@jbtaylor on tech

Kent German, the CNET columnist, always has strongly expressed opinions. This week's column is no exception. Although his rhetoric is unusually charged, I think most consumers share his view that it's time for AT&T to stop whining, which is exactly what AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson did on AT&T's Q4 earnings call this week.

The company's earnings were hit by the T-Mobile break fee and Stephenson rivaled Jim Cicconi, AT&T's top lobbyist, in his efforts to play the victim card. Stephenson essentially complained that the FCC is out to get his company and everyone else in the industry, refusing to approve mergers and spectrum transactions.

None of that is backed up by facts though.

As FCC officials pointed out in response to media inquiries, the FCC has approved more than 150 commercial mobile transaction applications last year alone and more than 300 in the last two years, including AT&T's nearly $2 billion acquisition of Qualcomm's spectrum.

(I would point out, the FCC refused to apply any of the conditions that competitors and consumer groups had sought for the Qualcomm deal -- AT&T got everything it wanted with the deal. This was the 15th major AT&T deal that the FCC has approved over the last 15 years.)

This whining and cherry picking of facts by AT&T wasn't limited to Stephenson this week. As I pointed out earlier, AT&T's top FCC lobbyist, repeatedly and falsely charged Sprint with "disinvesting" (sic) in its network in Oklahoma and Kansas -- the charges were made in blog posts where the lobbyist whined and complained about the FCC's decision to ensure that data roaming rates are affordable for all consumers.

Mind you, this was an FCC decision supported by every major consumer group and everyone in the wireless industry except for AT&T and Verizon, but AT&T's lobbying team, chose to single out Sprint as some sort of bad actor.

It's laughable in the minds of observers, of course. Many see it as payback for Sprint's role in opposing the T-Mobile takeover in 2011.

While that's an easy conclusion to draw, it's too simple for me. I have a different view.

I don't think AT&T really has a beef with Sprint. Or for that matter, with the FCC. (Sprint and the FCC are mere strawmen.)

No, AT&T's problem is with consumers. When faced with the choice with doing the right thing for its customers or squeezing more money out of consumers wallets, they almost always make the choice which screws consumers.

That's what the proposed takeover of T-Mobile was all about. That's what the Qualcomm transaction was about. That's what the data roaming fight was about. That's what the special access fight is about. I could go on, but you get the point.

And frankly, for far too long, too many of the wireless carriers have followed that path. There's a reason why so many consumers have a love/hate relationship with their wireless carrier.

Fortunately, because of competition, companies like Sprint and T-Mobile and U.S. Cellular and C-Spire and Cricket and Metro PCS are putting pricing pressure on the Twin Bells. This is how competition benefits consumers.

But given the vast resources of the Twin Bells -- be it spectrum, scale, lobbying muscle, manufacturer relationships, advertising spend, you name it -- it's becoming increasingly difficult for other carriers to bring that kind of competitive pressure to the wireless industry.

Sprint's CEO Dan Hesse summed up my personal views best in a conversation with GigaOM's Kevin Fitchard late last year:

"When AT&T announced its intention to take over T-Mobile USA," Hesse said, "It made me realize the industry has been gradually moving toward being a duopoly and how tenuous the competitive situation is in the U.S. wireless industry. . . . [Before the merger was announced] I could see this gradual creep in size and market dominance of the big two — growing gradually each year, though not to the extent that it became alarming. But the attempted acquisition of T-Mobile set off all sorts of alarms and had you step back and notice what’s been happening each year for a number of years."

There was a time in Washington, D.C., where I'd look for groups like Public Knowledge, Free Press, CCIA, RCA, RTG, COMPTEL, Consumers Union, MAP and others to lead the charge in fighting for competition. No doubt, these groups have long stood up for consumers and competition in telecom public policy fights. And they will continue to do so on behalf of all consumers.

But given the consumer outrage over the proposed T-Mobile takeover, the consumer petitions which forced Verizon and Bank of America to back off of new fees, and the unbelievable citizen action to stop SOPA and PIPA, I agree with my friend and colleague Maura Corbett, I think our politics has fundamentally changed.

The interest groups in D.C. still play an important role, but the real power is in the hands of consumers themselves. And that power is far greater than any trade association or public interest group will ever wield.

Businesses, large and small, should not ignore this development. Neither should the politicians.

It's my belief that the smart ones won't.

----

Of course, it bears repeating that this is my personal blog and these are my personal views, not those of my employer. For more of a discussion of that, visit my blog's home page.

This afternoon, Bob Quinn, AT&T's top lobbyist before the FCC, wrote a blog post which not only criticized a pro-consumer decision from the FCC, but also mischaracterized Sprint's network investments.

In response, Sprint issued the following statement to media:

"It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that AT&T wants to challenge a consumer’s right to access email, the Internet and other mobile broadband services wherever they may travel in the U.S. Along with Verizon Wireless, AT&T is the only other wireless carrier in America which opposes the FCC’s pro-consumer data roaming decision from last year.

"The facts are that Sprint, as part of its Network Vision program, doubled its 2011 capital investment over 2010 to make tens of thousands of capacity upgrades, resulting in a better wireless experience for its customers. With these network investments, Sprint continues to offer consumers a better value than AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.”

p.s. I suppose AT&T and Verizon are opposed to buffaloes roaming, too. ;-)

The Wall Street Journal has reported this week that one of the reasons that Sprint is opposed to AT&T's takeover of T-Mobile is because AT&T (and Verizon) are already anticompetitive in the special access market.

And boy does this have AT&T hoppin' mad.

AT&T's Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Bob Quinn complains loudly in this story, saying "This merger has absolutely no impact on the issue of special access/wireless backhaul." Quinn goes on to say, "If the special access debate comes up during the merger review, it will come up because of Sprint."

Actually Bob, it will come up because of AT&T.

You see it was the old AT&T who filed the original complaint at the FCC asking the Commission to rein in the Landline guys. (Then AT&T was an independent long distance carrier.)

It will also come up because the special access rip off that AT&T and its Ma Bell cousins carry out is hurting our economy. A study released earlier this year shows that shutting off the Special Access ATM machine would create approximately 176,000 jobs and add $37.7 billion in economic output to the nation's economy.

From Sprint's point of view AT&T is already being anti-competitive in the special access market. Approving the takeover of T-Mobile would simply strengthen AT&T's chokehold on the wireless industry and the nation's broadband economy, essentially allowing an anti-competitive company to be even more anti-competitive.

That's why opposition is building to AT&T's takeover plans.

Today Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) held a news conference to announce their opposition to the T-Mobile takeover.

Rep. Markey said, "I believe it would be a historic mistake for this merger to be approved" while Rep. Conyers went even further saying that the Department of Justice has allowed “AT&T to combine with other companies and basically reform Ma Bell, only with T-Mobile, it will be Ma Cell.”

Conyers later said, “This constitutes, in my mind, a mega-merger in an already concentrated industry,” Conyers said. If approved it would be “one of the largest duopolies of all time.”

Well there you have it.

p.s. The photo is one I took of the special access lines AT&T sells Sprint to support a cell site in Charlotte, N.C. Incidentally, the upload and download speeds of this connection is less that AT&T's UVerse, but costs Sprint 7 times what AT&T charges you for U-verse. What accounts for the difference? AT&T recognizes that you have a choice to get cable or satellite if you don't want U-verse, but with special access, there is no competition. That's how they get away with 100 percent rates of return on special access.

Tonight's Communications Daily has another story about the large number of people who have filed public comments at the FCC opposing AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile.

As of this writing, more than 4,200 consumers have written the FCC, nearly all opposing AT&T.

So what does AT&T have to say about this?

Bob Quinn, AT&T's Senior Vice President for Government Affairs told Communications Daily that consumers' comments are impossible to verify and contain more "rhetoric" than facts.

"I don't believe many of these comments contain the kind of factual details that the FCC considers relevant," Mr. Quinn said. "It is what it is, but I think the FCC sees through the rhetoric that isn't supported by facts."

Well that's rather stunning.

So if I understand Mr. Quinn correctly -- people who agree with AT&T have the "facts" and the rest of thousands of people who have contacted the FCC with concerns about higher wireless prices, less handset selection and other issues don't have anything other than rhetoric.

This is a pattern with AT&T.

They said Sprint was "cynical" for asking the West Virginia Public Service Commission to hold a hearing to address consumer concerns about the transaction.

Before that, they said Sprint was "way off base" for daring to point out that this transaction could stifle innovation, raise prices and hurt the economy.

And tonight, they say the thousands of people who don't support their takeover of T-Mobile, well we don't have any facts which support our position.

That sounds like rhetoric to me.

And as for AT&T, I'll make this prediction: consumers will continue to write the FCC and call Congress and the White House to demand that this transaction be rejected. While AT&T no doubt will continue to lobby official Washington to approve this deal, I don't think it's going to work.

On its very face, it makes no sense for consumers to eliminate T-Mobile -- a low cost carrier with a good reputation -- and leave consumers with a bigger AT&T -- a carrier with higher prices and the worst reputation for network quality and customer service.