@jbtaylor on tech

It's not even lunch time and I've already come across today's Quote of the Day. It's from Steve Berry, president of RCA -- The Competitive Carriers Association:

"It's pretty easy to go before the FCC, the Hill and say we represent all carriers except for AT&T and Verizon."

Mark your calendars. The Senate Antitrust Subcommittee is holding a hearing on Verizon's proposed transactions with Comcast, Bright House, Time Warner Cable and Cox on Wednesday, Mar. 21 at 2:00 ET.

The hearing will be webcast live from the Judiciary Committee's web page or you can attend in person in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The title of the hearing is telling:

"The Verizon/Cable Deals: Harmless Collaboration or a Threat to Competition and Consumers?"

It looks like a good panel of witnesses. Testifying before the subcommittee will be:

Randal S. Milch
Executive Vice President & General Counsel
Verizon Communications Inc.

David L. Cohen
Executive Vice President
Comcast Corporation

Charles F. (Rick) Rule
Managing Partner, Washington, DC Office
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Steven K. Berry
President & CEO
Rural Cellular Association

Joel Kelsey
Policy Advisor
Free Press

Timothy Wu
Isidor & Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law
Columbia University

The FCC is currently reviewing a massive spectrum transaction where Verizon Wireless will acquire spectrum held by cable companies Comcast, Cox, Time Warner Cable and Bright House. In exchange, Verizon will begin to market cable services in Verizon stores, online and telesales channels. At the same time, the cable companies will start to market Verizon Wireless services.

The details of these joint marketing agreements are central to the proposed transaction, but the attorneys from Verizon and the cable companies are refusing to allow the FCC to see the details of the agreements.

They have decided that the FCC has no jurisdiction over the matter and in regulatory filings last week, basically told the FCC to butt out.

This morning, Sprint joined T-Mobile, DIRECTTV, Free Press, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, the Computer & Computing Industry Association, the New America Foundation, RCA-The Competitive Carriers Association and the Rural Telecommunications Group in asking the FCC to stop the informal 180-day clock on its review of the proposed transaction until the FCC can review the full and unredacted details of the proposed transaction.

Put simply, what Verizon and the cable companies are essentially telling the FCC is, "Trust us."

And what the other companies and public interest groups are asking the FCC to tell Verizon and its cable partners is just as simple: "Trust, but verify."

And honestly, no one at Verizon, Comcast, Bright House, Cox or Time Warner Cable should have anything to fear if their proposed transaction is truly as pro-consumer as they purport it to be.

But by hiding the details which are central in determining whether or not the transaction is in the public interest, it certainly raises serious questions about the nature of the transaction and the motivation behind it. Otherwise, why is there a need to hide the details from the independent agency in charge of regulating the cable and wireless industries?

p.s. While other companies have formally asked the FCC to deny the transaction, Sprint has not done so. Like other posts on this blog, the opinions expressed are entirely mine, and not necessarily those of my employer.

On the eve of a bipartisan compromise to extend a middle class tax cut and continue unemployment benefits for our friends and neighbors out of work, Politico described AT&T's lobbyists as, "furious" that Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress didn't adopt everything the company wanted in the legislation.

Remember, with AT&T, it's always "my way or the highway" when it comes to public policy.

Missing from what DSL Reports' Karl Bode called a "pout festival" was like-minded Twin Bell Verizon. I'm guessing that top Verizon lobbyist, former Iowa GOP Congressman Tom Tauke and his team realized what Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said about the compromise over the bill's spectrum provisions was true:

“Did we get every single thing that we wanted? No. No one ever has and I don’t think they ever will, including my children.”

Perhaps AT&T's top lobbyist Jim Cicconi believes that too, but in a statement to media yesterday, he pointed out that there is "an opportunity for a court challenge" if the FCC doesn't give his company all the spectrum it wants.

Lovely.

Before the FCC even opens a docket about the future wireless spectrum auction, AT&T is already threatening a lawsuit if it doesn't get its way.

That sounds like an empty threat to me. The last time AT&T was in court over an effort to obtain more spectrum was when the U.S. Department of Justice and a bi-partisan group of state Attorneys General sued the company over its proposed takeover of T-Mobile.

We all know what happened then.

Rather than fight the government in court, AT&T chose to leave the courtroom and abandon the transaction, rather than stand by its scorched earth rhetoric.

So yesterday's threat from AT&T sounds like more empty saber rattling to me.

Time will tell.

p.s. Once again, please remember that this is my personal blog and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.