@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.

Today Sprint CEO Dan Hesse joined the CEOs of Atlantic Tele-Network, Bluegrass Cellular, C Spire Wireless, Cricket Communications, NorthwestCell, T-Mobile USA, and RCA - The Competitive Carriers Association in sending the following letter to the members of the Congressional Conference Committee considering the JOBS Act, H.R. 3630.

Dear Senators and Representatives,

We write to call your attention to language currently contained in Title IV of H.R. 3630 (the "JOBS" Act) that could cause the U.S. wireless market to revert back to the innovation and competition starved market that existed before Congress granted the FCC spectrum auction authority in 1993. The JOBS Act contains provisions that could provide significant benefits to smaller carriers and consumers by putting additional, high-quality spectrum into the marketplace. However, Section 4105 of the Bill, as currently worded, would undercut those benefits by prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission from considering existing spectrum holdings in determining a carrier’s participation in future spectrum auctions. The proposed provision would substantially limit the FCC’s ability to promote competition and a competitive wireless marketplace for consumers throughout America. It would facilitate spectrum warehousing, inefficient use of scarce spectrum resources, and reduce spectrum auction revenues to the U.S. Treasury. Accordingly, we ask Congress to support fair spectrum auctions that promote competition in the mobile broadband marketplace by eliminating Section 4105.

Congress first granted the FCC authority to design and conduct spectrum auctions in 1993; since then, the agency has conducted more than 80 auctions raising tens of billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury and issuing thousands of new spectrum licenses. The FCC has used its auction design authority cautiously and wisely. It has adopted auction eligibility restrictions only when needed to promote competition and avoid excessive spectrum concentration in the hands of a few carriers. Stripping the FCC of its auction design discretion would disserve the public interest by permitting unchecked participation by the two largest, best-funded wireless carriers in future spectrum auctions. That would discourage smaller competitors from participating in future auctions thereby reducing auction revenues and limiting wireless competition and innovation.

In the early 1990s, Congress and the FCC were faced with a wireless duopoly. Congress responded by giving the FCC the auction eligibility flexibility it implemented to auction the spectrum which the undersigned wireless carriers used to compete in the marketplace. Congress’ challenge today is to authorize the FCC to conduct incentive auctions to bring additional spectrum to market while preserving the FCC’s ability to manage auction eligibility and structure to promote the benefits of vibrant wireless competition for consumers and the economy.

We urge you to safeguard America’s mobile broadband future by ensuring that FCC auction authority is renewed by taking the concrete steps outlined above.

On Friday, Sprint CEO Dan Hesse gave a speech in San Francisco where he talked about Sprint's commitment to operating the company in the a greener, more sustainable manner. Sprint has made great strides in recent years and people are taking notice. In its most recent rankings of the greenest companies in America, Sprint was ranked number six.

Dan also talked about how the wireless industry can help the rest of the country's businesses operate in a greener manner, too. Want more employees telecommuting and staying off the freeways? Wireless modems mean people can connect anywhere. Want fewer in person meetings? Try video chats via a 4G connection.

Dan pointed out however that the innovation in the wireless industry that makes this greener future possible was in jeopardy if the government allowed AT&T to takeover T-Mobile.

Media picked up on this, not surprisingly, when Dan said that approval of the T-Mobile takeover would, "stifle innovation and put too much power in the hands of just two carriers," meaning AT&T and Verizon.

Well AT&T's top lobbyist, former Bush White House official Jim Cicconi, couldn't let that stand. He immediately penned a blog post saying Dan's remarks and his point of view were, "way off-base."

• In AT&T's world it's "way off base" to point out that T-Mobile is a low price carrier with a good reputation for customer care and AT&T has high prices and the worst reputation for customer service in the industry.
• It's also "way off base" to point out if this takeover of T-Mobile is approved, AT&T and Verizon will control almost 75% of the wireless market and drive up the prices you pay for wireless service. They also will strengthen their control of the special access market, which is a key cost driver in our industry.
• AT&T also thinks every major consumer group in the country is "way off base" including Consumers Union, Free Press, Public Knowledge and National Consumers League who all oppose AT&T. AT&T always thinks any consumer advocate is "way off base." After all, those are the people who point out just how bad AT&T's network is.
• AT&T thinks the Rural Cellular Association and the Rural Telecommunications Group and the hundreds of their member companies are "way off-base". These are the carriers who joined with Sprint to fight for the ability of consumers to use their smart phones to check email, surf the Net and use Net-connected apps anywhere they travel in America. AT&T thinks those consumers who expect that are "way off-base".

In fact, the more I think about it, AT&T thinks EVERYONE who disagrees with its political agenda is "way off-base".

Here's what I think.

Despite the fact that AT&T spent more than $15 million lobbying Congress and the Obama Administration last year, despite the fact that no company in America gave more in campaign cash to Congressional candidates from 1989 to 2010, despite the fact that AT&T is one of most powerful political forces in American politics, AT&T will lose.

AT&T will lose not because Sprint will beat them. We won't beat them. But you will.

You see, this isn't about AT&T vs. Sprint. This is about AT&T vs. everybody. You know, all those people which it calls, "way off base."

We call them consumers. People like you.

If enough people like you contact the FCC and the Justice Department and Congress and the White House, you will stop AT&T.

But you have to act.

The people I work with at Sprint can never match AT&T's lobbying muscle. AT&T is much too big for that. But AT&T can't stop you, if you care enough to stand up for yourselves.

Here's a post which explains how you can stand up to American Telephone & Telegraph, the corporation who thinks you're "way off base."

As I told Politico last night, I think lawmakers in Washington, once they learn the facts about how this T-Mobile takeover will hurt their constituents, will stick up for consumers and demand that the Department of Justice and the FCC block this deal.

But you have to demand that from your Members of Congress.

AT&T is hoping that you're not paying attention and that if you are paying attention, you won't make the effort to speak out.

Prove them wrong and point out that you think AT&T is "way off-base."

If you do, AT&T will strike out in its attempt to takeover T-Mobile.