One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

FAIL

AT&T announced Monday it has officially dropped its bid for Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA.

The company blamed regulator opposition for the failure of the merger, underestimating the Obama Administration’s tolerance for super-sized acquisition deals that could reduce competition and raise prices for consumers.

The real challenge for AT&T initially came not from the Federal Communications Commission, but from the U.S. Department of Justice which filed suit against the merger in August. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski soon followed with statements that suggested the merger would have a difficult time at the Commission as well, and after a scathing report from FCC staffers was made public, Wall Street began to reduce the chances of the merger getting through to the single digits.

Had AT&T successfully merged with fourth-place T-Mobile, it would have easily become the nation’s largest and most powerful wireless provider, advancing beyond current leader Verizon Wireless.

The failure for AT&T will cost the company at least $4 billion in cash and spectrum it earlier agreed to give T-Mobile if the merger failed to complete.  Industry analysts say the real winner this year will easily be Verizon Wireless, which successfully accomplished its own spectrum acquisition by quietly buying unused spectrum from some of the nation’s largest cable companies.  With that spectrum now under Verizon’s control, AT&T has been reduced to signing new roaming agreements with an independent T-Mobile to share their GSM technology networks.  That will do little to alleviate AT&T’s dropped call problem in large cities, analysts say, because most roaming agreements specify sharing network resources only in areas where one carrier does not provide service.

Where U.S. Cell Phone Companies Stand Today

AT&T: AT&T still retains a considerable amount of unused wireless spectrum, but some of it is located on frequency bands that provide a lower quality of service indoors.  AT&T may have a difficult time finding new spectrum, because other carriers have signed partnership deals with most of the companies still holding unused frequencies. One of the largest holders of unused, warehoused spectrum is DISH Networks, and they’ve indicated no interest in selling.  DISH may partner with T-Mobile now that AT&T has exited.  That leaves AT&T with lobbying the government to speed up new spectrum auctions and working internally to expand their cell tower network to divide the traffic load.  It’s an expensive proposition, and several Wall Street analysts are advising their clients to dump AT&T stock.  Kevin Smithen, a Macquarie Capital USA Inc. analyst who downgraded AT&T to “sell” from “hold” last week advised AT&T was running out of options.

Verizon Wireless: Big Red remains in excellent shape to maintain its current market leadership position, particularly as it uses recently-acquired spectrum to bolster its 4G LTE network.  A UBS analyst was more direct: It will have 56 percent more 4G spectrum than AT&T in the top 10 markets and 46 percent more in the top 100, giving it a “meaningful competitive advantage.” Verizon has also cut a deal with cable operators that could reduce competitive pressure on Verizon’s landline/FiOS network from cable companies.  That fringe benefit comes courtesy of an agreement to market each others’ products to consumers.

Sprint: In addition to building its own 4G network, the company still has an agreement with Clearwire that allows Sprint to purchase the former company’s spectrum if it ever becomes available for sale.  With T-Mobile still obviously up for sale, Sprint could attempt its own merger, although it may be wary of stirring the same regulatory pot that got AT&T into trouble.  That leaves T-Mobile’s next buyer likely to be a regional cell phone company, a foreign firm entering the U.S. market, or an existing telecommunications company that decides a wireless division would be of benefit.

Extended Video Coverage

News of AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Failure Breaks

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/AP T-Mobile Merger Dead 12-19-11.mp4[/flv]

This report from the Associated Press informs consumers of the basics — the merger is no-go, leaving AT&T and T-Mobile as competitors, at least for now.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATT Pulls T-Mobile Bid After Regulator Opposition 12-19-11.mp4[/flv]

AT&T Inc. abandoned a $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA after underestimating opposition from regulators, thwarting its ambitions to become the biggest U.S. wireless carrier. AT&T will take a pretax charge of $4 billion to reflect cash payments and other considerations due to T-Mobile-owner Deutsche Telekom AG, the Dallas-based company said in a statement today. Peter Cook, Lisa Murphy, Adam Johnson and Sheila Dharmarajan report on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (7 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Blair Says ATT’s T-Mobile Bid Was All About Spectrum 12-19-11.mp4[/flv]

Brian Blair, an analyst at Wedge Partners Corp., talks about AT&T Inc.’s decision to abandon a $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA and Apple Inc.’s victory in a final patent-infringement ruling that bans some HTC Corp. smartphones from the U.S. Blair speaks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (11 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Baird on ATT T-Mobile Failure 12-20-11.mp4[/flv]

Apologists for AT&T on CNBC wring their hands over how wireless networks will get built out into rural areas now that the T-Mobile deal is dead. Will Power, R.W. Baird & Co, weighs in with a host who clearly cheerleads AT&T’s world-view.  (5 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC ATT Drops Bid for T-Mobile 12-20-11.mp4[/flv]

AT&T drops its $39 billion bid for T-Mobile USA, with Todd Rethemeier, Hudson Square Research.  AT&T’s talking points don’t fly with Rethemeier.  (4 minutes)

T-Mobile’s CEO Speaks About the Merger Failure

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Deutsche Telekom CEO on Failed T-Mobile Merger 12-20-11.mp4[/flv]

Rene Obermann, Deutsche Telekom CEO, explains why the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile USA should have gone through. “This transaction would have solved a number of industry issues,” he says.  Obermann is in friendly territory on CNBC.  (8 minutes)

The Impact on Sprint

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Horan Sees T-Mobile Eventually Merging With Sprint 12-19-11.mp4[/flv]

Tim Horan, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., talks about AT&T Inc.’s decision to abandon a $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA, thwarting its ambitions to become the biggest U.S. wireless carrier. Horan speaks with Adam Johnson and Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Gamcos Haverty Says Sprint an Endangered Species 12-19-11.flv[/flv]

Larry Haverty, portfolio manager at Gamco Investors Inc., talks about AT&T Inc.’s decision to abandon a $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA, and the outlook for Sprint Nextel Corp. and the wireless industry. Haverty speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (6 minutes)

 Will DISH Network Be AT&T’s Next Acquisition Target?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Trading on ATT’s Failed T-Mobile Bid 12-20-11.mp4[/flv]

Shares of Dish Network up 9% in the aftermath of AT&T’s failed bid to acquire T-Mobile. Michael McCormack, Nomura telecom analyst, weighs in on whether Dish is the next target for AT&T.  (2 minutes)

A Fox affiliate in Green Bay, Wisc. has some trouble drawing distinctions between informational programming and infomercials after it repackaged a four minute ad for AT&T U-verse into a feature story on “Living With Amy,” its morning show targeting women viewers.

As well as failing to disclose to viewers the four minute “segment” was actually a paid commercial, AT&T doesn’t appear anywhere on the show’s sponsor page, potentially confusing viewers into believing the positive U-verse feature was produced by WLUK-TV as an unbiased news story.

It’s just the latest example of a series of “news reports” we’ve found (here and here) that highlight the blurring of the line between journalism and paid advertising.  In most cases, cable companies like Comcast and phone companies like AT&T are “invited guests” of the show’s host, who proceeds to gush over the products and service on offer without informing viewers those companies paid to be there.

This time, the Fox affiliate didn’t even bother with a “sit down” and ran a short infomercial for AT&T’s U-verse instead.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLUK Green Bay ATT U-verse 12-14-11.mp4[/flv]

This “story” appeared on WLUK’s “Living With Amy” show earlier this week.  It’s little more than a four minute commercial for AT&T U-verse, but viewers couldn’t tell because the station never disclosed it was paid advertising. (4 minutes)

"Hey, we're #19!"

The United States may be a leader in many things, but broadband isn’t one of them. The country has now fallen two more positions — to 19th place, behind South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and even Iceland, since the Berkman Center for Internet and Society released its last rankings in 2009.

In 2004, President George W. Bush complained about the U.S. falling to 10th place, which he declared was “ten spots too low.”

Now eastern Europe and former Soviet Republics in the Baltics threaten to overtake the United States, and countries in southeast Asia already have.  Innovation in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand means deploying fiber to the home service to the vast majority of the population.  Innovation in North America means conjuring up new pricing schemes to raise prices on broadband service and engage in competition-busting mergers and acquisitions.

But a USA Today editorial this week also places much of the blame on corporate influence inside Washington, which has promulgated legislative policies that favor telecommunications companies and throw customers under the bus.

“The simple answer is that other countries have policies that promote competition and innovation,” the editors write. “In contrast, policies here have allowed a few dominant players that control the least interesting parts of the broadband landscape (the cables and the wireless spectrum) to dominate.”

Indeed, a series of telecommunications laws enacted by Congress, combined with short-sighted policies at the Federal Communications Commission, have allowed a handful of super-sized players to own and control broadband service in America, resulting in providers establishing non-competing fiefdoms that avoid head-on competition.

The worst policy of all allowed broadband providers to keep competitors from reaching customers over existing broadband networks.  During the days of dial-up, you could purchase Internet access from the phone company, a large provider like MSN or AOL, or thousands of smaller regional and local service providers.  Simply dial a local access number and you were connected to the provider of your choice.  Now, U.S. law gives broadband network operators the right to restrict these independents from selling service over their networks.  Comcast need not sell anything other than Comcast Internet.  Frontier Communications can make a killing selling its own DSL service, while protecting that revenue from other Internet Service Providers who might sell the service over Frontier’s network for half the price.  Time Warner Cable voluntarily allows Earthlink and a handful of other companies to sell cable broadband service over its infrastructure, but at prices equal to or higher than what Time Warner charges itself.

Broadband providers argue that allowing competitors to sell service on their network would discourage future investment and rob shareholders a return on investments already made.  Today, major cable operators and phone companies are falling all over themselves denying they are in anything but the broadband business.  It has become an enormously lucrative enterprise, more profitable than television or telephone service.

USA Today compares the broadband landscape back home with that in South Korea — perennially the world’s fastest, and considerably less expensive than what North Americans pay for service:

South Korea has made broadband a national priority, mandating deployment and in some cases giving private companies incentives to build out. It has also prevented major players from monopolizing their businesses, encouraging competition and innovation. In South Korea, consumers can get broadband service from a cable or telecom company. But they may also choose among myriad independent providers that are given access to the physical infrastructure. This competition keeps prices down and the quality of service high.

[…] But over time, cable and telecom companies worked the courts and Congress to make sure that this competitive world would never come to be [in the United States]. […] Wireless is a bit better. But the market has remained a near duopoly, with none of the smaller players emerging as a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon.

The same open network concept has fought its way forward in Canada (where Bell has worked furiously to sabotage the business plans of independent providers) and in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand where all three governments have decided the best solution would be to scrap the ancient landline network and start fresh with an open-to-all-comers fiber to the home service.

Back home in the States it is business as usual with increasing broadband prices and the looming prospect of usage-limiting schemes designed to cut capital costs, monetize broadband usage, and stop cord-cutting.

The opposing point of view comes courtesy of dollar-a-holler, corporate-backed think tank The Heartland Institute, who is stuck quoting notorious industry-funded studies and think tanks like the Discovery Institute and the Technology Policy Institute:

The idea that European and Asian countries are lapping America in the race for broadband speed and penetration is a fallacy created with statistics comparing “persons” instead of “households.” Once you make that correction, the USA is firmly planted among the top of industrialized nations, as economist Scott Wallsten pointed out when he was a staffer at the Federal Communications Commission in 2009.

And as tech researcher Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics points out, if you measure Internet usage by gigabytes used per month — a better measure of the speed and utility of networks — the USA has nearly lapped Western Europe once and Asia twice.

Heartland Institute: "By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

If you measure how many mouse clicks customers in New York make on a Thursday afternoon, we could be number one as well!  Gigabytes used per month does not measure the speed or price of service on broadband networks, considerations that actually do impact broadband rankings.

Mr. Wallsten is a familiar favorite go-to-guy for The Heartland Institute.  He’s also the choice of Time Warner Cable, who paid him $20,000 for a 2010 essay: “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”

There is big money to be made writing corporate-funded research reports.  Bret Swanson knows that very well, having been involved with the Discovery Institute, a “research group” that delivers paid, “credentialed” reports to telecommunications company clients who waive them before Congress to support their positions.  Swanson is also a “Visiting Fellow” at Arts+Labs/Digital Society, which counted as its “partners” AT&T and Verizon.

The gentleman from Heartland also quotes from the misnamed “Progressive Policy Institute,” which counts among its funding partners, AT&T.

It would have been probably easier (but ineffectively transparent) to simply quote from AT&T and Comcast directly.

The Heartland Institute, unsurprisingly, believes letting existing broadband providers deliver service exactly the way they want is the best option:

The digital economy — one of the only vibrant economic sectors left — doesn’t need more government “investment” or regulation. It needs only for government to butt out and let the market work the magic that continues to bring us the marvels of the modern age.

That magic will cost you $50 a month and rising.  If some providers have their way, while the rest of the world abandons usage caps, American providers can’t wait to slap them on, reducing the value of your service even further.

Haven't we been here before?

History is best ignored when a Wall Street Journal columnist frames an argument in favor of strengthening the hegemony of Ma Bell, and darn ‘ole past precedent gets in the way of the writer’s “facts.”

Gordon Crovitz is a media and information industry adviser and executive, including former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, executive vice president of Dow Jones and president of its Consumer Media Group.  But today he’s unofficially, unabashedly AT&T.

In a column published this week, Crovitz hosts a whine and cheese festival on behalf of poor and abused AT&T, whose multi-billion dollar takeover of T-Mobile is in tatters. Crovitz places the blame squarely on the government for ruining everything:

How soon we forget the risks of overregulation: Last week, the Federal Communications Commission flexed the same muscle it once used to quash market forces in the phone industry to quash market forces in the wireless industry.

Today’s AT&T, a spinoff from the original, needs more spectrum to catch up with market leader Verizon, also a Ma Bell descendant, to support iPhones, Androids and other devices that feature video and sophisticated apps. It wants to buy T-Mobile, a division of a German company, which doesn’t have the resources to compete in the United States on its own. But the FCC decided to apply antitrust theory from the industrial era and claims to know better than wireless companies how they should operate their businesses.

AT&T’s proposed acquisition is best understood as a private-sector solution to a government-created problem. The FCC has not been able to get Congress to approve auctions to reallocate spectrum to wireless from less valuable uses. AT&T wants T-Mobile’s bandwidth so it can extend the latest fourth-generation network to 97% of the country from 80% and improve its spotty service in congested areas.

Under laws dating to the 1920s, the FCC gets to decide if a merger is in the “public interest,” a vague standard for top-down decision making. Government is the last institution in this era of fast technological innovation to act as if it has the information and power to dictate how change happens.

Crovitz apparently prefers AT&T and its phone pal Verizon Wireless dictate how “change happens,” because the two companies control the vast majority of wireless telecommunications in the United States.  Both also charge near-identical prices for near-identical levels of service.  AT&T & VZW are completely comfortable with that status quo, especially if disruptive competitor T-Mobile is dealt with in the usual industry manner (merger/buyout).

There is nothing vague about the FCC report that condemns the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile for the anti-competitive monstrosity it represents.  In hundreds of pages Crovitz evidently never read, a careful and credible argument against the deal was laid out for all to examine.  That evidence is far more persuasive than AT&T’s heavily-redacted filings the public was not authorized to see (for ‘competitive reasons’), and a multi-million-dollar-a-holler public relations distortion strategy based on hollow promises.

Playing Catch-Up With Verizon Wireless?  Hardly.

AT&T hardly needs to “catch up” with Verizon Wireless.  Both companies own wireless spectrum they have warehoused for “future use.”  As a backdrop to the merger, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has already indicated the agency is hard at work carefully re-allocating spectrum to make more room for wireless services.  The “bandwidth crisis” AT&T talks about is a convenient argument for a merger, until you realize T-Mobile’s mostly-urban wireless network won’t help AT&T achieve its goal of rural wireless expansion.  T-Mobile has never provided service in rural America and never will.

Crovitz attempts to leverage Verizon Wireless’ recent deal with America’s largest cable companies as an argument for the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, suggesting that deal was a game changer.  What goes unsaid is the fact AT&T could have pursued that deal for themselves.  Did they?  No.  Despite AT&T’s public relations spin, the proposed merger with T-Mobile is much more than a spectrum acquisition. As the FCC and the Justice Department have argued, this merger is about ridding AT&T of a competitor willing to offer more services at lower prices.  That forces AT&T to respond in kind to compete, and consumers have benefited greatly from that competition. Verizon Wireless is hardly competition at all considering both companies price services nearly identically.  Beyond that is Sprint, already saddled with the financial albatross Clearwire and questions about its long term viability in a duopolistic wireless market.

Crovitz is wrong on his other “facts” as well:

Deutsche Telekom is hardly short on cash.  The company has plenty of resources and could bolster T-Mobile USA to compete if it saw fit.  It doesn’t, preferring to focus on its more lucrative European markets.  Instead of selling the operation on the open market to other players, which could include foreign providers interested in competing in the high-priced American market, it elected to be courted by AT&T.

Overconfident AT&T

Henry De Lamar Clayton, Jr.: Author of the Clayton Act

The merger illustrates AT&T’s unparalleled level of overconfidence it could deal with regulators and consumer groups who would certainly object to the deal.  The company has since spent millions it could have used to improve its network on campaign-contribution-fueled support building on Capitol Hill, a shameless dollar-a-holler astroturf campaign that pays off non-profit groups to sing the deal’s praises, and an expensive ad campaign to sucker Americans into thinking reduced competition will somehow deliver lower prices and better service.

Even former Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would have likely paused over such an obvious monopoly-building operation.  The Obama Administration’s FCC chairman — Julius Genachowski —  while often too timid for our tastes, at least knows when it is time to join the chorus of opposition.

The FCC doesn’t pretend to tell AT&T how to run its business.  It does, however, serve the public interest by providing checks and balances to unfettered corporate power.  While the Wall Street Journal‘s world view of capitalism would have been favored by the most egregious robber barons, history has taught us that when big corporations get a stranglehold on vital industries, the entire economy can suffer.

Crovitz would have us ignore the massive corporate abuses of 100 years ago that eventually provoked Congress into trust-busting legislative reform, breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies that presided over the railways, early telecommunications networks, and industrial raw materials like oil and steel.  Restrained competition brought monopoly prices and blockades against would-be competitors.  What was true then is still true now, only the technology has changed.

In 1911, the economy was powered in part by railroads, which transported goods and raw materials.  Telecommunications networks like the telegraph and early telephone helped conduct business and coordinated the movement of goods.  In 2011’s growing digital economy, telecommunications increasingly represents the railroads, telegraph, and telephone all combined-into-one.  Some of America’s richest tech companies depend on broadband and communications to fuel demand for their products.  Allowing AT&T to control the largest part of that pipeline could be disastrous to everyone but that company and their shareholders.

History Repeats Itself

In 1914, the Clayton Act was passed to put a stop to increasing anti-competitive activity and abusive market tactics.  Amazingly, the problems being solved a century ago are back with a vengeance today, all thanks to the endless drumbeat for deregulation, which has fueled mergers, acquisitions, and increased concentration of market power.  That Act cracked down on:

• Price discrimination: selling products and services at different prices to similarly situated buyers;
• Tying and exclusive-dealing contracts: sales on condition that the buyer sign exclusive contracts that force an end to dealing with the seller’s competitors;
• Corporate mergers: acquisitions of competing companies to reduce competition; and
• Interlocking directorates: Boards of directors of competing companies, packed with common members.

Today’s laissez-faire attitude towards government checks and balances helped provoke the Great Recession, corporate scandals of epic proportions, and a revolving door in Washington where regulators end up working for the companies they used to regulate. Just ask former FCC chairman Michael Powell. Three years ago he worked for us.  Today he works for Big Cable’s largest lobbying group — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker went to work for Comcast shortly after green-lighting their super-merger with NBC-Universal.

It’s All About the Money. Always.

The only thing stopping AT&T from providing wireless nirvana to rural America is its own unwillingness to spend money on behalf of customers to upgrade its network.  The company claims it didn’t see the value of spending nearly $4 billion needed to deliver expansive 4G service, but suddenly had no trouble at all finding nearly ten times that amount to purchase T-Mobile USA.

Did AT&T suddenly win PowerBall?

AT&T saw crushing a competitor Job #1.  Central Idaho’s 4G service could wait.

Crovitz later notes AT&T “was unusually blunt” criticizing the FCC report, a classic case of protesting too much.  The company got caught with its rhetorical pants down, with a series of evolving arguments for a deal that never made the first bit of sense once you began to dig deeper into their case.

In the end, Mr. Crovitz wants you to blame Big Government for AT&T’s pervasive dropped-call problem that its competitors don’t seem to have.

It’s not the company that owns and runs the network, it is that Obama and his nasty henchmen at the FCC who are responsible!  Who knew?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg FCC Says ATT Failed to Show Public Benefit of Merger 11-30-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports the FCC found AT&T failed to demonstrate any real public benefit of its merger with T-Mobile USA.  (2 minutes)