@jbtaylor on tech

I'm a spokesman for Sprint. This personal site is where I share news stories and my views about our company, our phones and other devices. I also write a bit about tech policy, the wireless industry and life in Washington, D.C.

To ensure that Sprint's lawyers continue to support employees' use of social media, please read the disclaimers on my "About this Posterous" page.

Sen. Al Franken Calls for AT&T's Bid to Takeover T-Mobile to be Rejected

Media_httpstaticarste_ctsef

This week, Sen. Al Franken, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for the Department of Justice and the FCC to reject AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile. The Senator was unambiguous. No conditions or divestitures can fix AT&T's proposal -- he wants it blocked.

One side note to the Ars Technica story of Sen. Franken's decision -- they used my photograph of Sen. Franken which I took during the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee's hearing on AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile.

Maybe if this PR gig doesn't work out, I can be a Capitol Hill photographer. ;-)

What Louisiana Regulators Actually Decided on AT&T's Bid to Takeover T-Mobile

Yesterday, the Louisiana Public Service Commission did not vote to "approve" or "okay" AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile. The Commission, which had voted earlier this year to open a docket to review the proposed transaction, voted "not to oppose" AT&T's bid.

The distinction is an important one. The Commissioners don't want AT&T touting approval at the Federal Communications Commission. That's why they worded their motion the way they did.

But don't tell that to AT&T or the media who covered this story. 

How did these outlets get it wrong?

As soon as the vote was cast yesterday, AT&T's PR team immediately reached out to the wire services and to the Capitol Hill publications proclaiming that the Commission had "approved" their bid for T-Mobile. And outlet after outlet took AT&T's word for it.

When I reached out to these outlets to ask for a clarification or in some cases, a correction, I got a great deal of resistance from some reporters. From others, I got an honest effort to fix things, but in those cases it was too late to make a change to meet the print deadline. From still other reporters, I got a shrug of the shoulders. From a few outlets, I got them to add a statement from Sprint into their story, but even those refused to change their incorrect statement that the LPSC approved the transaction.

I know I should have a thicker skin, but AT&T pulled the same stunt in Louisiana earlier in the spring. When the staff issued a preliminary recommendation not to open a docket, AT&T issued a statement to media claiming that the Commission had approved the transaction.

AT&T's version of the truth was dutifully reported by multiple outlets. When I pointed out that wasn't the final word, media refused to update or clairify their incomplete stories.

But days later, the LPSC's Commissioners voted 4-1 to open a docket on the transaction. There was no approval after all. Sadly, I'm not aware of one news outlet who issued a correction or retracted their earlier story.

You would think media who were fooled once by AT&T wouldn't be fooled again.

You'd be wrong. Yesterday proved that.

And the simple truth is -- and I'm sure the folks at AT&T will enjoy reading this -- I don't have the time in my day nor the outside resources to hold every reporter and every news outlet accountable when then get a story wrong. AT&T does -- but I don't.

I have to count on journalists being commited to getting the facts right and being fair in their coverage. I have to count on reporters who want to ask hard questions of me and everyone else involved in this debate. I have to count on media who will hold policymakers accountable. And I have to count on journalists who are willing to own their mistakes.

And despite my frustration with how this one angle was covered, overall, I'm confident that the reporters covering this much larger story are working extremely hard to do a thorough job for their readers, viewers and listeners.

I'm also taking solace in the fact that no amount of amount of lobbying or nimble PR by AT&T (or for that matter Sprint or anyone else) can change the outcome of a law enforcement investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

I started my career working at DOJ and I have to tell you, the career attorneys and other professionals who work for DOJ guard the independence of the Justice Department zealously. They bristle if anyone in Congress or the White House or in a company like Sprint or an interest group like Free Press or Public Knowledge tries to lobby them to steer an investigation one way or another.

It just doesn't work that way.

These are lawyers' lawyers. They are committed to the law and to doing the right thing. All they want to know are the facts.

I'm quite confident that the facts before the DOJ and the FCC do not merit approval of AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile. Time will tell if I'm right or not.

In the mean time, I'm trying to remember that journalists are just like me and everyone else I know -- we don't like to admit it when we make a mistake. And I hope that the folks I badgered yesterday understand that it's my job to make sure they report the whole story. Yesterday, I was doing just that.

 

Sorry AT&T, it's Still a Pig!

Media_httpfarm4static_dekre

Late tonight, well after most media deadlines, AT&T finally issued its much trumpeted "new" economic model at the FCC meant to justify its proposed takeover of T-Mobile.

At Sprint, we don't see anything new. We still see the pig of a deal which AT&T and Deutsche Telekom presented to the FCC in April. (No matter how AT&T dresses it up, it's still a pig.)

In response, Sprint's senior vice president of Government Affairs, Vonya B. McCann, issued the following statement:

"AT&T's 'do-over' submission is a last-ditch attempt to distract regulators, politicians and consumers from the fact that it has failed to provide any evidence that its proposed takeover of T-Mobile yields meaningful benefits. Its latest model, clearly constructed with predetermined results in mind, does nothing to change the negative consequences of the takeover for consumers in the form of higher prices, reduced innovation and decreased investment. The facts do not justify allowing that to happen, and we believe the ongoing investigations by the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission and 11 state attorneys general and various state regulatory commissions will reach the same conclusions."