@jbtaylor on tech

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.

On the eve of a bipartisan compromise to extend a middle class tax cut and continue unemployment benefits for our friends and neighbors out of work, Politico described AT&T's lobbyists as, "furious" that Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress didn't adopt everything the company wanted in the legislation.

Remember, with AT&T, it's always "my way or the highway" when it comes to public policy.

Missing from what DSL Reports' Karl Bode called a "pout festival" was like-minded Twin Bell Verizon. I'm guessing that top Verizon lobbyist, former Iowa GOP Congressman Tom Tauke and his team realized what Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said about the compromise over the bill's spectrum provisions was true:

“Did we get every single thing that we wanted? No. No one ever has and I don’t think they ever will, including my children.”

Perhaps AT&T's top lobbyist Jim Cicconi believes that too, but in a statement to media yesterday, he pointed out that there is "an opportunity for a court challenge" if the FCC doesn't give his company all the spectrum it wants.

Lovely.

Before the FCC even opens a docket about the future wireless spectrum auction, AT&T is already threatening a lawsuit if it doesn't get its way.

That sounds like an empty threat to me. The last time AT&T was in court over an effort to obtain more spectrum was when the U.S. Department of Justice and a bi-partisan group of state Attorneys General sued the company over its proposed takeover of T-Mobile.

We all know what happened then.

Rather than fight the government in court, AT&T chose to leave the courtroom and abandon the transaction, rather than stand by its scorched earth rhetoric.

So yesterday's threat from AT&T sounds like more empty saber rattling to me.

Time will tell.

p.s. Once again, please remember that this is my personal blog and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

For nearly 30 years, Rick Boucher represented the people of Southwest Virginia in Congress with distinction. I personally was disappointed that he was defeated for re-election in 2010. Mr. Boucher has a keen understanding of many of the complex public policy issues in telecommunications. He was fantastic at forging compromises among his fellow Members of Congress. People on the Hill, even when they disagreed with him, liked him. I sure do. He was the kind of Congressman who most closely represented my personal views.

When he was defeated, Boucher became a lobbyist for Sidley Austin. "Sidley offers a truly unique opportunity for me to promote the growth of a public policy group that brings together lawyers renowned for their leadership in areas I have focused on for much of my career, such as technology, telecommunications, life sciences, financial services, energy and the environment,” said Mr. Boucher in a news release announcing his new job in May last year.

Sidley Austin is one of the most respected law firms and lobbying firms in Washington, D.C. The folks at Sidley proudly tout their work on behalf of AT&T -- they've represented AT&T and its predecessors for more than a century. There's an entire page on Sidley's website about its work for AT&T.

I have absolutely no problem with any of that.

But I am disappointed that Mr. Boucher continues to publicly advocate for AT&T's public policy positions without disclosing that he is now an AT&T lobbyist.

Today's oped in Roll Call on spectrum policy is the latest example. His oped today is not unique in its lack of disclosure.

Throughout the fight over AT&T's failed bid to acquire T-Mobile, Mr. Boucher gave dozens of interviews and penned dozens of opeds claiming that the proposed T-Mobile takeover would benefit rural America. Never once did he disclose his new relationship with AT&T.

Usually, Mr. Boucher would describe himself as the chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance. Never once were readers told that IIA is largely funded by AT&T and the other large landline phone companies.

Mr. Boucher, were he still in office, may very well have advocated for AT&T's failed merger with T-Mobile. He also may have advocated for AT&T's public policy positions on spectrum and other issues. I would like to think so.

At least when he was in office, voters knew that AT&T was his third largest campaign contributor. That was fully disclosed and voters could decide for themselves the significance of AT&T's donations to his campaign.

But now that he is a lobbyist, he doesn't have to disclose his relationship to opinion page editors. He should though. I don't know one editor who wouldn't find that relevant and worth sharing with readers.

Disclosure in politics is important. Even though this is my personal blog and the views I present here aren't necessarily those of my employer, I think it's important for you to know I work for Sprint. That's why I disclose that on this blog and elsewhere online.

Mr. Boucher should do the same. Doing so would be consistent with his reputation he earned over many years of public service.

Last week, our friends at at Verizon and AT&T shifted into overdrive in their lobbying efforts to convince Congress to strip the FCC of its authority to set rules for wireless spectrum auctions. With such rules, the FCC ensures that the every wireless carrier -- small, regional and national -- has a meaningful chance to bid on wireless spectrum in an auction.

The FCC has had this authority in every auction since 1994. Since then, Republican and Democratic FCC Chairmen have run over 80 auctions which have brought more than $50 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

Under the law, Verizon and AT&T have obtained the lion's share of most valuable spectrum -- about 73 percent of all the spectrum under 1 GHz. That's why it's so odd that the Twin Bells are working to overturn this law which has greatly benefited both companies

So why are the Twin Bells working so hard to get their friends in Congress to do them a special favor, independent of any Congressional hearing or open debate? Basically, Verizon and AT&T fear that the Federal Communications Commission MAY use its authority to promote competition.

That's really hilarious, of course, because that's what the law REQUIRES the FCC to do.

So last week I was encouraged to see that media have begun to focus on the details of what's happening in the backrooms on Capitol Hill. And more importantly, it was good to see members of Congress are asking the Conferees to keep the law unchanged.

Sen. Herb Kohl, the chairman of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee wrote that the legislation is, "a serious threat to competition."

Sen. Maria Cantwell wrote that the current language, "will hurt competition" and "benefit only the incumbent providers with the deepest pockets." (Maybe that's why journalist Karl Bode calls the provision "duopoly protection language.")

Senators Kohl and Cantwell are not alone. On Friday, a big voice for competition, the American Antitrust Institute, wrote that, "legislated constraints on the FCC’s ability to design incentive auctions – leaving less room for the agency to learn, change, and adapt – could undermine their potential benefit."

I was particularly heartened to see T-Mobile forcefully weighing in last week. Kathleen Ham, T-Mobile's vice president of Federal Regulatory Affairs, pointed out how it was former GOP Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois who argued for the provision in the law that has served to promote competition.

Hastert, who went on to be the Speaker of the House said, "we need to make sure that all qualified bidders will have the opportunity to participate in this new process ...This language will ensure that the FCC promotes competition ... thereby giving all potential bidders the opportunity to procure spectrum at auctions."

Speaker Hastert was right then, of course. And so are Senators Kohl and Cantwell, and also the bipartisan group of Senators who weighed on on this earlier in the winter.

Reporters have asked me where I think this thing is going and when it will be decided. The truth is, while I'm heartened by this support, I don't know what the Conferees are going to do.

That said, I do know what's right and what's the soundest public policy -- I'm firmly convinced of that. The question is will the Conferees do the right thing or will they do a special favor for the Twin Bells, who already control the bulk of the country's wireless spectrum licenses?

Time will tell if the FCC will be able to continue to maintain a level playing field, or if the Twin Bell lobbyists will carry the day.

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