@jbtaylor on tech

If you were to do a quick search for news stories about the FCC today, you'd probably assume that the most important regulatory news coming out of the Federal Communications Commission was news that Verizon Wireless has agreed to pay $25 million to the federal government and to refund $52 million to its customers to settle charges about the company's "mystery fees." Verizon had been under investigation for incorrectly collecting and charging its customers fees for data never accessed on wireless phones.

Surely, that's big news, but it's not the biggest news to come from the FCC today.

A much bigger story is that the FCC issued a public notice in the special access docket which requests data from incumbent local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers.

How's that for telecom gobbledygook?

In English, what it means is the FCC is asking landline and wireless phone companies to provide confidential data about the prices charged and paid for special access connections. This request for data is a necessary step to take before the FCC can do anything to rein in Verizon, AT&T and other landline phone companies who dominate the special access market which our broadband economy depends upon.

As I've written in this Posterous before, special access circuits are the connections that wireless companies depend upon to connect your wireless call and to make sure your smartphone can surf the Web. Special access also connects your bank's ATM, the credit card payment system at a retail store like Wal-Mart or Best Buy and also the 1-800 reservations centers used by hotels, airlines and the like. It's also how your Internet service provider connects you to this or any other Website and how your email gets delivered.

The special access market is worth about $18 billion a year and it's a broken market. In economic terms that means there is no competition which pressures prices downward.

In the Washington, D.C. area, where I live and work, Verizon controls about 90 percent of the special access market. This means they can charge prices which are jacked up as much as 100 percent over their actual cost.

I call it Verizon's ATM machine.

Today's news about the FCC data request is a clear sign that the FCC is serious in enforcing the law and taking action in the special access docket.

Personally, I welcome it.

At Sprint, we issued the following statement to media about the FCC's step:

"Today’s announcement by the Federal Communications Commission that it is issuing a request for data about the special access market is an important milestone in the Commission’s efforts to fix this broken market. We would like to thank Chairman Genachowski, his fellow Commissioners and the FCC staff for their work to address this problem facing the country’s broadband economy.

Sprint has repeatedly indicated that it will provide the data the FCC needs to make a fact-based, data driven decision in this docket. Because the nation’s broadband economy depends upon these special access circuits, it is essential that the Commission get accurate and timely data from both purchasers and sellers of special access. We urge other communications companies to join with Sprint in fully cooperating with the FCC as it acts in addressing the matters pending in the docket.”

Big news from Newsweek this morning. Their annual ranking of the country's greenest companies is out. Last year Sprint was ranked 15th. This we're 6th and we're thrilled.

It's the recognition of what Sprint has long been committed to, running our business in a greener more sustainable way.

And for those keeping score -- don't national rankings make us all do that? -- Verizon is ranked number 99. AT&T is ranked number 122.

To learn more about our efforts, visit Sprint.com/green.

Friday night, the New York Yankees will play the Texas Rangers in the first game of the American League Championship Series. The game will be held in Arlington, Texas at a ballpark, locals like to call "The Ball Park" but is officially called "The Rangers Ball Park".

No sports sponsorship there.

I'm not sure how many tickets will be sold, but Wikipedia lists the seating capacity of the facility at 49,170.

Now we should expect that regardless of the outcome of the game, some fans will go home disappointed that their team lost. But at the end of the day, it's still a thrill to watch a pennant race game, even if you're not a baseball fan.

Tickets will be sold at hundreds, if not thousands of dollars above face value.

While fans of the losing team will be disappointed, how many fans will complain that they didn't get their money's worth while watching the game? How many fans will say their seat was uncomfortable, the concessions were bad, or the drunk fan sitting next to them ruined the game for them?

There will probably be a few.

But what if only one fan went home angry and disappointed -- only one fan out of 49,170 who will watch the game in person?

What if there was only one angry fan and 49,169 fans said they had a good time?

That would make for a successful night for Major League Baseball, I think.

The FCC would disagree with me though.

According to their latest study of wireless complaints, 764 wireless customers complained to the FCC in the first half of 2010. That's 764 people out of 292.8 million wireless subscribers.

Well, using the stadium analogy, it's like the FCC is saying one angry fan is unacceptable and requires government action.

My math is generous to the FCC though.

Actually, using the FCC's ratios, if the ball park in Texas seated 390,314 people and one person went home angry, the FCC would still see a problem.

My personal view -- and this is my personal view and not Sprint's -- is that the FCC's "Bill Shock" initiative does point out billing mistakes that carriers have made, but that these mistakes have been described by the FCC and the reporters covering this story with very little perspective and context.

So when you watch Friday night's game and you see the Rangers lose to the Yankees (my prediction and my hope), ask yourself if it really makes sense for the government to step in on behalf of one angry Rangers fan.

Or put differently, are 764 complaints out of 292.8 million subscribers really a problem that requires government regulation?

I think not.

---

p.s. I can't take full credit for the "One Angry Fan" analogy. Joe Farren, who once was a spokesman for CTIA, our trade association, first shared this with me many years ago. Joe is now with a PR firm in town and represents another wireless carrier, but I don't think he'd mind me using his thinking here. As for his baseball leanings, I'm not entirely sure he backs the Yankees, but maybe he will comment below.