tell me how you are able to succeed in this come within the framework of what she's talking about?

does the combination of spectrum that you're going to provide them with a provide adequate access to 5g? will it in early adequate to provide 5g services? >> when it opened my statement all-stars are line because we have, we have t-mobile is low band spectrum 600 megahertz. we have sprint's 2.5 mid band spectrum, and today the launch 5g network of disability need to get started and to reach worldwide leadership. there have been submitted articles published in terms of the value of 2.5 spectrum combined with 600 mhz spectrum, will allow us was to build the world's best 5g network today. as a complement in the future when there are auctions a millimeter of what i seen the new t-mobile will participate and what additional millimeterwave but we are very lucky to date of 600 and 2.5 if it will spectrum that we have jews that is ready to be deployed. >> senator klobuchar.

>> very good. thank you, mr. chairman. dr. layton, you noted in your testimony that there has been wireless consolidation, but you say prices have gone down. are you suggesting that consolidation in wireless leads to lower prices? do you think that is true? >> so what i wanted to give you is an example i think that is extremely helpful that we've experienced from the earlier mobile generation. look back earlier in the century, remember your decide on the gsm standard and was rolling out three gp at the time the united states had cdma networks the internet the cool phones are being made for 3g and it wouldn't work on the american networks. in fact, it did matter if there were 100 or 1,001,000,000 if nobody wanted to buy the phones to work with that network. pretty fast verizon had realized we are going to get him we got

to get moving sunday launched 4g. then all the other operators on the bandwagon. that's an exact example i talk about the number of players don't matter. it's technological change. if you are the horse and buggy company and the automobile comes along it does matter how many horse and buggies, , because you'll try and carter may be of the horse and buggy for a purpose but in any case that is advantage of these kinds of markets that will change very quickly because of technological change. network is like a carton of milk. it will expire if it is not renewed. .. to sit around and do their own thing, at&t and verizon have a quantum leap advance. verizon's network is a clean 4g network. they have a long way to go to catch up. and they have to combine their assets to do it. >> do you want to respond? >> i think the combining of the

assets might be a convenient shortcut for them. overtaking as a market leader. i don't think that's necessarily important for consumers. and sprint and t-mobile had both shown that they are fully capable of giving that emphasis for those choices of consumers as jean was seen a minute ago. the results from the merger is going to change the incentives. there will be a different dynamic when sprint and t-mobile don't have anything

at their heels. they will still be competing. can i interject. just a few things. i want to be clear. and a ceo for close to 20. this consolidation will lead to lower prices. that's number one. from the standpoint of consumer welfare most of the things that this network coming together will allow us to do is to compete in in-home broadband. by using an in-home broadband solution.so

we expect to sell close to 10 million homes with that service. but supply for each to go wayec up. i'm very comfortable with this. it is very good for consumers. i know you want to answer that. i have my billion-dollar question. in in-home broadband. and if they were to be combined we try to do thisdb i just want two-point out that the biggest problem we found when we heard from at&t there are a number of other obstacles here. by time warner.

when t-mobile and sprint last considered merging. that merging was necessary to allow them to improve their networks and introduce the next technology enter to other than the change of administration what else has changed since the steel was last considered. less rather than want more. the technology keeps improving and they are absolutely right. the key point is what is that. what would be the alternative without this. to get much, a lot or all of this with four rather than three.

i'm just trying to get your opinion. les has changed in that time rather than more. the fundamental structure is the same the fundamental increase in concentration is more similar than different to the original transactions. they have shown signs. we have tremendous assigns a been able to compete against each other and the top two players. >> both of them would say that they would roll outou 5g independently. what do you make of the statements. why do you assume that they would introduce 5g without some merger. i don't think they are walking away from that. they had been leaders in that. i think that key point in this. if it were not to go through.

it is not just the status quo ante of t-mobile and sprint as they are today they will look for other partnerships. rkey would look for other ways to grow their networks if they're not allowed to combine. there could be a lot a of benefit to having different arrangements in the market with four rather than three players. the chart on the left in right is the 5g standalone network. and yes you can seepr there is quite a bit more white than there is yellow. that is what they would be able to create on their own. as a combination of what we would be able to do with that. one small factor there was no deal. they were still sending out very clear signs.

that's it i'm trying to figure out. i think the evolution. and as we see 5g coming and we saw what we can do together. that we can do separately for this transition. and the 40 billion that you can spend by putting these networks together. the other thing that has changed is not atm they have maintained the status quote we would be able to take some competition to them but not the way we can compete if we are able to get this significant increase in supply. they continue to stick with a minimum of what they are forced to do. the sec chairs and the national wireless are good for american consumer. they said it's can be hard for someone

the predominant jobs. it has been equal across the board both parts.t it is adding going out to 11,000 60 jobs in 2024. those are full-time equipped equivalents. if you look at e that.

what the communication workers of america's release failed to see is that with the onshore of customer care jobs along with the customers and has been 7700 care positions in the united states. we will also be, these are new jobs. can you commit that these jobs would be provided. 5300 jobs will be created by the launching of four or five new centers in rural america to cover what sprint currently does offshore. there would be a rationalization of jobs in the first year. so when you get to this increase for example of 11,000 what you have is significant increases on implementation. increases in rural retail. then you have some door

rationalization. there will be some decline of positions. on duplicate g&a and headquarters staff functions. you refer to rationalization. over the entire time it will be about 302000 jobs and about 8,000 indirect or direct retail jobs. 10,000 jobs created in the new businesses. specifically between that. and i apologize for interrupting you.

let me give you an example of why i have this concern. just in microform. m in hartford connecticut, on park street there is both a metro pc app and a boost mobile store. there on the very same street within walking distance of each other. can you really commit to me that both of the stores c are going to remain open thank you senator. a couple of things that would come into play there. we have not suggested any change per se in the use of the metro pcs booste . they serve very different purposes in different groups of customers and so far that

mean been a less likely store rationalization than if they were sprint and t-mobile store next to each other. if two stores were directly related to each other you may close one but the staffing and staff in any other sort would be a function of foot traffic that would likely go up. so you can commit to me that the number of employees in connecticut would be increased .-dot diminishedt e , and overal in those same situations where there are a duplicate duplicate of stores. i hear you telling me that even if one location is closed in affect those positions would be moved to the other store so that there would be no net loss may be an increase.

in the pis filing and what we said associated with jobs. the total jobs will go up. over the. of retail jobs some urban jobs. there would be some decrease in retail positions over the planning. on a full-time retail job in the equivalents 320095. in full-time and part-time including distributors in approximately 8,000 to 2024. my time has expired i will have some additional questions i would appreciate your in your answers in writing in response. thank you very much to our other distinguished and important panel. >> thank you.

you appear to have walked back from some statements you have previously madeal as recently as february of this year. the statements that discounted the competitiveness of other companies and people like cable providers for instance. offering wireless services. the competitors as i understand it basically resale wireless services that they purchased from actual wireless carriers is that correct? >> i believe you are talking about small players like comcast but yes. i can explain my statements that would be helpful. and i did not mean to suggest they would be small companies these people were not themselves providers of wireless services but our purchases while -- wireless services.

i'm glad you brought this up. in the constant discussion and i think you framed it while i have gone with the four to three being too-three. as a way to explain the rationalization. there are many other players who areng in a wireless and coming in. they had signed a partnership to invest together to create the wireless business. they have entered in the last five quarters all pieces coming into the business. they have committed to $10 billion of spending. as does charter. and several other players. now these positions are coming in. my statements are coming in and still are that they're not competing to the level that they should. it was a long issue into

that. when it came it was priced above market however analysts have said as many as 5 million customers could go to comcast and charter over the next two years in the each of them have and net present value of about $20 million in their wireless business. >> they are very viable competitors. what has changed other than the announcement of this merger. other than the announcement of the merger. they continue to late in the lead in the acquisition of new customers. the entry has added 570,000 postpaid net more than at&t and verizon. the last couple things senator the players in cablehe they are not just and be a nose.

and also they participated very heavily in the option. there had into in-home broadband as you know. they are clearly competitors across the spectrum. a key claim that they have made is that the transaction as we have discussed that were discussed in this hearing. the merged companiesat it will expand the ability of the merged company to expand capacity and that that capacity would then translate into increased incentive to be in competitive. they were made of course with the proposed at&t and t-mobile merger the failed merger

attempt in 2011. sprint in fact opposed that merger and it did so by arguing against these very same efficiency claims. as i recall sprint argued that those claims about efficiency translating to reduced prices were overstated and in the alternative similar efficiencies in competitive even absent the merger. what is different here about this proposed merger now that sprint is the partner in the proposed partner. thank you senator. completely the opposite. back then.

they were in dire straits. the good thing about it. they stopped on merger. because of that t-mobile that $3 billion in cash and got a tremendous amount of spectrum which is what they use to go build the 4g network. if it would've been different. the competition would've been destroyed. it was the right thing to do.it here you are merging competitive number three and four to create number three. were a number two. were so good to be number three. it's one thing that we don't talk enough the total net income of at&t and verizon in th% of that. what you're having here you are to go from two very strong competitorss to three competitors which is going to

be the combined company. back then. he would struggle with that competition. complete but very different. your can create a strong number three. we are 02 open to eight and seven. zero and one as well. so many ratios it's hard to keep up. i total of four combinations. you noted that prices for wireless services have been falling in recent years. over that same time in which prices for wireless services have been falling we have seen significant consolidation in the wireless industry

shrinking to essentially for carriers. at least four major carriers today. so if that consolidation bringing the major carriers down to alyssa for has accompanied or even helped bring about price competition and price reduction. doesn't this demonstrate that this consolidation could have that same effect and could result in cost savings for consumers. i think the picture is a little bit more complicated. the data we had shows that we have the most enormous price reductions when we had eight and seven. and they started becoming smaller and smaller and there was a stagnation for a while. immediately after the justice department pressured at&t and t-mobile to back away from their deal you saw a new spurt.

there had been times of even greater price decline. those are earlier versions of that. this is about market structure and the dynamics in the market with the technology at that time and the networks. it's a much more, located picture. i'm not saying that you couldn't get price reductions with three everything i have seen the suggest that we would more likely be able to get better innovation. in that again is not just the status quo ante. if this were rejected. i'm sure sprint would be looking for other partners and other ways to draw the capital they need as would t-mobile. it's not about the total number of competitors as much as it is about the empirical data suggesting what's going to happen.

the data i have seen from europe is that you get a much better result with four than three i believe the justice department should look at all of that data. it should be a fact-based analysis. both of us had states with significant rural areas. s how will the proposed merger affect wireless service in pricing particularly in areas where sprint and t-mobile are currently competing with each other. and maybe you will say this is not a huge area but for those rural customers it's a big deal. the buyer estimates they are approximately 62 million rural customers and 14 million of them have less than ten megabits of service. there's only 10 million customers.at

what is good happen with the creation of this new network is 7496 percent of rural america will be covered by wireless service. they will be covered by greater than tenn megabits of service. it will cost money to do this. the combined company would invest $40 billion in building up the network. that's what they would spend if they were standalone companies. roughly three times what the spending would have been for t-mobile.en what happens when you take these two companies and you put the network together. you have the combined company. they would have synergies of $43 billion. it is very clear predictable

network integration. mostly from site decommissioning. those synergies are a major source of what we will be using to invest $40 billion. the jobs in this company would be greater on day one and every day thereafter. as more jobs than the standalone plants plans of two very aggressive standalone plants. either gets far more secure number then the standalone companies but yes there will be more jobs on day one and every day thereafter. >> explain how they will pay for this i just can't help but need. it would have a larger subscriber base over which to spread the cost. l

here is my other billion dollar billion-dollar question. so at&t and verizon our big very big and you would have that with the second biggest company but they seem to have faced the same challenges with 5g. it would yield a different result when it comes to connectivity in rural areas because were have problems right now.t why would you have any more luck in doing this. it's not as economic. we were successful at acquiring a tremendous amount of the spectrum. and in many rural places there was only one or both of them and as we come to these rural areas.

we are met with tremendous fanfare not just from the communities but at&t and verizon causing them to re- compete. importantly as we set economists have shown in our modeling overall industry supply will go up 120 percent. .. .. . >> every change that the

uncarried -- >> i disagree and that's what you have brought to the table. >> right. >> and so our concern is that that will go away. >> right. and the biggest point in this merger in addition to 5g are -- by the way, we spend a lot of time here talking purely about price as if it's a static equation. one of the biggest things that has created the uncarrier that we will take forward with this greater capacity is the total transformation of what you get when you're in a wireless business. international data roaming. the way you use your phone. no contracts, et cetera. it's a series of 14 significant changes. and it's not just like for like. and one by one, we're forcing at&t and verizon to change. and with this network, we'll be able to significantly change not just how they compete, but how they invest. and i believed i would suggest that we could cause as much as $20 billion of incremental

investment in 5g by getting this jump and forcing at&t and verizon. one last point, senator, very important. when we talked about 5g across all spectrum bands, so far at&t and verizon have chosen to only use millimeter wave spectrum in small urban centers as a way to do broadband replacement because it suits them. i would just point out that the cost of them deploying that nationwide would be a site every thousand square yards at a cost that would be 1.5 trillion. so they clearly have only started to deploy a 5g capability forcing them. and i think this will force them into an innovation cycle that will be great for the country. >> mr. kimmelman, are you ready. >> i think they're upping it as we speak. but we're right on the fundamentals here. it's taken a lot of kicking to get the dominant carriers to

serve. and even with their resources, rural is the least interesting to them. and i would just say here with, again, all of the -- all of the data that's being presented before you -- the question will still be is the motivation there to spend all of that for these purposes in this time frame. this is not the kind of thing that justice department would usually want to get in the middle of. also the jobs issue. it's not part of the clayton 7 review. but i do believe this is what the fcc historically has looked at. and the question ought to be whether these kind of commitments could be really spl solidified. >> uh-huh. >> with the fcc's review of the transaction. it's just not usually what the justice department likes to engage in. >> uh-huh. mr. slover, agree? >> yes. i think the question will be whether the incentive to build out in the rural areas will be sustained at the same level when

there is just one company that is pushing it, rather than two companies that are worrying about who is going to push it first and harder. so i think it's going to be potentially an advantage to keep them both of them in there that the justice department will look at. >> okay. then my last question, mr. kimmelman, you raised this earlier on. millions of customers rely on prepaid plans to access all of the services. and for many people, again, this is a primary connection to the internet. how is this combination sprint, boost, mobile and t-mobile metro pcs under common ownership going to likely in your mind affect the prices and the prepaid? >> so, senator cloklobuchar. >> 40% of the prepaid market.

>> it has different attributes. but this will be for the justice to determine. i will suggest that they ought to see it as a separate market. the levels of concentration are high. there is low players. i think there is substantial potential dangers for low income consumers and marginalized families who really can't afford to pay the -- for the smart phone and the bigger package of services. i thought i heard mr. legere say there were some things they couldn't do. again, i think this is something that just on the straight market economics, justice would have a hard time with allowing. >> because of that higher percentage? >> yes. >> and the things between these two companies, because they've been -- because they're more competitors. they've been going into this market more? >> if you're only charging $20 or $30, that's a great deal compared to 80 or $90. but for the population that needs that, if it goes to 40 or 50 or 55, that's a big hit. >> uh-huh. response from either of you?

>> the prices prepaid has completely changed. prepaid used to never have access to the latest devices. their charges used to be much higher. today is one of the same. the only difference in prepaid and post paid customer today is one pays at the beginning of the month. the other plays at the end of the month. and we've been able to bring to prepay is we are treating the prepay customers with pretty much the same benefits as the post pay customer. >> that's great. but maybe what we're worried about is just once they get up to the 40% when you're combining, what the effect that will be that we'll be able to keep those prices. go ahead. finish. >> we're not. the combined market share is 27%. so i don't know where we're getting the numbers today sprint has 11%. and i think t-mobile has 27%. so we have between 37 to 38% market share. and our plan is to continue to drive down -- >> it's almost 40. i'm not off by 50%? >> no, no.

>> the senatorial 1 to 3%? [ laughing ] >> senator, one more thing is you said a couple of times it will become the second largest carrier. we're not. >> no. >> when you combine three and four, we will still be the third carrier. we're not moving to number two. >> i think mr. legere -- >> by the way, this conversation publicly has been advanced by an individual who is not even disguising the fact that he's funded by private equity and hedge funds to attempt to buy this business should it be forced to move. >> the prepaid issue? >> the prepaid -- they have too much. and, by the way, why don't you make them divest 15 million customers in boost and, hey, i know somebody that will buy it. so anyway, that's part of the credibility factor. >> okay. i didn't know that. i'll look into it. thank you. >> yes. the prepaid market has been one of the biggest beneficiaries so far. and one of the reasons we have a combined 38% market share is we didn't turn our back on this

market. by the way, verizon today announced kubling in the size of their -- doubling in the size of their data bucket. >> this is one of the points about the competitive nature and going out to after markets that other people didn't that i'm personally very grateful for. >> yes. >> senator, i would say that when i hear this, if you look at our plans, we plan on -- by the way, we have made prepaid so similar to postpaid that it's almost the difference if you pay on the first of the ma or the last of the month. and we've given all of the benefits to many customers. as i said, our prepaid customers use more data than our overall customer base. and we plan for those prepaid customers to be amongst the biggest beneficiaries going forward. and i think there's tremendous competition there as well. >> when the chairman starts looking at his watch, i might take the message that i will not continue to ask more percentage questions. and any other questions i'll ask on the record. so thank you. >> you can have another round,

because i've got more. [ laughing ] >> i wasn't trying to send you the signal that it was time. i wasn't even reaching for the gavel. i mean, we're just getting started. we plan on being here. [ laughing ] >> mr. legere, let's go back to you for a minute. you've heard some -- today from some critics who express some legitimate concerns with this deal. who suggest that if the merger moves forward, that t-mobile and perhaps even you personally might lose the sort of maverick quality that has come to define you and your company. i don't know whether the magenta will disappear or the logo from your suit coat. some suggest there might even be coordination between the merged company and another large player like at&t, for example. to the detriment of your consumers. what would be the impact on t-mobile's uncarrier brand if you were to do this?

if your customers were to see that you were becoming less competitive? >> senator, i appreciate that. anybody that suggests there be coordination between me and at&t and verizon forgets the fact they wouldn't speak to me if we were in a crowded room together. the uncarrier is possibly in the brand associated with -- it's probably the most valuable thing that t-mobile has. in the industry right now, t-mobile is, by far, the carrier most likely to be switched to. and it's because of the commitment we've made to continue to change to not stopping to drive the innovation and to take the fight to the big players and cause that change. for us to behave any differently would be the complete annihilation of our brand and put us in the pack with everybody else. our goal is to clearly use this competition and force them to change, force the industry to

change. and our goal is over time to not be number three but to be number one and do it through competing in lower prices and getting this brand to continue to mean more and more to the country. >> mr. claure, is it true you can have real time translation services with 5g? >> absolutely [ speaking foreign language ] [ laughing ] [ speaking foreign language ]. [ laughing ] >> he just agreed. >> okay. >> hour two. >> i had two. it was actually quite impressive. both mr. legere and mr. claure have suggested that u.s. companies are in a race to get the 5g. is there any sense in which the

race to get to 5g is not just among and between u.s. carriers but among and between different countries to see which country is going to achieve 5g capability first? >> yes. so if you look at 5g, it is truly the world's most global 5g standard. and just as we talked about earlier like when we did 4g, it enabled a new set of industries that did not exist before. when we -- the reason i've been making such a repeated push on some of the spectrum issues is that without spectrum, operators can't build networks. and in the rest of the world, including europe, china, japan and even korea, they have cleared a lot more spectrum in the mid band than the u.s. has. >> and you think this merger

might have some impact on that? >> to repeat what i'm saying, right, every operator has to have led band which is between 1.5 to 6. and so that's something to consider. >> got it. >> i want to make one more point. earlier i said 5g is about connecting everyone and everything. and so when the operators start deploying these spectrums and it intersects with different industries, the kind of transformation we saw in 4g that was more consumer driven will actually likely happen by companies that take advantage of it as industries. >> thank you. that's helpful. >> senator, can i make a point on your 5g, because that virtual translation was very important. >> sure. yes. if you can do it quickly. >> very important part of 5g is not just 100 times capacity, 100 times speed. it's the 10 times improvement in latency. and the thing that you talked about is indicative of what 5g will bring. right now an average lte for us response time is about 25 milliseconds. when you get down to ten milliseconds or so, when you can

only do at 5g, that's where the latency is such that the simultaneous translation will take place. and when you get to single digit milliseconds, that's when things like autonomous driving in cars can be done without harm. so of 5g, that latency point and your virtual translation is one of the most critical things why this 5g network. and it's also why 5g has to be nationwide. because you can't just go from a millimeter wave coverage in a small urban area and then drive out and lose your application. >> right. right. thank you for that point. >> dr. layton, in his prepared testimony and to a degree in response to questions, mr. kimmelman has brought up some points about international comparisons that he says confirm the benefits of 4 carrier -- of 4 carrier competitive

environment as opposed to a three carrier competitive environment. in particular he points to austria as an example of where consolidation increased the price that consumers were paying. how do you respond to that? and is this consistent -- is this point consistent with your understanding of the impact that consolidation has had on wireless carriers in europe? [ inaudible conversations ] >> i live in copenhagen and i'm following the european market very closely. and i'd be happy to supply information to -- to -- to the senate following this. it's interesting because we have 4 to 3, this is the way of the world. this is going on all over the place. and there are some places where there's holdouts for political reasons. i have the report from the economist looking at austria 4 to 3, and what they're noting is that the global downward trend for prices and that they cannot

prove that, you know, either way, in fact, it's part of the challenge of the -- part of the challenge of the data. but what i find interesting, though, if we look at denmark, we had an attempt for 4 to 3 about three years ago and it failed. prices actually went up for the first time in almost 20 years because only one of the carriers was profitable. two of them were breaking even. one is losing money. and they wanted to invest and they've actually had to increase prices. so this is very embarrassing for the european commission. and what i would say is that actually the data across europe is that prices are going down. so the -- you know, in this hearing we've talked a lot. there's a saying that the economist know the price of everything. the value of nothing. when we look at what people pay for connectivity, it's a very small part of their total income. they're paying a lot more for housing and transportation, food, clothing, vacations. and the interesting thing is we

get a tremendous value for what we get. you know, i live abroad and i want to sometimes go to a hearing. i do it remotely. what is the value of that? and i'm paying such a large price for broadband. but the value i get is tremendously high. so i think the other side we need to consider, if we expect these operators to invest in large networks, what's the incentive for them if they can't earn any money? now, i do have a solution for this in terms of we're really concerned about low prices. i know people will have a heart attack, but it actually works in other country. it's called free basics for the usa. looking at the people who are -- who are truly poor. the operators could be able to provide a set of free data. it would take maybe 1 to 2% of their traffic, maybe less. they have unlimited phone and text. but we would -- we would understand that there's a basic set of internet services that we need to connect to. it could be job information. educational information. health information and so on. and ensure that that sort of

universal service basket of essential services is always there. and allow those of us willing to pay for because it's so valuable they can. and, in fact, we know that health care providers, in particular, would be willing to subsidize this because they would pay the subscription outright. because the money they save to prevent a heart attack is worth the entire cost of that outlay. so we are being so small minded here because we have not allowed the other part of the market to participate. and that is what i think one of the biggest opportunities we have is to allow all of the new services who want to come forth, who are wanting to get customers to adopt them. they want the -- the health care providers want to get on the monitoring service for heart attacks or to get you a video how do you stop smoking or whatever the case may be. so that is another -- if i would have another hearing, i would bring those folks in. if you remember in the house, there was a gentleman on the paid prioritization. the man was blind and he was using -- he had a -- his remote center is san diego was being able to tell him what's going on

in the hearing. and it's a blind man that can cross the street by using these various strategies that could be able to say the cars are coming. you can get on the bus. so people with disabilities can actually live a fully normal life like a person who doesn't. and i hope that answers your question. >> yes. that's very helpful. >> i want to thank each of our witnesses today. each one of you has brought something very valuable to this hearing. and i have appreciated your insight. it's no coincidence that this has been one of the longer antitrust -- >> and one report, a political reporter called it an opportunity for an epic hearing of the issue. [ laughing ] >> but i do think -- i mean, what this really means is to real people who have budgets who are having trouble affording their mortgage and then you add cell phone cost is we want to have competitive marketplace. and so that's why we raise these concerns about this and we'll

forward these concerns to the justice department. >> indeed. and that is the reason why we have these things. it's important to the person public. and these things can have significant potential to impact the lives of americans and middle class. the committee has had multiple records submitted. i move to have these added to the record. >> no objection. >> without objection, they'll be admitted to the record. the record will remain open for two weeks and the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. [ inaudible conversations ]

[ inaudible conversations ] [ inaudible conversations ] [ inaudible conversations ]

[ inaudible conversations ] [ inaudible conversations ] [ inaudible conversations ]

[ inaudible conversations ] [ inaudible conversations ] [ inaudible conversations ].

>> join us later today for a look at efforts to combat crime and violence in el salvador. discussions hosted by the interamerican dialogue. the live coverage starts at 3:30 p.m. eastern on our companion network. also online at c-span.org or you can listen with the free c-span radio app. tonight it's book tv in prime time and a look at recent books in politics. you'll hear from senator bernie sanders who discussed his book where we go from here. and then syndicated columnist and cnn contributor and republican strategist brad todd on their book the great revolt. and later former secretary of state connedrice. as part of the help from gci cable, the c-span bus visited

alaska with anchorage, the final stop on the tour. >> it plays a critical role in making sure the democracy is controversial. it also provides a window into washington dc that those of us who are far distance away can see what is occurring. >> we really believe that it's important to offer c-span to our customers because we believe in the network's mission, to be an unfiltered and trusted media source. we proudly support their effort to inform and educate the nation on policies, politics, history and current events. >> be sure to join us july 21st and 22nd when we'll feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. and now the state of free speech at colleges and universities. participants explore issues such as whether so-called hate speech