Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 850

PARTIES 852

BACKGROUND 854

NATURE OF THE ISSUES 866

STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OP THE SHERMAN ACT 870

MONOPOLY POWER AND RELEVANT MARKET 871

RELEVANT MARKET 871

DEFENDANTS' MARKET POWER 877

INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE 888

THE PRICING CLAIMS 914

TELPAK 914

HI/LO & MPL 916

DESCRIPTION OF HI/LO AND MPL RATES 917

HI/LO 918

MPL 918

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PREDATORY PRICING CLAIMS 918

EVIDENCE CONCERNING WHETHER AT&T’S RATES WERE BELOW COST 927

EVIDENCE CONCERNING WHETHER AT&T “PRICED WITHOUT REGARD TO COSTS” 933

PLAINTIFFS’ ADDITIONAL CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO TELPAK' 946

SPCC’S CLAIMS REGARDING THE STRUCTURE OF TELPAK 947

SPCC’S CLAIMS REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF TELPAK DURING THE 1970’S 953

SPCC’S CLAIMS REGARDING JOINT TELPAK 966

*850 PLAINTIFFS' ADDITIONAL CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO HI/LO 957

THE CHARGE OF MISREPRESENTATION 957

THE CHARGE THAT HI/LO UNDERCUT PLAINTIFFS’ RATE 963

THE CHARGE THAT AT&T DID NOT PROFIT-MAXIMIZE 964

THE CHARGE THAT AT&T ''PREANNOUNCED’’

HI/LO 965

LACK OF INJURY IN FACT 967

THE INTERCONNECTION CLAIMS 972

THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD FOR INTERCONNECTION CLAIMS 972

DENIAL OF ACCESS TO INTERCITY FACILITIES 978

PIECE-OUT 979

INTERCITY FACILITY LEASING 985

DENIALS OF FX AND COSA INTERCONNECTION 989

INTERSTATE FX AND COSA 989

INTRASTATE FX 998

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PROVISION OF LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES 1009

“COERCION" AND "DURESS” 1001

FILING OF STATE TARIFFS 1008

RATES FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES 1012

LOCAL DISTRIBUTION AREAS 1016

INTERCONNECTION REQUIREMENTS 1017

JOINT END-TO-END TESTING 1020

PRACTICES, PROCEDURES, AND PERFORMANCE 1021 NON-COOPERATION 1026

ORDERING PROCEDURES 1039

INSTALLATION AND REPAIR 1039

INSTALLATION 1040

REPAIR 1047

OTHER CLAIMS 1052

RELIANCE UPON FCC DECISIONS ON PRICING AND INTERCONNECTION CLAIMS 1094

FACT OF INJURY 1098

THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PROVING FACT OF INJURY 1098

EVIDENCE RELATING TO ALLEGED LOSS OF REVENUE 1059

EVIDENCE RELATING TO ALLEGED LOSS OF CUSTOMERS 1062

EVIDENCE RELATING TO ALLEGED INCREASES IN COSTS 1°69

OTHER CAUSES OF SPCC’S LOSSES 1066

AMOUNT OF DAMAGES 1073

SPCC’S DAMAGE EVIDENCE 1075

SUFFICIENCY OF THE “BUT-FOR” DAMAGE MODEL 1076

MARKET SHARE ASSUMPTIONS 1°78

DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS 1°79

PRICE ASSUMPTIONS 1°80

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE PLAN OF THE “BUT-FOR” COMPANY 1083

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE “BUT-FOR” COMPANY 1085

DISCOUNT RATE ASSUMPTIONS 1°87

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE “DAMAGED” PRIVATE LINE BUSINESS 1087

PIECE-OUT CLAIM 1°89

SEGREGATION OF DAMAGES 1°90

THE SUFFICIENCY OF SPCC'S ALTERNATE MEASURES OF DAMAGES 1°93

CONCLUSION 1095

MEMORANDUM OPINION

INTRODUCTION

This action was originally filed on March 27, 1978, 1 and was brought by Southern Pacific Communications Company and Transportation Microwave Corporation [SPCC] against the American Telephone and Telegraph Company [AT & T] and the Bell System operating companies. 2 The complaint was predicated upon Sections 1 3 *851 and 2 4 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2) and alleged that the Bell System had monopolized and conspired and attempted to monopolize a relevant market in telecommunications service and had conspired to restrain trade in the market. The plaintiffs withdrew their Section 1 claim at status call on September 2,1981 (Tr. 7-8), and the case was submitted to the Court for trial on the merits, sitting without a jury, on the charge that AT & T had monopoly power and had misused that power through conduct alleged to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act. For the alleged violations, the plaintiffs seek $230.2 million, 4(a) for damages, which is trebled to $690.6 million pursuant to Section 4 5 of the Clayton Act. (15 U.S.C. § 15). After waiver by both parties of jury demands, trial commenced on May 10, 1982. 6 SPCC completed its presentation of evidence, including the testimony of 24 witnesses and approximately 1,400 exhibits, on June 14, 1982. The trial consumed thirty-three trial days for both sides, including opening and closing arguments.

Defendants filed a motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on June 8, 1982, and filed supplementation and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 12, 1982. Plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition on June 15, 1982, after which the Court heard oral argument on defendants’ motion. On June 21, 1982, the Court announced its decision to defer ruling on defendants’ motion until it had heard all of the evidence.

Defendants began presenting their evidence, which included testimony of 147 7 witnesses and introduction of over 7,900 exhibits on June 23, 1982, and concluded their case on July 2, 1982, after only eight trial days. Plaintiffs presented their evidence in rebuttal on July 9 and 12, 1982, through the testimony of nine witnesses. On July 13, 1982, plaintiffs introduced 326 rebuttal exhibits and defendants introduced 23 surrebuttal exhibits. Both parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 15, 1982, and reply findings on *852 July 17, 1982. The Court heard oral argument on July 19, 1982.

The following memorandum opinion shall constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as mandated by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

PARTIES

Southern Pacific Communications Company

Southern Pacific Communications Company (SPCC), a plaintiff in this case, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Company (Agreed Fact 8-3-002). The Southern Pacific Company is a large and highly diversified holding company. In addition to ownership of Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTCo) and SPCC, Southern Pacific Company has extended interests in real estate, natural resources, and leasing (Agreed Fact 8-3-020; Furth, PX6-0001 at 3-7). In 1980, Southern Pacific Company had assets of $5.3 billion and total revenues of $2.8 billion.

SPTCo owns and operates one of the nation’s largest intercity private microwave systems (Agreed Fact 7-1-009). Construction of this private microwave system began following the FCC’s Above 890 7(a) decision in 1959. (Furth, PX6-0001 at 11). When the entire system was completed in 1969, it consisted of approximately 650,000 voice circuit miles and 7,664 route miles from Portland through Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, to Illinois (id).

SPCC was formed in January, 1970, to provide communication services to business, industry, government and educational entities over a domestic network between such locations as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorized (Furth, PX60001 at 12-13). SPCC’s initial plan involved using the existing microwave sites of SPTCo where feasible (id at 13). Portions of SPCC’s microwave system initially were constructed upon the towers, facilities, and right-of-way of the SPTCo private microwave system (Agreed Fact 7-1-009).

On February 9, 1970, SPCC filed its initial application with the FCC seeking authority to construct and operate a specialized common carrier microwave radio system between Seattle, Washington, and San Diego, California (Furth, PX6-0001 at 13). SPCC filed an additional application in April, 1970, for authority to construct a system between Los Angeles and St. Louis (id).

Following the FCC’s general authorization of competition in its 1971 Specialized Common Carriers Decision (PX1-0159, 29 F.C.C.2d 870 (Dkt. 18920), and the subsequent FCC grant of SPCC’s construction application PX1-0267, 37 F.C.C.2d 245 (1972)), SPCC commenced commercial operations on December 26, 1973 (Furth, PX60001 at 14; Grant, PX6-0004 at 9).

In 1974, SPCC purchased 100% of the stock of Video Microwave, Inc., the voice and data facilities of United Video, Inc. and purchased through Sunset Communications, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Pacific Company, 95% of the stock of Transportation Microwave Corp. (TMC), also a plaintiff in this case. In 1976, SPCC purchased certain assets of Data Transmission Company (DATRAN), including a microwave system extending from Houston to Chicago via Kansas City and St. Louis (Agreed Fact 8-3-020).

Today, SPCC offers a variety of services over a multi-million circuit mile system consisting of its own terrestrial microwave transmission facilities, complemented by leased wire, microwave, and satellite facilities (Furth, PX6-0001 at 14).

Throughout the development of SPCC, Southern Pacific Company has provided it with substantial financial support. Since *853 1972, Southern Pacific Company has invested $173,547,000 in equity in SPCC and has guaranteed another $174,000,000 in debt, (id.) SPCC has grown from a company with assets of $9,552,303 in 1973 to one with. $278,484,000 in 1980 (SPCC annual reports filed with the FCC (S 7-T)). To date, SPCC has yet to make a profit in private line with its losses going from $1,025,969 in 1973 to over $15,000,000 in 1980 (id.). However, there is no dispute that SPCC is a presently profitable company, due principally to the provision of switched services, known as “SPRINT.” (See S-7T 1981 Annual Report submitted by SPCC on April 30, 1982 and the May 27, 1982, Wall Street Journal at 18).

American Telephone & Telegraph Company

The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT & T), a defendant in this case, is the parent company of more than 40 subsidiary corporations (Agreed Fact 8-3-003).

The major subsidiaries of AT & T are the Western Electric Company, Inc., Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., and the Bell Operating Telephone Companies (BOC). Together these companies make up what is known as the Bell System (Agreed Fact 8-3-004).

As of December 31, 1981, AT & T owned 100% of the stock of Western Electric Company. AT & T and Western Electric each owned 50% of Bell Telephone Laboratories (Agreed Fact 8-3-005). At the time this suit was filed, AT & T owned directly or indirectly, all of the stock of 17 operating telephone companies, the majority of the stock of two companies, and a minority of the stock of five others. 8 (Agreed Facts 8-3-015, 8-3-016, 8-3-017, 8-3-018). *854 There are now no minority interests in AT & T-owned companies. AT & T is the minority owner of two BOCs. (Brown, Tr. 5353).

The 24 consolidated companies had approximately 145.9 million telephones in service as of December 31,1980, approximately 81% of the total in the United States (PX40874 at 3). Each of the Bell operating telephone companies possesses an exclusive franchise or government granted monopoly in the geographic areas in which it provides service (See e.g., Grant, Tr. 646). As of December 31,1980, these companies’ operating areas included 31.4% of the land area of the United States. The 24 Bell operating companies are also named defendants in this case (Complaint). Independent telephone companies now almost 1500 in number, provide service to about 36 million telephones in over half of the geographic areas of the United States having telephone service (Testimony of Richard A. Lumpkin S-6187 at 1-2). The independents have current annual revenues near $12 billion about half of which is derived from toll services and have approximately $39 billion invested in facilities and equipment, (id.)

The assets of AT & T and its consolidated subsidiaries were over $125 billion at the end of 1980. As of May 31, 1981, they had reached $129.5 billion (Agreed Fact 8-3-007).

In 1980, AT & T’s total operating revenues were approximately $50.8 billion. Local service accounted for approximately $22.5 billion of this total; toll service accounted for approximately $26.1 billion; and directory advertisement and miscellaneous accounted for approximately $2.7 billion (Agreed Fact 8-3-008).

In 1980, AT & T’s total operating expenses were approximately $34.2 billion and its net income was approximately $6.1 billion. Its' total operating revenues for the twelve months ending May 31, 1981 were over $53 billion. Its net income for the same period was approximately $6.3 billion (Agreed Fact 8-3-008). AT & T is the largest corporation in the world. (PX1— 0017 at 2005).

As of year end 1980, AT & T employed over one million people, making it the largest employer in the United States next to the federal government (Agreed Fact 8-3-011). In fact, it has more employees than the active duty strength of the United States Army, according to plaintiffs’ lead counsel who formerly was the Secretary of the Army.

The Long Lines Department (Long Lines) of AT & T in partnership with the Bell and independent operating telephone companies provides interstate and intercity telecommunication service in competition with SPCC (Agreed Facts 7-2-016, 7-2-018; Tr. 12; deButts, S-T-131 at 11-13; Owen, PX6-0005 at 4-5; Grant, PX4-0004 at 11-12; Yasilakos, PX6-0006 at 8; Kushan, PX6-0011 at 4; deButts, S-T-131, tab A at 29-30; Brown, Tr. 5334). At the end of 1980, Long Lines had total assets of approximately $7 billion and operating revenue of $3.5 billion. These figures represented approximately 5.2% of AT & T’s total assets and approximately 6.9% of AT & T’s total operating revenues respectively. At the end of 1980, the Long Lines Department had operating expenses of approximately $2.5 billion and net income of approximately $551.1 million (Agreed Fact 8-3-013).

In 1980, AT & T had 24 General Departments which provided the Beil operating companies with, advice and assistance pursuant to “License Contracts” between AT & T and the Bell operating companies. AT & T bills the operating companies for these services. In 1980, AT & T collected $1.03 billion in revenues from the Bell operating companies under these “License Contracts” (Agreed Fact 8-3-014).

BACKGROUND

Although SPCC’s allegations relate almost exclusively to actions taken, or alleged *855 to have been taken, during the period 1968-1978, the Court believes that those actions and the charges relating to them can best be understood in the context of the conditions in the telecommunications industry prior to that period. Therefore, before turning to those allegations and the evidence adduced by the parties at trial, the Court will briefly review the largely uncontested facts with respect to the conditions during the period in which the industry came to be regulated as a monopoly and with respect to the circumstances immediately preceding the changes primarily in the federal regulatory policy that occurred during the 1968-1978 decade.

Prior to World War II, the telecommunications industry was extensively regulated and was widely regarded as a lawful monopoly (Agreed Facts 7-3-043 — 044). Local exchange telephone service was provided under franchise by one of the Bell System operating companies or by one of the many independent telephone companies, depending upon the geographical area involved (Agreed Fact 7-2-017). 9 Long distance service was provided by the Long Lines Department of AT & T in partnership with the Bell and independent operating telephone companies (Agreed Facts 7-2-016, 7-2-018; Tr. 12; deButts, S-T-131 at 11-13). 10 The independent companies recognized the need for agreement on equipment compatibility, operating procedures and division of revenues to facilitate the joint provision of long distance service (Agreed Fact 7-2-016). Under this network partnership, which developed early in this century, telephone service was provided on an end-to-end basis through an arrangement under which the Bell companies and the independent companies assumed joint responsibility for the service. This unique partnership arrangement often required a telephone company operating in one part of the network to take action which did not contribute directly to that company’s ability to discharge service obligations in its franchised area. In return, the telephone company was reimbursed for the costs it incurred, including a return on investment, in connection with the provision of intercity service (Hough, S-T-l at 12-14). Private line 'services, which are the focus of the issues in this case, were provided jointly by Long Lines and the operating telephone companies over the same facilities used for long distance service (Agreed Facts 7-1-018 — 020). 11

During the late 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century, the technology of the new industry advanced to the point where it was technologically possible to connect exchanges together throughout the country, and thus to create a nationwide interconnected network (Agreed Fact 7-2-010). 12 However, the technological in *856 terdependence of the components of the network gave rise to a need to coordinate operations and the provision of service throughout the network. To meet this need, AT & T consolidated both local and toll facilities into its evolving system (Agreed Facts 7-2-007 — 008; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc. Sub. at 2-6 & App. A).

Regulation of the industry began in 1879, three years after the invention of the telephone, in recognition both of the natural monopoly character of the industry and of the increasing importance of telephone service to commerce and society (Agreed Facts 7-3-002 — 004; Tr. 11; Letwin, S-T-140 at 8). The purpose of these early regulatory statutes was to assure the provision of telephone service in the public interest (Agreed Fact 7-3-017; Hough, S-T-l at 15; Let-win, S-T-140 at 10). Because of public dissatisfaction with duplicative exchange service, 13 competition in telecommunications services was discouraged (Agreed Facts 7-3-002, 7-3-015), and local telephone companies — both Bell and independent — were franchised as monopolies within their respective operating territories (Agreed Fact 7-2-017; Tr. 11; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at 7-10 & App. B(l)).

Although there appears to be some dispute about the reasons, in long distance service the same practical effect resulted. With the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, Congress provided that interconnection between telephone companies be ordered only where the public interest would be served by such interconnection (47 U.S.C. § 201(a)). In so doing, Congress refused to do what some had urged — namely, to make it an automatic duty of each carrier to interconnect whenever requested to do so by another carrier (Letwin, S-T-140 at 34). Moreover, as discussed below, there were arrangements under which the Bell and independent telephone companies divided revenues from long distance service on a basis that would essentially subsidize local service. Defendants have taken the position that the limited right of interconnection prevented uneconomic duplication of plant and facilities; and further, that the division of revenues policies spread the benefits of these economies widely to users throughout the country. The logic of this position is persuasive, and, in any event, consistent with congressional policy reflected in the Communications Act that telephone service be made widely available at reasonable costs (see generally exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at 10-15 & App.B(2)). 14

There is no dispute that the emergence and growth of telecommunications regulation was also attributable to public recognition that the telephone had ceased to be a laboratory curiosity or a luxury to be afforded by a few, but had become essential to everyday life and commerce (Agreed Fact 7-3-001; Letwin, S-T-140 at 9). Moreover, there appeared to be a widely *857 held belief at the time — and no serious dispute among the parties here — concerning the natural monopoly character of much of the business (Letwin, S-T-140 at 8-9). As a result, market forces were not trusted to provide quality service as widely as was thought to be socially desirable and at prices which were affordable by most households (Agreed Facts 7-3-002 — 003). Telephone companies were thus subjected to schemes of public utility regulation and to common carrier duties under which the carriers were not allowed to conduct their businesses as ordinary commercial enterprises (Agreed Fact 7-3-015; Hough, ST — 1 at 15-17; deButts, S-T-131 at 7-12; Letwin, S-T-140 at 10-14; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at 7-9 & App.B(l)).

The duties and obligations imposed upon the telephone companies varied over time and from State to State. However, the most significant of these duties as it relates to the issues in this case was the requirement to serve every subscriber within a carrier’s operating territory, even if service had to be rendered at a price that did not fully cover all relevant costs (Agreed Facts 7-3-023 — 026, 7-4-002 — 003; Hough, ST-l at 15-16; Letwin, S-T-140 at 37-38; deButts, S-T-131 at 14; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at 23-26 & App.C). Consistent with the regulatory goal of promoting widely available telephone service at reasonable rates, the carriers structured their rates such that users of some services paid significantly more than the cost of their service in order that service could be provided elsewhere at prices that were low in relation to cost (Agreed Facts 7-4-012 — 013; deButts, ST-131 at 15-17; Letwin, S-T-140 at 42-51; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at 26-35 & App.C).

With respect to ratemaking for long distance services, the same regulatory policies resulted in the Bell System’s price-cost margins being skewed in order to make services more affordable in some areas and to some groups of users (Letwin, S-T-140 at 50-51). The practice of nationwide rate averaging — which gave rise to the controversy over whether new entry should be permitted by specialized carriers such as SPCC, and if so, what kinds of rate adjustments AT & T should make to respond to such competition — required the same price for calls of equal distance, notwithstanding differences in the cost of transmitting messages between different points in the country (Agreed Facts 7-4-014 — 015; Department of Pub. Serv. of Washington v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 8 F.C.C. 342 (1941) (S-1302); Hough, S-T-1 at 16; deButts, S-T-131 at 17; Letwin, S-T-140 at 42-51; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at 33-35 & App.C). The combination of rate averaging and continued technological advances in the efficiency of transmitting large volumes of messages between cities caused defendants’ uniform long distance rates to reflect ever-widening margins on high-density routes (which are very profitable under an averaged rate structure) and low-density routes (where the uniform rate may be at or below the cost of service). Although plaintiffs attempted to dispute this proposition at trial, as discussed more fully below, no credible evidence was offered to establish the contrary proposition. In fact, many of the documents introduced by plaintiffs themselves explain and document this common phenomenon.

In addition to promoting the expansion of service to rural and other high cost areas, the Bell System’s intercity rate structure was used to support low rates for basic exchange service. This was accomplished under jurisdictional separations procedures through which the FCC and the state commissions have allocated to the interstate rate base ever greater portions of the cost of facilities used jointly for local and interstate services. 15 For example, in 1971, the *858 separations process shifted approximately $126 million of Bell System revenue requirements from the various intrastate jurisdictions to the interstate jurisdiction. Between 1972 and 1980, the costs of equipment allocated to the interstate jurisdiction increased from $1.9 billion to $7.3 billion. Similarly, in 1980, interstate revenue requirements were $5.1 billion higher than they would haye been had the costs of facilities and equipment been allocated exclusively on the basis of usage (Agreed Facts 7-4-017 — 022; Hough, S-T-l at 17; Jones, S-T-53 at 6, 9-16; Letwin, S-T-140 at 51-54; deButts, S-T-131 at 17-18; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at 36-41 & App.C).

The regulatory goal of assuring widely available service also had an effect on the interconnection practices of the carriers and thus on the interconnection controversies advanced by SPCC here. There is no dispute that the Bell companies early recognized the need to exercise control over equipment connected to the telephone network in order to assure service quality; that contract provisions required that all equipment used in providing telephone service remain the property of the carrier; and that those provisions prohibited the connection of customer provided equipment or systems to Bell telephone lines (Agreed Fact 7-4-005). Moreover, from the earliest days, regulatory decisions reflected a policy of imposing complete “end-to-end service responsibility”; that is, the carriers were held responsible for providing complete service, end-to-end, and were required to maintain ownership and responsibility for the installation, maintenance, and improvement of all the hardware in the system (Hough, S-T-l at 19; deButts, S-T-131 at 14; Let-win, S-T-140 at 40-41; O’Reilly, S-T-139 at 4; Wooten, S-T-141 at 4-6). 16

As a necessary consequence, the connection of other equipment or facilities to the network was prohibited, and regulatory agencies enforced the obligation of the carriers to structure their tariffs in this manner (Hough, S-T-l at 19-20; Ashley, S-T-132 at 2-9; deButts, S-T-131 at 14; Let-win, S-T-140 at 41-42; Byers, S-T-133 at 4, 9). 17 Accordingly, the tariffs of the tele *859 phone companies — both Bell and independent — contained general prohibitions against attachment to the network of any device not owned and maintained by the telephone companies themselves (Agreed Facts 7-4-005 — 006). These provisions were not merely sanctioned by the state regulatory agencies; they were required by those agencies as being necessary for the companies to fulfill their common carrier obligations (Hough, S-T-l at 20).

By the time the Communications Act was passed in 1934, the intrastate tariffs of virtually all the telephone companies contained such interconnection prohibitions (Agreed Fact 7-4-006). The Court’s reading of the Communications Act discloses no apparent congressional disagreement with state policy in this regard. Under the Communications Act, telecommunications common carriers were required to offer to the public a complete end-to-end service, “including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services” necessary to provide such service (47 U.S.C. § 153(a), (b)); and the FCC was given broad powers to assure the availability and quality of the equipment needed to provide that service, including the power “to require by order any carrier ... to provide itself with adequate facilities for the expeditious and efficient performance of its service as a common carrier ...” (47 U.S.C. § 214(d); Agreed Facts 7-3-047-048; Hough, S-T-l at 20).

In the period following World War II, incentives and pressures for selective competitive entry began to emerge (Agreed Facts 8-1-001 — 004; deButts, S-T-131 at 19-20; Phillips, Tr. 5416-19). There seems to be general agreement that rapid technological change following World War II significantly lowered the unit costs of high-density, long distance transmission facilities relative to the unit costs of low-density transmission facilities and of local service (Froggatt, S-T-2 at 2-4). According to defendants, although they took advantage of these cost saving opportunities, their intercity rate structure was not permitted to reflect the full measure of those savings (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 7-8). One relevant factor discussed above bearing upon this issue is that throughout this period the regulators continued their policy of allocating to the interstate rate base ever-increasing portions of local facility costs through revisions in the separations formula (Agreed Fact 7-4-020). Such increased interstate rate base costs were reflected in artificially higher rates for defendants’ long distance services to the extent not offset by increases in productivity (Partoll, S-T-149 at 17-18; Jones, S-T-53 at 27-29). While there is some dispute about whether defendants’ nationwide averaged rate structure also impeded their ability to reflect such savings, because the new technology was largely concentrated on high-density routes and the averaged rate structure spread those savings over all routes, the Court has already found that plaintiffs’ effort to establish the contrary is unpersuasive.

At the state level, the pressures for competitive entry made no significant headway. The States were virtually unanimous in refusing entry — recognizing that competition was incompatible with the continuation of their traditional rate and service policies (deButts, S-T-131 at 20; Symons, S-T-142 at 2; Privett, S-T-143 at 2; Colter, S-T-144 at 4-5). 18

*860 At the federal level, a very different pattern began to emerge. The FCC apparently continued to follow a general presumption against competitive entry, yet a few limited exceptions were permitted (Hough, S-T-l at 21; deButts, S-T-131 at 20; Let-win, S-T-140 at 55-56). A review of the FCC’s decisions confirms that these exceptions related to narrow segments of the market which required somewhat specialized services or equipment and which defendants and the other established common carriers — due to shortages occasioned by the war — were temporarily unable to supply (Agreed Fact 8-1-004; S — 1354; Hough, ST-l at 21; Letwin, S-T-140 at 55-56; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.D). 19

Selective entry in a regulated industry, taken together with a regulated industry’s skewed rate structure, renders that industry vulnerable to “creamskimming” (Let-win, S-T-140 at 56; Hough S-T-l at 18). 20 In other words, new entrants might choose to serve only the high-profit area of the business and leave those areas where rates are close to, or even below, costs to be served by established carriers with general service obligations (Brown, Tr. 5336-37; Hough, S-T-l at 19; Byers, S-T-133 at 8-9). Although plaintiffs have sought throughout the presentation of their case to downplay this effect, it is clear to the Court that, in the course of authorizing certain limited forms of intercity competition, the FCC recognized that creamskimming might arise. However, the FCC appeared to conclude that any adverse effects on widely available, reasonably priced service would be minimized through the established carriers’ reliance upon their longstanding restrictive interconnection tariffs (S-1367; S-1542; Hough, S-T-l at 21-22; Ashley, S-T-132 at 5-14; deButts, S-T-131 at 21-22; Letwin, S-T-140 at 55-56; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.D). Implicit in that conclusion was the belief that these tariffs would protect the uniform rate structure from creamskimming by new entrants who might otherwise seek to piece-out their services with those of Bell System companies, 21 or expand the scope of their limited service authorizations. 22

*861 Throughout the 1950s, pressures continued to mount to permit certain users to take advantage of ongoing technical innovations that permitted high-volume communications at costs lower than the Bell System’s nationwide averaged rates for such services. As a consequence, the Commission undertook an investigation to determine whether the public interest would be served by permitting a broader right to construct private communications systems (Allocation of the Frequencies in the Bands Above 890 Me. (Docket No. 11866); Hough, S-T-l at 23-25; Froggatt, S-T-2 at 2-4; Boettinger, S-T-3 at 7-8).

In the Above 890 proceeding, the Bell System opposed extension to all commercial enterprises of the right to construct and operate private microwave systems, pointing out that such authorizations could result in a substantial diversion of revenues from the existing carriers through creamskimming and thus adversely affect their ability to serve the public. Although the Commission rejected this position, it insisted it was not discounting the importance of the Bell System’s concern about protecting its revenues; rather, the Commission concluded its actions would not result in such a diversion of revenues (27 F.C.C. 359 (1959) (S-1553); 29 F.C.C. 825 (1960) (S-1569)). While recognizing that the matter required continued surveillance (27 F.C.C. at 412), the •Commission again rested its conclusion, in substantial part, upon the interconnection restrictions in the tariffs of the carriers (27 F.C.C. at 413-14):

“[W]e believe that there are certain factors or conditions which will operate as practical deterrents to private users in establishing their own systems ... [One] control is that the tariff regulations of certain common carriers will operate as a limiting factor, particularly where a private system is established and efforts are made to obtain interconnection with a carrier where common carrier facilities are available and the carrier would be compelled to ‘short haul’ itself.”

Two consequences of great significance to the issues in this case flowed from the Above 890 decision. First, in 1960 AT & T developed the Telpak tariff, a bulk rate competitive alternative to the construction of private microwave systems by large users (Hough, S-T-l at 23-29; Froggatt, S-T-2 at 5-6; Boettinger, S-T-3 at 6-20). 23 Although Telpak became effective in 1961, twelve years before SPCC commenced operations as a common carrier, as will be discussed more fully below, a principal fo *862 cus of SPCC’s pricing charges relates to the claimed anticompetitive nature of Telpak’s structure and rate level.

A second and more immediate consequence of the Above 890 decision was that it fueled the pressure for new entry. Responding to such opportunities for entry, Microwave Communications, Inc. (MCI) applied to the FCC in December of 1963 for authority to construct and operate a microwave radio system between Chicago and St. Louis (see Microwave Communications, Inc., 18 F.C.C.2d 979 (1967) (Initial Decision) (S-1768); 18 F.C.C.2d 953 (1969) (Final Decision) (S-1918)). MCI represented in its application that such a specialized carrier system was necessary to make some of the benefits of the FCC’s Above 890 decision available to small businesses by providing new and innovative specialized point-to-point private line services which were not being provided by the established carriers and- which would not require connection to the nationwide switched network (18 F.C.C.2d at 981-82; Letwin, S-T-140 at 75-76; Byers, S-T-133 at 15).

In 1967, while MCI’s application was pending, President Lyndon Johnson established a Task Force on Communications Policy which studied the question of competition in the telecommunications industry. The Task Force, chaired by Eugene Rostow, then Assistant Secretary of State (Hinchman, Tr. 2109; Rostow, Tr. 3671), issued a report (S-1873) which concluded, based on considerations of system optimization, system integrity, service reliability, and national security policy (Rostow, Tr. 3646), that the core of the public network ought to remain a regulated monopoly (Rostow, Tr. 3647). The Report did recommend limited entry by specialized carriers, but indicated that such entry ought to be confined to point-to-point services which were not broadly connected to the network (Rostow, Tr. 3652, 3653). 24

The Report also emphasized that existing common carriers should be allowed to take full advantage of their accumulated capital, plant, and equipment and stressed the necessity of not creating a protected system in which new entrants would be encouraged, but existing companies would not be allowed to compete fully (Rostow, Tr. 3654).

Notwithstanding the general conclusions reached by the Task Force, defendants and other general service carriers argued in the MCI case that such entry would be contrary to the public interest because telecommunications services could be provided more economically by one supplier as a result of economies of scale; that additional microwave systems would be duplicative and wasteful, and would adversely affect business and residential telephone users; and that specialized carriers without general service responsibilities would creamskim the existing averaged regulated rate structure by selective competition aimed at only the most profitable routes with heavy traffic and thus impose a heavier rate burden upon users on low-density routes (18 F.C.C.2d at 960 (S-1918)); see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc. Sub. at App.E, pp. E-4 — -E-5). 25

Although finding that “this is a very close case ... which presents exceptionally difficult questions,” the FCC decided by a vote of 4 to 3 that MCI’s application should be granted (18 F.C.C.2d at 966 (S-1918)). In reaching this decision, the FCC stated that “MCI is offering a service ... with *863 unique and specialized characteristics” (18 F.C.C.2d at 960). On the basis of this finding, it rejected the general service carriers’ creamskimming argument, concluding that “[i]n the circumstances of this case," no wasteful duplication of facilities was likely to be involved (id. at 960-62) (emphasis supplied); (Ashley, S-T-132 at 10 — 11; Let-win, S-T-140 at 75-77).

It is clear to the Court that there wás substantial division within the FCC itself on the question of MCI’s entry, and specifically on the question of the extent to which this kind of selective competition would lead to creamskimming (Ashley, S-T-132 at 9-12; Letwin, S-T-140 at 76-77). For example, the Chairman of the FCC, in explaining his opposition to the licensing of MCI, which also showed a concern for all telephone users, stated (18 F.C.C.2d at 972 (S-1918)):

“[MCI] is proposing a typical ‘creamskimming’ operation. Thus, it has selected a major route, Chicago to St. Louis, with heavy traffic density characteristics and the concomitant lower unit costs. The existing common carriers, on the other hand have been encouraged by the Commission, primarily for social reasons, to base their rates both for message toll and private-line services on nationwide average costs. Thus, the small users in the hinterlands is afforded the same rates as the large users in the major cities. The evidence in this record tends to show, and there is no basis in our experience to believe otherwise, that AT & T and Western Union could offer lower rates for private-line service between Chicago and St. Louis than those proposed by MCI, were they to base such rates on their costs for that route alone.

The chances are and the record so indicates, that AT & T and Western Union will be constrained to lower their private-line rates to meet the competition of MCI. This, however, means that other users, either the small private-line users who are not so fortunate as to live in large cities or message toll users, or both, will have to make up the difference if total revenue requirements are to be met. This is in addition to the higher costs which are bound to fall on all communications users by virtue of the inefficient use of the frequency at stake.”

It is also clear to the Court that the FCC’s decision authorized MCI to provide only point-to-point private line service not requiring the use of defendants’ switching machines (Byers, S-T-133 at 15-18). The FCC stated its understanding of MCI’s proposal as involving “a limited common carrier microwave radio service, designed to meet the interoffice and interplant communications needs of small businesses” 26 (18 F.C.C.2d at 953 (S-1918)). Moreover, the FCC recognized that under the proposal MCI would only need what is known as local distribution facilities, in the form of a pair of wires reaching from MCI’s microwave sites in the cities it served to the location of its customers in that city, thereby providing a “link between MCI’s sites and ... [a customer’s] place of business” (18 F.C.C.2d at 954). Consequently, the FCC made no reference in its MCI decision to any possibility that MCI’s circuits would be connected to a telephone company’s switches. Indeed, Commissioner Robert E. Lee in his dissenting statement recognized this very problem wherein he stated (18 F.C.C.2d at 973 (S.1918)):

One of the basic unresolved propositions in this case is how the FCC can expect MCI, who at best possesses extremely marginal financial qualifications, to invest $564,000 which again is a questionable estimate of costs, for a microwave system, which is presumably de *864 signed for service to the public without also ruling on the interconnection issue. (emphasis supplied).

Notable by its absence from the FCC’s decision was any declaration that the FCC was moving to a policy of unrestricted competition in the common carrier field, or even of restricted or limited competition beyond the offering of the specialized point-to-point service that MCI had described in its application (Letwin, S-T-140 at 76; Ashley, ST-132 at 9-15; Partoll, S-T-149 at 7; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.E).

The MCI decision resulted in a deluge of new applications for authority to construct and operate facilities for specialized common carrier service and served as the springboard for SPCC’s entry into the industry (Agreed Fact 8-2-009). SPCC filed applications for authority to provide specialized services initially between Seattle, Washington, and, San Diego, California and between Los Angeles, California, and, East St. Louis, Illinois (Agreed Fact 8-3-020). Other companies filed similar applications, and to deal with this situation, the FCC instituted a broad rulemaking inquiry designed to permit consideration in one proceeding of the policy questions raised by all of these applications (Specialized Common Carriers, 24 F.C.C.2d 318, 322 (1970) (Notice of Inquiry) (S — 2070); Furth, Tr. 395; Let-win, S-T-140 at 77).

The views and comments submitted by SPCC and the other applicants in the Specialized Common Carriers proceeding described in detail the kinds of services for which they sought authority to construct microwave systems (24 F.C.C.2d at 321-24 (S-2070); see also .exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.E, pp. E-5 — E-6). Based upon a review of the notice and pleadings, the Court is convinced that none of the applicants sought authority to provide ordinary telephone services, and none sought to connect their proposed systems with the switching machines or the switched network of the Bell System and other general service carriers. As will be discussed below, the specialized carriers in their applications and pleadings also made no mention of FX or CCSA-type service and the Commission did not discuss it in its decision. Although plaintiffs’ witnesses were somewhat evasive on this point, they confirmed that an essential thrust of SPCC’s planned entry was the offering of new and innovative services not then being provided by defendants (Furth, Tr. 380; Miller, Tr. 415-18, 446-47; Brodman, Tr. 1806).

In June 1971, the FCC handed down its Specialized Common Carriers decision approving in principle the entry of specialized carriers and declaring as a matter of policy that there should be competition in the specialized. services to which it applied (29 F.C.C.2d 870 (1971) (S-2211)). In doing so, it appears to the Court that the FCC was following the general recommendations of the Task Force. Thus, although the Commission recognized the threat of ereamskimming in its decision (29 F.C.C.2d at 915), it minimized such potential impact on the ground that SPCC and the other newly authorized carriers would serve theretofore untapped markets with “new” and “specialized” services and that creamskimming was therefore likely to be insignificant (id. at 912; Ashley, S-T-132 at 18-20; Letwin, S-T-140 at 77-78; Partoll, S-T-149 at 7; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.E). 27

*865 The Specialized Common Carriers decision was not a model of clarity — 28 a fact that is apparent to the Court both from a reading of the decision and the controversy and litigation that surrounded its implementation. Indeed, the Commission either did not discuss or deferred to future proceedings the resolution of all of the major issues raised by the Commission’s authorization of competition by the specialized carriers.

On the matter of the establishment of ground rules for price competition between the specialized carriers and the existing carriers, the Commission recognized that changes in the Bell System’s nationwide average rates “may be in order, and ... will not be opposed by the Commission” and emphasized that the established carriers would have “an opportunity to compete fairly and fully” taking advantage of any price that “will realistically and reasonably reflect economic advantages, if any, that are inherent in [Bell’s] plant and operations” (29 F.C.C.2d at 915 (S — 2211)). Moreover, consistent with the position advanced by the Department of Justice, the Commission pointed out that it would not condone any “ ‘protective umbrella’ for the new entrants or ‘any artificial bolstering of operations that cannot succeed on their own merits’ ” (id.). However, the Commission found it “neither practical nor appropriate” to adopt “precise principles” to govern changes in defendants’ rates in the Specialized Common Carriers decision (id. at 916-17). Instead, the Commission pointed out that the question of general competitive pricing methodology was at issue in another Commission proceeding (Docket No. 18128) and that, in any event, it would “address any problems as they arise” (id.; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc. Sub. at App.E).

As to the scope of the specialized carriers’ authorization, the decision did not define the specialized services in which it authorized the new carriers to engage, nor did it define the obligations the FCC expected the general service carriers to assume in order to help these new carriers get into business. Instead, it treated the terms “specialized services” and “private line” services as synonymous with the services that SPCC and the other applicants in the proceeding had proposed (29 F.C.C.2d at 906-08, 911 (S-2211)), found these “proposed facilities and services” to be in the public interest (id. at 920), and indicated that the general service carriers should provide local distribution facilities.for such services (id. at 940; Ashley, S-T-132 at 16-27; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.E).

Moreover, although the Commission required the established carriers to provide such local distribution facilities on nondiscriminatory terms, it did so without defining what such terms would be and without any apparent consideration of the problems inherent in making services and facilities ordinarily provided jointly between network partners available to customer competitors who were not, and apparently did not desire to be, part of that network partnership.

Finally, the Commission did not discuss the question of whether the specialized *866 common carriers would be allowed to piece-out Bell System service. Indeed, the Commission made no declaration or order requiring the established carriers to interconnect with competitors for any purpose other than to provide “local distribution service” and only in connection with the specialized services authorized in that case, thus apparently eliminating the possibility of a piece-out situation (Letwin, S-T-140 at 78-79).

Following the Specialized Common Carriers decision, plaintiffs proceeded with their plans to commence operations. They worked on construction plans, negotiated with equipment suppliers, composed budgets and financial plans and recruited staff members (Miller, PX6-0002 at 10). In addition, SPCC met with representatives of AT & T and Pacific Telephone to discuss obtaining local distribution facilities to serve its initial customers in California and Arizona (Kopf, PX6-0003 at 4-5). Although SPCC claims that there were problems during those negotiations — claims which the Court will address below — there is no dispute that a contract between SPCC and Pacific Telephone for the provision of local distribution facilities was executed on October 23,1973, and, after obtaining necessary tariff amendments from the California Public Utilities Commission, which became effective on December 12, 1973, plaintiffs began serving their first customers on December 26, 1973 (Kopf, PX6-0003 at 16).

THE NATURE OF THE ISSUES

Having traced the development of the telecommunications industry and regulatory policies leading up to the Specialized Common Carriers decision, the Court believes that it is necessary to put in context the evolution of regulatory policy during the decade following that decision as it relates to the broad issues raised by the authorization of competition in the provision of “specialized” private line services.

There are four broad issues which emerge from that decision and lie at the heart of plaintiffs’ specific claims in this case. These are: (1) what was the nature of defendants’ permissible pricing responses to the newly-authorized competition and the basis on which such responses were to be justified; (2) what were the scope of both the services the new entrants were authorized to provide and defendants’ corresponding interconnection obligations; (3) what was the meaning of the nondiscriminatory operating relationships mandated between the new entrants and defendants and other established carriers; and (4) what was the extent of defendants’ obligation to provide plaintiffs and the other specialized carriers with interconnections which would enable the specialized carriers to piece-out defendants’ network.

There is one overriding phenomenon of the evolution of regulatory policy following the Specialized Common Carriers decision that helps both to explain the specific claims at issue in this case and to chart the Court’s course in their disposition. It is the existence of pervasive and continuing regulatory uncertainty which was engendered by that decision and which continued throughout the entire period at issue in this case.

In the pricing area, the Commission had, as discussed above, deferred consideration of an appropriate costing standard to Docket No. 18128. It was not until 1976 that the Commission issued a decision on that question. AT&T, Revisions of Tariff FCC No. 260, Private Line Service, Series 5000 (TEL-PAK) (Docket No. 18128), 61 F.C.C.2d 587 (1976) (S-4575). Even then, the matter was not resolved as the Commission, after further investigation, abandoned the costing standard it had adopted. Indeed, only recently has the Commission issued a costing manual setting forth guidelines for doing cost studies and the Commission has made clear that even that is only an interim manual. AT & T, Manual and Procedures for the Allocation of Costs, 84 F.C.C.2d 384 (1981) (S-6005). Thus, almost eleven years after the Specialized Common Carriers decision, the question of the appropriate costing methodology still remains open to further change (see exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.E). Yet throughout that period and throughout this trial, *867 defendants’ pricing tariffs have been attacked for failing to comply with standards that the Commission was either unable, or unwilling, to articulate in advance.

Similar uncertainty prevailed during this era regarding the scope of the services the specialized carriers were authorized to provide (Ashley, S-T-132 at 16-28; Byers, ST-133 at 13-20; deButts, S-T-131 at 24-25; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.E). In their applications to the FCC, the new carriers represented that they only proposed to provide “new and innovative” services not requiring connections to defendants’ switching machines. Thus, neither the specialized carriers in their applications and pleadings nor the Commission in its Specialized Common Carriers decision said anything about providing services such as FX and CCSA which required such connections. Subsequently, when the issue arose as to whether MCI was entitled to interconnections to provide FX and CCSA, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Specialized Common Carriers decision was “unclear” as to this issue. MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 496 F.2d 214, 221, 224 (3d Cir.1974) (S-2981). Shortly thereafter, however, the FCC held that the new entrants were authorized to provide these services and directed defendants to make the necessary connections. Bell System Tariff Offerings of Local Distribution Facilities for Use by Other Common Carriers, 46 F.C.C.2d 413 (1974) (S-2987).

Two years later, when several of the specialized carriers, including SPCC, began providing ordinary switched long distance services, the FCC held that these switched services exceeded the scope of the private line services the specialized carriers had been authorized to provide. In a decision which revolutionized the telecommunications industry, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit reversed the FCC and found that the specialized carriers operating authority had not been expressly limited by the FCC in the Specialized Common Carriers decision and thus that the scope of their authorization was unlimited. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 561 F.2d 365 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1040, 98 S.Ct. 780, 54 L.Ed.2d 790 (1970) (S-5123). 29 Yet, once again, despite these radical and unanticipated shifts in regulatory policy, defendants have been accused of unreasonably denying interconnections for switched services to the new entrants, where neither defendants, nor even the Commission itself, could reasonably anticipate how regulatory policy on this question would ultimately evolve.

On a third issue, AT & T’s obligation to provide facilities to the specialized carriers on nondiscriminatory terms, the FCC has not yet made clear the meaning of that term in the context of network partners (AT & T-Long Lines, the Bell operating companies and the independent telephone companies) providing joint services, as opposed to the operating companies providing facilities to customers/competitors not involved in a cooperative partnership arrangement. As described more fully below, AT & T attempted to sit down with the specialized carriers and resolve some of these issues under the aegis of the Commission during late 1974 and early 1975, but AT & T’s offer to treat the specialized carriers as network partners with the concomitant benefits and obligations was rejected outright by plaintiffs and the other carriers (Kelley, S-T-59 at 22-23). Although defendants were able to develop solutions to certain of these issues with little or no regulatory guidance, and the FCC accepted the settlement agreement which resulted from these negotiations (S-3471) and presided over meetings to monitor its implementation, the FCC has done nothing further to clarify this complex and difficult question. However, much of the *868 controversy in the industry following the Specialized Common Carriers decision, and much of the evidence in this case, relates to charges of “discrimination” (Kelley, S-T— 59; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.E).

Finally, as to a fourth issue raised by the FCC’s authorization of competition by the specialized carriers, that of piece-out and its resulting technical and economic problems, the FCC once again created an atmosphere of uncertainty. The FCC accepted the tariffs filed by AT & T in 1968 after the Carterfone decision (13 F.C.C.2d 420 (1968), 14 F.C.C.2d 571 (1968)), which allowed the interconnection of customer-provided terminal equipment and private microwave systems to the network, but contained provisions designed to prevent piece-out (Byers, S-T-133 at 6-13). The FCC similarly accepted substantially identical tariff revisions filed by AT & T in 1971 after the Specialized Common Carriers decision which permitted connections between the facilities of the specialized carriers and those of the defendants, but also contained a “customer-premise” provision designed to prevent piece-out (Hough, S-T-1 at 85-86; deButts, S-T-131 at 59; Byers, S-T-133 at 13-20; see also Darling, S-T-148 at 10; exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App.E). On the related question of the leasing of intercity facilities by defendants to plaintiffs and other new entrants, the Court is satisfied that in the Specialized Common Carriers decision, the FCC neither mentioned, nor even intimated, that defendants had any obligation to make such facilities available. Although defendants voluntarily offered to provide such facilities in 1974 and after five years of silence on the issue, in 1976 the FCC declared the piece-out tariff provisions to be unlawful (S-4449C), defendants are accused here of acting unreasonably with respect to both issues.

Beyond the overriding influence of regulatory uncertainty on the issues in this case, in the Court’s view, there is one additional matter that necessarily must be addressed at the outset in order to have a proper understanding of those issues — that is, the economic bases for AT & T’s opposition to new entry in the telecommunications industry. The evidence is clear that AT & T was concerned that it protect its ability to serve the public interest by fulfilling its regulatory obligations through continued adherence to the long-standing pricing and service policies discussed above (deButts, S-T-131). 30

A principal economic consideration in the FCC’s authorization of competitive entry in intercity telecommunications services was to test whether AT & T’s economies of scale outweighed any advantages of specialization that might be achieved by new entrants (Rosse, S-T-43). Implementation of such a test was a crucial factor in the position taken by AT & T toward new entry and expanded competition during this period (deButts, S-T-131).

Economies of scale means that a proportional increase in all inputs to a firm’s production generates a greater than proportional increase in its output, all else constant (Rosse, S-T-43 at 3). In other words, when a firm’s output increases by 10 percent, its costs increase by a lesser percentage. Thus, a large firm with scale economies is able to produce output more cheaply than a smaller firm using the same technology (id.; Baumol, Tr. 3759-60).

The record evidence on the Bell System’s economies of scale falls into essentially five categories: (i) common sense 31 ; (ii) engineering-economic studies; (iii) econometric *869 studies; (iv) productivity studies; and (v) perceptions of proposed entrants in the market. Defendants presented compelling evidence in each of these five categories. Common sense suggests that the technology, organization, and historical record of the telecommunications network exhibit economies of scale (Rosse, S-T-43; Tr. 5745, 5752). The engineering-economic studies illustrate the characteristics of the facilities used to provide intercity services and demonstrate the declining unit cost of larger systems (Skoog, S-T-45; Mandanis, ST-46; Rosse, S-T-43 at 21-26). Moreover, the econometric studies and productivity studies introduced by defendants confirm that these potential economies have in fact been realized by AT & T (Vinod, S-T-44; Christensen, S-T-48; Rosse, S-T-43 at 26-37). Evidence illustrating the perceptions of the proposed entrants similarly confirms the fact that AT & T enjoys substantial economies of scale (Smith, S-T-166 at 3-4; Ginty, S-T — 47 at U.S.Tr. 18085-86; Phillips, Tr. 5455-56; S-2197; S-2420).

It appears to the Court that there are three reasons for defendants having achieved such clear economies of scale. First, as defendants’ witnesses explained, higher levels of demand allow efficient use of high-capacity facilities and technologies which provide transmission service at progressively lower unit costs (Hough, S-T-l at 3-11; Mandanis, S-T-46 at 15-16; Rosse, S-T-43 at 8). Second, the process by which the network is configured allows for the fullest utilization of these high-capacity, low-cost facilities (id.; Mandanis, ST-46 at 17). Finally, defendants supply the entire spectrum of communications services, and through the networking principle, demand for all those services is concentrated or pooled so that it can be transmitted and switched over the same facilities (id.). This last phenomenon is referred to by economists as “economies of scope” (id.). Economies of scope exist when it is cheaper to produce two or more goods or services together than to produce each one separately (Rosse, S-T-43 at 15; Phillips, S-T-173 at 25). The shared use of physical plant by different services appears to the Court to contribute in large part to the economic advantages of defendants’ single integrated telecommunications network (Skoog, S-T-45 at 8; Rosse, S-T-43 at 16; Hough, ST-l at 10).

The Court is thus satisfied that the Bell System enjoys substantial economies of scale which have increased over time (Rosse, S-T-43 at 18; Phillips, S-T-173 at 16-17; Christensen, S-T-48; Mandanis, ST — 46; Ginty, S-T-47; Sutter, Tr. 4930-31; Skoog, S-T^45 at 6, 8; Vinod, S-T-44 at 5; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc. Sub. at App. E, pp. E-5 — E-6, E-13 — E-14). Indeed, based upon the evidence in this record, the Court has no question that defendants’ exploitation of economies of scale has been a major factor in the strong productivity growth achieved in the provision of telephone service in this country (Christensen, S-T-48 at 25-30) and has contributed to widely available, reliable telephone service of a kind unrivaled elsewhere in the world.

Through the rebuttal testimony of Dr. James Heckman, plaintiffs attempted to controvert the proposition that AT & T enjoys economies of scale in its intercity operations. Dr. Heckman’s own testimony, however, reveals that he knows “very little” about the telecommunications industry and that he was completely unaware of the high capacity facilities which enable the Bell System to achieve economies of scale in the provision of intercity services (Tr. 5744-45). Consequently, Dr. Heckman’s attempt to dismiss Mr. Mandanis’ and Dr. Skoog’s engineering-economic studies, which demonstrated substantial economies of scale in intercity transmission facilities, was not convincing. Indeed, Dr. Heckman frankly admitted that his study does not address the issue of whether Bell possesses economies of scale for intercity services. In Dr. Heckman’s words, his “evidence is somewhat narrow ... It did not address that specific question [economies of scale in long distance telecommunications services]” because he “didn’t study it” (Tr. 5754). Thus, his conclusion of diseconomies of scale results from an econometric analysis of the *870 entire Bell System, including its local operations and cannot support any conclusion that there are no economies of scale in intercity services (Tr. 5755-56). Moreover, the results of Dr. Heckman’s econometric study bear no relation to reality. For example, Dr. Heckman acknowledged that his study suggested that the cost of having two firms providing telecommunications services could be as much as 82 percent below the cost of the Bell System providing all such services (Tr. 5756-57). The Court finds such results to be unsound and entitled to no weight.

Dr. Heckman did concede that the perception of proposed entrants would be “ideal” data in determining whether economies of scale exist in the telecommunications industry (Tr. 5760). In fact, the record in this case is replete with such evidence. For example, Mr. Ginty, a representative of Arthur D. Little and Company who worked with General Electric in evaluating whether that company should construct a private microwave system, observed that “the Bell System could install and operate microwave systems at prices competitive with private systems and in fact lower than competitive systems since their capacity along major routes is much larger than private systems with the attendant economies of scale” (Ginty, S-T-47 at U.S.Tr. 18085-86; see also Phillips, Tr. 5455-56; S-2197; S-2420).

Because of the Bell System’s demonstrated economies of scale and scope, there is no question in this record that defendants’ costs are lower than those of plaintiffs for any given output (Rosse, S-T-43 at 48; Phillips, S-T-173 at 30; see also Ginty, S-T-47 at U.S.Tr. 18085-86; Smith, S-T-166 at 3-4). It is conceivable that such scale advantages might be somewhat offset if plaintiffs had access to different technologies (or could exploit technologies in ways not possible for defendants) or if plaintiffs’ management were more efficient than defendants’ management (Rosse, S-T-43 at 48). However, there is no evidence that this is the case. Indeed, as discussed in more detail below, the record evidence conclusively refutes the possibility that plaintiffs were more efficient than the Bell System. Thus, there is no question on this record that, because of these scale economies, defendants could compete effectively with plaintiffs or others in the provision of private line services if allowed to respond freely (Baumol, Tr. 3759-60).

In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it was defendants’ effort to continue to provide the benefits of the economic advantages it enjoyed to the public, coupled with the continuing regulatory uncertainty with which it was faced, that lie at the heart of the specific issues in this case to which the Court now turns.

THE STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT

The essential elements plaintiffs must establish to prove a private monopolization claim are not in dispute. These are: (1) that the defendant possesses monopoly power in a relevant market; (2) that the defendant has unlawfully exercised that power to attain, or maintain, a monopoly in the relevant market; (3) that the plaintiff has suffered injury in fact as a result of those unlawful acts; and (4) that damages in a reasonably ascertainable amount have been proved. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977); Sargent-Welch Scientific Co. v. Ventron Corp., 567 F.2d 701 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 822, 99 S.Ct. 87, 58 L.Ed.2d 113 (1978); Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093, 100 S.Ct. 1061, 62 L.Ed.2d 783 (1980).

The application of these principles is qualified where the conduct being attacked involves the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment. It is not a violation of the antitrust laws to speak out on public issues or to attempt to persuade a regulatory agency to change its policy, unless plaintiffs can'demonstrate that such activity was a “sham” designed to' deny *871 them “free and meaningful access to the agencies and courts.” California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 512, 92 S.Ct. 609, 612, 30 L.Ed.2d 642 (1972); Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass’n, 484 F.Supp. 1195 (D.D.C.1980), rev’d in part and aff’d in part, 663 F.2d 253 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1293, 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982). In the absence of such proof by plaintiffs, the First Amendment “shields from the Sherman Act a concerted effort to influence public officials regardless of intent or purpose.” United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 670, 85 S.Ct. 1585, 1593, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965); Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 81 S.Ct. 523, 5 L.Ed.2d 81 (1961).

As the Court will now detail in considering plaintiffs’ specific pricing, interconnection and other charges, SPCC has failed to present evidence satisfying these standards.

MONOPOLY POWER AND RELEVANT MARKET

The threshold showing required of plaintiffs in this case is proof that defendants possess monopoly power in a relevant market. Monopoly power is defined as the power to “control prices or exclude competition” in the relevant market. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 571, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1704, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); see also United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391-92, 76 S.Ct. 994, 1005, 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956).

Plaintiffs’ position is that the relevant market consists of the market for all business and government intercity telecommunications services and is nationwide in scope (Owen, PX6-0005 at 4; Melody, PX6-0018 at 18). Plaintiffs have defined this product market to include not only private line services, which have been the focus of the issues in this case, but also ordinary long distance services, including MTS and WATS, as well as telegraph, data, facsimile, and broadcast services (Owen, PX6-0005 at 4-11; Melody, PX6-0018 at 17). Defendants, on the other hand, contend that insufficient evidence has been presented to support such an expansive market definition, and urge a relevant market which is narrower both in terms of services and geography (Pace, S-T-156). Defendants further contend that they lack monopoly power in any relevant market, regardless of which party’s market definition is adopted.

Although plaintiffs did present evidence on the issues of market definition and monopoly power through the testimony of their experts, Drs. Owen and Melody, the Court has serious reservations concerning the credibility of both witnesses 32 and, in any event, is not satisfied that plaintiffs sustained their burden on either issue. As the Court will now explain, based upon the evidence of record, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs did not establish the relevance of the broad product and geographic market for which they contend; that the market in which the defendants’ monopoly power must be assessed is the high-density intercity, interstate private line market to which plaintiffs limited their entry, or would have entered; and that no sufficient showing of defendants’ monopoly power, in the private line market or any other market as it relates to this case, has been made.

THE RELEVANT MARKET

The relevant market in this case, as in any monopolization action, must be limited to the geographic area in which the parties effectively compete 33 (Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327, 81 S.Ct. 623, 627, 5 L.Ed.2d 580 (1961)), and to those products or services which are in fact reasonably interchangeable with one another. United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 395, 76 S.Ct. 994, 1007, 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956). The purpose of the Court’s inquiry into the relevant market, therefore, is to determine the “area of effective competition” in which it makes *872 sense to measure defendants’ alleged market power vis-a-vis the plaintiffs. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U.S. 293, 299-300 n. 5, 69 S.Ct. 1051, 1055 n. 5, 93 L.Ed. 1371 (1949).

The relevant market in this case is telecommunications service, which involves the electronic or electromagnetic transmission of information over distance from identified senders to identified recipients (Owen, PX6-0005 at 4). Local telephone service in all areas of the country is provided by the Bell Operating Companies (BOC’s) and the more than 1500 independent telephone companies (Grant, PX6-0004 at 1-2; Owen, PX6-0005 at 4-5; Melody, PX6-0018 at 16 see also Testimony of Richard A. Lumpkin, S-6187, at 1-2). AT & T and the independents are the monopoly suppliers of local distribution facilities in areas served by SPCC (Grant Tr. 696). Neither SPCC nor all specialized common carrier firms compete with the BOC’s or the independents in providing local service (Owen, PX6-0Q05 at 5; Grant, PX6-0004 at 3-4). It is thus the intercity portion of the telecommunications business that is relevant to this lawsuit (Owen, PX6-0005 at 5).

While plaintiffs have argued for a single relevant product market, including MTS/WATS as well as private line service, the Court is unable to conclude on this record that MTS and WATS services 34 were within the zone of effective competition between these parties during the relevant time period. Plaintiffs offered evidence to show that MTS and WATS services display cross-elasticity of supply and demand with private line services (Melody, PX6-0018 at 17-18; Owen, PX6-0005 at 12-15). This evidence included the testimony of several AT & T witnesses,'including the immediate past and present Chairmen of the Board of AT & T (Brown, Tr. 5339-5345; Miller, S-2089 at 265; Miller, S-2091 at 415-16; Jones, S-T-53, tab A at 26; deButts, S-T-131, tab A at 85). In addition, defendants’ own internal documents also exhibit AT & T’s recognition that MTS, WATS and private line service are cross-elastic. (PX1-0003; PX1-0005; PX1-0009; PX1-0012; PX1-0013; PX1-0015; PX10018; PX1-0028; PX1-0032; PX1-0044; PX1-0045; PX1-0047; PX1-0048; PX10049; PX1-0053; PX1-0078; PX1-0080; PX1-0081; PX1-0092; PX1-0107; PX10109; PX2-0025). Moreover, the plaintiffs contend that because each of these services are provided on the same network of intercity transmission facilities, suppliers of these services can shift from supplying one service to supplying another in response to shifts in customer demand (Owen, PX60005 at 6-7, 13-14; Melody, PX6-0018 at 18). While there is no doubt that to some extent this is true, in the Court’s opinion, the evidence on the degree of cross-elasticity is inconclusive and insufficient to support a determination that MTS and WATS are within the relevant market.

Important differences in the characteristics of these three services suggest that clear gaps in the chain of substitutability exist between them. 35 In fact, when one of *873 plaintiffs’ economic experts, Dr. Hieronymus, was asked how anyone could argue that MTS and WATS are in the same relevant market as private lines, he answered that “they are not in the same market” (Hieronymus, Tr. 2857). 36 Plaintiffs’ experts were thus in disagreement on the question (Hieronymus, Tr. 2856-57), but Dr. Hieronymus’ evaluation was consonant with that of defendants’ expert, Dr. Pace, who determined that MTS and WATS should be excluded from the relevant market because of insufficient demand cross-elasticity (Pace, Tr. 4853). Moreover, this testimony is consistent with the practical realities of the marketplace, which suggest that a majority of MTS customers would not find private line services to be a practical or economic substitute for MTS. 37 As Dr. Pace further pointed out, a common carrier must serve the demand; thus, it cannot shift facilities from one service to another arbitrarily (Pace, Tr. 4854). This appears to be an important constraint in the determination of supply substitutability, and the Court accordingly concludes that the necessary interchangeability has not been shown.

This is not to say that there is no cross-elasticity between private line and MTS and WATS. The testimony of an AT & T witness reveals that the cross-elasticities were 0.1 or lower (Pace, S-T-156 at 35). Mr. Pace goes on to testify as follows (S-T-156 at 35-36):

For example, Bell Exhibit 4, submitted in Docket No. 19919 (Hi/Lo proceeding, 1973), attempts to estimate shifts from MTS to AT & T’s own revised PLS rates or to SCC service. The shift factor developed is 0.1, indicating that a 10 percent reduction in PLS rates would result in only a 1 percent change in MTS revenue (p. 66c). The same document also considers shifts from WATS to PLS. It concludes that “a total shift from WATS to private line of approximately 3 percent was considered as the most that could reasonably be expected at even lower ranges of private line rates” (pp. 73-74).

Bell Exhibit No. 1A, submitted in the 1969 TELPAK case, is another example. This exhibit presented estimates of revenue shifts between TELPAK, MTS and WATS resulting from the implementation of various test rates. Test rate 3, which involved TELPAK rate increases ranging between 20 percent and 30 percent, was estimated to result only in a shift of $9.9 million to MTS/WATS, or less than one-half of 1 percent of the then existing MTS/WATS revenue. The implied cross elasticity is 0.0025.

A number of SPCC documents reveal that SPCC did not view the cross-elasticities between PLS and WATS/MTS as high. For example, Document No. 1BLE2489-499, a draft speech by an SPCC spokesman, states at pages 10 and 11:

Bell handled 9.5 billion long distance calls in 1973, an 11 percent increase over 1972 levels. Assuming that the contribution to common and fixed costs from $500 million *874 in private lines business is $250 million, recovery of that contribution from 9.5 billion long distance calls would involve an increased charge of 2.6 cents. Most of that long distance business has no cross-elasticity with private line business. (Emphasis supplied).

Based on the foregoing the Court does not find a high enough cross-elasticity to include MTS and WATS in the same market as private line service.

Even if the evidence did establish some reasonable degree of interchangeability between MTS/WATS and private line service, the Court concludes that it would nonetheless be appropriate to limit the relevant product market in this case to private line services. 38 It is clear that regulation during the relevant period bears directly on the market definition, and the relevant market ought not include areas in which SPCC either was not authorized to compete or chose not to compete. For this reason, the market definition plaintiffs propose is overbroad. It is clear to the Court that SPCC was not authorized by the FCC to provide other than private line services until the 1977 Execunet decision 39 (see MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 561 F.2d 365 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1040, 98 S.Ct. 780, 54 L.Ed.2d 790 (1978)). Furthermore, SPCC was authorized to provide intrastate private line service in only three states (Pace, S-T-156 at 26); no other state authorizations were sought; and intrastate service was never supplied by SPCC without such authorization (id.). 40 To conclude that unauthorized services should be included in the relevant market would be both factually and legally inconsistent.

Moreover, it would be patently unfair to include MTS & WATS in the relevant market, for as the toll service revenues of AT & T indicate, private line service accounts for less than 10% of all toll revenues (since the inception of the specialized common carriers. See Table I. 41 In other words, approximately 90% of AT & T’s toll service revenues was not a part of this case. SPCC, or any other specialized common carrier was not allowed to compete for that 90% prior to 1977.

*875

*876 Additionally, all of the charges made by plaintiffs in this case have been limited to private line services, and plaintiffs’ damage study reinforces this view of the separation of the private line market. The study examines only interstate circuits (Pace, S-T-156 at 28), is expressly limited to private line business, and envisions an extraordinarily successful company offering private line services alone (Vasilakos, Tr. 3054; Whitaker, S-T-203 at 4). The Court concludes, therefore, that interstate, intercity private line service constitutes a separate market and is. the relevant product market within which to assess defendants’ alleged monopoly power. This market definition is also in accord with the FCC, where in a recent Farther Notice of Proposed Rule-making, the FCC found “MTS/WATS, private line and public switched services traditionally have been viewed by the carriers, the public and this agency as distinct services catering to distinct needs.” Deregulation of Telecommunications Services, 84 F.C.C.2d 445, 502 (1981).

The available market for SPCC’s private line services is distinctly more limited than plaintiffs suggest. Plaintiffs propose to include government consumption of telecommunications services, yet the evidence indicates that a significant portion of federal government purchases would not have been open to competition for security reasons. 42 General Jacobsmeyer testified that the specialized common carriers’ routes and control centers were deemed to lack “survivability,” a factor more determinative than cost (Jacobsmeyer, S-T-163 at 9). AT & T was able to provide the “sole-source” service desired: it could offer centralized management, hardened control centers, and restoral capability (id. at 8; Pace, S-T-156 at 42). Based on such important factors, he estimated that more than 75 percent of all Department of Defense private line services would have been purchased from AT & T, almost regardless of cost (Jacobsmeyer, ST-163 at 4). This is consistent with the testimony of General Paschall, former Director of the Defense Communications Agency, who confirmed that for technical and security reasons, AUTOVON 43 circuits connecting switching centers were purchased from AT & T (Paschall, S-T-164 at 14-16). After April 1975, AUTOVON access 44 lines could be procured competitively (Paschall, S-T-164 at U.S.Tr. 19695), and yet they were still leased entirely from Bell and independent operating telephone companies (id. at 19697-98). Only an estimated 20 percent of the military expenditures would not be “sole-sourced,” and only about half of this 20 percent available to competition would be located on long-haul, high-density routes where SPCC constructed its facilities (Pace, S-T-156 at 43). This testimony indicates that SPCC was not and could not realistically have been an effective competitor for the bulk of the government’s private line business during the relevant period, and thus it should be excluded from the relevant market. 45

*877 For similar reasons, the Court concludes that a nationwide market definition is inappropriate. SPCC’s proposed geographic market is overbroad because it includes areas of the telecommunications market in which SPCC either chose not to compete or was not eligible to compete; in fact, plaintiffs seek to define a market irrespective of their own competitive plans. Plaintiffs’ evidence has not shown that SPCC ever competed (or intended to compete) with the Bell System over any but the high-traffic density intercity telecommunication routes 46 (Brodman, Tr. 1874-75; Hollis, Tr. 2319). Indeed, SPCC used this strategy as a marketing tool wherein customers) were informed:

“Southern Pacific Communications is a specialized communications carrier offering service only to specific metropolitan areas across the country. By avoiding the smaller, less profitable locations, SPCC provides quality service at prices generally lower than other carriers.” (Letter from David E. Webster, Account Representative to Mr. W.F. Sanders of . Algonquin Gas Transmission for a circuit from Brighton, Ma to Washington, D.C. S-4924)

Plaintiffs seek to minimize the significance of their marketing selection, and thus enlarge the relevant market, by suggesting they could have served a greater portion of the country but were precluded by defendants’ piece-out restrictions. 47 The Court finds this argument unpersuasive for several reasons. First, SPCC has failed to prove that piece-out was technically acceptable: the evidence, to the contrary, indicates it was unacceptable both to plaintiffs’ technical experts (Grant, Tr. 751) and to potential customers (id. at 750; see also Berner, Tr. 5887). Second, the record nowhere reveals that such an arrangement would be economical, even in the optimistic “but-for” world of plaintiffs’ damage study (Berner, Tr. 2933-38; Lim, Tr. 5905-07). Finally, it is clear that SPCC has never shown a serious interest in obtaining piece-out, as it never approached the FCC about the restrictions (Vasilakos, Tr. 87A-77), and has only one such circuit in operation today (Grant, Tr. 751). It thus appears that plaintiffs’ actual geographic realm of competition represents a deliberate business choice.

In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the geographic scope of the relevant market must accordingly be limited to those high-density city-pairs which SPCC has elected to serve, either in the real world or SPCC’s “but-for-world.” Additionally, as plaintiffs’ damage study and testimony indicate, SPCC did not seek to compete for private line service over extremely short distances (Hieronymus, Tr. 2812; Vasilakos, Tr. 2965; Pace, S-T-156 at 44).

DEFENDANTS’ MARKET POWER

In determining whether defendants have been shown to have violated § 2 of the Sherman Act, the Court’s inquiry must be based on two elements: “(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” United States v. Grinnell *878 Corp., supra, 384 U.S. at 570, 571, 86 S.Ct. at 1703; See, e.g., United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., supra; Melody, PX6-0018 at 19-21; Owen, PX6-0005 at 33-48; Owen, Tr. 961-69, 5684, 5697.

On the first element, plaintiffs contend that defendants control an overwhelming share of the market, however defined, and thus as a prerequisite, have monopoly power. “[T]he existence of such power ordinarily may be inferred from the predominant share of the market.” United States v. Grinned Corp., supra, at 571, 86 S.Ct. at 1704. That being the case, it is clear that under any market definition, it can be inferred that as a prerequisite, AT & T has monopoly power 48 As the following tables indicate, AT & T’s market share ranged from a high of 95.6% to a low of 66.5% 49 .

The following charts indicate that under any market definition, AT & T has an inference of monopoly power.

TABLE 11 50

Market Shares in the Relevant Market (Excluding Independents) 1973-1978

(Per AT&T Witness Pace, S-T-156 at 62)

Year AT&T Western Union OCCs MCCs PMWs

1973 79.5 10.8 0.1 1.8 7.8

1974 77.4 10.5 0.7 2.9 8.5

1975 75.1 9.7 3.4 2.5 9.3

1976 68.8 9.1 9.7 3.1 9.3

1977 66.5 10.0 10.4 2.8 10.3

1978 67.2 8.9 11.6 2.7 9.6

TABLE III

Market Shares in the Relevant Market (For AT&T, Witness Pace, S-T-156 at 63) Including Independents

1973-1978

Year AT&T Independents AT&T + Inds Western Union OCCs MCCs PMWs

1973 74.5% 6.3% 80.8% 10.1% 0.1% 1.7% 7.4%

1974 72.7 6.1 78.8 9.9 0.6 2.7 8.0

1975 70.5 6.1 76.6 9.1 3.2 2.4 8.7

1976 64.8 5.7 70.5 8.6 9.1 2.9 8.8

1977 62.6 5.9 68.5 9.4 9.8 2.6 9.7

1978 64.5 3.9 68.4 8.6 11.1 2.6 9.3

*879 TABLE IV 51

Market Shares in the Adjusted Domestic Interstate Toll Private Line Market (Excluding Independents)

1973-1978

(Per SPCC Witness Owen, PX6-0005 at 32)

AT&T Western Union MCCs Satellite SCCs Carriers

1973 85.8% 11.1% 3.1% 0.0% *

1974 86.4 10.9 1.9 0.7 0.0

1975 84.6 1976 79.9 10.6 1.8 10.1 2.3 2.8 0.3 6.4 1.3

1977 77.7 9.9 1.9 8.5 1.9

1978 77.5 8.4 1.9 9.9 2.4

* No companies operating

TABLE V

Market Shares in the Adjusted Domestic Interstate Toll Private Line Market Including Independents

1973-1978

(Per SPCC Witness Owen, PX6-0005 at 29)

Year AT&T Independents Western Union MCCs Satellite SCCs Carriers AT&T + Ind

1973 78.0% Kl% 11.0% 2.8% 0.0% * 86.1%

1974 78.4 8.4 10.8 1.8 0.7 0.0 86.8

1975 76.6 8.6 10.5 1.6 2.5 0.2 85.2

1976 72.5 8.4 10.0 2.1 5.8 1.2 80.9

1977 70.0 8.9 78.9 9.8 1.7 7.7 1.7

1978 72.4 6.0 78.4 8.3 1.8 9.3 2.2

* No companies operating

*880 TABLE VI 52

Market Shares in the Domestic Intercity Business Telecommunications Service Market (Excluding Independents)

(Per SPCC Witness Owen, PX6-0005 at 22)

Western Year AT&T Union Satellite MCCs SCCs Carriers

1973 95.0 4.5 0.5 0.0 *

1974 95.4 4.2 0.3 0.3 0.0

1975 95.3 4.0 0.2 0.4 0.0

1976 95.1 3.6 0.3 0.9 0.2

1977 95.1 3.3 0.3 1.1 0.3

1978 95.3% 2.9% 0.2% 1.8% 0.3%

* No companies operating

TABLE VII

Market Shares in the Domestic Intercity Business Telecommunications Service Market Including Independents

1973-1978

(Per SPCC Witness Owen, PX6-0005 at 18)

Year AT&T Independent AT&T + Telephone Companies Ind Western Union MCCs SCCs Satellite Carriers

1973 81.3 13.8 95.1 4.5 0.4 0.0 *

1974 81.2 14.3 95.5 4.2 0.2 0.1 0.0

1975 81.2 14.3 95.5 4.0 0.2 0.3 0.0

1976 80.9 14.4 95.3 3.6 0.3 0.7 0.1

1977 80.7 14.6 95.3 3.3 . 0.2 0.9 0.2

1978 80.4% 15.2% 95.6% 2.9% 0.2% 1.1% 0.3%

* No companies operating

Having met the first prerequisite (inference of monopoly power), the Court must focus its attention on the question of whether defendants have the ability to control prices or entry in that market. United States v. Grinnell Corp., supra; United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., supra; Melody, PX6-0018 at 19-21; Owen, PX6-0005 at 33-48; Owen, Tr. at 961-69, 5684, 5697. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants have attempted to deter or impede market entry. Moreover, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants have a monopoly in the relevant market by virtue of the various barriers to market entry— such as the regulatory process, AT & T’s control of “essential facilities,” substantial capital expenditures, risk disparities, AT & T’s enormous size, and customer brand loyalty. The defendants counter by contending that market share is misleading, pointing to rapid entry into the market and erosion of their market share, and further that the exercise of regulatory controls over entry, interconnection and pricing negates whatever market power they might otherwise possess.

The plaintiffs first contend that the regulatory process operates as a barrier to entry into the telecommunications market (Melody, PX6-0005 at 19). In order to enter the market, new entrants, like SPCC, must ob *881 tain microwave licenses and other entry and construction permits from the regulatory authority (id). The time and delays involved in obtaining the necessary permits may impair a competitor’s willingness and ability to enter the market (id). The plaintiffs further contend that AT & T has the ability to increase these costs and delays and discourage entry by opposing the applications of SPCC and other specialized common carriers attempting to enter the market without regard to the merits (Owen, PX6-0005 at 33) and that AT & T realized that opposition of SPCC’s state certification before the California Public Utilities Commission would result in delay of SPCC’s in-service date. 53 (PX1-0046 at LAIN 2209).

Upon a careful review of this contention, the Court finds that the plaintiffs are wrong. First, it is the FCC not AT & T that requires new entrants, like SPCC to obtain the necessary microwave permits. 47 U.S.C. § 214. Moreover, AT & T has a right to file comments to the new applications, just like any other interested party, which right is protected under the NoerrPennington doctrine and by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. Any delays that result from AT & T’s petitions in this regard are a result not of AT & T’s attempt to obfuscate the issues, but rather of the various regulatory bodies’ close scrutiny of the obviously meritorious petitions. 54 The Court notes that the various regulatory commissions have been in business for a long time and should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. From personal experience this Court knows the Commission at the State and Federal levels are really very sophisticated and knowledgeable about their responsibilities. The Court also notes that the plaintiffs’ statements regarding the California Public Utilities Commission, above, are inaccurate. It was not AT & T’s petition that caused any delays, but rather, it was the California PUC’s dissatisfaction with SPCC that caused the delay, and plaintiff’s presented no evidence to the contrary.

Likewise, any construction permit delays were not the fault of AT & T. Rather, they were the result of delays SPCC experienced in obtaining construction permits from various cities. In Mr. Grant’s April 14, 1975, SPCC report for the Board of Directors meeting, he points out (S-3519 at 3PLA0837):

All sites for microwave construction on the Washington, D.C., New York segment have been under option for a number of months however, we have encountered severe opposition in five sites by civic groups working with local planning boards and zoning commissions. These last minute interventions will inevitably cause construction delays.

Again, at a staff meeting on February 17, 1976, it was pointed out that SPCC was having site acquisition problems. (S-4099 at 2). Surely, these problems were not caused by AT & T.

Moreover, the grant of entry and construction permits, though necessary, is not a sufficient condition for successful entry into the market (Owen, PX6-0005 at 46). In order to provide service, entrants into the market must also obtain interconnections with local exchange carriers (Owen, PX60005 at 42; Melody, PX6-0018 at 20; Grant, PX6-0004 at 4; Grant, Tr. 659-60; Pace, Tr. 4866; PX1-0120 at ¶62). For nearly all metropolitan areas in the nation, the local carriers are the Bell operating companies — monopoly subsidiaries of AT & *882 T 55 (Grant, PX6-0004 at 1-2; Melody, PX6-0018 at 20; Pace, Tr. 4866).

The plaintiffs contend that the local interconnection facilities cannot be duplicated by AT & T competitors 56 and that AT & T witnesses Pace and Phillips agreed that these are “essential facilities or bottlenecks,” 57 to which access is necessary in order for the specialized common carriers to provide service (Phillips, Tr. at 5440-41; Pace, Tr. at 4866).

Through its control of “essential interconnection facilities,” plaintiffs contend that AT & T possessed the power to exclude competitors or to disadvantage competitors by granting them access to facilities on terms less favorable than those imposed upon the defendant’s Long Lines department. (Owen, PX6-0005 at 42; Melody, PX6-0018 at 20-21). However, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have ignored a very important factor. That is the power of the FCC to mandate interconnection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 201(a). 58 Indeed, as previously pointed out and bears repetition here Commissioners Robert E. Lee and James J. Wadsworth pointed out in their dissent in Application of Microwave Communications, Inc., 18 F.C.C.2d 953, 973 (1969) Docket No. 16509, (Decision) wherein they stated:

One of the basic unresolved propositions in this case is how the FCC can expect MCI, who at best possesses extremely marginal financial qualifications, to invest $564,000 which again is a questionable estimate of costs, for a microwave system, which is presumably designed for service to the public without also ruling on the interconnection issues. MCI proposes only a backbone route which will require that the customer make separate arrangements for the local loops from the MCI pickup and terminal points. The local loops will have to be provided by other communication common carriers now serving the areas.

Actually, what is implied or overlooked in a grant of these applications is that there has taken place, in fact, a prejudgment that we will order interconnection of the MCI facilities with existing land-line carriers for the local loops. Such prejudgment is in violation of section 201 of the act which requires, in part, that the Commission may order the interconnection, “ — after an opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest — ” (Emphasis supplied.)

Accordingly, the Court does not find the interconnection issue a barrier to entry. 59

The plaintiffs next contend that the substantial capital outlays and lengthy construction programs that are required to enter the intercity telecommunications market are also barriers to entry (Owen, PX60005 at 33; Melody, PX6-0018 at 19-20). This is in addition to the enormous size of AT & T and the corresponding risk that *883 new entrants must undertake. The costs associated with entry are increased by the nature of consumer demand, which is national in scope (Owen, PX6-0005 at 33-35; Melody, PX6-0018 at 19-20). Because of this demand, firms entering the market must build as large a network as possible in order to be attractive to most users. 60 (Owen, PX6-0005 at 33-35; Melody, PX60018 at 19-20). Moreover, this system must be built against the competition from the defendants that in 1973, when SPCC first entered the market, had total assets of $67 billion, local service revenues of $11 billion, toll service revenues of $12 billion, and overall operating revenues of $23 billion. (Owen, PX6-0005 at 37-40). Due to the size of AT & T, the plaintiffs contend that the new entrants are also faced with the risk of losses or extinction from any alleged anticompetitive actions on the part of AT & T (Melody, PX6-0018 at 19; Owen, PX60005 at 41).

Once again, the Court fails to see how the defendants can be charged with monopoly power merely because of defendants’ size and the fact that large amounts of capital are required for entry into the telecommunications business. Upon a review of these contentions, the Court finds that the testimony of Dr. Pace is right on point wherein he states (S-T-156 at 78-9):

Available information reveals that a complete DOMSAT system, consisting of three satellites (two in orbit and one spare) and the necessary earth stations, requires an investment of $100 million to $200 million. A reasonably extensive terrestrial microwave network may involve somewhat more investment. For example, as of the end of 1980, SPCC had a gross investment of $215 million in communications plant. MCI had approximately $150 million invested in communications plant by the time it first achieved significant profitability. As discussed below, such outlays are not large relative to the sizes of firms that have entered or considered entering this market. However, there are several reasons why it would be an oversimplification to view even outlays of this magnitude as required for entry. First, OCCs can concentrate on serving limited geographic areas and meeting specialized telecommunications needs. Moreover, since 1976, it has been possible to lease facilities to fill out the system as needed. Indeed, today it is entirely feasible to begin providing interstate telecommunications services as a resale carrier with a very small capital investment and, over a period of years, to begin constructing the links in one’s own system at the most profitable points. Second, history demonstrates that the market can be entered on a much smaller scale by sharing capital-intensive facilities. AMSAT, for example, entered the business by purchasing a 20 percent interest in Western Union’s Westar satellites. In the future, Hughes plans to offer individual satellite transponders for sale.

In sum, to say that entry into the provision of intercity telecommunications services requires hundreds of millions of dollars fails to recognize the leasing and ownership sharing arrangements that have existed for the past five years. Entry can be achieved without vast capital outlays.

Beyond this, the interstate telecommunications services market already has attracted a number of very large firms operating in related businesses, such as communications and computer equipment. For example, IBM, ITT and RCA have assets of $26.7 billion, $15.4 billion and $7.1 billion, respectively, which ranks each of them among the 50 largest industrial corporations in the United States. In addition, they each had net income in 1980 exceeding $300 million. These firms clearly would have less difficulty raising capital than would a smaller company such as MCI. As previously noted, however, even MCI was able to obtain “the largest financing ever for a start-up, non- *884 operating company” (McGowan, Tr. 3609). Nothing has been presented to show that capital requirements have in the past, or are expected in the future to pose a substantial barrier to entry into this market.

Among users of intercity telecommunications service, there is an enormous amount of “brand loyalty” associated with AT & T that plaintiffs’ contend operates as a barrier to market entry (Owen, PX6-0005 at 41). New entrants, like SPCC, can overcome this loyalty only by providing either higher quality service or lower prices for equivalent quality service (Owen, PX6-0005 at 41; Burke, S-T-8, tab C at 22338).

With respect to brand loyalty to AT & T, the Court again is unable to see how this indicates that AT & T possess monopoly power in the relevant market. The fact of brand loyalty can be attributable to the quality of the service of AT & T which has developed from the fact that for over 80 years, AT & T was the legal and regulated monopoly provider of telecommunication service.

After reviewing the evidence, the Court is unable to conclude that defendants have been shown to possess monopoly power in the relevant market. A striking factor to the Court is the remarkable pace of entry by new firms. Based upon plaintiffs’ own calculations, 61 defendants’ share of the private line market dropped approximately 10 percent between 1973 and 1977, and during that period, the specialized carriers, on an incremental basis, gained a higher and higher share of the market (Owen, PX60005 at 29, Table 3; PX1-0241, Table 5; Owen, Tr. 1035). It is clear that defendants’ market share declined very rapidly, and such decline would appear more consistent with a lack of monopoly power than with its possession (Pace, Tr. 4845). Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Owen, could not name any other industry where new entrants captured so high a percentage of the market in the first five years of their existence (Owen, Tr. 1037-38). Moreover, in response to a question from the Court, Dr. Owen admitted that if the market figures show anything, they show the absence of anti-competitive conduct by defendants and the success, of the FCC’s policy to foster competitive entry (Owen, Tr. 1035-38).

The success of that policy is certainly shown by the fact that, according to defendants’ witnesses, there are approximately forty to fifty competing carriers now, and new entrants in the market are appearing every week (T.P. • Marshall, Tr. 4020-21). 62 In New York alone, during the time period relevant to this case, there were six to eight national “non-reseller/non-international record carrier/non-Western Union” specialized common carriers (T.P. Marshall, Tr. 4025). While there have been a few mergers by the original entrants (Hough, Tr. 3551), approximately ten of the early entering carriers are still providing private line service (id). Entry continued to occur, and existing firms expanded their commitment to the business, even after competitive responses by AT & T (Pace, S-T-156 at 73). The growth of the major specialized common carriers and domestic satellite carriers has been vigorous, with estimated revenues increasing from under $1 million in 1973 to over $180 million in 1978 (id). This pattern of rapid and vigorous entry after regulatory or court decisions permitting competition strongly suggests to this Court that the market has not been characterized *885 by significant barriers to entry other than regulatory prohibition (id.). 63

The momentum of the growth of SPCC alone undercuts any notion that defendants possessed the power to control the relevant market. In this regard, the West Coast experience of plaintiffs is demonstrably relevant. The record indicates that, while at the end of 1974 there were fewer than 400 SPCC circuits in the territory served by Pacific Telephone, by the end of 1975 the number had increased six-fold; at the end of 1976 that number had nearly doubled; by the end of 1977, there was a virtual 100 percent increase over the previous three-year total (Schwartz, Tr. 4595). Moreover, SPCC’s revenues rose from virtually zero in 1973 to almost $50 million in 1978 (Pace, S-T-156 at 69-70). It is difficult to conceive of such an explosive growth rate in a context of monopoly power.

The Court finds this evidence of market trends to be significant. As Dr. Owen conceded, market trends are important indicators of market power (Owen, Tr. 1034), particularly where, as in this case, competition was legally impermissible until 1971. Such a regulatory barrier to entry deprives the market share data presented by plaintiffs of much of their force as a guide to defendants’ market power. 64 As the Report of the Attorney General’s National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws stated, “[t]he ultimate test of freedom of entry is the appearance of new rivals.” id. at 375 (1975); see also Transamerica Computer Co. v. IBM Corp., 481 F.Supp. 965, 980 (N.D.Cal.1979).

There is another major respect in which the evidence does not support a finding of monopoly power in the relevant market. There is no dispute among the parties that the FCC and state regulatory agencies have exercised active control over the overall level of earnings of defendants, such that the attainment of monopoly profits is foreclosed (Agreed Facts 7-4-007-010). 65 As Dr. Owen admitted, responding to the Court, defendants could not charge “one nickel more” for their services than the FCC would allow (Owen, Tr. 5698-99). Had defendants been allowed to exploit fully their economies of scale, they could clearly have limited new entry into the market (Pace, S-T-156 at 77; see Phillips, S-T-173 at 30). To assure the availability of telephone service at reasonable rates, however, both the FCC and the state regulatory agencies have insisted on establishing rates designed to limit strictly defendants’ earnings (Hough, S-T-l at 16). Defendants were under “total” rate of return regulation (deButts, Tr. 4061), and the history of defendants’ earnings denies any suggestion that monopoly profits were assured under that regulation (deButts, Tr. 4061-62). The rate of return authorized by the FCC has been keyed to its determination of AT & T’s cost of capital (Agreed ’ Fact 7-4-008). However, defendants’ actual earnings on their interstate operations have neither kept pace with their authorized rate of return nor with the rising cost of capital. In fact, although the FCC had authorized a *886 rate of return of 9.5 to 10 percent in 1975, AT & T’s actual earnings on interstate operations in 1976, as reported to the FCC, were 9.2 percent — less than the Commission had authorized (Agreed Fact 7-4-011). Similarly, many commissions have authorized returns well below the interest rates necessary to market defendants’ long-term bonds (Hough, S-T-l at 16). As hereinafter discussed more fully, the Court finds plaintiffs’ effort to question the clear implication flowing from this kind of regulatory control of earnings, through hypothetical and unsupported testimony of so-called “cross-subsidy,” to be unpersuasive. Where regulatory control over earnings negates an alleged monopolist’s ability to earn monopoly profits, a finding of monopoly power then becomes highly questionable as is the case here. See, e.g., Almeda Mall, Inc. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 615 F.2d 343, 354 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870, 101 S.Ct. 208, 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); Mid-Texas Communications Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 615 F.2d 1372, 1387 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 286, 66 L.Ed.2d 140 (1980). Indeed, as the FCC recently noted in a broad investigation into rate and entry regulation in the communications industry, the statutory framework and legislative history of Title II of the Communications Act clearly show that the regulatory scheme was designed “primarily to constrain the market power of communications suppliers” and to prevent “the problems associated with monopoly control or market power.” Policies and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorizations Therefore, 84 F.C.C.2d 445, 457, 459 (1981).

The Court is also unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ claim that defendants exercised monopoly power by manipulating the terms and conditions under which new entrants could interconnect with Bell operating company facilities. If the market were unregulated, ownership by one firm of facilities to which others require interconnection might indicate the existence of monopoly power (Pace, S-T-156 at 79). However, Section 201(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as well as other statutory provisions, give the FCC full power to control and regulate interconnection practices. Even if all of the interconnection refusals and other actions attributed to defendants occurred as alleged — which the Court concludes herein did not take place — there is nothing in this record to show that those actions were effective in preserving any control by defendants over the scope of the new carriers’ market. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest any potential carriers were dissuaded from entering the market because of defendants’ interconnection policies (Pace, ST — 156 at 80). In fact, the record shows that the FCC stood ready, willing and able to intervene whenever plaintiffs or other new entrants believed that defendants were treating them unfairly (see Kelley, S-T— 59).

Thus, with respect to the charge that defendants delayed the specialized carriers’ entry by breaking off negotiations and filing tariffs with state regulatory agencies covering the provision of local distribution facilities, the record confirms that the FCC, acting sua sponte, resolved these disputes within a week of the time that defendants informed the Commission that they intended to file such tariffs (Grant, PX6-0004 at 13; Miller, PX6-0002 at ll). 66 Similarly, notwithstanding the uncertainty with respect to the scope of the new carriers’ authorized services described above, the FCC resolved expeditiously the issues of interconnection for the provision of FX/CCSA services, for intercity facilities, and for customers outside specified local distribution areas when these matters were raised. Thus, the FCC issued an order to show cause to defendants relating to these mat *887 ters on December 13, 1973, before SPCC began operations, and required defendants to respond to MCI’s contention that such interconnections were required. Bell System Tariff Offerings of Local Distribution Facilities for Use by Other Common Carriers (Docket No. 19896), 44 F.C.C.2d 245 (1973). The FCC fully resolved these matters by its order of April 23, 1974 (46 F.C.C.2d 413).

The Commission also appears to have responded promptly to complaints about the technical manner in which defendants provided interconnections to SPCC and the other specialized carriers. When SPCC and others complained about the tariffs filed by AT & T on May 3, 1974, to implement the FCC’s April 23 order, within two months the Commission instituted an investigation into the technical details of those complaints (SPCC Participation in Significant Private Line Proceedings (SPCC Lawyers’ Exhibit); Kelley, S-T-59 at 11). Although the FCC has been unable to address effectively the discrimination question, given the complexity of the problems, the Court believes that the FCC dealt with these questions expeditiously, ultimately allowing the parties to work out a settlement agreement under its supervision. See AT & T, Offer of Facilities for Use by Other Common Carriers (Docket No. 20099), 52 F.C.C.2d 727, 732 (1975).

Plaintiffs were unable to point to any allegedly anticompetitive practice involved in this case which could not have been resolved by the FCC (Vasilakos, Tr. 2960-74). Moreover, the record supports defendants’ position that those issues which were brought before the Commission, e.g., the interconnection and technical issues outlined above, were promptly addressed (Vasilakos, Tr. 2971-73). In fact, Mr. Kopf, SPCC’s General Counsel, conceded that the FCC had “given SPCC consideration beyond that normally expected of a regulatory agency” (Kopf, Tr. 496). The cumulative effect of this history suggests strongly to the Court that AT & T lacked the power to prevent, or even significantly to delay, entry in the relevant market.

The record also fails to support plaintiffs’ claim that defendants enjoyed the freedom to control prices in the market (see Owen, Tr. 5698-99). In the Court’s view, this conclusion follows from several factors. First, every AT & T tariff at issue in this case was the subject of FCC proceedings, and the Commission fully exercised its authority to suspend, investigate or declare “unlawful” any interstate rate proposed by defendants. Second, the Commission imposed a requirement that AT & T secure “special permission” before it could even file a tariff adjusting its private line rates (Hough, S-T-l at 58; deButts, S-T-131 at 62). Although that requirement was subsequently declared to be unlawful, American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 487 F.2d 865 (2d Cir.1973), AT & T was not able to file the Hi/Lo tariff for nine months — from February 1973, when it sought special permission, until November 1973, after the Court of Appeals issued its decision. The Hi/Lo tariff did not^actually go into effect for another seven months, until June of 1974 (Brodman, Tr. 1786; Grant, PX6-0004 at 22). Thus, for almost 2½ years after the initial specialized carrier, MCI, went into business, defendants were unable to implement a competitive pricing response. Third, AT & T was also prohibited from eliminating its Telpak tariff from July 1977 until May 1981 as a result of an injunction issued by the Court of Appeals for this Circuit (Tr. 1817, 2277, 2286; Hough, S-T-l at 38-40). 67

Far from confirming plaintiffs’ contention that defendants possess the power to control prices and entry in the relevant market, the Court concludes that the evidence does not establish the required showing of defendants’ monopoly power within *888 the meaning of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. 68

INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE

Plaintiffs argue that even if none of the conduct of the Bell System considered alone is predatory or anticompetitive, taken together, and viewed in light of various documents that are alleged to show defendants’ anticompetitive intent, the Court should conclude that there was a deliberate plan, conceived at AT & T headquarters and carried out at every level of the Bell System, to destroy the business of plaintiffs and other non-Bell telecommunications carriers. (Tr. 311; 1443-45; 786-866; 1614-1617; 1625-1629; 2171-2178; 2182-2183; 3134-3163).

This theory of the case is based primarily on the decision in Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962). In that case, the Supreme Court held that it was error for the Court of Appeals to divide an antitrust conspiracy case into five separate episodes, and to judge the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ case as to each episode as though it were a separate lawsuit, (id. at 698-99, 82 S.Ct. at 1410). The^Court observed that “plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after scrutiny of each”; and that the “character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole ...” (id. at 699, 82 S.Ct. at 1410). In considering the claim by the defendants that one of the acts which they were alleged to have committed pursuant to the conspiracy was in fact lawful, the Court stated, in the dictum on which the plaintiffs in this case apparently rely, that “acts which are in themselves legal lose that character when they become constituent elements of an unlawful scheme” (id. at 707, 82 S.Ct. at 1414).

It is by no means certain to the Court that the rule of Continental Ore is intended to stretch so far as plaintiffs suggest. The acts complained of in Continental Ore, unlike the actions with which the defendants in this case are charged, were alleged to be part of a conspiracy to monopolize, and included such plainly unlawful conduct as price-fixing and joint refusals to deal (id. at 693, 82 S.Ct. at 1407). The Court is satisfied that nothing in Continental Ore requires a conclusion that a defendant that has not engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, and has committed no acts in themselves violative of the Sherman Act, could be found guilty of antitrust violations on some theory that the acts have “synergistic effects” that convert lawful conduct into violations of law. 69 Such a doctrine, with its potential for converting entirely innocent conduct into violations of law, would at the very least demand careful and sparing application. Indeed, the Court may direct its inquiry to determine whether the acts in question constitute reasonable, pro- *889 competitive conduct for a “monopolist.” See California Computer Products v. International Business Machines Co., 613 F.2d 727, 746 (9th Cir.1979).

Fortunately, it is not necessary for the Court to decide whether plaintiffs’ expansive reading of Continental Ore can be justified. Even if the Court were to assume that a series of entirely lawful actions can somehow be converted into an antitrust violation through evidence that they were undertaken with anticompetitive intent, plaintiffs’ evidence does not approach the standard for proof of such intent under the applicable case law.

Plaintiffs’ proof on the issue of intent falls into two broad categories. First, plaintiffs have introduced a series of transactional episodes which are alleged to represent substandard service by defendants to SPCC, and from which (without any direct evidence of unlawful intent) they apparently ask that an inference of anticompetitive purpose be drawn. Second, plaintiffs have introduced a group of documents in which AT & T employees express concern over its competitive position and ability to meet its public service obligations. 70

In the Court’s view, the first kind of evidence shows at worst that SPCC was dissatisfied with the service provided to it by defendants, and is plainly insufficient to show anticompetitive purpose. This very issue, in fact, was recently addressed by the Court of Appeals in the Northeastern case. In rejecting a claim that defendants had deliberately provided inferior service to the customers of a competitor, the Court of Appeals stated (651 F.2d at 94):

“[Ajppellee’s proof cannot pass muster even under the generous Continental Ore standard. Northeastern did not introduce any evidence whatsoever that SNET provided appreciably poorer service to Northeastern’s patrons than it did to businesses using SNET equipment. Similarly, there was not a scintilla of evidence that SNET’s failure to provide better service to plaintiff’s customers was intentional. Northeastern merely demonstrated that SNET often underestimated the time necessary to cure various electrical malfunctions, including ‘changeover’ problems — i.e., those arising when Northeastern’s equipment was connected into SNET’s telecommunications system. This evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding that SNET deliberately acted to stifle competition. Cf. George R. Whitten, Jr., Inc. v. Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., 508 F.2d 547 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1004, 95 S.Ct. 2407, 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975). This portion of the jury’s verdict also cannot stand.”

Here, as in Northeastern, the plaintiffs’ evidence concerning defendants’ provision of service shows at most that defendants’ installation and repair performance was less than perfect. Considerably more is required to convert this record into proof of an antitrust violation: it must be shown that defendants adopted and carried out a deliberate policy of providing inferior installation and repair service to plaintiffs. 71 However, the evidence of record conclusively establishes that the policy of AT & T at the highest corporate levels was to provide plaintiffs and other specialized carriers with the facilities and services that *890 they required expeditiously and efficiently, that substantial steps were taken both at AT & T and at the operating companies to implement that policy and that the policy was, in fact, implemented. Far from showing anticompetitive intent, the Court concludes that the record conclusively establishes the opposite.

The second kind of evidence relied on by plaintiffs consists of documents and speeches of AT & T management containing alleged expressions of anticompetitive intent by AT & T. The documents and speeches plaintiffs have offered into evidence, when read as a whole, do not support any finding of anticompetitive intent.

The first are entirely legitimate concerns that any business might have — concern over revenue loss to competitors who are charging lower prices, concern over what type of competitive pricing response should be made, concern over possible charges of unfair competition, concern over the attitudes of public officials including the FCC, state regulatory agencies and Congress. Mr. Charles Brown, then President of Illinois Bell and now Chairman of the Board of AT & T, recounted these concerns and his frustration (Brown, Tr. 533-L-35):

“[T]he competitors were coming in under our prices when clearly our costs were a lot lower than our prices would normally indicate. We had price averaging all over the country, and I was pointing out to Mr. deButts and others, and it was somewhat surprising that my career continued along this track, that they were sitting around not doing anything about this matter in the sense of recognizing that we were now in competition, and nationwide averaging in this sort of situation was not going to do anything but merely permit the new competitors to peel off the business, because our rates . were higher than they needed to be.”

It is difficult to understand how anyone could consider these concerns as anticompetitive and certainly the Court does not so conclude. At most, the documents reflect a desire to compete aggressively and a thorough consideration of the available alternatives. 72 As the Court has concluded above, nothing in the antitrust laws prohibits a corporation, even a “dominant” corporation, from seeking to compete. California Computer Products, supra, 613 F.2d at 742; Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 927 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 802, 96 S.Ct. 8, 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975).

The plaintiffs start their analysis of defendants alleged anticompetitive conduct in November 1969, three months after the FCC’s MCI decision and two years before the decision in Specialized Common Carriers. Horace Moulton, AT & T’s Vice President and General Counsel, made an address to AT & T’s Public Affairs Conference on the subject of competition. (PX2-0095). In this address he stated, “[W]e were really monopolists at heart,” and explained, “I say this because we were convinced — and rightly so — that the public communications system of this country could only be managed in the public interest by a single coordinated and integrated organization.” (id. at 1415).

With respect to specialized common carriers, Mr. Moulton stated “[I]t is clear in today’s economic climate that the burden is upon us to show that the competition posed by these newcomers is not in the public interest and is contrary to proper and necessary regulatory goals. This is a big order.” (id. at 1421). However, it is important to note that Mr. Moulton’s speech went further and pointed out that AT & T could be a very effective competitor if given the right to compete. In selecting an incremental cost approach, Mr. Moulton noted:

*891 “In so doing, we have opted for competitive pricing and thus for competition, and competition by definition means sharing the market with our competitors and not excluding them from it.”

(id. at 1417-18).

The whole tone of his speech was not one of anticompetitive intent, but rather one of “food for thought”, that is, to start examining the new environment that AT & T was entering.

In June, 1970, an AT & T Task Force produced a report on Intercity Competition. (PX1-0017). The foreword to that Report stated:

“It is probably true that if Bell had been serving all markets well (from the POTS [Plain Old Telephone Service] customers to those with complex data transmission needs), the aspiring competitors might never have filed applications.”

(id. at 1). The Report summarized one of the Bell System’s goals as ensuring that the “emergence of competition” would be “unprofitable to the would-be entrant,” and counseled “a more aggressive” approach to the marketplace “in the competitive areas of the business.” (id. at 26, 29). The whole theme of this report went further than plaintiffs’ limited interpretation. As the note on the first page indicated (at 1998):

“This material is for discussion purposes only and the views herein are advanced to encourage further research and understanding.”

Competition had become a fact of life for the Bell System and they had every right to analyze those effects. This report was far from anticompetitive but was one of raising questions that the Bell System should be concerned about as it entered the new age of competition.

In May 1972, a year following the Specialized Common Carriers decision, the Presidents of the Bell Operating Companies met in Key Largo with AT & T senior management. Notes of the Key Largo meeting report that the President of Northwestern Bell, Mr. Nuremberger, abjured the suggestion that AT & T delay in responding to MCI’s initial tariff filing: “I would meet ’em or beat ’em. You bastards are not going to take away my business.” PX1-0003 at AC64 0434. He later asked: “How many MCI’s will proceed with construction plans if we file matching rates now? A big fat zero.” (id. at AC64 0435). Alfred van Sinderin, President of Southern New England Telephone Company, agreed: “Shouldn’t we act now rather than wait' until they have going businesses which regulators might not permit us to dislodge?— [I]f we’re going to do this, we have to do it now.” (id. at AC64 0434). Charles Brown, then President of Illinois Bell, similarly argued: “(We) must take account of prospect of intrastate competition. Large amount of revenues vulnerable which we can preserve if we choke off now. I think you have to hit the nails on the head.” (id. at AC64 4035).

The outcome of the Key Largo meeting was described in a conference report:

The conferees generally agreed that a decisive response to the entry of specialized common carriers is required to provide a clear signal — inside and outside the business — of the Bell System’s competitive spirit. What remains at issue are questions of timing and strategy. The Executive Policy Committee has set a deadline of September 1 for completion of studies of the various alternatives open to us. (Emphasis supplied).

PX1-0005 at 2355.

What these comments evidence is not anticompetitive intent, but rather a concern on behalf of reasonable businessmen who saw their revenues being taken away. These businessmen felt helpless because they had made no competitive response, nor were they permitted at that time. These were businessmen who were straddled with nationwide average prices and saw new entrants unburdened with common carrier responsibility undercut their prices. Perhaps the best example of their plight would be if there was one regulated gas company. At every gas station in the country the price of a gallon of gas would be $3.00. The price would be $3.00 a gallon at the busiest and most profitable gas station despite the fact *892 that the gas company’s cost is only $.50 a gallon. However, for these high profits at the very profitable station(s), the gas company must also maintain a station on Route 3 U.S.A. where business is very slow and the cost of the gas is $8.00 a gallon, yet the gas company can only charge $3.00 a gallon. Then, one day, competition is permitted. A competitor opens up a station across the street from the busiest and most profitable station and only charges $1.00 a gallon. Immediately, 80% or more of the business goes to the new entrant where costs are $.60 a gallon. The established gas company sees all of its business being taken away, yet the regulatory body does not permit them to lower their prices at these profitable locations to meet competition, despite the fact that their costs are lower (or approximately even) than the new entrants. Such was the situation faced by the Bell presidents, a recognition that some competitive strategy must be developed. That is exactly what the Court finds the Bell System attempted to do.

During the summer of 1972 AT & T produced a report on Intercity Competitive Service Plans, which was reviewed by the Company’s Executive Policy Committee on September 8, 1972. (PX1-0028) Among the considerations recognized in those papers was the impact of an AT & T pricing response upon the specialized common carriers: “Bell competition could deter investors from SCC’s”, “[LJenders and investors would think twice if Bell competes.” (id. at 2468). However, once again the Court finds that the general theme was one of competition and what Bell should do, not anticompetitive behavior. Moreover, as has already been pointed out, MCI had little trouble raising needed capital and SPCC had the backing of its parent, SPT Co.

On February 12, 1973, John deButts, Chairman of the Board of AT & T, spoke to the Detroit Economics Club and reported on the Company’s reaction to Specialized Common Carriers and other decisions of the FCC. (PX1-0076) He recounted that the communications industry had been developed under “the concept of a universal system, designed and configured to operate as a single integrated entity.” (id. at 9). He went on to state:

“I will admit to you that my own instinctive response to emerging competition in our business matches that of Theodore N. Vail, who — back in the days of the brass-knuckled competition our business experienced in the early 1900’s — declared — in a statement we would now call Churchillian — ‘We have established and organized the business and do not propose to see it taken from us.... ’ Nor do we today.” [id]

The Court notes that the plaintiffs neglected to continue Mr. deButts’ speech wherein he continued:

I have made it plain that, if there is to be competition, the Bell System is going to be a tough competitor, even though I recognize that changed times may call for changed conditions, (id.)

This does not evidence anticompetitive intent on the part of AT & T, but rather that AT & T intends to be an effective competitor.

On March 2, 1973, Mr. William G. McGowan, Chairman of MCI, met with Mr. deButts. (PX1-0031) During that meeting McGowan indicated at several points that MCI was considering bringing an antitrust suit against AT & T. (id. at 2466, 2468.) Following the session with McGowan, Mr. deButts instructed that his general counsel, Mr. Garlinghouse, “accelerate his antitrust orientation program for the companies.” (id. at 2469).

Approximately two weeks after the McGowan-deButts meeting, on March 15, 1973, Mr. Stoddard, AT & T’s Marketing Director, notified Mr. Betteridge, Assistant Vice President, Market and Service Plans, that document destruction guidelines had been formulated and that a shredder “is available and in use.” (PX1-0038 at 1756 (Vol. I, Tab D, 20)). Among the classifications in the guidelines was “COMPANY PRIVATE;” such documents were to be retained “only” if they were not available and were necessary for “current performance.” (id. at 1757, 1758). Discarded docu *893 ments were to be “destroyed by shredding.” (id at 1758.)

Categories of documents specifically scheduled for destruction included:

e. Evaluative material concerning Market strategy alternatives.

i. Personal memos relating to evaluative information or recommendations.

1. Information generated by other departments, for example, cost studies of Bell equipment or service (id at 1759).

This again does not evidence anticompetitive activity. In a new competitive age the defendants had a right to assure the security of their documents. 73 Moreover, the plaintiffs have not intimated one instance where they believe that particular relevant documents had been destroyed, for the stated policy was to shred documents that were available elsewhere. Surely, for a company that knew it was going to be sued under the antitrust laws, any anticompetitive conduct would be mighty brazen. The Court does not find that AT & T has actéd in such a manner.

At a San Francisco conference held on May 17-18, 1973 representatives of PT & T and AT & T met to discuss Private Line Competition. (PX1-0092.) During the meeting “very sensitive” profiles on the specialized common carriers were made available, with the caution that the “information furnished not be reproduced, copied or distributed.” (id. at 0442) The conference report “suggested” that “we also be careful of the information we put into our files as any and all of this could be subpoened (sic).” (id.)

Later in 1973, AT & T produced a film on the subject of record retention entitled “What’s in our files?” (deButts, Tr. 4122). Screened by a quarter million Bell employees, it depicted the disastrous circumstances of an employee who had retained in his files an unfortunate document (deButts, Tr. at 4122-23). Even so, Mr. deButts pointed out that the documents still had to be maintained. (id.)

In a September 20, 1973 speech to NARUC, Mr. deButts reaffirmed his belief in the “concept of a universal system” operating as a “single integrated entity.” (PX10001 at 4) He stated that the “alternative to regulated monopoly” confronting AT & T was not “free and open competition,” but “contrived competition,” and urged a “moratorium on further experiments in economics.” (id. at 4, 5.) He continued: “There is something right about monopoly — regulated monopoly.” (id. at 4.) Disputing the notion that MCI was “stiff competition,” he observed that customers had switched to MCI because they had been offered the choice between “virtually equivalent products,” one of which, MCI’s, bore a “price tag about a third less than the other.” (id. at 9.) He went on: “That, I submit, is not competition.” (id.) Mr. deButts concluded that, if the Company were not to face “genuine competition” in the private line field, but an “arbitrary allocation of the market to others in [the] name of competition,” “I assure you the Bell System is not ready to accommodate peaceably to that prospect.” (id.) Once again, Mr. deButts continued to exercise his constitutional right to at least bring the transformation of the telecommunications industry into the public arena.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these documents reflect a concern over the wisdom and direction, of FCC policies and whether those policies were in the public interest. It is this aspect of the so-called “intent” documents on which plaintiffs have focused most of their attention. In particular, plaintiffs have pointed to the publicly stated belief of Bell System management, perhaps best illustrated by a speech by the then Chairman of the Board of Directors of AT & T, John D. deButts, on September 20, 1973 (PX1-0001). (In order that there be no misunderstanding of what Mr. deButts stated, his speech is hereinafter quoted in full.)

NARUC Annual Convention

Seattle, Washington

September 30, 1973

J.D. DeButts

*894 AN UNUSUAL OBLIGATION

It is a single honor to have the opportunity to address this convention. I do not know how many of my predecessors as chief executive officer of the Bell System have been afforded this privilege. Perhaps only one — and that was back in 1927. While I dare not hope that I can use this occasion as well as Walter Gifford did, the prospect that your next invitation may not come for another 46 years suggests that I had better try.

When Mr. Gifford came before this organization almost half a century ago in Dallas, he declared it his intention to “state very briefly the principles that guide the management of the Bell System.” What he said then has become the classic statement of our business’ purpose.

“The fact,” Mr. Gifford said, “that such a large part of the entire telephone service of the country rests solely upon this Company and its Associated Companies imposes on the management an unusual obligation to see to it that the service shall at all time be adequate, dependable and satisfactory.” And he went on to say that in his view the only sound policy that would fulfill this unusual obligation is “to continue to furnish the best possible telephone service at the lowest cost consistent with financial safety.”

How valid — and how viable — is this policy today?

There is no question in my mind that down through the years it has served our business well. What is more to the point, it has served the public well.

It'has served the public well in terms of the quality, dependability and availability of service. It has served the public well in terms of the efficiency and economy with which that service is provided. And it has served the public well in terms of continuously advancing operational proficiency and a pace of technological innovation unmatched to my knowledge in any other industry. In short, I think it’s fair to say that what Mr. Gifford called the “unusual obligation” resting on the Bell System and the independent telephone companies who share it has been by any reasonable standard well met.

From what then, does this “unusual obligation” arise?

It arises quite simply from the way we in the United States have chosen to supply ourselves with communications services. Almost unique among the nations of the world, this country has entrusted the development and operation of its communications resources to private enterprise. It has endowed these enterprises with the rights and responsibilities of common carriers, each solely privileged to purvey its services within its territory but all in turn strictly accountable through regulation to the public they serve. ■ In short, what gives rise to the unusual obligation that motivates our industry and inspires its accomplishments is what we have come to call the common carrier principle.

If there is no question that the application of this principle to telecommunications has served our country well down through the years, there is no question either that not since the days of its inception has this principle been more severely challenged that it is today.

Whence comes this challenge?

It comes from entrepreneurs who see opportunities for profit in serving selected segments of the telecommunications market and who — not unnaturally — want a piece of the action. It comes from manufacturers or, in a good many instances, importers of communication hardware who seek to supplant the regulated common carriers in supplying the terminals for the common carrier network. It comes from newly authorized purveyors of communications services who, unburdened by any obligation to the whole body of customers, address their attention —again, not unnaturally — to those it costs least to serve and profits most.

Admittedly the challenge comes from customers as well. Mostly these are large businesses who see advantage to themselves in the new pricing arrangements competition will engender but who have no obligation — and therefore no disposition — to reck *895 on the cost of those new arrangements to the public at large.

And the challenge comes, too, from some members of the regulatory community itself. Doubtless some of it reflects a wariness of sheer size and the potential for abuse that goes with it. Some of it may reflect the premise — to my mind insufficiently examined — that in all times and places competition is good and monopolies are bad and that regardless of the costs and consequences, the former should supplant the latter.

But what I have been saying to the people inside our business is that we would deceive ourselves did we not recognize that regulators — indeed thoughtful people in all walks of life — are constantly and earnestly testing and appraising our performance and asking whether competition might not spur progress faster than present arrangements.

That this issue ought to be debated I can hardly deny and the Bell System wouldn’t get very far if it did. Currently, it is the focus of regulatory proceedings bearing on such matters as interconnection, certification, intercity private line rates, the use of satellites for domestic communications and the effects — for good or ill of vertical integration in the telecommunications industry. In addition, all these topics — and more— figure in the current hearings of Senator Hart’s Subcommittee on Anti-Trust and Monopoly.

At issue in all these matters is the degree to which competition should obtain in a field that has been brought to its current state of development through the application of basic principles — end-to-end responsibility for service, the systems concept, the common carrier principle itself — that the doctrine of competition for competition’s sake puts in jeopardy and could in time destroy.

What concerns me is that, although debate over this issue has been going on with increasing intensity for some years now, the general public remains to this date very largely unaware of it or of its stake in the outcome.

What concerns me, too, is that so basic a question might over time get resolved in bits and pieces — a docket at a time, so to speak — and that, when all is said and done and the verdict rendered, the public interest will not appear among the beneficiaries. Surely this will be the consequence if we do not ourselves speak out for what we believe.

What do we believe?

First of all, we believe that if competition is, as its advocate alleges, the wave of the future in telecommunications, our responsibilities then require us to be as effective competitors as we know how to be. Indeed, in those sectors of the industry in which competition has already been mandated, we have long since recognized that we have an obligation to meet competition for services which, if lost to others, would result in an increase in the cost of our common carrier service or deny opportunities for cost reduction in the future. In short, if the rules are going to be changed, we’ll live by the new rules and, if those new rules are fair and fairly administered, we have every confidence that we can give a good account of ourselves. Indeed, as of now I don’t think there remains any doubt — among our customers, among our own people, among our competitors, as to whether the Bell System intends to compete or knows how to compete.

At the same time we have recognized that the urgencies of competition do not exempt us from responsibility for rigorous examination of its long-term consequences or from the necessity to face up to the decisions and actions that the results of this examination might logically require of us. Accordingly we have been asking ourselves whether in the event that objective deliberation should bring us to the conclusion that competition and the fragmentation of function and responsibility that stem from it would seriously impair service over the long run and add significantly to its costs, do we not then have an obligation — an unusual obligation, if you will — to take a stand in opposition to current trends and prepare ourselves to debate the issue explicitly, not *896 only on the legal, legislative and regulatory fronts, but before the court of public opinion as well.

We have reached the conviction that the time has come to do just that.

We believe that the people of this country have been well served — and will continue to be best served — by a concept that has provided it the most highly developed communications service in the world, the concept of universal system, designed and configured to operate as a single integrated entity, its services available on equitable terms to all its users. Wherever they are, who ever they may be.

Further we believe that these services are so “affected with the public interest” as to require that their prices and the profits that derive from them be subject to continuing public regulation.

And we believe, too, that the public interest, construed as we must construe it as the widest availability of high quality communications at the lowest over-all cost to all its users, cannot help but be impaired by the duplication of facilities from the further encroachment of competition in an industry where compatibility of components and precise coordination of process are crucial.

In short, we believe that there is something right about the common carrier principle. There is something right about regulation. And — given the nature of our industry — there is something right about monopoly — regulated monopoly. Believing these things, we believe, too, that the time has come for those who believe so to say so.

The time has come to alert the public to what the public is largely unaware — and that is that regulatory decisions have already been taken in its name that, whatever advantages they may afford for some people, cannot help but in the long run, hurt most people.

The time has come, we believe, for a thorough thinking-through of the future of telecommunications in this country — a thinking-through sufficiently objective as to at least admit the possibility that there may be sectors of our economy — and telecommunications one of them — where the nation is better served by modes of cooperation than by modes of competition, by working together rather than by working at odds.

The time has come, then, for a moratorium on further experiments in economies — a moratorium sufficient to permit a systematic evaluation — not merely of the question of whether competition might be feasible in this or that segment of telecommunications — but of the more basic question of the long-term impact of its further extension on the public at large, the adequacy, dependability and availability of its service and the price it will have to pay for it.

In this thinking through, the members of this organization, it seems to me, are uniquely equipped to take the lead. I say this because your first responsibility is to the public at large — not to some customers but to all customers and not only to today’s public but tomorrow’s as well.

Now what has brought us to the conviction I have expressed here — admittedly in the most general terms?

Three things: first, the record of what has been accomplished over more than half a century of operation under the common carrier principle; second, the not altogether happy experience of competition — or what goes by that name — in those sectors of telecommunications where it has already been mandated and what that experience forebodes for the future; and, third, a recognition, born of that experience, that the alternative to regulated monopoly confronting us is not free and open competition but contrived competition — in short, government sponsored market allocation with all the potential for inefficiency this implies.

What has been accomplished by the common carrier principle down through the years is embodied in the nationwide switched network, a technological achievement unmatched in scale and complexity and the precision of its operations. Capable on command of performing any one of seven million billion possible interconnections, this network is too valuable a resource to *897 risk a perhaps irreversible threat to its performance that would ensue from fragmentation of responsibility for that performance.

The risk is not an imaginary one — as witness our experience of the impact of customer-provided terminal gear over .the five years since “Carterfone.” For example, current studies indicate that intercity private line serving links equipped with at least one customer-provided terminal generate trouble reports at a rate at least 50 per cent higher than do serving links equipped with Bell terminals only. And studies now in progress of message telephone lines are showing like results — a trouble report rate for lines equipped with customer-provided terminals more than 25 per cent higher than for lines connected solely to Bell terminals.

Admittedly these studies do not themselves tell us how many wrong numbers or how much crosstalk and other “harms” to the network and service of others arise from customer-provided terminals as compared to telephone'company provided terminals. I would suggest, however, that the disparities in trouble report rates I have cited are sufficiently consequential as to suggest an urgent need for caution before proceeding to a further liberalization of interconnection requirements. How high are the stakes will be clearly evident from the fact that an increase of but one per cent in ineffective calling attempts will add some $75 million to the capital costs of the network and some $27 million to annual operating expenses.

For some five years now, we have pursued our announced aim of facilitating the connection of customer-provided equipment by making interface devices as simple and inexpensive as possible. To pretend, however, that our experience thus far has been satisfactory — to us or to all our customers— would be just that — to pretend. Competing goals of network protection and low cost require compromises that are not fully satisfactory on either count.- Awkward as they sometimes are, we can — because we must — “live with” these compromises. But we cannot live with the deterioration of network performance that would be the inevitable consequence of “certification” and the proliferation of customer-provided terminals that would ensue from it. No system of certification we can envision— and no interface requirement — can provide a fully adequate alternative to the unequivocal and undivided responsibility for service that the common carrier principle imposes.

It is regulation’s role to see to it that this responsibility is fulfilled. To see that it is, some commissions have moved to establish explicit service standards. Obviously we can hardly object to being held rigorously to account for services for which we are in fact responsible. But when that responsibility is divided, not only is our ability to meet it impaired but so is regulation’s ability to see that we do. In view of the impact of interconnection on their constituents— that is, all users of communications service — it seems to me imperative that state commissions, as some have done already, take prompt initiatives to assure they are not precluded from exercising this fundamental aspect of their jurisdiction.

Not the least of the reasons for doing so are dollars-and-cents reasons.

As you know, revenues from the telephone companies’ vertical and toll services help keep exchange rates low. You know, too, that higher charges to business customers permit lower charges to residence customers. And country folk don’t pay more for their telephone service than do city folk — this even though it often costs more to serve them.

We call this “value of service” pricing. Its aim is to bring service within the economic reach of as many people as possible, thereby enhancing the usefulness of service for everybody. Certainly it’s hard to imagine how today’s virtually universal service could have been achieved without it. Indeed, I will assert that it could not. And I will assert, too, that no special interest outweighs the public interest in preserving this principle.

For where will the burden of increasing interconnections fall? Surely, not on the *898 customers for vertical services. And surely not on the business who — for whatever reason of his own — choses to buy a PBX from a vendor rather than lease it from the telephone company. No, the burden will fall on the average customer, the users of the basic services that it has been regulatory policy from time immemorial to keep as inexpensive as possible. As interconnection siphons off revenues from other services, not only the telephone companies but the commissions that regulate them will find themselves increasingly restricted in their ability to pursue what they have hitherto considered a basic aim — an aim that I for one am not prepared to abandon.

But that is only the beginning. Those of you who are learned in the mysteries of separations procedures recognize that about 18 per cent of station equipment costs are assigned to interstate operations for rate making purposes. And, you will recognize, too, that as customers replace telephone company terminals with terminals they provide themselves a shift — a potentially massive shift — of revenue requirements will occur. By one estimate, a ten per cent loss of the terminal market by the common carriers will increase state revenue requirements by almost $220 million a year, a 50 per cent loss by more than $1.0 billion. (The burden of this shift, by the way, falls disproportionately on the independent telephone companies, adding in the event of a 50 per cent loss of the terminal market over $250 million to their annual revenue requirements.)

How rapid competitive inroads in the telecommunications market will be, I cannot predict. What I do know, however, is that the prime targets of competition are precisely those, segments of this market that are the most profitable ones. And I know, too, that whether these inroads are slow or fast, the consequence will be the same — a shift of revenue requirements, to the states and ultimately upon the last bastion of common carrier revenue, basic telephone service. The ultimate effect of this shift is not hard to see — a shutoff of service to people with marginal incomes. This, I submit, is the reverse of the traditional objective of the common carrier industry and of its regulators. It is the reverse of what has heretofore been considered the public interest.

I for one am inclined to doubt that a public already sullen if not mutinous over rising costs that make rate increases clearly necessary will be disposed to welcome further increases of the dimensions I have cited. Particularly will they be disposed not to welcome them when they come to recognize that for what only some people want everybody pays.

But is the public even faintly aware of such a prospect? I think not. Is it not then part of our unusual obligation to see that the public is made aware? I think it is. What is more, I would at least raise a question as to whether regulators, charged as they are with defining and defending the public interest, do not have a like obligation to do what they can to make sure that by speaking out before it is too late the public understands its stake in the interconnection issue. For however that issue is decided, it will be the public that, bears the consequences and pays the price.

Compared to our experience of the impact of the interconnection of customer-provided equipment, our experience of the consequences of competition from the so-called specialized common carriers in the private line field has been relatively limited. Indeed, in a very real sense, it might be said that we have had no experience of such competition at all.

To be sure, MCI for more than a year now has been offering private line services on the route between Chicago and St. Louis. But, to conclude from this that competition has thereby been established in this sector of the private line market is to adopt a definition of that word that does not accord with that in any dictionary I have consulted.

What may not be widely known is that— as of right now, not 20 months since it opened for business — MCI has captured over 80 per cent of Bell System point-to-point private line services between customer premises in those two cities. What is *899 more, 40 per cent of MCI’s customers are businesses that formerly relied exclusively on the Bell System’s long distance services between the two cities, but who now use MCI private lines for a substantial portion of their requirements.

That would seem to indicate that MCI is a pretty stiff competitor. I would submit, however, that we have yet to see competition or anything resembling competition in the market for private line service between Chicago and St. Louis.

Why, then, did our customers switch? Not because MCI offers services that are in any significant way new or different from those the existing common carriers offer. They switched for the same reason that you or I might switch were we offered a choice between virtually equivalent products, one of which bears a price tag about a third less than the other.

That, I submit, is not competition.

Let me take a moment to tell you why I say that.

Some of you will recall that again and again Bell System’s submissions to the FCC in the specialized common carrier case asserted that, reluctant as we might be to see the end of nationwide average pricing in the private line field, should the Commission nonetheless find it in the public interest to permit selective entry by those specialized carriers we would be ready to live with the consequences provided only that the same ground rules apply to all competing parties, including us. The Commission’s order, you will recall, provided ample — and eloquent — reassurance on this point.

One measure of our reluctance to part— even on a limited basis — with the principle of nationwide averaging is the fact that it was not until 14 months after the first new intercity carrier became operational that we finally sought Commission permission to file — and to put in effect as promptly as possible restructured private line rates responding to the newly competitive environment confronting us. What we proposed— and still propose — is a two-level rate structure that calls for lower rates on the high capacity, low cost routes that specialized common carriers seek to serve and — necessarily — higher rates elsewhere.

That was in February — to this date it remains a question as to whether there will in fact be genuine competition in the private line field or whether what we confront will not turn out to be simply an arbitrary allocation of the market to others in the name of competition and heedless of the higher costs to the public that will be its inevitable consequence. I assure you the Bell System is not ready to accommodate itself peaceably to that prospect.

This experience foreshadows what can happen as our presumed competitors extend their activities selectively to other routes and, eventually, to most if not all of the more profitable major communications corridors in the nation. In less than three years, these carriers — at their currently projected level of development — will have siphoned off no less than $220 million of revenues that private line services would otherwise contribute to meeting the common costs of the Bell System’s other services.

Again where will the burden fall? Again it will fall on the average customer in the form of higher exchange rates, higher long distance charges. It will fall, too, on private line customers in cities and towns on the high cost routes the specialized common carriers choose not to serve. Again for what only some people want everybody pays.

We believe that this prospect is a sufficiently realistic one as to raise a serious question as to whether further entry from the private line field truly meets the public interest. When the FCC determined — now more than two years ago — that the public interest would be served by permitting virtually free entry to the private line field, it did so without any evidentiary hearings. Surely a decision of this dimension, threatening as it does the undoing of basic policies to which this nation very largely owes the advanced development of its communications services, merits nothing less than the fullest examination of its potential conse *900 quences. The time for such an examination is now.

What has been most useful — and at the same time most troubling — about the interval since the FCC mandated what it called “competition” in the private line field is that it forced us to a recognition that the prospect confronting us is not free and open competition as an alternative to monopoly but rather a third alternative affording the virtues of neither and the disadvantages of both and that is regulated competition — a division of the marketplace arbitrarily imposed and artificially maintained.

I recognize that the question of regulatory policy at issue here is a profoundly difficult and vexing one. Admittedly there is a certain attractiveness in the notion that, where competition can be substituted for regulation, it ought to be. Our instincts as Americans, reared in the free enterprise tradition, support the notion.

On the other hand, it appears worth noting that the fervor for competition on the part of some regulatory officials has not been accomplished by any demonstration of enthusiasm for its necessary concomitant— deregulation ...

Which brings us to the question: can there be competition — real competition— when not all the parties to it enjoy the same constraints? A free market, if it is truly free, affords not only free entry but free exit as well. And competition, if it means anything, means that all the parties to it are equally at liberty to choose which markets they will serve and which they won’t. In principle, it would relieve common carriers from the obligation to assure the availability of those services to all comers. In short, it would destroy the common carrier principle and the commitment to public service it engenders.

I doubt that there is anyone in this room who thinks that’s going to happen or that it will be permitted to happen. But the consequences to the public could be quite as drastic if in pursuit of ad hoc solutions we seek to accommodate ourselves to opposing principles without rigorously thinking through to the long-term outcome of doing so.

I suggest that the time for that thinking-through is now and that it is time, too, that the public be made a party to it.

Now I am sure this audience — more clearly than any other I can think of — recognizes that a decision such as ours — to take to the public the case for the common carrier principle and thereby by implication to oppose competition, espouse monopoly — is not taken lightly. Particularly, is it not taken lightly in a company it’s no secret is the world’s largest. I want you to know that we have thought about the risks.

It will be alleged — indeed it has been— that it is not the public interest but our own that motivates our stand, that our purpose, however idealistic a face we might seek-to put on it, is simply to protect our markets and the profits that derive from them.

To that charge, I have but one rejoinder: ours is a business that seeks profits only to serve. I don’t expect our would-be competitors to believe that. And in this day of widespread skepticism about the motives of large institutions, it would probably be unrealistic to expect many among the public to believe it either. Perhaps you don’t. But, as I’ve said many times to our own managers, the day that we ourselves stop believing it will be the day when we’ll begin to lose — and deserve to lose — the opportunities that go along with the great responsibilities the public has entrusted to us.

Moreover, I would point out that Walter Gifford, when he appeared before this convention 46 years ago, stated it to be a fundamental precept of our business that profits beyond those required to provide service should be returned to the customer in the form of lower rates or improvements in facilities or both. We have done our best to live by the precept ever since — with, I should observe, more than a little help from you.

By nothing I’ve said do I mean to imply that telephone people are better or worse than anybody else. What I do claim is that there is a perhaps unique dynamics at work in our enterprise that compels its managers *901 to conform their aims to public expectations. In some measure, the unusual obligation we have taken upon ourselves is simply a human response to the unusual trust that has been placed in us. At the time, it would be unrealistic to deny that it derives in some measure, too, from the fact that we are retaining the right to manage and the satisfactions that come from exercising our own initiatives depends on perceiving — and doing — what is right before regulation tells us to. In any case, I think you will be ready to grant that our business did not grow to be almost a hundred years old by pursuing interests at odds with those of the public it exists to serve.

I would, then, simply ask this question: who among the parties at issue on these matters — the hardware manufacturers — the large users, the purveyors of selective intercity services — does self-interest compel to speak for the interest of the public at large, the average customer? Who, if not we?

We recognize, of course, that the work of telecommunications is not “ours” and that today there are a great many organizations beside our own whose talents could effectively be brought to bear on the growth and improvement of the nationwide telephone network. Our aim is to expand and not restrict their opportunities to do so. To that end we are looking for ways by which we in the Bell System might broaden the base of participation in this task of supplying the facilities for a constantly growing, constantly changing network. The Western Electric Company is a great outfit and, I am sure, determined to retain its leadership in the production of communication facilities of advanced design. But to be best where it counts most Western Electric can’t be best in everything. Nor does it seek to be. In 1972, for example, Western Electric provided about $500 million of telecommunications products — switching equipment, wire and cable, carrier and microwave equipment — which it had purchased from others on behalf of the Bell telephone companies — and the telephone companies themselves bought some $200 to $300 million more directly from outside suppliers. I anticipate that in the years ahead the job of supplying the network will be even more broadly shared and that increasingly suppliers outside our business who are ready, willing and able to fulfill the rigorous standards of performance that quality service demands will be helping to build the telecommunications network of tomorrow.

There is another risk we run in taking our stand against a further extension of selective competition in telecommunications and that is the risk of appearing to have set ourselves against change, of clinging to the past against the discomfitures of an uncertain future.

But I submit — indeed I would insist— that not all we’ve inherited from the past is bad. It is in fact my own conviction that ours is — and has been for a very long time — a business ahead of its time and not behind it. This is a conviction, by the way, in which I am not alone. Increasingly, the Bell System with its integrated structure and its disciplined approach to the utilization of resources is being cited by serious students of economic organization as a prototype for the organization of a wide range of industrial and social undertakings crucial to the nation’s well-being, a forerunner of the kind of enterprise — performance-oriented rather than product oriented it will take to bring technology fully to bear on the service of man.

Increasingly, too, telecommunications authorities in other countries are seeking our advice with a view to restructuring their systems to match ours — and without exception, they encourage us to oppose the erosion of end-to-end responsibility, and erosion that experience has taught them is wrong.

So it is. the future, not the past, that dictates our stand in opposition to a further fragmentation of communications. For the future insofar as we can see it is one in which, confronting increasing complexity, we shall require more rather than less coordination to control it. More rather than less, product and process engineering will become indistinguishable, requiring a more *902 and more disciplined integration of the functions involved in translating science into service. . And more rather than less, the dramatic opportunities now under development — the millimeter waveguide and, beyond it, optical transmission — call for aggregations of demand that, if compromised, could significantly delay their introduction. Against these prospects, fragmentation of the communications market, we are convinced, would represent a serious retrogression for which our posterity will pay not only in terms of higher costs for disordered service but also in terms of opportunities deferred.

Who then speaks for the future?

It is not to oppose change that we suggest that we at least know where it is taking us before we embrace it. Indeed, I recognize that the very conviction I’ve expressed here today, should they prevail, will themselves call for change. For example, I never thought I would hear myself calling for more regulation rather than less. But if that is the price of confirmation of the common carrier principle and the concentration of responsibility that goes with it, that to me is a price we ought to pay. Indeed, I would invite explicit regulation of any aspect of our business where the public might require additional reassurance that its interests are being fairly and objectively served.

There is a final risk we run in urging a re-examination of current trends in regulatory policy — and that is that the convictions I have expressed here may not prevail. Realism suggests that in every particular they won’t. But, having convictions, we are ready to test them against the convictions of others in the hope that the outcome, while it might not meet the perfect satisfaction of anybody, will prove in the long run best for everybody.

On a good many occasions I have said that our business exists for no other reason than for the service it provides the public and that therefore our responsibility to investors places no greater obligation on us than doing the very best service job for the public — the entire public — that we know how to do. Regulations obligation, too, is to the entire public. It is this shared obligation — yours and ours — that has prompted me today to speak out — and to urge you to speak out — against trends that unless we call a halt to them, could slowly sabotage the very policies on which our ability to fulfill that obligation is based.

This nation owes much, I think, to the man who long ago shaped the regulatory principles on which the communications industry has grown down through the years. We have an obligation, I suggest, to do what we can to assure that tomorrow’s public, looking back to our times, will feel itself as well served. [74]

In that speech, Mr. deButts indicated his belief that the specialized common carriers would serve only those segments of the market that are the most profitable and that the inevitable long run consequences would be higher prices for those consumers living in the poorer, more sparsely settled communities and increases in the rates for local exchange service, particularly residential exchange service. He pointed out that while the FCC said it wanted competition, it had refused to allow AT & T to file a tariff deaveraging its rates and it remained “a question as to whether there will in fact be genuine competition in the private line field or whether what we confront will not turn out to be simply an arbitrary allocation of the market to others in the name of competition and heedless of the higher costs to the public that will be its inevitable consequence.” He called for re-examination of the FCC’s policies on competition. 75 Mr. Brown made similar speeches, urging *903 that, the FCC review its decisions, and that the public be given a chance to decide what the policy should be (Brown, Tr. 5332). In fact, Mr. Brown testified without apology that he and his colleagues had articulated that message in “every forum we could think of” (Brown, Tr. 5331). It is obvious to the Court that the concerns of Messrs. Brown and deButts in particular and AT & T in general was to prevent a possible scenario as detailed in the January 27, 1982 Electronics magazine. In an article entitled “ What next for AT & T and IBM, the staff of Electronics wrote (at 73):

Members of the House and Senate telecommunications subcommittees, their staffs, and telecommunications industry competitors of AT & T are all determined to avoid what a number of them see as a “worst case” scenario for the U.S. telecommunications market after AT & T has spun off its operating companies.

That scenario, set around 1986, envisions AT & T’s chairman testifying before a joint hearing of the House and Senate subcommittees comprised of many angry and embarrassed members. “AT & T regrets”, its chairman might say, “that the quality of American’s service has declined while local telephone and terminal rates have tripled in the past four years. But let us remind you that the decision to force the breakup of the Bell System and its national network was not our idea. That decision, supported by many distinguished members of Congress, originated in the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Indeed, some of their concerns are coming to fruition. It was reported in a September 8, 1982, Washington Post article (at E14) that telephone users are facing big local rate increases.

“An Associated Press survey has found what appears to be a record dollar amount of rate hike request before state utility commissions — worth an estimated $6.2 billion in annual revenues.

The Bell System companies now owned by AT & T have requested, or announced their intention to request a total of $4.82 billion in additional annual revenues.” (id.) [ 76 ]

While these revenues requests cannot be entirely attributable to competition, what is certain is that the average consumer’s bill will go up, while the intercity, interstate services will remain lower due to the effects of competition.

Upon close scrutiny of this speech, it is obvious that the theme was not one of anticompetition, but rather, one of pro consumer. The changes that were occurring at the FCC were far removed from the general public. It is the state regulatory bodies that receive the most heat when rates are raised. As Mr. E.J. Larkin of the New York Public Service Commission stated (U.S.Tr. 24565):

When rates are raised, its the state commissioners that take the heat, and of course the federal regulators have enjoyed tremendous economies of scale in interstate calling.

Mr. Larkin goes on to state (U.S.Tr. 24581):

But what it boils down to is that we in the states have the problem (controlling *904 rates). We have all the equipment, we have to impose the rates, and we get the trouble. We find whole commissions wiped out overnight simply and solely because the people get in an uproar (over rate increases). In Connecticut the whole Commission went.

Mr. Rollins of the Texas Public Utility Commission noted that “there is impending widespread citizen uprising against higher local telephone utility rates.” (S-6180 at 6). Such concern for the average consumer was also expressed in the comments of U.S. I.T.A. in the United States v. AT & T, No. 74-1698 (S-6233 at 95):

The proposed modifications attempts, inter alia, to facilitate competition in the market for long distance calls. However, an analysis of customer toll billings indicates that service offerings from competing non-telephone companies for long distance service would be economically attractive to only approximately 10% of current residential customers. U.S.I.T.A. respectfully submits that the Independent/Bell integrated network must continue to function efficiently for the benefit of the total customer body including the remaining 90%. The states and the consumer, particularly the residential and small ones of our society were thus fortunate to have someone like Mr. deButts to express their concerns! 77 ! (Emphasis supplied).

Plaintiffs do not challenge any of these statements as false and certainly have presented no evidence that they were false. Indeed, the Court’s review of the record confirms that the Bell System’s concerns that the FCC’s policies on competitive entry would not serve the public interest were shared by many others, including representatives of independent telephone companies and members of state regulatory agencies (Privett, S-T-143 at 2-5; 78 Symons, S-T-142 at 2-5; Pearson, S-T-145 at 2-9, 21-22; Hooks, S-T-244 at 3-5, 14-15; Larkin, U.S.Tr. 24569-75, 24586-88; Wooten, S-T-141 at 4-12). As Cyrus J. Colter, a former member of the Illinois Commerce Commission, testified (Colter, S-T-144 at 4-6):

“The FCC’s new competition, in my view,, was fundamentally inconsistent with, some of the most basic and long-standing goals of telecommunications regulation. In simplest terms, I believed then (as I do now) that competition in the provision of telecommunications service will destroy the regulatory rate structures under which the goal -of universal telephone service has been sought and, for most practical purposes, achieved.”

Similarly, Francis Pearson, a former President of NARUC and Chairman of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, testified (Pearson, U.S.Tr. 20238):

“I first came into the Commission when universal telephone service nationwide equal rates, as far as toll is concerned, and value of service were being practiced, and that and competition just plain don’t work together.”

For that reason, Mr. Pearson was “unalterably opposed” to competition (Pearson, ST-145 at 2):

“I was unalterably opposed to the introduction into the telecommunications industry of competition simply for competition’s sake. In that view I was supported by the vast majority, if not all, of the other state commissions. We were par *905 ticularly concerned about what we perceived to be the creeping expansion of competition into the telecommunications industry without an investigation into the effects of such competition on the existing rate structure.”

The state agencies have been particularly outspoken in their opposition to increased “competition” in the telecommunications field based on their fear that that competition will adversely affect the rates for local exchange service (see Colter, S-T-144 at 9-10; Symons, S-T-142 at 2-5; Privett, S-T-143 at 2-5; Pearson, S-T-145 at 12-21; see also exhibits cited in Regulation and History Doc.Sub. at App. E, pp. E-8 — E-11). In its appeal of the Specialized Common Carriers decision, for example, the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners (NARUC) argued that:

“ ‘Effectuation of the Order would serve to increase the burden to intrastate telephone users by reason of the diversion of interstate usage of telephone network facilities to the detriment of telephone users whose rates are regulated by state authorities.’ ”

Washington Util. & Transp. Comm’n v. FCC, 513 F.2d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836, 96 S.Ct. 62, 46 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) (S-3377). At the Commission, NARUC contended that competition would cause a wasteful and inefficient duplication of facilities (29 F.C.C.2d at 966):

“[The] 1934 Act clearly intended the Commission would regulate common carriers as monopolies, and that new carriers would be authorized only in event of inadequate service by existing carriers. Any FCC decision authorizing wasteful and duplicative facilities would divert revenues from existing carriers, which could impair national uniformity of interstate rates, increase the burden on interstate and intrastate users, and waste spectrum.”

In his testimony in this case, Mr. Thomas J. O’Reilly, long-time counsel for independent telephone companies and their national trade association, the United States Independent Telephone Association (USITA), confirmed that independent telephone companies shared the concern of the state commissions and the Bell System “over the direction of the FCC’s policies” in the 1970s (O’Reilly, S-T-139 at 7). Mr. O’Reilly testified that these policies created “serious problems” for the local exchange customers in areas served by independent telephone companies (O’Reilly, S-T-139 at' 10). Because the independent companies receive a substantial contribution towards the costs of local exchange service through the separations and settlements process, they were understandably concerned that the introduction of competition would erode such contribution (O’Reilly, S-T-139; see also S-2918; S-0124; S-2919; S-3529; S-5842; S-5880; S-5591; S-5875).

Studies conducted during this period also demonstrated that the introduction of competition in the telecommunications industry would lead to a substantial increase in residential local exchange service rates. 79 In 1973, the NARUC Committee on Communications instituted a formal investigation to determine the potential impact of competition upon local service rates because it was believed that the FCC had not adequately considered the effect its decision would have upon such rates (Pearson, S-T-145 at 21; Wooten, S-T-141 at 18-20). The Committee concluded that sooner or later the price of basic residential service would have to be increased significantly if the FCC’s new policies with respect to competition were not altered (S-3016 at 91):

“[I]t is clear that the adverse impact at issue results in the gradual shifting of costs of operation from one class of subscriber to another, in this case to the detriment of the residential user. Contrary to the contentions of many parties, not only is such an impact almost certain *906 to occur, absent immediate corrective regulatory action, but the degree of impact which is threatened is such that the widespread availability of basic telephone service at reasonable prices may well be jeopardized.”

The Bell System’s 1973 and 1975 Residential Cost Studies, which were the subject of Mr. Genthner’s testimony, reached conclusions similar to those of the NARUC investigation. Both of these Residential Cost Studies demonstrated that if the services that were, being opened to competition were priced to cover only their directly attributable costs, the loss of contribution from those services “would have precipitated substantial increases in local exchange rates” (Genthner, U.S.Tr. 13883). As Mr. Genthner explained (Genthner, S-T-57 at 10):

“If the rates for these other services were to be restructured so as to cover only their directly attributable costs, they would not produce this revenue support for local residential service — even if they continued to cover all common overhead costs. The studies showed that in such circumstances the rates for local residential service would have to be increased significantly. The magnitude of this potential increase was shown to be approximately 75 percent in the 1973 study and 79 percent in the 1975 study.”

The fact that Mr. deButts’ views were shared by many others involved with the telecommunications industry reinforces the Court’s conclusion that those views were reasonable (Privett, S-T-143 at 5; Colter, S-T-144 at 7-10; Wooten, S-T-141 at 4). Indeed, subsequent events bear out the conclusion that Mr. deButts’ concerns were legitimate. In spite of representations by the specialized carriers in the early 1970s that they would not engage in creamskimming, and that they would not divert substantial revenues from existing carriers because they would be providing “new and innovative” services (Microwave Communications, Inc., 18 F.C.C.2d 953 (1969) (S-1918); Specialized Common Carriers, 29 F.C.C.2d 870 (1971) (S-2211); Rosse, S-T-43 at 47-63), the damage study submitted by the plaintiffs in this case is predicated on the assumption that plaintiffs would serve only the high-density areas and that they and other specialized common carriers would immediately capture 60 percent of the Bell System’s private line business in these areas. And, as far as is evident in this record, SPCC never did anything other than attempt to creamskim. Indeed, the record reflects that SPCC told its customers that it was able to undercut the Bell System’s prices because SPCC served only selective areas and ignored “the smaller, less profitable locations” (Hollis, Tr. 2319).

Although the Commission never conducted a full-scale study to determine what the long-range effect of its actions on selective entry has been (deButts, Tr. 4047), Mr. deButts testified, and plaintiffs have never seriously disputed, that competition with the Bell System has caused higher rates for residential customers (deButts, Tr. 4084). This is because defendants’ costs of providing residential service exceed the revenues from those services (Genthner, S-T-52 at 6), so that residential rates are subsidized (Brown, Tr. 5341). Indeed, a study of this issue submitted by defendants concluded that “the demand for telephone service is price sensitive,” and “there are wide differences in price sensitivity across the population” (Perl, S-T-54, U.S.Tr. at 21444-45). Given this price-sensitivity, “increases in the range of 50 to 200 percent would have significant impact on the overall proportion of households with telephones” (Perl, S-T-54 at 1), with a disproportionate impact on minorities, the poor, the elderly and other socio-economic groups least able to bear that burden (id. at 5-6).

Read as a whole, and in the context of other evidence in this case, the “intent” documents proffered by plaintiffs reflect genuine concern for residential consumers of telephone service, a concern expressed in the unfortunate absence of a public debate (see Brown, Tr. 5332; deButts, S-T-131 at 86). In light of these facts, the Court agrees with the testimony of former Commissioner Hooks that “profound social issues” were raised by the Commission’s au *907 thorization of limited entry (Hooks, S-T— 147 at 2). These issues, recognized in the speeches of Mr. deButts, are much more significant than plaintiffs’ construction of the “intent” documents would suggest. 80

Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, it is not a violation of the antitrust laws for defendants to speak out on public issues or to attempt to persuade the FCC to change its policy. In the absence of a “sham” such action is clearly protected under the First Amendment.

Pursuant to that principle, evidence of public speeches or other political activity ordinarily cannot be used as evidence of intent unless plaintiffs can demonstrate that such activity was a “sham.” Plaintiffs have offered no evidence to indicate that the Bell System executives were engaged in anything other than a legitimate attempt to stir public debate over the FCC’s policies, and the Court’s findings with respect to the reasonableness and propriety of the positions taken by defendants’ executives in their speeches conclusively negates any notion that those positions were a “sham.” 81

Nor is there any evidence that the opinions expressed by the Bell System executives were anything other than genuinely held views. Plaintiffs’ exhibits indicate that Bell System executives were saying in their internal meetings the same things that Mr. deButts stated in his speeches— that the Bell System had an obligation to provide quality service at the lowest possible cost and that the selective entry of carriers such as SPCC would lead to “higher costs to the public” (see, e.g., PX1-0099).

The plaintiffs also rely on the September 1973, Corporate Planning Studies Division of AT & T generated “Synthesis Report” containing findings derived from over 60 interviews with Bell System’s upper management regarding the interexchange market. (PX1-0023 at 1014) “The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the AT & T Company or any of its officers.” (id.) “The material has been developed for discussion purposes only and the views are advanced to encourage further research and understanding.” (id.) The report recognized that “the exclusivity of our possession of technical expertise has gradually eroded” in the wake of the “burgeoning growth” and “widespread availability of microwave technology,” and that this in turn gives “less credence to single supplier arguments.” (id. at 1020.)

The Synthesis Report further recognized that the entry of competitors was influenced by “our own vulnerability because of pricing methods and service criteria” (PX10021 at 0049) and acknowledged that “[W]e have overbuilt much of the plant,” there has been “too much ‘gold plating’,” innovations by others have probably been “discouraged,” and “our technical development process is too slow.” (PX1-0149 at 1174, 1181, 1164, 1187) The Report noted that many managers regarded an “inattention to the desires of some business customers” as another factor motivating competitive entry:

Business customers have long wanted alternative suppliers to keep us on our toes and to fill in the voids in our service offerings. There appears to be strong historical evidence that ... customers’ desires do not receive full attention with *908 out the presence of others in the marketplace.

(PX1-0023 at 1021)

In addition to assessing the reasons for competitive entry, the Synthesis Report commented on AT & T’s abilities “to operate in a new environment.” (PX1-0023 at 1030) The Report observed that a “significant constraint” on that ability was attributable to the Bell System’s “inertial resistance to change” which derived from the fact that “[t]he selection and training of our managers, structure of the business, operational methods, and pricing policies have all been oriented to a monopolistic or protected business operation.” (id. at 1029-30.) In the same vein, the Report acknowledged,

“We certainly want to be good competitors, but our employee body has been conditioned by decades of monopoly operation.”

(PX1-0021 at 0057.)

According to the Report, the managers perceived AT & T’s strategy for dealing with the new competition as one of “delay and minimize the loss of our monopoly position,” a tactic “designed to limit competitive encroachments through devices such as restricting the use other carriers may make of our facilities...,” an objective of “giving up as little and as slowly as possible.” (PX1-0023 at 1006,1007,1077) The Report summarized the managers’ view of the corporate position “as one of buying time.” (id. at 1026; PX1-0021 at 0052)

The Report described the corporate strategy as follows:

The corporation has a stated objective relating to our competitive posture which indicates that we do not plan to voluntarily relinquish our existing markets, and in fact are attempting to reacquire an interexchange monopoly.

(PX1-0021 at 0055 (emphasis supplied))

Nonetheless, the Report noted that “broad, long range corporate goals” had not yet been communicated to the Bell System managers, who sought guidance as to “concrete positive objectives and tactics for the interexchange market.” (PX1-0023 at 1026) As the Report stated, “They (the technical managers) were unanimous in their desire to have a stated objective role for the Bell System to play.” (PX1-0149 at 1181)

Based on the foregoing Report SPCC would have this Court infer anticompetitive intent. However, again the Court must note that this report was done to find out the thoughts of some of AT & T’s employees and does not represent the corporate policy of the company as espoused by Messrs. deButts and Brown. Moreover, the fact that a few of its employees may have expressed anticompetitive intent does not justify this Court conferring such intent upon the whole company especially when those intentions never came to fruition. As the entire record of this case indicates, AT & T acted in good faith, despite the uncontested predicament that AT & T was in, i.e., being both a supplier and a competitor.

On October 17, 1973, a month after the Synthesis Report reflected management’s desire for a stated corporate objective, Mr. deButts delivered a presentation on closed circuit television to the Bell operating company managers. (PX1-0099 at 1) In all, 200,000 Bell employees heard this speech. (deButts Tr. 4079) In it, Mr. deButts told his managers:

So we have taken our stand. We have declared that the Bell System no longer will accommodate itself to regulatory trends we are convinced will impair its ability to do its job. ■

(PX1-0099 at 4.) He went on to urge that “the further entry of specialized carriers [be] suspended pending a complete determination of the consequences of sabotaging the common carrier principle that has served the nation so well.” (id. at 6.)

Mr. deButts reiterated a statement made in his September NARUC speech that “the public interest” could not help but be impaired by the “duplication of facilities and the division of responsibility” that “inevitably will ensue” from the “further encroachment of competition.” (id. at 7.) This position, he further reiterated, “represents the *909 deepest convictions of Bell System management.” (id) Preventing such encroachment was, according to Mr. deButts, “a task to which Bell System Management is ready to commit all the resources necessary to accomplish it.” (id at 19.)

Mr. deButts made this point again later in his presentation:

Our policy represents a conviction that I trust we can now share without reservation — -and that is that neither this business nor the public it serves will benefit from the inevitable consequence of a further extension of selective competition in the field of telecommunications. Having a common conviction, we have a common responsibility for doing all we can to assure that that conviction prevails.

(id at 23 (emphasis in original)).

Mr. deButts’ message to management went on to enlist its support in the task of reacting to the advent of competition:

On the issue that is now joined, you are no longer observers. You are where the action is and you yourselves are among the principal actors. To put the matter directly, there may be no more significant index of our performance — your performance — in the months and years ahead than the degree of public understanding and support of the common carrier principle that you are able to generate in each of the states in your company’s territory, in each of the communities your company serves.

(id at 24 (emphasis in original)).

During a discussion of this presentation at trial, Mr. deButts reiterated his view regarding the duties of corporate employees: “I think it is the responsibility of any employee to hew to an established policy in the company.” (deButts, Tr. 4048). It is clear to the Court, that more than any other man, Mr. deButts firmly spoke up for the average consumer.

In September and October of 1973, other AT & T officials similarly discussed the impact of the entry of the specialized common carriers and the company’s response. On September 27, Fox Stoddard, AT & T Marketing Director, in a speech to the California Telecommunications Association, spoke of the “entrepreneurs” who “want a piece of the action” and asserted his belief that “the public interest” would be impaired by the “further encroachment of competition.” (PX1-0109 at 597, 598) “There is something right,” he stated, “about monopoly — regulated monopoly.” (id at 599.)

A week later, AT & T’s Director of Public Relations, Paul M. Lund, delivered a speech to the Bell System’s Presidents’ Conference in which he endorsed the “common carrier concept” and criticized “the market structure approach to competition” as not only “inferior” but “impossible.” (PX1-0006 at 1043.) He described the “market structure approach” as a “sacred cow,” commenting generally that “[a]nti-trust in the United States is a form of national religion.” (id at 1043, 1044.) Mr. Lund observed,

We say that the result of mixing competition and regulation — especially if the bartender is the FCC — -will be that most unpalatable concoction, government enforced cartelization of the telecommunications industry.”

(id at 1043.) Mr. Lund urged that “[sjteps must be taken to stop the juggernaut of interconnection and contrived competition.” (id at 1058.)

Mr. deButts reported the corporate position on competition in his February 12,1974 letter to AT & T’s shareholders (PX1-0108) He wrote that the “basic policies” of “end-to-end responsibility,” the “systems concept” and “the common carrier principle” were being directly challenged, (id at 3.) He wrote further that a “question of particularly grave import” was the “degree to which competition should obtain in an industry recognized throughout most of its history as a natural monopoly.” He described the competition AT & T faced as “selective” and “contrived” (id at 4, 8) and indicated that AT & T would “oppose” such competition, (id at 8.) He pledged that

*910 “[t]he Bell System will abdicate no sector of telecommunications where we believe — and can by our own performance prove — that we can do a better job for the public than anyone else.”

(id. at 9.)

Mr. deButts repeated these views in a May 12, 1975 address before the International Communications Association. (PX10115) He began by speaking again of “universal service,” the concept of “undivided responsibility,” and the notion that the telephone industry was “a single continuous process.” (id. at 2.) He continued by reaffirming the belief that “competition works to the disadvantage of the average user” and the commitment that “where it does [we] are determined to fight it.” (id. at 8.)

On January 28, 1976, Mr. deButts spoke to the Fordham Forum of the “rhetoric of competition” which appealed to “the presumption that it is settled national policy that in whatever segment of our economy competition can be established it should be.” (PX1-0093 at 2) During the speech, Mr. deButts contended,

“At issue is the degree to which competitive standards should supplant the public interest standards that have been the test of the industry’s performance throughout most of its history.”

(id. at 11.)

Mr. deButts went on to state AT & T’s position on the issue:

“In our industry, we believe competition — or, more precisely, regulated competition that is, in effect a government imposed allocation of the market — is adverse to the interest of the public.”

(id.)

In his Fordham address Mr. deButts also described the depth of AT & T’s commitment:

“[W]e in the telephone industry do not intend to stand idly by and watch the slow erosion of the work of a hundred years. We recognize an obligation to compete aggressively for revenues that, if lost to others, would require us to raise the rates the average consumer pays.”

(id. at 8.)

In assessing the new competition, AT & T regarded SPCC as a viable contender. In the Intercity Competitive Service Plans drafted in the summer of 1972, it was noted that SPCC had filed to become a specialized common carrier and that, as a railroad with its own “right-of-way,” “existing microwave sites,” “operating experience” and “trained personnel,” it could pose a serious competitive threat. (PX1-0028 at LA1A 0600) In September 1972, a study reviewed by AT & T’s Executive Policy Committee reported that SPCC had hired S.R.I. to develop marketing procedures and prepare a tariff and had approached Pacific Telephone and Telegraph regarding interconnection. (PX1-0045 at LAIN 1765) Other materials prepared by the Executive Policy Committee’s September, 1972 meeting predicted that SPCC would be “in service by 4th Quarter 1973” and stated that SPCC’s “risk not as high as other SCC.” (PX10046 at LAIN 2299) The Corporate Business Divisions’ “Synthesis Report” similarly notes that SPCC is “strong both financially and technically.” (PX1-0021 at 0048); see also PX1-0013; PX1-0030; PX1-0053; PX1-0078; PX1-0079; PX1-0086; PX10088; PX1-0092.

The plaintiffs would have this Court hold that AT & T’s reaction to the Specialized Common Carriers decision, as evidenced by these speeches and internal memoranda of its corporate leadership showed anticompetition. Plaintiffs’ “intent” documents do not show any intent to monopolize. To the contrary, they reflect an intent to raise what are obviously serious public interest questions. Far from suggesting anticompetitive intent, the Court finds that the documents reflect a highly commendable intent on the part of the Bell System to fulfill its obligations to the public in spite of a recognition that it would be accused, as it has been, here and elsewhere, of evil motives in doing so (see deButts, S-T-131 at 4). In the Court’s view, the “unusual obligation” Mr. deButts described was not simply rhetoric, but a reality, and he is to be commended, rather than con *911 demned, for having the courage to speak out. 82

Plaintiffs urge the Court to conclude from their “intent” documents that the Bell System intended to violate FCC orders and embarked upon a systematic campaign to “kill off” its competition. As counsel for plaintiffs candidly admitted, however, there is not a single document or a single incident that by itself would establish any of these contentions (Tr. 3147). Nevertheless, plaintiffs urge that the documents and the incidents taken altogether add up to a concerted plan headed up by AT & T executives in New York to discriminate against SPCC and other specialized carriers, to misrepresent facts to the FCC and to refuse to follow the orders of the FCC. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, the existence of documents written by “senior” AT & T people and stating a need to deal with competition, means “there can be no question” that there was a plan to violate the antitrust laws (Tr. 3119-3121).

The Court finds this claim to be unsupported. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence indicating that any Bell System executive ever directed any employee to engage in anticompetitive activity or not to cooperate fully with the FCC, and Bell employees who prepared cost studies and supervised interconnection have unequivocally denied this assertion (Ankner, Tr. 4705-06; Schwartz, S-T-70 at 3-4; Brown, Tr. 5319; Hough, S-T-l at 109; Froggatt, S-T-2 at 44; see also Aldrich, U.S.Tr. 22944). The Court finds these witnesses to be highly credible. In assessing the witnesses, the Court takes note of the caliber of the defendants’ witnesses. While plaintiffs presented management and supervisory personnel as their witnesses, the defendants went one step further, namely, they presented actual technicians and the individuals who had actual day to day contact with plaintiffs and the other SCCs. Additionally, the defendants presented a wide array of outside experts and competitors who testified favorably for the defendants. As defense counsel stated during his opening statement concerning Dr. Baumol, there are only three possibilities about the claim(s) that SP is advancing: (1) there is somehow a gigantic conspiracy in which everyone is involved and he (Dr. Baumol) doesn’t know about it, (2) that he (Dr. Baumol) is telling a lie, or (3) the possibility that it didn’t happen (Tr. 166). The Court finds no “gigantic conspiracy,” nor does the Court find that the defendants’ witnesses have lied. Thus, as the opinion details, the Court finds that the alleged anticompetitive acts of the defendants did not happen.

Moreover, the Court has read every single document to which plaintiffs have directed its attention, and there is absolutely nothing in those documents indicating the existence of a plan of the kind plaintiffs hypothesize. 83 In fact, plaintiffs’ exhibits demonstrate that the Bell System executives recognized that the public positions they were taking might expose them to spurious claims of anticompetitive behavior and that special efforts should be taken to reiterate to Bell System employees the need to treat plaintiffs and other specialized common carriers in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. 84 For example, in a speech *912 made by Mr. deButts to his employees in which he discussed his decision to speak out against the policies of the FCC, he stressed the “absolute necessity to assure that the conduct of our business — and the articulation and presentation of our case to employees and the public — is proof against charges of unfair anti-competitive behavior” (PX10099).

Similarly, as discussed above, after a meeting between Mr. deButts and Mr. McGowan, the chief executive officer of MCI, in which the latter threatened an antitrust suit against the Bell System, Mr. deButts instructed one of AT & T’s Vice Presidents to “re-emphasize” to the presidents of the operating telephone companies “that our policy is to process orders with the same speed and efficiency that we process orders from our own customers” (PX1-0031; deButts, Tr. 4155), and that MCI should be given no legitimate cause for complaint (deButts, S-T-131 at 73). 85

Plaintiffs’ suggestion that AT & T’s top management was somehow subtly urging its employees to violate FCC orders has no foundation in this record. To the contrary, the record shows that the Bell System lower management understood that the Company’s opposition to FCC policy was based upon principle and that although the Company intended to “fight” what it considered to be the unsound policy decisions of the FCC, it was going to “cooperate fully” with the FCC in its day-to-day activity (PX1-0023 at AF 961080). 86 Mr. deButts carried this message to lower employees over closed-circuit television, impressing upon them their duty to obey the law (deButts, Tr. 4151-52). 87

Plaintiffs virtually concede that the management and employees of the Bell System genuinely believed that the FCC’s policies were not in the public interest. Indeed, it is by virtue of that belief, because of these employees’ “devotion to their concern,” plaintiffs argue, that the Court should conclude they must have engaged in anticompetitive conduct (Tr. 313). Such an inference would be wholly improper. The Court cannot substitute speculation for evidence, and there is no evidentiary basis for the Court to draw the inferences plaintiffs require. It would be both illogical and inconsistent with the record. Plaintiffs can not concede that defendants were genuinely concerned with the public interest; and that the Bell companies are “the best corporate citizen in almost every community in the United States” (Tr. 312), and expect the Court to conclude from this that defendants engaged in unlawful conduct. Accordingly, the Court finds that the defendants lack the requisite intent to violate the antitrust laws, either by inference or speculation.

As will be further discussed in this opinion, the Court would be remiss if it did not *913 initially point out some very disturbing aspects of this case. Namely, the roles that Drs. Owen and Melody and Messrs. Hinchman, 88 and Cox 89 have played in trying to wreck havoc on the largest corporation in the world. Upon a careful review of the record in this case, the Court finds at least the appearance of impropriety on the part of these individuals.

It is undisputed that Dr. Owen, while at the Office of Telecommunications Policy (OTP), 90 wanted to go about the business of breaking up AT & T and proceeded by trying to recruit others at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to follow his idea in 1972 and 1973. He was rebuffed by the staff of the FCC, under Mr. Bernard Strassberg, 91 who coincidentally was working on a draft opinion which was to find Telpak lawful and Long Run Incremental Cost (LRIC) an appropriate costing methodology. (S-2825c) Dr. Owen was able to convince one of the Commissioners to follow his idea. That Commissioner’s chief aid was Mr. Walter Hinchman 92 Towards the end of 1972, Mr. Strassberg had on his desk the draft opinion finding Telpak lawful, (S-2825c) but for reasons known only to himself, refused to approve the opinion. 93 Mr. Strassberg stepped down from his post on December 31, 1973 and on January 1, 1974, Mr. Walter Hinchman took over Strassberg’s job as Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau with the same draft opinion waiting on his desk for approval. Mr. Hinchman did not approve the decision 94 and instead writes his own opinion, despite the fact that he knew absolutely nothing about the facts surrounding Telpak or what LRIC was (Tr. 4980-81). Moreover, during the discovery process, the defendants attempted to discover the TELPAK draft opinion S-2825, but were unsuccessful until they received a Court order during the trial of this case to search the files of Mr. Hinchman’s office, which he had taken from his FCC job.

The Court cannot overlook Dr. Melody, a former staffer at the FCC, who stated that no one at the FCC would listen *914 to his view. Is it any wonder, when the ones vested with the responsibility to listen were Messrs. Strassberg and Hinchman. Dr. Melody is the same individual who acted as a consultant to the FCC while at the same time consulting with AT & T’s competitors, MCI and DATRAN. If Dr. Melody were a lawyer, he would surely have been a target of disciplinary proceedings for-this conduct. {See, 18 U.S.C. 207). It is based on these facts that the Court will accord no credibility to the testimony of Dr. Melody and Mr. Hinchman. It is this type of improper activity that gives the Government a bad name and should not be countenanced.

THE PRICING CLAIMS

In the usual Section 2 case where claims of predatory pricing are made, the Court must determine whether the defendant reduced its price below its costs for the purpose of destroying competition and with the intention of thereafter recouping its losses by charging the supracompetitive prices its monopoly makes possible. See Northeastern Tel. Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 651 F.2d 76, 89 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943, 102 S.Ct. 1438, 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982). The Court is confronted in this case with a most unusual situation — predatory pricing claims that are not based on any customary or common theory of below-cost pricing. Rather, according to plaintiffs’ counsel, their contentions are: (1) that “AT & T priced disregarding its cost;” (2) that AT & T structured its rates to forestall competition; and (3) that AT & T misrepresented the nature of its tariffs to the FCC (Tr. 1752-53).

These predatory pricing charges were directed at three AT & T tariffs for private line service: Telpak, Hi/Lo and Multischedule Private Line (MPL), described more fully in succeeding findings. 95

TELPAK

On January 16,1961, AT & T filed a new private line tariff, Tariff F.C.C. No. 250, *915 called Telpak. The Telpak tariff became effective on February 16, 1961. (Agreed Fact 1-1-006.) In 1966, Telpak was designated as Series 5000 of AT & T’s Tariff F.C.C. No. 260. (Agreed Fact 1-1-006.)

Telpak was not a physical entity but rather a pricing arrangement for large quantities of private line circuits. AT & T provided private line service priced under Telpak in similar manner and using the same facilities as it used to provide service priced under its single-channel private line tariffs. (Hollis PX6-0014 at 4).

A TELPAK customer could use the available channels within its TELPAK classification for a variety of communication services, including voice grade, teletypewriter, data or facsimile transmission. (Agreed fact 1-3-043). The customer could use the available channels to alternate the type of services he needs, such as voice grade transmission during the day and data transmissions at night, (id.) In addition, the customer could arrange for full duplex (two-way transmission) or half duplex (one-way transmission) service, (id.)

The original Telpak tariff offered volume discounts to customers under four classifications, A, B, C and D, allowing a customer to use respectively up to 12, 24, 60 and 240 voice grade equivalent circuits. (Agreed Fact 1-1-007; Boettinger S-T-3, tab A at 15.)

The customer could arrange to use the circuits available in a Telpak package to provide a series of distinct communications services, including wideband channels for data and high-speed facsimile transmission and channels of lesser bandwidth for voice grade and teletypewriter transmission. (Agreed Fact l-l-007b). AT & T furnished service under Telpak on a two-point or multi-point basis. (Hollis PX6-0014 at 4). Customers could combine interstate and intrastate private line circuits in one Telpak pricing package. (Agreed Fact 1-3-044).

Although AT & T described Telpak as a “broad-band” offering, (PX2-0017; PX20205, 30 F.C.C. at 627 (Telpak); PX2-0201, 38 F.C.C. at 371-73 (Dkt. 14251)), AT & T actually provided private line service under Telpak on a diverse routing basis. Under diverse routing the customer’s channels were not limited to a specific route or to a single frequency band on a specific facility. (Agreed Facts 1-1-010). Rather, AT & T routed the circuits priced under Telpak over a variety of routes and facilities, and using many different, smaller bandwidths. (Agreed Facts 1-1-010, 011).

Monthly Telpak charges were based on two rate elements: 1) an intercity mileage (IXC) charge; and 2) a channel termination charge. (Hollis PX6-0014 at 5; PX-2-0015 of 2; Boettinger S-T-3, tab A at 15-16).

The IXC charge consisted of a fixed rate per airline mile and was based upon the size (A, B, C or D) of the Telpak package. The IXC charge did not vary with the number of circuits actually used by the customer. Nor did it vary with the type of private line service (i.e., voice, data, etc.) for which the customer used the circuits. (PX2-0015; Hollis PX6-0014 at 5).

As originally filed, IXC charges for the Telpak classifications were:

Telpak Classification Maximum Voice Grade Channel Equivalent Rate Per Airline Mile Per Month

A 12 $15

B 24 $20

C 60 $25

D 240 $45

[Agreed Fact 1-1-010.]

The TELPAK tariff’s for C and D was raised five times since its inception 96 , three times prior to SPCC’s entry into the market. These rate increases were requested as follows:

September 1,1968:

C 60 28

D 240 60

(Agreed Facts 1-3-021)

*916 February 1,1970:

C 60 30

D 240 85

(Agreed Fact 1-3-002)

May 4,1972:

C 60 30

D 240 85

(Agreed Fact 1- 3-023)

March 9,1975:

C 60 31.55

D 240 89.35

(Agreed Fact 1-3-024)

March 29,1976:

C 60 32.50

D 240 92.05

(Agreed Fact 1 3-025).

The basic Telpak pricing unit for IXC was called a Telpak “section.” This was the airline distance between two geographic service points, called “end points.” (Hollis, PX6-0014 at 5.) The Telpak “section” did not constitute any physical entity but was simply a pricing mechanism, (id.) AT & T did not necessarily route circuits priced under Telpak between the endpoints of the Telpak pricing section, (id.)

Circuits priced under Telpak need not have originated or terminated at the endpoints of a Telpak pricing section. (Hollis, PX6-0014 at 11). The portion of a circuit that extended beyond the endpoint of a Telpak pricing section was called an “end-link” or “leg-out.” An endlink was also a pricing mechanism and did not necessarily denote the existence of any physical circuit between its pricing points. (Hollis PX60014 at 11-13); Agreed Facts 1-3-046, 047).

The channel termination charge was a flat charge per month for service terminations at each end of a circuit. The terminal charges applied only to circuits that a customer actually used in a Telpak section. (Hollis, PX6-0014 at 5; Agreed Fact 1-1-008). A customer did not always arrange for use of all circuits available in his Telpak classification. (Agreed Fact l-l-007a).

As originally filed, channel terminals were $15.00 for telephone and teletypewriter terminals ($30 for two ends of a channel) and $15 to $1,300.00 for special data and high-speed facsimile terminals. 97 (Agreed Fact 1-1-008.)

The Telpak offering expressly allowed interconnection to other AT & T-provided services and facilities. There was no provision in the Telpak tariff to allow interconnection to the facilities of nonconcurring common carriers. (PX2-0024 at AD680066, Section B.3.a. and b.)

In 1967, AT & T eliminated Telpak A and B (Agreed Fact 1-1-007) after the FCC declared them to be non-cost justified. 98 ((PX2-0201, 38 F.C.C. at 385-87, 395 Dkt. 14251); PX2-247, 37 F.C.C. at 1118 (Dkt. 14251)). Thus, at the time SPCC on December 25, 1973, entered the market AT & T offered only Telpak C and D. As of 1975, TELPAK accounted for only 3 percent of AT & T Long Lines’s private line customers; yet it accounted for 54 percent of AT & T’s private line revenues and 70 percent of its private line circuit miles. (PX20414).

HI/LO & MPL

AT & T provided private line services under its private line tariff, AT & T Tariff FCC No. 260. (See Agreed Fact 2-1-006.) Under Tariff 260, services were provided under various “Series.” Individual voice grade private line circuits were provided under Series 2000 (voice) and Series 3000 (data) of Tariff 260. (id.; PX3-0043 at 48; (Brodman, Tr. 1774.)

On November 15, 1973, AT & T filed the Hi/Lo rate revisions to Series 2000/3000 of AT & T’s private line Tariff FCC No. 260. (PX3-0043 at 1.)

Following protests filed by various parties, (id.) the Hi/Lo rates were suspended and set for investigation by the FCC. (PX3-0071, 55 F.C.C.2d at 224 (Hi/Lo Interim Decision).) The FCC’s investigation of Hi/Lo was Docket 19919. (id.)

*917 Under the FCC’s rules, if rates are found unlawful during the period they are under suspension, they never go into effect. (PX3-0241, 74 F.C.C.2d at 41-42 (MPL Final Decision).) Rates automatically become effective upon expiration of the suspension period if the investigation has not been concluded. The fact that such rates go into effect does not indicate Commission approval of them, (id.)

After the period of suspension and a further voluntary delay by AT & T (PX3-0043 at 2), the Hi/Lo rates became effective June 13, 1974, before the FCC’s Hi/Lo investigation had been completed. (PX30043 at 6; PX3-0071, 55 F.C.C.2d at 224 (Hi/Lo Interim Decision).)

On January 22, 1976, the FCC declared Hi/Lo non-cost justified 99 and ordered AT & T to file replacement rates. (PX3-0072, 58 F.C.C.2d at 362 (Hi/Lo Final Decision).)' The FCC found AT & T’s cost data inadequate to permit it to prescribe rates, stating: “Besides being insufficient to support the Hi/Lo rates, the record of this case is insufficient to permit us to justify any rate prescription, even for an interim period.” (PX3-0072, 58 F.C.C.2d at 370 (Hi/Lo Final Decision).) Thus, the FCC permitted Hi/Lo to remain in effect, even though allegedly not cost justified, pending AT & T’s filing of the replacement rates. The Hi/Lo rates remained in effect until August 20, 1976. (PX3-0241, 74 F.C.C.2d at 2 (MPL Final Decision).)

AT & T filed the replacement rates, the Multi-schedule Private Line (“MPL”) tariff, on April 19, 1976. (PX3-0236.)

Following protests by various parties, the FCC suspended MPL for investigation. (PX3-0240; PX3-0241, 74 F.C.C.2d at 2) (MPL Final Decision). Upon expiration of the statutory suspension period on August 20, 1976, the MPL rates automatically went into effect. (PX3-0241, 74 F.C.C.2d at 2 (MPL Final Decision).)

The MPL rates were declared non-cost justified on October 4,1979. (PX3-0241, 74 F.C.C.2d at 49 (MPL Final Decision).)

Notwithstanding a lack of alleged reliable cost information from AT & T, the FCC again allowed the non-cost justified rates to remain in effect. The Commission stated:

Perhaps the primary goal underlying our efforts to achieve accurate, auditable cost of service information has been to reveal any interservice cross-subsidizations that may occur, and thereby to be in a position to assess the competitive implications of specific AT & T rates.

(id. at 31). Continuing, the Commission said:

Although we have conducted several in-depth investigations in which major AT & T tariffs have been found unlawful, . . . the records in these proceedings disclosed little reliable cost of service information which could have formed the basis for a rate prescription. Despite our frustration, we had no recourse but to allow the unlawful tariffs to remain in effect. ...

(id. at 41-42).

On June 26, 1981, AT & T filed rate increases for MPL. (Hieronymus PX3-0030 at 22-25).

DESCRIPTION OF HI/LO AND MPL RATES

Prior to the entry of specialized common carrier competition into the private line market, AT & T priced its Series 2000/3000 services on a uniform nationwide basis, i.e., charges for circuits of the same airline mile distance were equal regardless of the locations of the service points. (PX3-0114 at 2; see Agreed Fact 2-1-014.) AT & T described its uniform rates as “averaged” on the theory that the rates were established to cover the “averaged” costs of the services as a whole. (PX3-0114 at 2; PX3-0043 at ii.)

When AT & T filed the Hi/Lo rates, it described them as a high density/low densi *918 ty rate “deaveraging”, i.e., the uniform rates were being replaced by rates which “reflected] the significant cost differences between the lower cost, high capacity facilities on high density routes compared to the higher costs on low-density routes.” (PX80043 at 51.)

Hi/Lo was AT & T’s response to specialized common carrier competition in the voice grade interstate private line services (series 2000 and series 3000) “to reflect the cost and economies inherent in its plant and operations. . . . ” (PX3-0043 at ii).

HI/LO

The Hi/Lo rates established three rate schedules: “HiD” (high density), “LoD” (low density) and short haul (for circuits 25 miles or less in length). (PX3-0114 at 11-12.) Each Hi/Lo rate schedule had three elements, a fixed monthly “station terminal” charge, a fixed monthly “channel terminal” charge, and an Interexchange Channel (“IXC”) (per mile) charge. For HiD, the IXC rate was $.85 per mile; for LoD it was $2.50. (id. at Attachment A at 1.)

Private line circuits connecting two cities designated as HiD rate centers were billed at HiD rates; circuits connecting a LoD rate center with either a HiD rate center or another LoD rate center were billed at LoD rates; circuits of 25 miles or less in length were billed at short haul rates. (PX3-0114 at 13 (Vol. Ill, tab R, 1); Brodman Tr. 1786-87.)

Four HiD engineering criteria filed in the Hi/Lo tariff determined which cites were identified as “HiD” and thus qualified for the low, HiD rates. (PX3-0104 at 4).

Under the Hi/Lo tariff, AT & T designated 369 cities as HiD rate centers; all others were categorized as low density (“LoD”). (PX3-0104 at 13; PX3-0298; PX3-0114; Agreed Fact 2-1-027.)

Under Hi/Lo, a circuit serving a LoD rate center could avoid being charged LoD rates for the entire length of the circuit by “homing in” on a HiD rate center, and using a “HiD link” for billing purposes between the HiD “homing point” and another HiD rate center. (PX3-0114 at 13-14; Brodman Tr. 1785-88.)

A circuit connecting a LoD service point and another point via a “HiD link” would be billed at the $2.50 LoD rate on the link between the LoD city and the HiD homing city. (Tr. 1785-88 (Brodman)). The “HiD link,” i.e., the airline distance between the HiD “homing point” and the other HiD city would be billed at $.85 per mile, (id.; PX30114.)

Unlike the pre-Hi/Lo Series 2000/3000 rates, Hi/Lo applied only to “non-Telpak connected” (“NTC”) circuits; it did not apply to a circuit, part of which was billed in a Telpak section. (PX3-0316; PX3-0318; PX3-0521; PX3-0535; PX3-0714; see Agreed Fact 2-1-037.) Because the Hi/Lo rate revisions did not apply to Telpak end-links, the rates for circuits classified as end-links remained unchanged at the pre-Hi/Lo Series 2000/3000 rate levels. (See Agreed Fact 2-1-037.)

MPL

The MPL tariff was also based on the high density/low density rate structure concept (PX3-0954 at 0837; PX3-0693 at 0791; PX3-0687 at 0746; PX3-0230 at 6; (Ginn) S-T-73, tab A at 10-11.) Instead of “HiD,” the high density cities in MPL were called “Category A” rate centers. (PX30230.) All others were designated “Category B.” (id.)

MPL had three rate schedules. MPL Schedule I, which was equivalent to Hi/Lo’s HiD rate schedule, applied to services between two Category A rate centers. (PX30230). MPL Schedule II applied to services between a Category A center and a Category B center; Schedule III applied to services between two Category B centers, (id.; see Ginn, S-T-73, tab A at 11).

THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PREDATORY PRICING CLAIMS

Before turning to the evidence introduced at trial with respect to plaintiffs’ pricing claims, the Court believes it appropriate to address the legal standards which *919 properly govern its consideration of those claims. Prior to trial, the parties submitted extensive briefs on the applicable legal standard for predatory pricing, and the Court has considered those in reaching its decision here. In summary, the Court concludes that a cost-based standard must be adopted to judge plaintiffs’ predatory pricing claims and that a standard based on marginal or incremental cost is the most consistent with the pro-competitive thrust of the antitrust laws. The Court recognizes that the Courts of Appeals have not taken a uniform position with respect to the extent to which prices above marginal cost may be considered predatory, but the Court’s analysis of the evidence in this case convinces it that a marginal or incremental cost standard is appropriate here. In any event, the Court finds no authority for a non-cost standard such as plaintiffs propose, and does not see how such a standard could be adopted without the risk of penalizing the very kind of price competition the antitrust laws are intended to foster. 100

From the Court’s review of the authorities, it appears that a showing of below-cost pricing has consistently been held to be an essential element of a plaintiff’s prima facie case. For example, in Broadway Delivery Corp. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 651 F.2d 122, 131 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 968, 102 S.Ct. 512, 70 L.Ed.2d 384 (1981), the Second Circuit held:

“[T]he plaintiffs’ evidence of predatory pricing was in itself seriously deficient. Whether or not one agrees that proof of pricing below marginal or average variable cost is essential to a predatory pricing claim, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate price predation by the defendants without proof permitting a careful assessment of the relationship between the defendants’ prices and costs. See generally 3 P. Areeda & D. Turner, supra, ¶¶ 710-11. The plaintiffs’ proof did not permit a reasonable fact-finder to make this assessment.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The Ninth Circuit in Hanson v. Shell Oil Co., 541 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1074, 97 S.Ct. 813, 50 L.Ed.2d 792 (1977) held, that:

“Hanson’s failure to show that Shell’s prices were below its marginal on average variable costs was a failure as a matter of law to present a prima facie case under § 2.” (footnote omitted).

Similarly, where the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant intentionally priced below cost, directed verdicts have often been granted. See, e.g., Chillicothe Sand & Gravel Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 615 F.2d 427, 432-33 (7th Cir.1980); International Air Industries, Inc. v. American Excelsior Co., 517 F.2d 714, 724 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 943, 96 S.Ct. 1411, 47 L.Ed.2d 349 (1976); California Computer Products, Inc. v. IBM Corp., 613 F.2d 727 (9th Cir.1979).

As the Ninth Circuit stated:

“While proof of pricing below marginal or average variable cost is prerequisite to a prima facie showing of an attempt to monopolize, such a showing if made, would not show a per se violation. There may be nonpredatory and acceptable business reasons for a firm engaging in such pricing. Plaintiff’s showing of below-cost pricing merely clears the first hurdle and raises the question of justification.”

Hanson v. Shell Oil Co., supra 541 F.2d at 1359 n. 6.

This uniform insistence on proof of below-cost pricing is rooted in the central pro-competitive purposes of the Sherman Act, which seeks to promote price competition. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. v. United States, 334 U.S. 110, 120, 68 S.Ct. 947, 953, 92 L.Ed. 1245 (1948), “price cutting without more is not a violation of the Sherman Act” but “is indeed a competitive practice.” Any rule which unduly restricts vigorous price competition, therefore, would penalize firms from taking the very action which is expected and encouraged of them and would lead to a situation in which “the antitrust laws would thus compel the very sloth they *920 were intended to prevent.” Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 273 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093, 100 S.Ct. 1061, 62 L.Ed.2d 783 (1980).

It is also clear to the Court that the principles encouraging price competition on the merits are fully applicable to firms with a “dominant” share of the market. As the Ninth Circuit explained in California Computer Products, supra, 613 F.2d at 742:

“Where the opportunity exists to increase or protect market share profitably by offering equivalent or superior performance at a lower price, even a virtual monopolist may do so.”

The same conclusion was reached by the Second Circuit in Northeastern Tel. Co., supra, 651 F.2d at 93:

“[A] monopolist’s right to compete is not limited to actions undertaken with an altruistic purpose. Even monopolists must be allowed to do as well as they can with their business.”

Consequently, the Court is in full agreement with the proposition that the evidence must show “more than an intent to win every sale, even if that would result in the demise of a competitor ... before it can be concluded a defendant has the type of exclusionary intent condemned by the antitrust laws.” Transamerica Computer Co. v. IBM Corp., 481 F.Supp. 965, 1010 (N.D.Cal. 1979).

The fact that a “monopolist’s” competitive pricing practices may be directed at particular competitors and may even cause them financial harm does not impinge upon the protection accorded vigorous competition. The purpose of the Sherman Act is to preserve the opportunity and incentive to compete, not to coddle competitors:

“Even legitimate price decreases will necessarily have a non-remunerative effect upon other firms in the market. These decreases will reduce competitors’ profit margins and they may drive the inefficient firm out of business while the firm which originally reduced prices continues to make a profit. It is the very nature of competition that the vigorous, efficient firm will drive out less efficient firms. This is not proscribed by the antitrust laws. ‘Antitrust legislation is concerned primarily with the health of the competitive process, not with the individual competitor who must sink or swim in competitive enterprise.’ ”

Janich Bros., Inc. v. American Distilling Co., 570 F.2d 848, 855 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 829, 99 S.Ct. 103, 58 L.Ed.2d 122 (1978). See also Chillicothe Sand & Gravel Co., supra, 615 F.2d at 431.

Because of this recognized importance of price competition, the Court “must exercise great care in differentiating between legitimate price competition and that ‘predatory pricing’ which constitutes a restraint of trade.” Janich Bros., Inc., supra, 570 F.2d at 856. Accordingly, the Court cannot rest a finding of predatory pricing on some vague, subjective theory such as “pricing without regard to cost.” Rather, the Court concludes that in order for plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof, plaintiffs must demonstrate “the relationship between . . . prices and costs in order to determine whether . . . price behavior was predatory.” International Air Industries, Inc., supra, 517 F.2d at 722, 723.

Although the Courts of Appeals have not all taken uniform positions on what the appropriate cost standard should be, there does not appear to be any dispute in the cases that a marginal cost 101 analysis is an important, if not essential, starting point for any determination of predatory pricing.

Most directly relevant to this question is the recent decision in Northeastern Tel. Co., supra, a case involving predatory pricing charges advanced against AT & T. Reviewing established economic principles, the Court of Appeals explained the rationale for its conclusion that “the relationship between a firm’s prices and its marginal costs provides the best single determinant of predatory pricing” (651 F.2d at 87-88):

*921 “Marginal cost pricing . . . fosters competition on the basis of relative efficiency. Establishing a pricing floor above marginal cost would encourage underutilization of productive resources and would provide a price ‘umbrella’ under which less efficient firms could hide from the stresses and storms of competition. Moreover, marginal cost pricing maximizes short-run consumer welfare, since when price equals marginal cost, consumers are willing to pay the expense incurred in producing the last unit of output. At prices above marginal cost, per contra, output is restricted, and consumers are deprived of products the value of which exceed their costs of production.”

In the Second Circuit’s view, therefore, a marginal cost standard was “consistent with the pro-competitive thrust of the Sherman Act,” and it also minimized the risk and cost of “inadvertently condemning” as predatory pricing what in fact may have been vigorous price competition (id). Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that “prices below reasonably anticipated marginal costs will be presumed predatory, while prices above reasonably anticipated marginal cost will be presumed non-predatory” (id at 88).

Although Northeastern involved the same telecommunications industry 102 and the same defendants as are involved in this case, and thus impresses the Court as particularly applicable here, it is only one of a number of decisions relying upon a marginal or incremental cost standard to assess predatory pricing claims. See, e.g., Super-turf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275, 1281 (8th Cir.1981) (“even if Monsanto is a monopolist, it was within its rights to respond to the lower prices of its competitors while still pricing above its marginal costs”); Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Crowley, 658 F.2d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1981) (defendants’ prices were not “predatory” where there was no allegation that the prices were below marginal costs); Chillicothe Sand & Gravel Co., supra, 615 F.2d at 432 (use of marginal or average variable cost is both a “relevant and extremely useful factor in determining the presence of predatory conduct”); Pacific Engineering & Production Co. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 551 F.2d 790, 795-97 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 879, 98 S.Ct. 234, 54 L.Ed.2d 160 (1977) (“evidence of marginal cost ... is extremely beneficial in establishing a ease of monopolization through predatory pricing”); International Air Industries, Inc., supra, 517 F.2d at 723-24 (“we do not believe that the monopolist’s pricing behavior could be deemed anticompetitive unless the monopolist set a price below its own marginal cost”); California Computer Products, supra, 613 F.2d at 742-43 (directed verdict proper where plaintiff “failed to produce evidence of pricing below marginal or average variable cost”).

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has not yet had occasion to address this issue squarely. It has, however, recognized “the general prevalence of the incremental or marginal cost idea in the law of predatory pricing” in Sherman Act cases. American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 602 F.2d 401, 410 n. 49 (D.C.Cir.1979).

Marginal or incremental cost pricing has also been espoused as the correct costing method by a number of commentators on antitrust policy. The leading analysis reaching this conclusion was by Professors Areeda and Turner in Predatory Pricing and Related Practices Under Section' 2 of the Sherman Act, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 697 (1975). See also 3 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law ¶ 715(a)-(c) at 164-74 (1978). Since then, the relevance of marginal or incremental costs for assessing predatory pricing claims under the antitrust laws has also been espoused by other well-known commentators. See, e.g., Bork, The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, pp. 154-55 (1978); McGee, Predatory Pricing Revisited, 23 J.L. & Econ. 289, 292-93 (1980).

In the Court’s view, the economic concept of marginal cost is not only widely recognized, but elementary. Marginal cost is the increase in the total costs that results from producing an additional unit of output. *922 When the price of a dominant firm’s product equals the product’s marginal cost, only less efficient firms will suffer; more efficient firms will be covering the additional costs of production and contributing to the common costs of operation or even operating profitably. Therefore, establishing a pricing floor above marginal cost would encourage underutilization of productive resources and would provide a price “umbrella” under which less efficient firms could hide from the competitive process. See Northeastern Tel. Co., supra, 651 F.2d at 87-88; California Computer Products, supra, 613 F.2d at 743; International Air Industries, supra, 517 F.2d at 724.

In this case, AT & T based its competitive private line rate adjustments primarily on a method known as long run incremental costs (“LRIC”). 103 Long run incremental costs or average incremental costs are a form of marginal costs reflecting the change in total costs caused by changes in output over a longer period of time (Froggatt, S-T-2 at 34-35; Eastmond, S-T-ll at 20; Ankner, S-T-10 at 2-9; Baumol, S-T-4 at 10, U.S.Tr. 23156; Olley, S-T-29 at 14). Long run or average incremental costs thus include certain items of long term expense that are typically considered fixed and would generally be excluded from a calculation of average variable cost, such as the cost of plant and equipment, as well as the cost of capital. 104 It is generally recognized that long run or average incremental cost approximates anticipated average total cost for various levels of production. 3 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law ¶ 712 (1978); Baumol, Quasi-Permanence of Price Reductions: A Policy for Prevention of Predatory Pricing, 89 Yale L.J. 1, 9 n. 26 (1979); Joskow & Klevorick, A Framework for Analyzing Predatory Pricing Policy, 89 Yale L.J. 213, 252 n. 79 (1979). 105

The only question that seems to be open in the Courts of Appeals decisions is whether, on the particular facts, some standard over and above marginal costs may also be considered. 106 In this respect, defendants’ *923 witnesses, particularly its expert economists, all strongly endorsed the use of incremental cost as the appropriate measure of predatory pricing in the circumstances of this ease (Baumol, S-T-4 at 10-12, 19-20, U.S.Tr. 23152-65, Tr. 3748-49; Olley, S-T-29 at 13, 15-17, Tr. 5381-82; Arrow, S-T-30 at 4-8, Tr. 4345; Braeutigam, S-T-204 at 9-11, 14-17, Tr. 5048; S-1623B). And Dean Rostow testified that it was both his personal view, and the conclusion of the President’s Task Force on Communications Policy, that long run incremental costs should be the appropriate pricing standard for the competitive telecommunications industry (Rostow, Tr. 3655-61; S-1873 at 234).

In addition, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has advocated the use of incremental cost pricing for the telecommunications industry. Thus, on appeal from the FCC’s decision in Docket No. 18128, the Antitrust Division argued that, in contrast to fully distributed costs which leads to “umbrella pricing,” long run incremental costs “is not only pro-competitive but aids the users of services for which there is not competition.” Brief for the United States at 34-35, filed August 21, 1978, Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, No. 77-1333 (D.C.Cir.) (S-5716 at 34-35). 107 This appears to be a long-standing position of the federal government (see Long Run Incremental Costs/Telpak Doc. Sub.). It is apparent that the rest of the federal government was in disagreement with the FCC’s decision to follow FDC. The policy of the Department of Justice was also echoed by the Department of Defense. In its March 19, 1976, brief in support of Exceptions of the Executive Agencies of the United States to the Recommended Decision of the Chief Common Carrier Bureau, released on January 19, 1976, it stated (S-4154 at 2, 3):

“The Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, in his Recommended Decision herein has, however, ignored this evidence, and, relying upon erroneous legal precedent and overlooking the extensive economic advantages of an incremental cost pricing approach to ratemaking, found incremental cost (termed “marginal cost pricing” by the CCB) theory to presently be inapplicable to the pricing of Bell’s competi *924 tive interstate services. The CCB has, however, also determined that incremental cost pricing “could” be acceptable in the future provided various “modifications” are made in the present approach (DOD Exceptions 4-12).

The DOD, on behalf of the Federal Executive Agencies, is of the opinion that the record herein has adequately demonstrated the present theoretical acceptability of incremental cost pricing in determining the appropriate earnings relationships among and earning levels of Bell’s various interstate services, and that it is merely AT & T’s presently proposed LRIC methodology that is unsupportable and unlawful. DOD further believes that the CCB’s equivocation (see DOD Exception 7) in failing to actively seek to determine how the appropriate modifications and controls essential to an implementation of incremental cost theory to the pricing of Bell’s competitive interstate services is without justifications.”

See also S-4167; S-4230.

The Cohrt notes that DOD’s comments were right on point. For the author of the decision finding FDC the appropriate costing methodology in lieu of LRIC, Mr. Walter Hinchman, admitted under oath that he knew nothing about cost, much less the difference between LRIC and FDC. (Hinchman, Tr. 4980-2) Moreover, Mr. Hinchman testified that he never even read the record in Docket 18128 (Hinchman, Tr. 4981).

Additionally, plaintiffs’ parent, Southern Pacific Company, has long advocated the use of incremental costs in setting railroad rates under the Interstate Commerce Act (Miller, Tr. 431-33). 108 This has also been the long-standing position of the Association of American Railroads, of which Southern Pacific is a member (Baumol, Tr. 3747-40; S-1623B; S-1822C). 109 The Interstate Commerce Commission has now adopted that standard by virtue of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, 49 U.S.C. § 10701a(c)(2) (1980). 110 See Western Coal Traffic League v. United States, 677 F.2d 915 (D.C.Cir. 1982).

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the plaintiffs’ contentions that FDC should be the appropriate pricing methodology, is that SPCC used LRIC in at least seven of its cost studies submitted to the FCC. By letter dated March 31, 1975 in Transmittal No. 37, SPCC filed cost data to support changes in its private line tariffs. (S-3499B) On page 6, the Transmittal stated:

“The basis of ratemaking used in presenting the data.... is a long run variable (or incremental) cost basis. This is appropriate because SPCC would incur negligible increases in overhead expenses due to the increased sales which we have shown will result. ...”

See also S-4050 at 6; S-4614B at 36; S-4937B; S-4999B; S-5265B; S-5637D.

Although the FCC adopted fully distributed cost in Docket No. 18128 as the stan *925 dard for pricing of telecommunications services, the record here shows that this was not a foregone conclusion and may have been primarily motivated by a desire to protect inefficient new carriers such as SPCC from the full economic consequences of competition, rather than on a reasoned economic basis (Rostow, Tr. 3662-64; Owen, Tr. 5713-15; Baumol, S-T-4 at 8; Strassburg, S-T-171 at U.S.Tr. 23386-87). Indeed, the Court finds it of interest that following the hearings in Docket No. 18128, the FCC staff apparently agreed that LRIC should be adopted as the appropriate standard under the Communications Act, and a proposed decision to that effect was drafted by members of the Common Carrier Bureau in November 1973 (Strassburg, S-T-171 at U.S.Tr. 23444-46; 111 S-2676; S-2825). 112

In any event, the Court is convinced that a predatory pricing standard based upon fully distributed costs would be inconsistent with sound legal and economic principles, and therefore, it must reject plaintiffs’ alternative position that the Court should adopt such a standard to the extent that it requires, as it has, a showing of a cost-price relationship to establish predatory pricing. The Court of Appeals in Northeastern rejected a similar argument, concluding that a fully distributed cost test “would promote economic inefficiency, would be difficult to apply, [and] would elevate the interests of single market competitors over those of consumers ...” (651 F.2d at 90).

The Court’s conclusion is not altered by plaintiffs’ reliance upon Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking Co., 386 U.S. 685, 87 S.Ct. 1326, 18 L.Ed.2d 406 (1967), and the FCC’s decision in Docket No. 18128, neither of which supports the use of a fully distributed cost test to assess a claim of predatory pricing under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. With respect to Utah Pie, as Areeda and Turner have pointed out, the Court was unclear on which cost measurement it used to find ‘below cost’ pricing.” Areeda & Turner, supra, 88 Harv.L.Rev. at 727 n. 59. Similarly, the FCC decision in Docket No. 18128 was expressly limited to regulatory pricing issues. AT & T, 61 F.C.C.2d 587 (1976). As the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has recognized, the standards applied under the Communications Act “may be more restrictive than those common in antitrust cases,” referring specifically to “the Commission’s use of [fully distributed costs]” as the basis for pricing. American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 602 F.2d 401, 410 n. 49 (D.C.Cir.1979). Moreover, even in the regulatory context at issue on appeal from the Commission’s decision in Docket No. 18128, Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 642 F.2d 1221 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 1998, 68 L.Ed.2d 311 (1981), Judge Wilkey urged that' the FCC’s adoption of fully distributed cost pricing be held to be beyond the discretion of the FCC because LRIC was the only appropriate standard to assure “economic efficiency,” emphasizing that “so long as rates are above LRIC, agencies and courts can rest assured that monopoly service customers are NOT subsidizing the firm’s operations in the competitive market ..." (642 F.2d at 1239-41) (emphasis in original).

*926 The principal opponent of LRIC and the principal advocate of FDC in this case was plaintiffs’ witness, Dr. Melody. 113 The thrust of his argument, as the Court understands it, is that use of long run incremental costs is inappropriate where a firm such as AT & T provides both competitive and monopoly services and operates under an overall rate of return set by regulators. Dr. Melody asserts that under these conditions use of LRIC to set rates for competitive services leads to unlawful cross-subsidy because common costs are borne by the monopoly service and thus that fully distributed costs should be used instead. Dr. Melody’s view concerning what constitutes a “cross-subsidy” has no apparent support, among other economists who testified in this case (see Baumol, S-T-4 at 31; Olley, S-T-29 at 14-17; Arrow, S-T-30 at 5-7, 30-31). The Court notes that this view is also in conflict with the testimony of L.W. Doritz, VP, Mo.Pub.Serv.Comm’n, before House Subcomm. on Telecom., Consumer Protection & Finance who stated (S-6197 at 7-8):

“A major concern of the United States Department of Justice that triggered its decision to file the current antitrust lawsuit against AT & T related to the alleged use of profits from monopoly services to subsidize competitive offerings. DOJ maintained that the Bell System could raise monopoly prices in order to cut prices offered in the competitive arena and still maintain the same rate of return on overall investment. This view does not comport with the actual pricing of telecommunications services in Missouri.

All telephone services provided in Missouri by SWBT (Southwestern Bell Telephone) with the exception of interstate toll are regulated by the Missouri Commission. Consequently, in Missouri, SWBT could not lower the prices of its competitive services (principally CPE) and raise the prices of its monopoly services without the approval of the Missouri Commission." (Emphasis supplied).

It is clear to the Court that it was not Bell that was the problem, but rather the FCC’s own ineptitude.

Moreover, the Court cannot reconcile Dr. Melody’s views with the case law, particularly Northeastern Tel. Co., supra. The Court of Appeals in Northeastern squarely addressed the principal argument made here by Dr. Melody against an incremental cost standard — that this standard is inadequate because it creates the potential for AT & T to cross-subsidize losses from competitive services with excess profits from monopoly services. The Second Circuit labeled such an argument “seriously flawed” (651 F.2d at 90), and the Court is satisfied that that reasoning is applicable here.

As the Second Circuit pointed out, there is no valid distinction between the ability of a regulated and an unregulated firm to cross-subsidize, and to abandon the marginal cost rule for diversified firms would create “a haven- for inefficient competitors” (651 F.2d at 90). Additionally, the cross-subsidy argument “emphasizes the interests of single-market rivals over those of consumers and the competitive process” (id.). Finally, this argument ignores the basic principle that the marginal cost standard itself is sufficient to detect unlawful cross-subsidization, because “when price exceeds marginal or average variable cost, no subsidy is necessary” (id.). 114

Significantly, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division has also rejected the *927 kind of cross-subsidy argument made by Dr. Melody. As pointed out above, in the appeal from the FCC’s Docket No. 18128 decision, the Antitrust Division argued that an incremental cost test, not a fully distributed cost test, should be the appropriate pricing standard for the telecommunications industry. In that case, the Antitrust Division also explained that incremental cost pricing does not result in “cross-subsidization in any sense used by either economists or public utility regulators because monopoly (or other low elasticity) customers are not paying part of the other service, the one that is putatively subsidized. They are paying only costs which they would have to bear in the absence of that other service” (S-5716 at 38).

The Court thus concludes that marginal or incremental cost is the appropriate standard for judging plaintiffs’ predatory pricing claims. The Court will now turn to the evidence submitted with respect to these claims.

EVIDENCE CONCERNING WHETHER AT & T’S RATES WERE BELOW COST

With respect to each of the tariffs attacked in this case, plaintiffs have not relied upon the marginal cost test or any other cost-based test for determining predatory pricing. 115 Rather, counsel for plaintiffs proceeded on an entirely different theory of proof, arguing that they needed only to show that AT & T set its rates in “disregard of its actual costs.” Plaintiffs thus focused their attention principally on asserted errors in AT & T’s cost studies that plaintiffs claim rendered those studies inadequate as a basis for pricing. Plaintiffs’ principal expert witness, Dr. Melody, repeatedly emphasized that “I have been unable to do a cost study to tell you what AT & T’s costs are” (Melody, Tr. 2407, 2453-54, 2458, 2470). Similarly, while plaintiffs’ other cost witnesses, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Scott, criticized the FDC and LRIC cost studies for Hi/Lo and MPL and offered readjustments to those studies, their intention was only to show that AT & T “priced without regard to cost” and that AT & T’s cost were higher than what was reported to the FCC. Before these witnesses testified, plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized: “[T]hey are not going to quarrel with the way the studies were done, they are simply going to look at the data.... I want to stress for the Court we are not saying that those are AT & T’s actual costs” (Tr. 1755-56). And Dr. Melody in his rebuttal testimony re-emphasized that neither the Scott nor the Tucker calculations were intended to be a “proper costing” of AT & T’s services (Melody, Tr. 5619; see also Lim, Tr. 5927). 116

Defendants, on the other hand, introduced into evidence numerous detailed stu *928 dies showing that the rates set in the challenged tariffs were projected to be above cost — under both LRIC and FDC methods— and further that they were actually above cost. Although plaintiffs have challenged some of the methodology used in AT & T’s LRIC and FDC studies, the Court, for the reasons stated below in discussing those criticisms, has concluded that AT & T’s costing methods were reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, the Court finds that the cost studies submitted by defendants are competent evidence that .defendants’ prices were above cost for each of the challenged tariffs.

With respect to Telpak, defendants submitted studies calculated on various FDC methods from 1967 through 1979 which had been performed at the request of the FCC and filed with the Commission (Johnston, S-T-5 at 76-78 & Att. 9). 117 The results of these studies confirm that, in the time period at issue in this case, Telpak was producing earnings in excess of all costs attributed to the service under even the most stringent of the fully distributed cost methods (Hough, S-T-l at 41). For instance, set forth below are the results of studies conducted pursuant to FDC Method 7 (the method ultimately selected by the FCC in its 1976 Docket No. 18128 decision), compared with the total net return on investment for all of AT & T’s interstate services (S-4727B; Johnston, S-T-5 at Att. 9):

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 5 Year Average

Telpak 12.2% 12.2% 12.6% 9.0% 8.1% 10.8%

Total Interstate 8.6% 8.5% 8.5% 9.2% 9.6% 8.9%

Although the Court has rejected fully distributed costs as a proper standard for predatory pricing, this evidence clearly shows, and the Court so finds, that Telpak was covering its costs from the time that SPCC commenced operations until the time that AT & T filed its tariff to terminate the *929 Telpak offering, even under the erroneous standard advocated by plaintiffs. 118

The record also contains incremental cost studies conducted by AT & T with respect to the Telpak rates in effect at the time SPCC entered the business. These were the studies conducted in support of the Telpak rate increases proposed in 1969 and 1971 and were described in detail in the testimony of Messrs. Eastmond (S-T-ll at 41-48), McCarthy (S-T-7 at 3-10) and Miller (S-T-22 at 3-13). The 1969 study showed that the newly increased rates were projected to produce an improvement in annual contribution of $86 million in excess of incremental costs (PX2-0275; Hough, Tr. 3592), 119 and with the 1971 proposed increase, earnings would be improved even further (Eastmond, S-T-ll at 47 — 48).

The only evidence introduced by plaintiffs relating to the Telpak revenue/cost relationship during the 1970s when SPCC was in business were several internal AT & T documents which plaintiffs argue show that Telpak was not profitable. For the most part, the Court cannot tell what kind of analysis underlies these documents or what they were intended to reflect; and for this reason alone, the Court cannot give this evidence any significant weight. It appears, however, that several of the documents do not even relate to Telpak’s revenue/cost relationship 120 and that several others in fact show that Telpak *930 rates to be covering costs. 121 Moreover, other of the documents do not appear to reflect current conditions at all, but rather to show rough projections into 1977 and 1980 which were associated with some kind of rate planning effort (e.g., PX2-0168; PX2-0175). But by 1977, AT & T had filed to terminate Telpak, thus rendering these projections of little significance. On balance, the Court cannot find that these unexplained documents are sufficient to meet plaintiffs’ burden of proof, particularly when compared to AT & T’s detailed, formal studies. 122

The evidence in the record also demonstrates that the Hi/Lo rates were set above cost. When the Hi/Lo tariff was filed, only the high-density interexchange channel rate of $.85 per mile per month was reduced from previous levels. The evidence shows, however, that the $.85 rate for the interexchange high-density rate element was set on the basis of studies showing that it would be profitable, whether measured under LRIC or FDC standards (Hough, S-T-l at 57). Thus, the results of the initial studies prepared by AT & T in 1972 in support of the tariff showed, in comparison to the $.85 rate, an average cost per mile per month of $.62 on an FDC Method I basis (Johnston, S-T-5 at 60-61 & Att. 6; S-2938B [D — 29—49]). And on a LRIC basis, the cost was $.35, or 240 percent below the $.85 rate (Ankner, S-T-10 at 9; S-0264 [D-29-48]).

Subsequent studies prepared before the Hi/Lo tariff became effective confirmed that the tariff would be profitable. A cost study using FDC Method 1 updated to reflect costs for the twelve months ending June 1973 showed monthly costs for the high-density interexchange channel rate element to be $.51 per mile (Johnston, S-T-5 at 61; S-33 [D-29-51A]). AT & T also conducted a cost study under FDC Method 7 for the twelve months ending August 1974 and found the monthly cost of the high-density interexehange channel rate element to be $.37 (Johnston, S-T-5 at 61; S-3122 [D-29-766]). If calculated considering only directly attributable costs (a methodology akin to the LRIC method), this August 1974 study showed that cost to be $.31 per mile (Johnston, S-T-5 at 61; S-3123 [D-29-52] ). 123

Evidence reflecting the actual operating experience under the Hi/Lo tariff established that the Hi/Lo rates were profitable. AT & T submitted to the FCC data on the actual net earnings ratios for Hi/Lo for 1974 and 1975 calculated on the basis of FDC Methods 1, 2, 6 and 7 (Johnston, ST-5 at 60; S-3744 [D-29-767]; S-4057 [D-29-768]). Under each method, the results showed substantial earnings (Johnston, ST-5 at Att. 5):

Method 1 Method 2 Method 6 Method 7

1972 8.5' 9.7% 11.2% 10.5%

1973 8.2' 9.4% 10.7% 9.8%

1974 8.6' 10.1% 9.9% 11.5% 10.7%

1975 8.1* 10.7% 10.1%

The record also contains the cost data introduced by AT & T for the MPL tariff, which showed that MPL was profitable and produced a rate of return in excess of the overall authorized interstate rate of return (Johnston, S-T-5 at 68-74; Hough, S-T-l *931 at 69-70). The initial FDC studies, under Methods 1, 2, 6, and 7 submitted to the Commission in April 1976, were based on data for a 12-month period ended September 30, 1975 and demonstrated that, had MPL been in effect during that period, the tariff would have produced a return of between 11.5 percent (FDC Method 1) and 15.2 percent (FDC Method 6), as compared to an overall authorized interstate rate of return of between 9.5 and 10 percent (Johnston, S-T-5 at 68). Studies were also done on a schedule-by-schedule basis and showed that the earnings ratio for the competitive Schedule I rates was higher than either the MPL service as a whole or the Schedule II and III rates. For Methods 1 and 7, these results were (Johnston, S-T-5 at Att. 7; S-174 [D-30-118]; S-180 [D-30-124]):

MPL Schedule Schedule Schedule Total Service I II III

FDC-1 11.5% 12.7% 11.2% 10.4%

FDC-7 14.8% 17.4% 13.9% 13.5%

AT & T also introduced subsequent FDC studies for calendar year 1976, submitted in June 1977, which were based on the revised FDC Method 7 procedure prescribed by the FCC in its Docket No. 18128 decision and incorporated in the January 1977 cost manual developed by the FCC staff in consultation with AT & T. The June 1977 studies showed that, had MPL been in effect for the entire year, the service overall would have produced an earnings ratio of 13.3 percent, and Schedule I would have produced on earnings ratio of 16.2 percent (Johnston, S-T-5 at 70-71; S-4972D [D-30-132]). A second study submitted in June 1977 reflected the actual experience under the MPL tariff. This study produced an earnings ratio for MPL of 11.6 percent and 14.4 percent for Schedule I (Johnston, ST-5 at 72; S-189 [D-30-140]).

Further, the record contains studies performed by AT & T of the cost of MPL for the years 1977, 1978, and 1979 using the revised FDC Method 7 procedures as set forth in the revised August 1977 cost manual (Castellano, S-T-23 at 2). These studies, done for internal management purposes, showed that in 1977 MPL had an overall earnings ratio of 14.5 percent and Schedule I had earnings of 19.3 percent. For 1978, the studies (using a slightly modified methodology) showed an overall MPL earnings ratio of 15.7 percent and Schedule I earnings of 24.8 percent. A similar study for 1979 showed an overall MPL earnings ratio of 10.8 percent and Schedule I earnings of 28.3 percent (Castellano, S-T-23 at 3-4; Tr. 3924).

The record also reflects that in 1980, AT & T submitted to the FCC an FDC study which recalculated the 1978 Annual FDC Report results (originally submitted in June 1979) based on new exchange plant allocation procedures prescribed in the FCC’s Docket No. 20814 Order (Johnston, S-T-5 at 73). This recalculation of the 1978 FDC data responded to the one criticism of the MPL cost study procedures mentioned in that Order, and the revised procedures used in the 1980 recalculation were said by the FCC staff to be in “apparent compliance” with the Order (S — 5831; S-5863). The recalculation showed an earnings ratio of 14.4 percent for private line telephone channels — which at that time was an FCC reporting category comprised essentially of MPL services (Johnston, S-T-5 at 73-74).

Because of the FCC’s orders in the Hi/Lo proceeding and subsequently in Docket No. 18128, most of AT & T’s MPL cost studies were on an FDC basis (Hough, S-T-l at 69; Ginn, S-T-73 at 7-8). However, AT & T also submitted incremental cost studies in support of MPL, and these studies showed that the MPL rates would substantially increase the contribution to the firm. The results, which were introduced at trial, showed that with the MPL rates in effect, AT & T would be better off by approximately $33 million the first year, $42 million the second year and $54 million the third year (Ginn, S-T-73 at 14; Castellano, S-T-23 at U.S.Tr. 2618-20; S-5158B [D-30-111]).

The record also contains independent confirmation of the results of the AT & T studies, showing that the Telpak, Hi/Lo, and MPL rates were in fact profitable. William G. Morrison, a partner in the accounting firm of Peat Marwick Mitchell *932 & Co., testified that his firm was retained by AT & T to perform an independent 124 study of the costs and actual revenues for Telpak, Hi/Lo and the high-density portion of Hi/Lo for the year 1974 and for MPL for 1976 (Morrison, S-T-20 at 1). Mr. Morrison’s studies, using LRIC methodology, showed that each service produced revenues that exceeded its costs (including the specified AT & T return on investment and taxes) and made a substantial contribution to the profits of AT & T (id. at 8; S-0006 [D — 14—155]; S-0034 [D-29-111]; S-2873B [D — 29—112]; S-3990C [D-30-312]). The studies further demonstrated that the high-density portion of the Hi/Lo tariff — the portion plaintiffs asserted had high costs and a predatorily low rate — was even more profitable than the Hi/Lo tariff as a whole (Morrison, S-T-20 at 8). The Court believes that this independent expert 125 analysis of AT & T’s actual profits from these services is entitled to substantial weight and that it is significant for two reasons. It is, of course, evidence that AT & T’s rates were above costs and were not predatory. It also is highly probative of the integrity of the cost studies done by AT & T employees. Indeed, Mr. Morrison stated (S-T-20 at 10), “AT & T methodologies and data systems, including the PLIAC process and the Redcap Studies, are among the most sophisticated I have ever encountered.”

Although plaintiffs urged otherwise, the Court is convinced that FCC decisions regarding AT & T’s pricing tariffs do not fill the gap created by plaintiffs’ failure to prove below cost pricing. Based upon its review of those decisions, it is clear to the Court that they do not demonstrate that AT & T priced below its costs. This fact is manifest from the decisions themselves, and was conceded by plaintiffs (Vasilakos, Tr. 3019-20).

The FCC has not held that any of the AT & T tariffs challenged by SPCC established rates that were below cost. For example, in its Hi/Lo decision, the Commission ruled no more than that AT & T had not sustained its burden of proof because it had not submitted in support of the tariff the kind of data which the Commission, for the first time, had decided it wanted to have. Thus, the FCC emphasized that it was not “ruling on the merits ... of Hi/Lo,” either as to the “lawfulness of the Hi/Lo rate structure” or as to the level of the rates established in the tariff itself, AT & T, 58 F.C.C.2d 362, 363 (1976) (PX3-0072), and the Commission did not find that the Hi/Lo rates were unlawfully low.

The same is true of the Telpak tariff. In its Docket No. 18128 decision, the Commission stated that the Telpak “earnings appear to be within the zone of reasonableness.” AT & T, 61 F.C.C.2d 587, 659 (1976) (PX-3-0232). And subsequently, the Commission observed: “[T]he Telpak rates have not been found to be unlawfully low.” AT & T, 65 F.C.C.2d 295, 303 (1977). Moreover, the Court notes with interest that in the draft recommended decision in Docket No. 18128 prepared in November 1973, the FCC staff concluded, based upon its review of the record, “that the existing RATE LEVELS OF TELPAK, of private line telephone and private line telegraph services ARE HEREBY FOUND LAWFUL” (S-2825C at 156).

As the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has held, the “rhetoric” of “unlawfulness” in the FCC’s decisions regarding these tariffs does not equate to a finding of substantive illegality. In MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 322, 337, 338 (D.C.Cir.1980), the Court of Appeals *933 held that the FCC’s findings of “unlawfulness” in a case where a tariff is found not to have adequate supporting materials is not equivalent to a determination of substantive illegality. The Commission itself thereafter evaluated its MPL decision according to this standard and in its MPL order on reconsideration stated that “our ostensible conclusion that the MPL rates were ‘unjust and unreasonable’ was not based upon a substantive assessment of the rates on their merits.” AT & T, 85 F.C.C.2d 549, 557 (1981).

Even if the FCC had found AT & T’s tariffs substantively unlawful under the Communications Act, for the reasons discussed more fully below in connection with the Court’s consideration of the process by which Commission decisions were prepared during this period, they would be entitled to little, if any, weight in this case. In any event, such determinations would not equate to a violation of the antitrust laws. As pointed out above, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has recognized that the standards applied by the FCC under the Communications Act may be more restrictive than those applicable under the antitrust laws. Additionally, a number of other courts have expressly held that a finding of disapproval by a regulatory agency does not mean that the conduct at issue was not reasonable under the antitrust laws. Phonetele Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 664 F.2d 716 (9th Cir.1981); Mid-Texas Communications Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 615 F.2d 1372 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 286, 66 L.Ed.2d 140 (1980); City of Groton v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 662 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1981). See also Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 296, 327-28, 83 S.Ct. 476, 493-94, 9 L.Ed.2d 325 (1963); Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 647, 34 L.Ed.2d 577 (1973); Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 297 U.S. 500, 56 S.Ct. 546, 80 L.Ed. 827 (1936); Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 207 F.2d 255 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 916, 73 S.Ct. 727, 97 L.Ed. 1350 (1953).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court has concluded that plaintiffs did not carry their burden of proving that defendants’ prices were below cost and indeed that the preponderance of the evidence strongly shows that AT & T’s prices were above its costs calculated on either an incremental or fully distributed cost basis. Accordingly, the Court finds that AT & T did not violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act in setting the rates for the Telpak, Hi/Lo or MPL tariffs.

EVIDENCE CONCERNING WHETHER AT & T “PRICED WITHOUT REGARD TO COSTS”

Even if plaintiffs were correct in maintaining that a claim of predatory pricing can be established by evidence that a defendant “priced without regard to costs,” the evidence does not demonstrate that AT & T engaged in such conduct. The principal focus of SPCC’s pricing “without regard to costs” theory appears to be an attack on the methods and procedures used by AT & T in the cost studies that AT & T filed with the FCC to support its rate adjustments. Plaintiffs contend that these studies are “hypothetical and’fictitious,” and that they contain “egregious deficiencies” and “fundamental abuses” (Melody, PX6-0018 at 34-35, Att. G).

Before assessing the evidence relating to these charges, there are several preliminary and related matters that the Court will address. One is plaintiffs’ claim that AT & T did not utilize any cost information in setting its rates, and that all of the cost studies were done after the fact solely for submission to the FCC. In light of the numerous contemporaneous studies introduced by AT & T in this case, the Court finds plaintiffs’ charge on its face to be of doubtful validity (see also Arrow, S-T-30 at 43-47), and this initial reaction is confirmed by the evidence. Defendants’ witnesses responsible for rate selection testified uniformly that costs were critical to the process (Hough, S-T-l at 36-37, 54-58, 67-72; Boettinger, S-T-3 at 20-25; Stoddard, S-T-13 at 6-9; Ginn, S-T-73 at 12-14), and this testimony is fully supported by the documentary evidence.

*934 With respect to Telpak, plaintiffs’ own evidence demonstrated that cost considerations were integral to the rate selection process. Thus, plaintiffs introduced a document entitled “Broadband Report” (PX20017) which they described as being “put together by a task force within AT & T in September, 1960” and as proposing “AT & T’s competitive response to the Above 890 decision” (Tr. 2630). This Report contains a separate analysis of the cost of providing Telpak and shows that costs were studied on both an “In plant” and “current” cost basis (PX2-0017 at AD11 1429-47). These cost studies and their use in the rate selection process were described in detail by Mr. Froggatt and Mr. Boettinger, retired Bell System employees who were responsible for the initial Telpak filing (Froggatt, S-T-2 at 4-14; Boettinger, S-T-3 at 20-26). Mr. Boettinger testified that “cost questions were at the front of our minds” throughout the Telpak study, and he explained that the cost studies for which Mr. Froggatt was responsible were rigorously examined in every detail before the tariff filing (S-T-3 at 20-21, 24-25). Moreover, he presented documentation he used at the 1960 Bell System Presidents’ Conference where Telpak was approved, which indicated that two aspects of the Telpak justification were (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 9; S-3P):

“6. Based on new plant costs and fully allocated expenses, Telpak rates will show higher than overall interstate return.

“7. Thus Telpak will benefit — not burden — other ratepayers.”

Plaintiffs did not even challenge the testimony of Mr. Froggatt or Mr. Boettinger on this subject, and the Court finds it convincing.

The evidence with respect to Hi/Lo is similar, with plaintiffs’ own evidence showing that extensive cost information was available and presented to AT & T’s decision-making bodies prior to the filing of the tariff. PX2-0106, which was presented to AT & T’s Executive Policy Committee, indicates that the cost of defendants’ high-capacity facilities was $.25 — $.30 per mile per month on a long run incremental cost basis and $.50 — $.60 on a fully distributed cost basis (PX2-0106 at LA2B 1846), both below the $.85 high-density rate filed. And PX40099, which is identified as a status report to the January 1973 Bell System Presidents’ Conference, shows the revenue, cost and contribution results of a study of the various test rates under consideration (PX40099 at 16, 18, 24, 52, 62). As explained by several AT & T executives, these test rate studies were in fact the basis for the Hi/Lo rate selection, and the Court so finds (Hough, S-T-l at 55-56; deButts, S-T-131 at 60-62; Eastmond, S-T-ll at 51-56; Stoddard, S-T-13 at 5-7). Moreover, it is clear from the record that the Hi/Lo planning proceeded from cost studies showing that AT & T’s costs on the Chicago-St. Louis route were substantially lower than the rates which MCI intended to put in place (Hough, S-T-l at 50-52; Johnston, S-T-5 at 55-58; S-1K; S-2298B). And according to the unchallenged testimony of Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Hough, the Hi/Lo test rates themselves were also based on cost considerations, including the results of the Chicago-St. Louis study (Stoddard, ST-13 at 7-8; Hough, Tr. 3536).

AT & T’s MPL rate planning is also shown by the record to have been heavily dependent on the results of contemporaneous cost analyses. The FCC in its Hi/Lo decision had required that any replacement tariff be supported by FDC Method 1 studies, and the uncontested evidence submitted by. AT & T demonstrates that the FDC cost results became the cornerstone of the MPL rate selection (Hough, S-T-l at 69-70; Ginn, S-T-73 at 7-8, 12-15; Johnston, S-T-5 at 68-70). Not only were the rates set to produce an earnings ratio for the entire service that covered FDC Method 1 costs, but each schedule and each rate element within the service was set at levels to cover costs (Ginn, S-T-73 at 12-14; Hough, S-T-l at 69-70; S-3988D). Indeed, as set out in the recommendation to the Long Lines Department Board which approved the MPL tariff for filing, the specific objectives in establishing the MPL rate levels included (Hough, S-T-l at 70-72; S^1197):

*935 “ — Cover FDC (Method I) costs, including a minimum of 9.5% ratio of net operating earnings to net investment (‘earnings ratio’) for each Schedule.

“ — Achieve Schedule I ‘earnings ratio’ higher than Schedules II and III to demonstrate that Schedule I is not subsidized by other Schedules.”

From the Court’s review of the evidence, these objectives were not only seriously pursued, but were in fact satisfied.

A second preliminary matter which the Court will address is plaintiffs’ purported comparison of the single channel rates in effect in 1960 with the initial Telpak rates (Melody, PX&-0018 at Att. K). 126 Plaintiffs assert that the single channel rate was approximately $2.00 per mile and that in Docket No. 11645 AT & T was arguing that this rate was necessary to cover the cost of private line service. They then question how the Telpak rates could have had any cost basis when, according to plaintiffs’ calculations, the Telpak D rates were as low as $.20 per mile. In essence, plaintiffs are arguing that the Telpak rate level alone demonstrates that rates could not have been set with regard to cost.

The comparison and therefore the conclusion which plaintiffs attempt to draw appears to the Court to be both inaccurate and misleading. First, the cost study underlying the $2.00 rate does not, in the Court’s view, reflect costs which would be applicable to providing Telpak services. This cost study is not in evidence, but as indicated in the FCC’s Docket No. 11645 decision, the study was based upon 1955 costs, updated to 1957. Both Mr. Froggatt and Mr. Johnston, AT & T cost witnesses, explained that microwave radio systems were being put into operation at that time, but there were technical problems which made them undesirable for use in providing private line service (Johnston, Tr. 3817-18; Froggatt, Tr. 3711). As a result, private line services were assigned to older, higher cost, but at that time more reliable, facilities such as K carrier. The technical problems with microwave radio were subsequently solved, however, and with the incorporation of this low cost plant into the network, average investment costs declined substantially. Thus, Mr. Froggatt pointed out that between 1955 and 1960 when the Telpak tariff was being developed, there was a 221/2 percent decline in Long Lines’ average book cost per circuit mile (Froggatt, Tr. 3719-20). This decline has continued over time as more lower cost microwave radio and coaxial cable systems have been constructed and the older more expensive plant has been retired, so that between 1955 and 1980 the average Long Lines’ investment per circuit mile decreased from $41.93 to approximately $11.00 (S-20022 at 710; Ankner, Tr. 4707-08).

Not only were the technical and cost characteristics of the network undergoing substantial change at the time Telpak was introduced, but economic conditions were also markedly different. With the FCC’s Above 890 decision, competition from private microwave systems became a reality, and these systems could be constructed utilizing only the new technology. In these circumstances, AT & T decided that in order to provide a viable common carrier alternative to these systems, the rates for Telpak should be based on the current and future costs of technology then being added to the network, rather than on the basis of historical costs such as used in the Docket No. 11645 studies (Froggatt, S-T-2 at 2-8; Boettinger, S-T-3 at 20-25).

AT & T sought expert economic advice both at the time of the Telpak studies and thereafter, and it continually received confirmation of the validity of its costing approach (Froggatt, S-T-2 at 10-11, 31; Baumol, S-T-4 at 3, 12). Moreover, this approach makes eminent sense to the Court. If AT & T had priced Telpak on the basis of historical costs, there can be little doubt that private microwave systems would have *936 developed much more substantially, with the result of a loss of contribution to AT & T and thus an increase in the rates to all Bell System ratepayers (Phillips, Tr. 5419-20). On the other hand, so long as the Telpak rates were in excess of the cost of the new facilities being added to the network at an apparently rapid and continuous pace, the business obtained by offering the service would be profitable to the Bell System.

Moreover, focusing again on plaintiffs’ rate comparison, the purported $.20 per mile Telpak D rate was not the actual rate being charged by AT & T in the early 1960s. As Mr. Froggatt explained, such an asserted rate level is based on the assumption of 100 percent fill for Telpak D (or in other words a utilization by the customer of all 240 channels). In the early 1960s, however, the actual fill for Telpak was substantially less. Mr. Froggatt recalled the average fill to be about 44 percent (Froggatt, Tr. 3708-09), and his testimony is confirmed by the FCC decision in Docket No. 14251, which indicates that the actual fill for Telpak D as of July 1962 was 105 of the 240 channels or 44 percent (38 F.C.C. 370, 386). At such a utilization level the effective Telpak D rate was approximately $.50 per mile.

Turning now to the crux of plaintiffs’ pricing without regard to cost claim — their criticisms of AT & T’s costing procedures — it is important first to put this matter in legal perspective. The requirements of the Sherman Act, particularly in the area of permissible pricing, must be ones that can be stated as clearly defined “objective, understandable standard[s]” which can guide a firm’s business decisions. Transamerica Computer Co. v. IBM Corp., 481 F.Supp. 965, 990 (N.D.Cal.1979). See also Berkey Photo, supra, 603 F.2d at 282 (a firm should not have to be so omniscient as to be able to anticipate all instances where a finder of fact might conclude with the benefit of hindsight that its decisions violated the Sherman Act). Thus, even assuming that plaintiffs’ theory of liability is acceptable under the Sherman Act, liability must be based on a finding that the methodological deficiencies or omissions plaintiffs cite to the Court were clearly and predictably unreasonable from the outset because they failed to comply with a clear cut standard of accepted principles of cost accounting against which AT & T’s studies may be judged.

Similarly, it is not the function of this Court to choose the most appropriate costing technique. At most, even under plaintiffs’ theory, this Court may only decide whether or not the technique or procedure chosen by AT & T was reasonable under the circumstances. It is therefore not sufficient to prove liability for plaintiffs to find some witnesses who make after-the-fact criticisms of AT & T cost studies, if AT & T’s methods had any supportable basis in economics or cost accounting. See ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 458 F.Supp. 423, 439 (N.D.Cal.1979), aff’d sub nom. Memorex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 972, 101 S.Ct. 3126, 69 L.Ed.2d 983 (1981) (the courts will not second guess business decisions “[wjhere there is a difference of opinion as to the advantages of two alternatives which can both be defended”).

Applying these sound, common sense principles to the evidence in this case, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish the facts that would support liability even under the novel theory plaintiffs proposed. The evidence shows that AT & T used, what were at the time and remain today, reasonable costing procedures that have the support of a number of eminent economists and cost accounting experts (see Baumol, S-T-4 at 10, 12-13, Tr. 3748-49; Arrow, S-T-30 at 5-8, 46-47, Tr. 4340; Phillips, Tr. 5420; Olley, S-T-29 at 2-3, 13-14, Tr. 5369-70; Frank, S-T-19 at 5-8; Morrison, S-T-20 at 10), and of experts in the Office of Telecommunications Policy (see Braeutigam, S-T-204 at 5-12, Tr. 5016; Sutter, Tr. 4929-31). Indeed, many of these experts have testified that the procedures used for cost accounting by AT & T were among the most sophisticated and professional the witnesses had seen. *937 The Court is also convinced by defendants’ evidence, and defendants’ witnesses who took the stand, that the cost and demand studies challenged here by plaintiffs were all done in good faith with the goal of producing the most accurate study possible in light of the data available and the uncertain and shifting standards used by the FCC (see Hough, S-T-l at 40-41; Froggatt, S-T-2 at 7-8, 47; Johnston, S-T-5 at 2-8; Ankner, S-T-10 at 27; Eastmond, S-T-ll at 6; Ambrose, S-T-17 at 40-43; Cogswell, S-T-6 at 5-7; McCarthy, S-T-7 at 10-12; McAllister, S-T-9 at 10; Miller, S-T-22 at 1; Burke, S-T-8 at 2-9).

In light of this evidence, the fact that plaintiffs’ witnesses, namely, Dr. Melody, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Scott, found room to make after-the-fact criticisms 127 of the cost studies is wholly inadequate to meet plaintiffs’ burden of proof. ■ Indeed, the record shows that the criticisms leveled by plaintiffs’ witnesses have been addressed and refuted by defendants’ witnesses. Moreover, it appears to the Court that this entire effort by plaintiffs’ witnesses is largely nothing more than an attempt to exploit the precarious position in which AT & T found itself as a result of the FCC’s failure to adopt any definitive standards for AT & T’s cost studies.

To begin with, it is clear from the record that costing is not a precise or static art. Dr. Melody testified directly that costing is an “inexact science” (Melody, Tr. 2520). He also agreed that what would be reasonable to one economist or cost accountant would not necessarily be reasonable to another economist or cost accountant (Melody, Tr. 2520). This also reflects the view of the FCC, which has recognized that costing is an evolutionary process that is constantly changing (Tr. 2466-67).

It is also clear to the Court that the FCC, to which all the studies at issue were submitted, did not give AT & T guidance during the relevant period as to what kind of procedures the Commission expected to be followed for producing an acceptable cost study. Thus, the record shows that “there has never been any Commission standards for precisely how to do a cost study” (Scott, Tr. 2031). The FCC has never stated the formulae to be used and has never given guidance as to what constitutes a valid tariff (Scott, Tr. 2032, 2033; Melody, Tr. 2406-07). Indeed, the FCC has held an “institutional bias” against providing this kind of guidance (Scott, Tr. 2072-73). As Mr. Scott conceded, this lack of guidance has left AT & T in a “rather precarious position” (Scott, Tr. 2033-34). AT & T could not price its services too high which the FCC would strike as excessive, nor could AT & T price its services too low which the FCC would strike as non-compensatory and competitors would claim was predatory. 128

The Court is struck by the fact that the FCC not only failed to specify particular procedures for cost studies, but it failed for over 10 years to resolve the basic question of whether long run incremental costs or fully distributed costs should be the primary basis for ratemaking under the Communications Act. 129 This issue arose at the Commission at least as early as 1965, and was not even provisionally resolved until 1976 in the Commission’s Docket No. 18128 *938 decision. AT & T, 61 F.C.C.2d 587 (1976). In the Specialized Common Carriers decision the Commission specifically deferred ruling on this issue, despite pleas by the parties that a resolution was necessary in the new competitive environment (29 F.C.C.2d at 916-17) (PX4-0617). And the Commission finally acted when it did in Docket No. 18128 — four years after the record in that proceeding was closed — only after being ordered to do so by the Court of Appeals for this Circuit (Scott, Tr. 2009-11; Nader v. FCC, 520 F.2d 182 (D.C.Cir.1975)).

In its Docket No. 18128 decision, the Commission chose FDC Method 7 as the basic ratemaking standard. That still did not finally resolve the issue, however, because in 1981, the Commission reversed its position, and, at least for an interim period, adopted a different (separations based) fully distributed cost methodology. AT & T, 84 F.C.C.2d 384 (1981), aff’d sub nom. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 675 F.2d 408 (D.C.Cir.1982).

Even while intact, however, the Commission’s 1976 decision in Docket No. 18128 does not appear to the Court to have provided definitive guidance. The Commission in that decision held that procedures to implement FDC Method 7 had to be revised and clarified before they could be utilized in new studies, and it (1) directed “the Bureau Staff (in consultation with the carriers) to correct ... infirmities in Method 7,” and (2) required AT & T thereafter “to file rates based on the reconstructed Method 7 analysis” (61 F.C.C.2d at 667; Agreed Fact 2-2-014). The procedures were revised and set out in the form of a cost allocation manual (Johnston, S-T-5 at 2, 7-11; Hough, S-T-l at 74; Ginn, S-T-73 at 21-32; S-4764; Agreed Facts 2-2-015, 2-2-017). This manual, however, was apparently disregarded by the Commission, even though there is no evidence of which the Court is aware that the Commission ever found that any of AT & T’s studies did not comply with the manual (Scott, Tr. 2013-17). 130

To the Court, the circumstances surrounding the cost allocation manual provide a compelling example of the intolerable situation in which AT & T found itself. The evidence is undisputed that AT & T in good faith consulted with the Commission staff as required by the Commission’s order in Docket No. 18128. It is similarly unchallenged that the responsible AT & T personnel left the consultative sessions with the beliefs that AT & T was bound by the manual for its future studies and that the FCC Cost Analysis Task Force was satisfied that the manual faithfully implemented the Docket No. 18128 decision (Ginn, S-T-73 at 21-32; Johnston, S-T-5 at 30-33). Indeed, the FCC Staff Cost Analysis Task Force issued publicly two separate reports regarding the manual which any objective observer would read as confirmation of AT & T’s beliefs (S-4756B; S-4816C):

“At the conclusion of the consultative sessions held to date, Bell and the staff have formulated the bases and methodologies to be employed for the Datum process, FDC allocation procedures and forecasting and translation techniques, in a manner consistent with the Commission’s Order ... in Docket 18128.... ” (S-4756B at 5)

;}! * Sfc Sfc % ‡

“The task force .. . believes that the Manual as adopted by Bell satisfies the Commission’s prescribed guidelines regarding methodological revisions and provides a proper basis for constructing the June, 1977 filings.

“... No comments were found to warrant substantive revisions of the Manual at this time, or to call into question its standing as the proper basis for the June filing. The Manual corresponds with the Commission’s directives concerning Method 7 and Method 1 revisions. ... ” (S-4816C at 7-8).

*939 Yet, in the MPL case, where AT & T specifically submitted new studies conforming to the manual, the Commission would not even consider whether AT & T’s studies complied with the manual. AT & T, 74 F.C.C.2d 1, 13 (1979) (PX3-0241). See Hough, S-T-l at 74-75; Ginn, S-T-73 at 32-39; Johnston, S-T-5 at 74-75. Worse than having no guidance at all, there is a strong indication from the evidence that AT & T may have been affirmatively misled by the Commission’s directive in Docket No. 18128 that AT & T abide by the revised FDC Method 7 procedures which the Commission ordered its Common Carrier Bureau staff to develop.

The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has recognized the unfair situation created by the Commission’s failure to establish clear costing and ratemaking standards. In MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 322 (D.C.Cir.1980), a case involving AT & T’s WATS service, the Court acknowledged that ratemaking theories may change and new information may become relevant, but it held that (id. at 340):

“... there must be some reasonably prompt decisionmaking point at which the FCC says: ‘To the best of our knowledge and expertise at this time, the rates are just and reasonable. Perfect, perhaps not, but just and reasonable, yes.’ That is all the statute requires.”

The record in this case confirms what the Court of Appeals recognized — that the Commission has not adhered to this standard and that this has “frustrated AT & T, its competitors, consumers, FCC Commissioners and this court” (id. at 341).

The Court of Appeals in the MCI WATS case again had to order the Commission to take the action necessary to develop standards, including standards for cost support material, by which a tariff could be judged on its merits (id. at 345-46). Apparently, it was this order by the Court that resulted in 1981 in the Commission for the first time adopting a cost allocation manual (84 F.C.C.2d at 386, 410; 86 F.C.C.2d at 667).

Moreover, while each of plaintiffs’ principal cost witnesses was at the FCC during the relevant time period, they either did not make the criticisms of AT & T’s studies made in this case or they failed to persuade the Commission to adopt their views at the time. Dr. Melody admitted that the Commission never adopted his recommendations (Melody, Tr. 2407). Similarly, the Commission has never used anything like the type of analysis proposed by Mr. Scott or Mr. Tucker as appropriate in this case (Scott, Tr. 1970). Indeed, a cost allocation proposal known as the “Hinchman report,” which Mr. Scott worked on after leaving the Commission, was expressly rejected by the FCC (Scott, Tr. 2021). The Commission found that this proposal would require an “overwhelming mass of detail,” would interfere with economic efficiency, and would introduce “potentially severe rate instability” and prevent “the emergence of realistic economic signals to AT & T’s competitors and customers of telecommunications service” (AT &T, 78 F.C.C.2d 1296, 1330-33 (1980) (PX3-0340).

On the other hand, despite this continuing regulatory uncertainty, the evidence discloses that AT & T took all reasonable efforts to comply with what it understood to be the Commission’s requirements at any point in time. Thus, AT & T frequently sought the advice of the FCC staff, and when it was informed by the staff of perceived problems in AT & T’s prima facie compliance with Commission requirements, these problems were resolved (Scott, Tr. 1974-75; Ginn, S-T-73 at 17-19; Johnston, S-T-5 at 73; Ankner, S-T-10 at 13-15). Similarly, AT & T complied with FCC Rule 61.38, the Commission’s principal rule on cost support material (Scott, Tr. 2031, 2034). And the Commission itself has recognized that the problems it has identified in AT & T’s cost studies stem from the complexity of the process, and do not require a finding that AT & T acted improperly in its development of allocation methods (78 F.C.C.2d at 1306-08).

AT & T’s actions in connection with the 1977 cost manual, discussed above, provide still additional evidence of AT & T’s cooperation with the FCC staff in an effort to *940 achieve some agreement on the acceptable costing procedures. A similar series of meetings also occurred eight years earlier, and apparently met the same unproductive end. Thus, after a number of sessions with the FCC staff, including Dr. Melody, AT & T personnel in 1969 believed they had reached an understanding on the procedures for LRIC studies that would be considered appropriate (Eastmond, S-T-ll at 17-19; Aldrich, S-T-28 at 11-15, U.S.Tr. 22943-47; McCarthy, S-T-7 at 9; Miller, S-T-22 at 9-12; Joskow, S-T-21 at 2; Baumol, ST-4 at 15-18). Yet, despite his participation in these meetings, Dr. Melody soon began again criticizing many of the same procedures which were thought to have been agreed upon (Aldrich, S-T-28 at 15-16, U.S.Tr. 22957-59; Eastmond, S-T-ll at 19, 31-32).

Indeed, AT & T’s concern with reaching some common understanding with the Commission was so great that in 1979 after he became Chairman of the Board, Mr. Charles Brown personally became involved in this matter. Mr. Brown testified that he met with Mr. Darby, Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau; expressed his distress and frustration with the Commission’s rejection of AT & T’s tariffs without ever having established any clear guidelines for support materials; and requested from Mr. Darby some statement of what the Commission wanted (Brown, Tr. 5319-21). In a response which the Court considers very revealing of the regulatory uncertainty from which AT & T has suffered, Mr. Darby informed Mr. Brown that he “apparently didn’t know how things worked around there” (Brown, Tr. 5321). According to Mr. Darby, AT & T was to submit a tariff and then the Commission would say whether it should be rejected (id).

Against this sad history, the Court is convinced that SPCC’s challenge to AT & T’s costing procedures is largely an attempt to blame AT & T for a problem which, if anyone’s fault, was the FCC’s. Over 60 years ago, Justice Brandéis recognized that “experience teaches us that it is much easier to reject [cost allocation] formulas presented as being misleading than to find one apparently adequate.” Groesbeck v. Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic R.R. Co., 250 U.S. 607, 614-15, 40 S.Ct. 38, 41, 63 L.Ed. 1167 (1919). The FCC apparently struggled for years without finding procedures that it thought were adequate, and this Court will not now in hindsight take the approach of rejecting the reasonable procedures used by AT & T during this period of regulatory uncertainty.

The Court’s conclusion regarding plaintiffs’ failure of proof is reinforced by an examination of the alleged deficiencies in AT & T’s studies which Dr. Melody, Mr. Scott and Mr. Tucker claim to have found. The Court has reviewed the evidence on each of the points raised by these witnesses, and it can find no basis upon which to conclude that AT & T deliberately manipulated its studies or intentionally used unreasonable procedures. To the contrary, the Court finds that the claimed “abuses” and “deficiencies” at most concern differences in opinion on various costing methods about which reasonable men can and do differ. In fact, Dr. Melody conceded that all of the points about which he testified were ones on which reasonable professionals could differ (Melody, Tr. 5604-05). And at one point or another during his testimony, Dr. Melody acknowledged that not only respected economists such as Dr. Arrow and Dr. Baumol disagreed with him, but that the Department of Justice, the Office of Telecommunications Policy and members of the FCC staff did as well (Melody, Tr. 2552-57, 2564, 5612-14, 5631, 5643).

With respect to Dr. Melody’s testimony, the Court is constrained initially to express its serious reservations about his objectivity. From his testimony, Dr. Melody appears to be a long-time opponent of AT & T; he began consulting for AT & T’s competitors almost immediately after leaving the FCC in 1971 and has testified against the Bell System on a number of occasions since then (Melody, PX6-0018, Att. A; Tr. 5631-39; S-3Y; S-3031). Moreover, his testimony on its face is so entirely hypothetical and exaggerated as to raise questions regarding the weight it should be giv *941 en. Additionally, it is in conflict with many positions he expressed before becoming a consultant to SPCC and other competitors of AT & T. The record shows, for instance, that he has reversed his views on a utility’s use of marginal cost pricing (Melody, Tr. 2530-33, 2539-40).

The underlying predicate of Dr. Melody’s testimony, in the Court’s view, also undercuts the weight that it should be given. Dr. Melody appeared to be a partisan for rates set on a stringent fully distributed cost basis and his disagreement with AT & T’s costing methods seems to the Court to be primarily a disagreement with the long run incremental cost methodology (Melody, Tr. 2409). Dr. Melody made it clear that the “fundamental abuses” which he claims existed were in his view all basically a part of the LRIC methodology (Melody, Tr. 2413, 2438-40, 2442). And he asserted that his real concern is with “cross-subsidy,” which he believes is inherent in AT & T’s use of long run incremental costs (Melody, PX6-6018 at 11-16, Tr. 2396-99). The Court has already rejected these arguments above and has adopted marginal or incremental cost as the legal standard applicable to this ease. Even if incremental cost were not the only appropriate standard for predatory pricing, however, it is clear to the Court that the use of this methodology, which has the support of so many respected economists and legal authorities, cannot constitute pricing without regard to cost.

In addition, each of Dr. Melody’s claimed “fundamental abuses” was fully refuted in the testimony of AT & T witnesses. In the Court’s view, these witnesses showed that Dr. Melody’s complaints were either based on factually incorrect assumptions or simply reflected a difference of opinion about a reasonable costing technique used by AT & T (Johnston, S-T-5 at 42-54; Ankner, ST-10 at 18-26; Froggatt, S-T-2 at 38, 43-47; Eastmond, S-T-ll at 26-36; Cogswell, S-T-6; McCarthy, S-T-7; Burke, S-T-8; McAllister, S-T-9; Ambrose, S-T-17 at 75-85; Muench, S-T-18; Miller, S-T-22). Moreover, AT & T’s witnesses, particularly Mr. Ankner, more than effectively rebutted Dr. Melody’s charge that AT & T’s studies were not documented sufficiently that they could be understood or verified. Mr. Ankner responded to each of the “dead ends” which Dr. Melody claimed to exist in the Hi/Lo study (Melody, Tr. 2451-52), pointing out in each instance the source of the data and where it was documented (Ankner, ST-10 at U.S.Tr. 22166-97; S-5905C [D-29-778]; see also Olley, S-T-29 at 30-31; Baumol, S-T-4 at 35-40; Ambrose, S-T-17 at 42-43).

For example, one of Dr. Melody’s major criticisms of AT & T’s FDC and LRIC cost studies for the Hi/Lo tariff was his assertion that these studies “ignore BOC plant” (Melody, PX6-0018 at 41-42, Tr. 2418-25). The essence of this charge is that in developing the costs for private line service, AT & T allegedly has ignored the costs of Bell operating company plant, even though interstate private line services are provided using operating company as well as Long Lines facilities (Melody, Tr. 2418-19). The AT & T employees who were responsible for the FDC and LRIC studies, particularly Mr. Johnston and Mr. Ankner, testified that they did indeed take into account the cost of operating company plant and that Dr. Melody has completely misstated the facts (Johnston, S-T-5 at 43-46; Ankner, S-T-10 at 16-18; Ambrose, S-T-17 at 77-78). Contrary to the implication of Dr. Melody’s assertion, actual operating company plant costs were used in calculating the cost of low capacity facilities and local channels used to provide private line service (Johnston, S-T-5 at 44; Ankner, S-T-10 at 18). For high capacity facilities, AT & T also calculated the cost of facilities owned by the operating companies, but did so by applying cost data generated by Long Lines because Long Lines cost data was representative of the cost of the high capacity facilities owned by the Bell System (Johnston, S-T-5 at 45-46; Ankner, S-T-10 at 17-18). The reasonableness of this procedure was confirmed by AT & T’s witness *942 Dr. Olley (S-T-28 at 32-33), and the Court agrees with this view. 131

Another example of the lack of substance to Dr. Melody’s criticisms relates to AT & T’s use of “capacity costs” (Melody, Tr. 2442, 2575) and Dr. Melody’s claim that use of this concept led to AT & T’s erroneous use of a 75 percent fill factor in its LRIC studies. 132 Dr. Melody claims that a 35 percent fill is more realistic (Tr. 2527-28). As explained during trial by Professor Baumol (Tr. 3762-65), capacity costs is a well established, reasonable costing technique (see also Baumol, S-T-4 at 41-46; Olley, S-T-29 at 18-19). Moreover, Dr. Melody seems confused with respect to fill. In an incremental study, a forward looking fill appears to the Court plainly to be the correct concept, but Dr. Melody’s claim is based on average fill at a point in time (Ankner, S-T-10 at 22; Baumol, Tr. 3765). The record shows that the 75 percent fill factor was an objective forward looking fill which was developed after consultation with engineering personnel and which reflected the methodology employed by Long Lines fundamental planning engineers in the development of the fundamental plan for new route construction (Ankner, S-T-10 at 22; Eastmond, S-T-ll at 32; Olley, S-T-29 at 22-25). Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that this was in fact a conservative estimate. Thus, a study by Mr. Ankner, based on actual construction and utilization during the period 1968-1979, proved that the actual incremental fill over that period was 80.6 percent (Ankner, S-T-10 at 23-24, U.S.Tr. 22208-10, Tr. 4678; S-4S [D-29-754] ). 133

The Court also finds it significant, in assessing Dr. Melody’s attack on the reasonableness of AT & T’s costing methods, to examine what was being done by others in the industry. In this regard, Dr. Baumol examined the cost studies which SPCC has filed with 'the FCC and found that Dr. Melody could have made similar charges of “abuse” regarding virtually any of SPCC’s studies (Baumol, S-T-4A). For example, SPCC did not quantify expected competitive losses, based its costs on assumed rather than actual plant characteristics, and *943 used an 80 percent fill assumption (id. at 3, 6-7). As Dr. Baumol emphasized, this does not mean that SPCC has engaged in cost abuses. It simply indicates that any cost study may be criticized for imperfections and provides a way of placing Dr. Melody’s testimony in its proper context (Baumol, Tr. 3775-76; S-T-4A at 14).

It is also relevant that at least some members of the FCC staff have had views directly contrary to those expressed here by Dr. Melody. These contrary views were reflected in a draft of the Recommended Decision in Docket No. 18128 which was written in 1973 (S-2825C). At that time there appeared to be at least a tentative agreement among the staff that LRIC would be acceptable for pricing purposes (Strassburg, S-T-171 at U.S.Tr. 23444-46; S-2676), and the draft decision reflects that view. More significantly for present purposes, the draft also addressed a number of the costing procedures criticized now by Dr. Melody — including capacity cost, fill factor, depreciation methods and unit cost derivation — and in all instances approved AT & T procedures (S-2825C at 114-26). With respect to capacity cost and fill, for example, the draft decision states (id. at 118):

“We feel that in estimating the cost of a voice grade channel a 75 percent master-group fill or utilization factor reflects the estimated future capacity operational fill.”

* * * * * *

“We endorse the use of capacity costs of high capacity line haul facilities in a LRIC study as a reasonable approach to prospective unit investment costs of these facilities and a method of eliminating the short run effect of construction programs.”

The Court obviously cannot give this draft decision controlling weight, but it is another indication that Dr. Melody’s testimony reflects at most one view of a subject over which reasonable persons can differ.

As is already apparent, the Court is not according any weight to Dr. Melody’s testimony. If there were any doubt remaining, however, there is additional evidence which the Court considers to be highly probative. This is a study conducted by Mr. Ankner of the actual incremental investment per revenue producing circuit mile for the high capacity, high frequency interexehange line component of the high-density interexchange rate element over the period 1969 through 1979 (Ankner, S-T-10 at 26-27; S-76 [D-29-753]). Because this study looks retrospectively at actual incremental investment, it puts charges such as failure to consider inflationary effects, use of stale data and fill into perspective (Ankner, ST-10 at U.S.Tr. 22213). The results of this study showed a monthly cost of $.358 cents, or only about 2.3 percent difference from the $.35 cost projected by Mr. Ankner in his initial 1972 Hi/Lo LRIC study (id. at 22213-14).

The Court does not find the testimony of Mr. Scott or Mr. Tucker, both employees of Walter Hinchman Associates, to be any more persuasive than that of Dr. Melody. In the first place, the Court has serious doubts about their expert qualifications. They purported to “correct” AT & T’s cost studies for Hi/Lo and MPL (Scott, Tr. 1969; Tucker 1886-87, 1890), but neither witness has an educational background directly relevant to his testimony here; neither is a CPA or engineer; and neither has practical experience in the telecommunications industry (Tucker, Tr. 1882-86; Scott, Tr. 2006-09). Their only related professional experience is a few years employment at the staff level at the FCC; but neither of them examined AT & T’s Hi/Lo or MPL tariffs while at the FCC and neither of them has previously performed a study similar to the kind they offered into evidence in this case (Scott, Tr. 1964-66, 1969-71, 1990-91; Tucker, Tr. 1882, 1930-31). 134

*944 In fact, neither Mr. Scott nor Mr. Tucker seemed knowledgeable about AT & T’s actual plant, engineering, or costs — they made “readjustments” to AT & T cost studies in a vacuum, apparently unconcerned that their calculations were about a real company, with real equipment, that had real costs. Thus, Mr. Tucker admitted he did not know whether the associated company plant on high-density routes was “one penny more expensive” than Long Lines’ plant (Tucker, Tr. 1945); nor could he testify regarding the capacity or cost differences of various facility types (Tucker, Tr. 1937-38). And while he was willing to testify that AT & T’s costs per mile were as high as $1.71 or $1.77, 135 he conceded that he had never seen any carrier report costs as high as $1.00 while he was employed at the FCC (Tucker, Tr. 1954). It was equally apparent to the Court that Mr. Scott lacked knowledge of AT & T’s costs and even on the basis of his own calculations, Mr. Scott could not determine the costs of tjie high-density interexchange rate element. 136 He testified that he did not have an opinion on whether that rate element was above or below cost (Scott, Tr. 2052-53).

The limited nature of Mr. Tucker’s and Mr. Scott’s knowledge and experience is also apparent from the nature of the criticisms which they made to AT & T’s studies. For example, one of the major criticisms leveled by both Mr. Tucker and Mr. Scott was that AT & T “smoothed” its facilities inventory data in the development of certain of the translators used to convert from plant quantities into market quantities. Yet, the record indicates, almost overwhelmingly, that the purpose of smoothing was to assure that the data reflected known plant characteristics; that smoothing is a widely used and accepted statistical technique; that AT & T conducted sensitivity tests to assure the validity of the smoothed data; and that, in any event, the use of smoothed instead of unsmoothed data was inconsequential in terms of the cost study results (Johnston, S-T-5A at 3-4; S-5641B; Ankner, S-T-10A at 10; S-7I; Olley, S-T-29 at 37-38, Tr. 5398-403; Castellano, Tr. 3932-35). Mr. Scott also criticized the use of differential techniques in the translator development. On this issue, the Court is also convinced that differential analysis is a well-established analytical technique and that Mr. Scott’s criticism is based largely on his ignorance of network design and operations. Thus, while Mr. Scott asserted that it is “bizarre” and “physically impossible” in a growing network to get a negative increment for intermediate carrier terminations, the evidence shows that as demand grows, the function performed by this equipment is taken over by other equipment, with the expected result being that the number of intermediate carrier terminations decreases (Olley, S-T-29 at 38-39, Tr. 5391-93; Ankner, S-T-10A at 10).

- Evidence that the Tucker and Scott readjustments are arbitrary and unrealistic is also provided by the unexplained inconsistencies in their studies. In fact, the costs as calculated by Mr. Scott’s adjustments to AT & T’s LRIC method were higher than the costs calculated by Mr. Tucker’s adjustments to AT & T’s FDC method (Scott, Tr. 2036-37). Mr. Scott did not agree with Mr. Tucker on whether this was an appropriate relationship (Scott, Tr. 2037-38), but the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has recognized that long run incremental costs for *945 private line services are normally lower than fully distributed costs. Aeronautical Radio Inc. v. FCC, 642 F.2d 1221, 1231 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 1998, 68 L.Ed.2d 311 (1981). And given plaintiffs’ strong advocacy against LRIC as the' appropriate costing standard, it is plain that they view LRIC as lower. 137

Most significantly, defendants’ witnesses effectively responded to Mr. Tucker’s and Mr. Scott’s criticisms and demonstrated to the Court’s satisfaction that the Tucker and Scott calculations seriously overstated AT & T’s costs. Mr. Johnston addressed the FDC studies, and showed that Mr. Tucker’s criticisms regarding facilities mix and translators were both incorrect and inconsequential; that the unit costs used by Mr. Tucker were unrealistically high and not representative of actual Bell System investment; and that Mr. Tucker’s adjustments to local channel or station terminal costs were based on a misunderstanding of AT & T’s local loop plant (Johnston, S-T-5A at 2-7). Correcting the errors in Mr. Tucker’s calculations, Mr. Johnston derived an end-to-end average cost per circuit mile for the high density portion of Hi/Lo of $1.04, compared to the two different results of $1.77 and $1.51 reached by Mr. Tucker, and a cost of $1.18 for MPL Schedule I compared with Mr. Tucker’s $1.71 (Johnston, S-T-5A at 7-8; S-6G; S-6H). As corrected, both the Hi/Lo and MPL average end-to-end FDC costs per circuit mile were well below the average -revenue for these services (S-6G; S-6H):

Revenues Costs

Hi/Lo $1.33 $1.04

MPL $1.41 $1.18

The only point on which plaintiffs even seriously challenged Mr. Johnston’s corrections to Mr. Tucker’s mistakes was Mr. Johnston’s use of 1969 Long Lines unit cost data for low capacity facilities such as K-carrier instead of the more recent Long Lines data that was available at the time the original Hi/Lo and MPL studies were done. 138 In the Court’s opinion, however, Mr. Johnston more than adequately explained that because of Long Lines’ small and declining ownership percentage of such low capacity facilities, the 1969 book cost data were more representative of total Bell System investment than the later data which were greatly inflated because of Long Lines’ retirement of these facilities in the 1970s (Johnston, S-T-5A at 5-6, Tr. 3840, 3844). Indeed, Mr. Tucker conceded during his own cross-examination that the more recent “K carrier investment may not be representative for all miles in the Bell System” (Tucker, Tr. 1942). In these circumstances, the Court accepts Mr. Johnston’s testimony and rejects that of Mr. Tucker.

Mr. Scott’s analysis of AT & T’s LRIC studies was addressed by a number of defendants’ witnesses. Mr. Eastmond, Dr. 01-ley and Mr. Ankner addressed methodologi *946 cal criticisms of the kind made by Mr. Scott on such matters as fill, expense to investment ratios, treatment of inflation and development of translators (Eastmond, S-T— 11 at 27-36, 49; Olley, S-T-29 at 32-42; Ankner, S-T-10 at 16-27). The Court finds these witnesses to have provided reasonable justification for AT & T’s methods, 139 particularly after examining this matter in the context of the corrections Mr. Ankner also made to Mr. Scott’s calculations. Accepting Mr. Scott’s methods for purposes of analysis, Mr. Ankner corrected Mr. Scott’s implementation of those methods to adjust for such matters as Mr. Scott’s miscalculation of average system fill; Mr. Scott’s use of indices, instead of actual amounts, to trend costs over what are now historical periods; and errors in Mr. Scott’s regression analysis of expense to investment ratios (Ankner, S-T-10A at 3-9). When these corrections were made, the average cost per mile as calculated by Mr. Scott was reduced from $1.58 to $.98 for the high density portion of Hi/Lo (S-7G) and from $1.62 to $1.00 for MPL Schedule I (S-7H). Mr. Ankner’s corrections were not even seriously questioned on cross-examination, and the Court accepts the results of his calculations as credible and probative evidence of the overstatements of cost by Mr. Scott. 140 Once again, as corrected, both the Hi/Lo and MPL end-to-end LRIC cost per circuit mile were well below the average revenue for these services (id.):

Revenues Costs

Hi/Lo $1.53 ■ $ .98

MPL $1.37 $1.00

In Transamerica Computer Corp. v. IBM Corp., 481 F.Supp. 965, 998 (N.D.Cal.1979), the Court held:

“All methods of indirect cost recovery are arbitrary and flawed in some respects. The flexibility of revenue apportionment is apparent, yet this Court will not attempt to ‘correct’ that characteristic by mandating the use of a patch work system based on one accountant’s views of the facts of this particular case. To do so would not only be bad accounting, it would be bad law. Businessmen would have no notice of what was required to be done if arbitrary adjustments were allowed to be applied after the fact to their reasonable and consistent cost accounting.”

In the Court’s view, SPCC’s “pricing without regard to cost” approach is a similar attempt to create such a “patch work system,” and the Court flatly rejects this effort.

PLAINTIFFS’ ADDITIONAL CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO TELPAK

As a part of their pricing claims, plaintiffs have argued that the structure of AT & T’s Telpak tariffs constituted an anticompetitive “package pricing arrangement”; *947 that AT & T maintained Telpak during the 1970s even though it was no longer necessary to provide a common carrier alternative to private microwave systems; and that the Joint Telpak arrangement initially entered into in 1968 between AT & T and Western Union should have been extended to the specialized common carriers (Tr. 2635-38). Based upon the Court’s review of the record, plaintiffs have failed to introduce evidence sufficient to support any of these claims.

SPCC’S CLAIMS REGARDING THE STRUCTURE OF TELPAK

Although a pricing structure claim of the kind advanced by SPCC has not frequently been litigated, the Court believes that under the facts presented here the Telpak structure was plainly lawful. This is made clear by the decision in Chillicothe Sand & Gravel Go. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 615 F.2d 427 (7th Cir.1980), which rejected a claim that a “package pricing” arrangement there at issue was predatory. Like Telpak, the pricing package involved in Chillicothe had certain attributes that customers found attractive, and like Telpak, the components of the package were sold either individually or together, but the price of components would change if the package was broken up (id. at 433). In these circumstances, the Court in Chillicothe concluded that there was no evidence on which a jury could determine that the package pricing was predatory (id).

Plaintiffs argue that Chillicothe is inapposite and that the Court should adopt as the applicable law the decision in Smith-Kline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838, 99 S.Ct. 123, 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).. The Court does not agree. 141 In SmithKline, defendant had a patent monopoly over two of the three most successful forms of cephalosporin-type antibiotics. Plaintiff and defendant both marketed identical forms of a third, unpatented type. Defendant was found to have violated the Sherman Act by giving a discount to hospitals that made purchases of all three types of cephalosporin. Because hospitals would in any event buy the two patented products, the discount plan gave defendant’s unpatented product an unwarranted advantage over plaintiff’s identical product.

The key fact in SmithEline was defendants’ use of an impenetrable patent monopoly to give it an advantage in its sales of a non-patented product. There is no such impenetrable monopoly here. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Specialized Common Carriers decision was to permit entry in the provision of private line telecommunications services. In these circumstances, it is clear to the Court that no exclusive AT & T franchise prevented SPCC from competing fully against AT & T *948 for its Telpak customers. Indeed, SPCC has little or no trouble selling its capacity and as the Court has mentioned throughout this opinion, SPCC simply could not keep up with the demand.

This is not to say that SPCC always found it easy to obtain bulk communications customers. The evidence shows that these customers in some cases had a national scope and found AT & T’s service more suited to their needs than SPCC’s limited service (Gibney, Tr. 2365-66). But this advantage of nationwide scope was not a use of monopoly power. The fact that AT & T provided service between two points where SPCC had chosen not to serve does not mean that these routes were foreclosed to competition in the same sense that the patent in SmithKline created a monopoly for a specific product.

SPCC’s complaint that AT & T has advantages because of its nationwide scope is no different than the complaint of any small new company that decides to enter a market already occupied by another company with an established position as a large, reliable supplier. As the Second Circuit held in Berkey Photo, supra, 603 F.2d at 276:

“[A] large firm does not violate § 2 simply by reaping the competitive rewards attributable to its efficient size, nor does an integrated business offend the Sherman Act whenever one of its departments benefits from association with a division possessing a monopoly in its own market. So long as we allow a firm to compete in several fields, we must expect it to seek the competitive advantages of its broad-based activity — more efficient production, greater ability to develop complementary products, reduced transaction costs and so forth. These are gains that accrue to any integrated firm, regardless of its market share, and they cannot by themselves be considered uses of monopoly power.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Similarly, there is no antitrust basis for plaintiffs’ claim that it was more difficult to market their services because they were in effect forced to dislodge an entire Telpak to make sales. Even if such a claim were true, 142 it would not show that Telpak was unlawful. In fact, SPCC’s claim is in substance similar to a claim that the Court of Appeals rejected in Northeastern Tel. Co., supra, 651 F.2d at 92-93. There, plaintiff charged that the Bell System’s two-tiered pricing policy (that allowed a customer to build up equity in his Bell supplied telephone equipment) discouraged the customer from purchasing Northeastern’s competitive equipment. The Court said of that argument (id. at 92):

“It is reasonable to suppose that one who has just made his first Tier A payment is unlikely to buy a Northeastern PBX. But the incentives influencing his decision are no different than those operating on one who has just bought any other consumer item, a new car for example.”

The Court concluded that this two-tier payment plan was nothing more than an ordinary marketing method available to all in the market and accordingly not a use of monopoly power condemned by the Sherman Act (id. at 93). Bulk rate service- was similarly a marketing method available to all.

Accordingly, the Court concludes, as a matter of law, that the structure of the Telpak tariff did not violate the Sherman Act. Even if there were a sound legal basis for SPCC’s claim, however, the evidence presented by SPCC concerning the structure of Telpak is largely inconclusive and contradictory. SPCC’s witnesses did not even agree on the basis of their complaint about Telpak. For instance, Mr. Gibney, Director of Field Sales for SPCC, testified, and Mr. Brodman, Director of Sales Development for SPCC, agreed, that “the price of service under the Telpak tariff was not the main item. It was the structure of the tariff that hurt us the most” (Gibney, Tr. 2346; Brodman, Tr. 1780). On the other hand, Mr. Hollis, former Vice President Marketing of SPCC, admitted (Hollis, Tr. *949 2310-11) that he had previously testified under oath:

“I have said all along that we could sell against Telpak, it is just the rates that we were having to charge, was the objection.”

SPCC advanced three principal complaints directed at the structure of Telpak. First, SPCC challenged the so-called “fictitious routing” of Telpak, ostensibly because Telpak prices were based on air miles rather than the actual route of circuits. Second, SPCC complained about the availability of “free” channels because a customer not using the full capacity of its Telpak section (for which it had already paid) could add additional channels by paying for additional channel terminals at each end of each channel added. Third, SPCC took issue with the ability of a Telpak customer to reconfigure its Telpak network on a monthly basis in order to obtain the lowest possible rate.

In the Court’s opinion, all of these complaints must be assessed in the context in which Telpak was originally developed. The FCC’s Report and Order in Allocation of the Frequencies in the Bands Above 890, 27 F.C.C. 359 (1959), adopted an expansive new policy of liberalized licensing for non-communications companies’ private microwave systems, declaring that “[t]he record supports the determination that there is a need for private point-to-point systems” (27 F.C.C. at 413). Following this decision, AT & T began to assess the impact of the construction and operation of private microwave systems on AT & T’s revenues and rates (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 4-6).

AT & T was principally concerned that, under the then-current rates for private line services, which reflected regulatory policies relating to nationwide averaging, value of service pricing and jurisdictional separations, a company or government agency considering whether to construct a private microwave system would be likely to construct its own system even though the costs of such a system were higher than the costs incurred by AT & T for equivalent service (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 7-8). Unless AT & T adjusted its rates downward toward costs, it seemed likely that AT & T would lose the business of many of its largest customers (Hough, S-T-l at 25, Tr. 3578; Boettinger, S-T-3 at 7-8). This view was shared by Western Union, which in its brief in the Above 890 proceedings argued that permitting private microwave would jeopardize its very existence and warned that “the seriousness of the threat posed to Western Union by these proceedings cannot be overemphasized” (S-1533 at 6; see also S-0016).

Indeed, soon after the Above 890 decision, several of AT & T’s major customers, among them the federal government, began planning possible private systems (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 7; S-1628, S-0016, 143 S-0009 144 ). AT & T considered it essential to continue to serve 145 at least some of these *950 customers or face a potentially massive diversion of revenues which, because of AT & T’s averaged rate structure, could cause an increase in other rates throughout AT & T’s business (Hough, S-T-l at 25). On the other hand, AT & T believed that if it could provide bulk service at rates that more than covered their relevant costs, the services would make some contribution for the benefit of all customers (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 8). It seems fair to say that AT & T’s choice was to maintain its then current rates and face the loss of nearly all the contribution provided by its largest customers or reduce its rates to a more cost-related level and maintain at least some amount of that contribution.

Because AT & T sought “to provide large users with a viable alternative in the way of common carrier service” (Hough, Tr. 3576), AT & T specifically designed the Telpak tariff to mirror as closely as possible the economic characteristics of a private microwave system from a customer’s standpoint (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 10; Hough, ST-l at 27). The record shows that beginning in 1960, AT & T formed a task force to determine the economic characteristics of and the potential demand for bulk communications services — its growth prospects, technical requirements, and the expectation and desires of the customers (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 4-6,10-15). The final product of this effort was “The Broadband Report” (S-1568) (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 6). This analysis was done with the consultation of Arthur D. Little Co., which produced two studies that confirmed the competitive alternative that private microwave systems presented for large users (S — 1578; S-4). 146 AT & T also consulted with Dr. Ronald Coase, an economist at the University of Chicago (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 28-29; Hough, S-T-l at 26). It was on the basis of these economic and demand studies that AT & T selected the four base Telpak channel capacities — Telpak A, B, C, and D (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 15).

The validity of designing and pricing the Telpak offering to resemble closely the private microwave alternative was recognized by the FCC in its initial Telpak investigation, even though the differential from AT & T’s single-channel rates was not justified by differences in costs. Thus, in an order of December 7, 1961 in Docket No. 14251 (S — 1601); the Commission rejected a cost justification requirement of the kind urged by SPCC here stating:

“What Motorola, in effect, is asking us to do is to hold that, in any case involving volume rates, the differential in rates must be correlated to a difference in cost of furnishing service, regardless of the degree of competitive necessity. This we do not believe is consonant with the holding of the Supreme Court in Eastern Central Motor Carriers Association v. U.S., 321 U.S. 194 [64 S.Ct. 499, 88 L.Ed. 668] (1944).

Were we to assume, arguendo, the fact of competitive necessity and nonetheless hold TELPAK rates unlawful, as we are asked to do here, we would, in effect, be saying that competition is immaterial.

*951 This ... we may not do. Nor do we think that as a matter of policy we are justified in making such a conclusion at this stage without full consideration of all pertinent factors.” [ 147 J

And subsequently in 1964, the Commission reached its conclusion that “[tjhere is apparent justification for TELPAK C and D classifications in terms of meeting competition from private microwave systems having channel capacities comparable to those offered by such TELPAK classifications.” 38 F.C.C. 370, 395 (1964).

This background explains the reasons for many of the structural features of Telpak about which SPCC now complains. Because a private system would be constructed with a certain channel capacity, Telpak was offered in fixed classifications, such as 240 channels for Telpak D or 60 channels for Telpak C, that appeared at the time to comport with the various size private systems that might have been constructed (Hough, S-T-l at 27; Boettinger, S-T-3 at 15-16). 148 One result of providing a fixed number of channels for a flat price, whether with Telpak or private microwave, is what SPCC characterizes as “free channels,” i.e., if the customer (or owner of a private system) 149 had used less than all the channels he had paid for in the package, increasing the number of channels in use would not increase the cost (except for termination charges) (Hough, S-T-l at 28-30; Boettinger, S-T-3 at 19-20; PX2-0017 at 7-8; PX2-0225). 150 It is clear then, that what SPCC calls “free channels” was not some unjustified gimmick — it was rather a natural consequence of selling a specified number of circuits at a single rate, regardless of how many the customer used.

Likewise, SPCC’s charge that Telpak engaged in phantom routing is explained by a comparison to private systems. What SPCC calls fictional routing involves no more than billing the customers as if the customer had a microwave system between the city pair where the call was sent and received 151 (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 18-19). Typically the private microwave system would be constructed on a direct route be *952 tween the cities. 152 AT & T, however, seeks to make the most efficient and economic use of its facilities, and at times this may lead to indirect routing of calls (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 17-18; Hough, S-T-l at 30-31; Gibney, Tr. 2359-60). The fact that a particular call is not routed directly to the receiving city is not of concern to the customer, whose only interest is in obtaining a good clear connection (Hough, S-T-l at 30-31). The so-called fictional routing, therefore, is not relevant from the customer’s standpoint and consequently would not impede SPCC’s ability to compete with AT & T to serve the requirements of these customers (Boettinger, S-T-3 at 18-19).

Reference to the economics of operating a private microwave system also leads the Court to reject SPCC’s charge that Telpak’s pricing structure created what SPCC claims were “powerful economic incentives for customers to aggregate all of their circuit needs and include as many as possible” within Telpak (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition To Defendants’ Motion For Involuntary Dismissal Under Rule 41(b) at 47). The same or greater “aggregation” incentives would apply if the customer owned a private microwave system. The Court, for example, can well imagine the communications manager of a firm owning such a system admonishing the firm’s employees to use the company-owned system whenever possible to keep down long distance charges from the common carrier.

The one aspect of Telpak structure that does not appear to the Court to have been directly comparable to a private system is the ability to reconfigure the network for pricing purposes on a monthly basis. However, in the Court’s view, this pricing policy simply reflects the efficiencies of a large network — a factor which the FCC recognized as proper in the Specialized Common Carriers decision, which explicitly permitted AT & T to price so as to reflect the inherent advantages of its plant and operations (29 F.C.C.2d at 915). Moreover, the Court cannot understand how this aspect of the Telpak structure could be detrimental to *953 SPCC, for just as a Telpak customer had the ability to reconfigure its Telpak network, it also had the continuing option of switching from Telpak to the services of the specialized carriers. See Smith, Tr. 4823 (General Electric’s policy was to look continually at alternative ways of serving its needs at the lowest cost).

Finally, SPCC’s claim that the structure of Telpak was unlawful overlooks the fact that virtually any tariff for telecommunications services, and particularly those which include bulk rates, will have some of the same features that SPCC raises here. This truth was brought home in defendants’ cross-examination of plaintiffs’ principal witness on Telpak structure, Mr. Hollis. That testimony confirms that SPCC itself incorporated the same structural elements in its tariffs as those about which it complains with respect to Telpak. For example, with respect to SPCC’s “fictitious routing” claim, the record shows that SPCC’s pricing does not follow the route of the actual circuits either (Hollis, Tr. 2298-99). Moreover, under several of SPCC’s tariffs, Mr. Hollis conceded in response to a question from the Court, that “there could be some free channel, yes, sir” (Hollis, Tr. 2300).

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Telpak arose as a legitimate response to private microwave competition and that the structure of Telpak was reasonable in light of the purposes for which the tariff was designed. Furthermore, the Court notes that all of the features of Telpak to which SPCC objects here were in place at the time that the initial Telpak tariff was filed, more than ten years prior to the development of competition from specialized common carriers. In sum, the Court finds no basis for SPCC’s claim that the structure of Telpak was unlawful. 153

SPCC’S CLAIMS REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF TELPAK DURING THE 1970s

Plaintiffs also assert that AT & T maintained Telpak long after any threat of private microwave systems had dissipated and that AT & T purposefully decided to use Telpak as a supplement to Hi/Lo in its response to the specialized common carriers. Assuming for the moment that plaintiffs are correct, if Telpak was priced above cost as the Court found in its earlier discussion, then the Court can see nothing amiss in AT & T’s retention of Telpak, even with the understanding that it would be useful in meeting competition from the new carriers. Northeastern Telephone, supra, 651 F.2d at 92-93. (see also Private Microwave/Telpak Doc.Sub. at 2-6). Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, AT & T considered it essential that Telpak be continued as a competitive alternative to private microwave, and Telpak would have been maintained even in the absence of SPCC and other new entrants (Hough, S-T-l at 42-43).

It is clear from the record that during the 1960s and 1970s AT & T’s major customers continually indicated that they would construct private microwave systems if Telpak were terminated or the rates increased substantially (about 20 to 30 percent over existing rates). One major AT & T customer that was most vocal in its threats to construct its own system was Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC), an organization of airlines. The record shows that as early as 1962, ARINC told the FCC staff that AR-INC had urged AT & T to adopt Telpak because ARINC “could construct and operate its own nationwide private microwave communications system at substantially *954 lower costs than that obtainable under existing private line tariffs” (S-1628). During FCC investigations of AT & T’s proposed Telpak rate increases in 1968 and in 1971, ARINC continued to represent to the FCC that it would construct its own system if Telpak rates ceased to be competitive with private microwave costs (S-1783B; S-2189B). Indeed, in 1971, ARINC commissioned Collins Radio Co. to design and develop the costs for a large private microwave network for the airline industry. AR-INC presented the study to the FCC, stating that it planned to build such a system if the Telpak rates became too high (S-2187; S-2178; S-2179; S-2180; S-2246).

Other Telpak customers similarly represented to the FCC in the late 1960s and early 1970s that they would construct their own systems if Telpak rates were not maintained competitive with private microwave system costs. These included the Air Transport Association, Greyhound Corp., the Association of American Railroads, Pan American Airlines, United Airlines, and Eastern Airlines (Private Microwave/Telpak Doc.Sub. at 3-4).

The record also shows that in the late 1960s and early 1970s General Electric Co. seriously considered constructing a private system (PX4-0294). Mr. Smith, the senior officer at General Electric responsible for the company’s consideration of private microwave in that period, testified that GE investigated the possibilities of both private microwave and satellite systems when GE’s communications costs increased in the 1960s and early 1970s due to AT & T's rate increases (Smith, S-T-166 at 3-4). According to the testimony, GE “came very close to implementing [its] own system in the early 1970s,” but decided to abandon its plans when it became apparent in 1972-1973 that Telpak rates had stabilized (Smith, S-T-166 at 4-5, Tr. 4821). Mr. Smith testified, however, that had GE been faced with even a 20-30 percent increase in Telpak rates, GE would have built its own system (Smith, S-T-166 at 5, Tr. 4822).

Additionally, the record shows that private microwave was an alternative to Telpak for the United States Government, which would have been “seriously considered” if Telpak rates had been increased substantially (Hollis, Tr. 2295). Indeed, the Government — the largest private line user — would have begun, according to the evidence, “as a matter of urgency, to build its own microwave system” in the early 1970s if Telpak rates had been increased (Goodnetter, PX2-0367 at 2460).

The Department of Defense is the largest private line user within the Federal Government (Jacobsmeyer, S-T-163 at 3). 154 General Lee M. Paschall, former Director of the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), and the chief policy witness for the United States in the FCC’s Telpak proceeding in Docket No. 18128, testified that “if the Bell System had not adopted its Telpak tariff, or had not offered rates somewhat similar to those in Telpak, the United States Government would have, in fact, constructed a substantial amount of its own private microwave system in the United States, at least over high-density routes” (Paschall, S-T-164 at 4-5). General Paschall further testified that this was the official position of the Department of Defense when he testified before, the FCC in 1971 and remained so during his entire tenure (Paschall, Tr. 4767-68, 4770). General Jacobsmeyer, former Vice Director of DCA, similarly testified that, if Telpak had been terminated in the mid-1970s, he would have advocated shifting Defense circuits to a private network similar to the one the Defense Department was constructing overseas, combining satellites and terrestrial microwave (Tr. 4778-79). Indeed, the Department of Defense is now constructing the Defense Switched Network to replace Telpak service with a mixture of government-owned military satellites, private microwave and cable (Jacobsmeyer, S-T-163 at 7-9).

*955 The record also shows that in the mid-1970s, as concern that AT & T would terminate Telpak began to grow among AT & T customers, ARINC and other large users renewed their consideration of construction of private microwave systems (Brodman, Tr. 1821; Jacobsmeyer, S-T-163 at 6-7). Some of these major customers, among them ARINC, GE, the Air Transport Association and the United States Government, opposed AT & T’s 1977 proposal to terminate Telpak and instituted the petition for review in the Court of Appeals that resulted in the entry of the July 21, 1977 injunction requiring that Telpak be maintained until review had been completed (Hough, S-T — 1 at 39).

The record further shows that, since the termination of Telpak in 1981, the trend towards private systems has accelerated, although, with the changing technology, the focus has shifted to communications by a private satellite system rather than by private microwave systems (Paschall, Tr. 4752, 4753). General Paschall, currently president of American Satellite Co., a domestic satellite carrier in competition with both AT & T and SPCC (Paschall, Tr. 4746), testified that several large corporations, among them Citicorp, have constructed their own system and “a number of major companies” such as Federal Express and Shell have been “actively considering constructing” such systems (id. at 4752-53). Like AT & T before it, American Satellite has responded to “those [considering private systems] by offering them something that is competitive” (id. at 4753).

Indeed, SPCC itself, since the termination of Telpak, has been threatened by its large users, including ARINC, with construction of private systems if SPCC raises its bulk rate (currently 30 percent below AT & T’s rates) (Hollis, Tr. 2294-95; Brodman, Tr. 1813-15).

Finally, the record shows that there was in fact a substantial amount of private microwave construction even with the Telpak tariff. Route miles for all private networks, excluding those owned by the United States Government, have increased from about 56,000 route miles in 1961 to 141,000 miles in 1971 and to 272,000 miles in 1981 (Hough, S-T-l at 42; S-3S; S-3R; S-3Q). There is no reason to believe on this record that there was not in fact a real threat of even more growth had Telpak or a similar tariff never been instituted in 1961 or retained in the 1970s. As Mr. Hough testified, “If Telpak had not been in existence, all of the information that we had both from large users and from studies we had made was that there would have been a lot more private microwave” (Tr. 3543-44).

Against this strong and consistent evidence that the threat of private microwave systems was reál and continued throughout the 1970s, justifying AT & T’s retention of Telpak, SPCC offers only a few documents showing that during the late 1960s and early 1970s AT & T viewed Telpak as a success in stemming losses to private construction (PX2-0095; PX2-0038). Evidence that Telpak was successful does not, of course, mean it should have been discontinued when it was clear that the reasons for Telpak persisted. SPCC simply makes too much of other AT & T documents indicating that “few customers” would be interested in building private systems (see PX2-0156; PX2-0060). It was not the number of customers, but the volume of business and revenue lost, that would be the concern if these customers abandoned their use of common carriers for private systems. Accordingly, the Court concludes that AT & T acted reasonably in maintaining Telpak during the late 1960s and 1970s. 155

*956 SPCC’S CLAIMS REGARDING JOINT TELPAK

The text continues — open the document to read the rest.