@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.

On the afternoon of Dec. 19, AT&T announced that it was abandoning its bid to takeover T-Mobile from Deutsche Telekom.

The companies involved no doubt read what Judge Huvelle said about their arguments before her court. Just 10 days earlier, on Dec. 9, the judge eviscerated the lawyers representing AT&T, T-Mobile and Deutsche Telekom. On five separate instances, the judge called their arguments "presumptous" and she accused the attorneys of attempting to "use" the court. "The landscape has changed," Huvelle said.

It was a devastating day for AT&T and friends.

And AT&T would just as soon pretend it never happened.

So that's exactly what the company did. In its statement announcing the news of the failed merger, AT&T's CEO blamed the FCC and the Justice Department for a problem which Judge Huvelle said was "self-made". And then predictably, AT&T's friends at conservative think tanks and editorial pages chimed in to inject President Obama into the debate.

Nonsense.

AT&T, DT and T-Mobile could go back to court in January and argue that the DOJ and FCC were wrong on the law. But they knew that was a losing battle. Their own documents contradicted every claim in their endless press releases.

It was just easier to say that they were beat up by overzealous regulators appointed by a liberal President who disregards the law.

Give me break.

This was never about politics. It was about consumers, competition and antitrust law. That's why a bi-partisan group of state attorneys general joined with the Justice Department in filing suit to block the deal.

Not that AT&T didn't try to make it all about politics. They touted the political support of governors and members of Congress and civic groups, nearly all of whom had received cash from the company. And AT&T loved to tout the political support of state attorneys general who opted not to participate in the National Association of Attorneys General task force which investigated the deal.

Each of these AGs, who didn't investigate the proposed transaction, yet endorsed it, also were getting campaign cash from AT&T.

There is certainly an argument worth having about the role of regulators in telecom policy. But in this case, AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile was not stopped by the FCC or the Justice Department or state attorneys general, or rivals Sprint or C Spire, or the legions of consumer advocates or the tens of thousands of consumers who protested this stinker of a deal from day 1.

It was stopped by Deutsche Telekom and AT&T, who walked out of court, unwilling to face further scrutiny not from a regulator whom they rail against, but scrutiny from a Federal judge, who found their legal arguments unconvincing.

p.s. Please remember that this is my personal blog and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

In his New York Times column today, James B. Stewart, lays out a very clear argument why the Justice Department will win its lawsuit against AT&T and Deutsche Telekom which seeks to stop the takeover of T-Mobile.

An attorney by background, Stewart is a former reporter with the Wall Street Journal and a former editor of Page One for the Journal. He's also a past executive editor of American Lawyer magazine and a founder of the Wall Street Journal's Smart Money. Oh, and he's won the Pulitizer Prize.

His conclusion about AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile: "If ever there was a merger likely to be blocked on antitrust grounds, this is it."

p.s. The photo above is of Deutsche Telekom's CEO Rene Olbermann and AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson. I took this shot before a House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee hearing held earlier this year. 

Today the Federal Communications Commission received an avalanche of public comments from consumers opposed to AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile. Over 28,000 consumers have weighed in so far, nearly all against this proposed transaction.

The Commission also received several "Petitions to Deny" the merger, including one from Sprint.

This morning's Wall Street Journal took note of the growing opposition to the T-Mobile takeover in a story which ran on the front page of the Marketplace section. The story clearly angered AT&T's top lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, who claimed to the Journal that support for the deal is growing.

AT&T hopes you believe that. That's why Cicconi penned this blog post saying that support is growing.

The problem is, no one believes it. Reporters I work with tell me that they see AT&T's support for what it is -- nothing that is truly coming from real grassroots.

Reporters just don't believe Jim Cicconi or AT&T. Neither do members of Congress.

Just look at this photo I shot of Congresswoman Maxine Waters during the Congressional testimony of AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson and Deutsche Telecom's CEO Rene Oberman.

I don't recall exactly what they were saying when I took the photo during the hearing, but if you could see my face right now, my expression would be a lot like the Congresswoman's.

Over the coming days, I will try to highlight some of the other petitions to deny that the FCC has received, I will also try to explain some of the arguments in our pleading which asks the FCC to block the takeover of T-Mobile.

But for now, I'm heading home.

But stay tuned for more details about why we think the FCC and the DOJ must block AT&T from gobbling up T-Mobile.

The Wall St. Journal is out with a story tonight which points to growing opposition to AT&T's plan to takeover T-Mobile. The story will be in tomorrow's paper.

It highlights the following:

• New opposition from Leap Wireless, the company behind Cricket; 
• Concerns from Metro PCS; 
• The decision by the California Public Utilities Commission to investigate the proposed transaction, as well as a decision 2 weeks ago by the Louisiana Public Service Commission to do the same; 
• Recent decisions by the Justice Department to block other "horizontal" mergers; 
• The FCC's Friday letters to AT&T and Deutsche Telekom asking the companies 97 additional questions about the proposed transaction; and 
• Last week's Congressional hearing where Republicans joined with Democrats in asking questions about the proposed transaction.

The story quotes two industry analysts expressing doubt about AT&T's plans getting approved.

"AT&T opened with such a tightly controlled and well orchestrated launch, they controlled the story line for awhile," said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicholas. "Now we are seeing some say, 'Wait a minute, is this really the market structure we want in the U.S.?' "

Arbogast's remarked were followed by some from Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. "The air of inevitability has drained away," Moffett said.

Perhaps that's why AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson looks so angry in this photo I snapped of him at last week's House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the proposed T-Mobile takeover.

Things are just not going well for AT&T.

p.s. I have more pictures and details from the hearing in my previous post. Be sure to click on each photo and read the captions. (That's the best part!)