America is on the verge of a wireless traffic data jam so bad, it could bring America to its knees.

Or not.

Stop the Cap! notices with some interest that while wireless carriers continue to sound the alarm about a spectrum crisis so serious it necessitates further compressing the UHF television dial and forces other spectrum users to become closer neighbors, the same giant phone companies warning of impending doom are negotiating with online video producers to offer customers “toll-free,” all-you-cat-eat streaming video of major sports events that won’t count against your usage allowance.

ESPN is in talks with at least one major carrier (AT&T or Verizon Wireless) to subsidize some of the costs of its streamed video content so that customers can watch as much as they want without running into a provider’s usage limit. Both Verizon and AT&T have signaled their interest in allowing content producers to pay for subscribers’ data usage. In fact, they don’t seem to care who pays for the enormous bandwidth consumed by streaming video, so long as someone does.

At a recent investment bank conference Verizon Wireless chief executive Dan Mead explained the next chapter in monetizing data usage will allow the company to rake in more revenue from third parties instead of customers already struggling with high wireless bills.

“We are actively exploring those opportunities and looking at every way to bring value to our customers,” said Mead.

Content producers are increasingly frustrated with the stingy caps on offer at AT&T and Verizon Wireless because customers stop accessing that content once they near their monthly usage limit. One large provider admitted to ESPN that “significant numbers” of customers are already reaching their cap before the end of their billing cycle, after which their online usage plummets to limit the sting of overlimit charges.

Offering “toll-free” data could dramatically increase the use of high bandwidth applications and increase profits at wireless providers based on new fees they could collect from content producers. Customers would still be subject to usage limits for all non-preferred content, a clear violation of Net Neutrality principles.

But in case you forgot, wireless carriers won exemption from Net Neutrality, arguing their networks lack the capacity to sustain a Net Neutral Internet experience. These same companies claim without more frequencies to handle the massive, potentially unsustainable amount of wireless traffic, the wireless data apocalypse could be at hand in just a few years. It was also the most-cited reason AT&T and Verizon discontinued their unlimited use data plans.

But unlimiting ESPN video? No problem.

In January 2010, Verizon Wireless was singing a very different tune to the FCC about the need to control and manage high bandwidth applications like the “toll-free” streaming video service ESPN proposes (underlining ours):

Wireless broadband services face technological and operational constraints arising from the need to manage spectrum sharing by a dynamically varying number of mobile users at any time. Thus, unlike, for example, cable broadband networks, where a known and relatively fixed number of subscribers share capacity in a given area, the capacity demand at any given cell site is much more variable as the number and mix of subscribers constantly change in sometimes highly unpredictable ways.

Are wireless carriers now part of the problem?

For example, as a subscriber using a high-bandwidth application such as streaming video moves from range of one cell site to another, the network must immediately provide the needed capacity for that subscriber, while not disrupting other subscribers using that same cell site. Of course, the problem is magnified many times over as multiple subscribers can be moving in and out of range of a cell site at any given moment. Moreover, the available bandwidth can fluctuate due to variations in radio frequency signal strength and quality, which can be affected by changing factors such as weather, traffic, speed, and the nearby presence of interfering devices (e.g., wireless microphones).

These problems compound those resulting from limited spectrum. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized in proclaiming an upcoming spectrum crisis, “as wireless is increasingly used as a platform for broadband communications services, the demand for spectrum bandwidth will likely continue to increase significantly, and spectrum availability may become critical to ensuring further innovation.”

A wireless carrier cannot readily increase capacity once it has exhausted its spectrum capacity. Thus, wireless broadband providers are left to acquire additional spectrum (to the extent available) or take measures that use their existing spectrum as efficiently as possible, which they do through a combination of investing in additional cell sites and network management practices that optimize network usage and address congestion so as to provide consumers with the quality of service they expect.

Regulators need to ask why wireless companies are telling the FCC there is a bandwidth crisis of epic proportions that requires the Commission to exempt them from important Net Neutrality principles while telling investment banks, shareholders and content producers the more traffic the merrier, as long as someone pays. Customers also might ask why their unlimited use data plans were discontinued while carriers seek deals to allow unlimited viewing with their preferred content partners.

What is the real motivation? The Wall Street Journal suggests one:

“Creating a second revenue stream for mobile broadband is the holy grail for wireless operators but collecting fees from content companies would probably make the FCC take a close look into the policy implications,” said Paul Gallant, managing director at Guggenheim Securities. An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ ESPN Toll Free Data 5-9-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal takes a closer look at a plan to manage an end run around Net Neutrality by allowing preferred content partners to offer streaming video services exempt from your usage cap. (4 minutes)

Are we being unnecessarily pessimistic and cynical when we oppose the likely nomination of Thomas Wheeler to replace Julius Genachowski as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission?

Some of our colleagues in the consumer-focused public policy arena suspect we might be.

Stop the Cap! is very skeptical that appointing a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist with 30+ years of experience is the best choice for consumers at the FCC.

Our friend Harold Feld from Public Knowledge, which has announced cautious support for Wheeler’s appointment, has a more optimistic view about his potential:

I understand where my friends are coming from when they look at Wheeler’s resume and think “oh God, another Washington insider, why can’t we ever get a real progressive!” But I cannot agree with Senator Rockefeller’s statement that “a lobbyist, is a lobbyist,” or the view of some that the taint of industry clings insidiously forever and corrodes the soul. It’s been ten years since Wheeler left CTIA, longer than that since he left NTCA. Had he really been interested in advancing the agendas of these industries, he was in an excellent position to do so when he headed up the Obama transition team. He did not. Indeed, Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach, long-time stalwarts of the public interest who worked for Wheeler on the transition team, have joined other public interest luminaries as Wheelers strongest public supporters. Had Wheeler been working behind the scenes in the transition to promote the incumbents, I expect Susan and Kevin would have known.

I also recognize that support from public interest friends is also not conclusive. But it should surely weigh in the evaluation of Wheeler as much as any blog post. And I recognize I’m also a “Washington insider” and as likely to be led astray by my personal friendships and the whole “Washington Bubble” culture as any other human being. That’s why I’m glad people in the community are asking the right questions and putting Wheeler on notice that, like any Chairman, he needs to prove himself as a champion of the public interest. We at PK have also made it clear we expect Wheeler to not just talk a good game, but to get his hands dirty and make tough decisions that will piss off incumbents. And when we disagree, as we expect we will, have no doubt we will make our displeasure known.

Harold specifically commented on our piece reviewing Wheeler’s personal blog, in which Wheeler fell all over himself praising AT&T’s chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi, and seemed resigned to approving a proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger with some preconditions:

It is certainly true that behavioral conditions often fall short, are short lived, and that companies generally find ways to work around them (and the FCC’s track record for enforcement is pathetic). Indeed, we at PK made these arguments in the context of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger for why no set of merger remedies could adequately address the harms such a merger would cause. But there is a huge difference between my belief that Wheeler was wrong about the best strategy to advance the public interest and accepting that he was motivated by a covert desire to support consolidation and deregulation.

It is more than likely we will have to do business with Tom Wheeler, and we can certainly understand efforts to paint a more optimistic and hopeful picture of the likely new chairman. But we would be dishonest if we said we have high hopes Wheeler will think first about ordinary Americans before steering the country’s telecommunications future. We have learned from the past.

Remember Your History: Catering to Big Special Interests is Bipartisan

Having covered the telecommunications industry since the 1980s when Dr. John Malone of Tele-Communications, Inc., was the American consumers’ worst nightmare, confronting today’s increasingly consolidated and expensive telecommunications marketplace is a case of “Back to the Future.” The deregulation and industry consolidation abuses in the 1980s riled up both Republicans and Democrats — wherever constituents flooded offices with complaints about the local cable monopoly. The “problem politicians” that reflexively defended the abusers were just as bipartisan. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) primarily represented the interests of the cable companies that were headquartered in his state. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended the cable companies. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) was outraged at the abuses cable operators like TCI heaped on Missouri consumers and not only introduced legislation to stop the abuse in 1992, he also was instrumental in overriding a presidential veto of the measure.

The first mistake one can make in this fight is characterizing this as “progressive” vs. “conservative.” Real conservatives want all-out competition to manage winners and losers. Progressives want to make sure in the absence of that competition, someone — anyone can act to check the power of concentrated markets that suppress competition, raise prices, and deliver less than compelling service. Five years ago, Barack Obama promised change and a D.C. reset that would have ended “politics as usual.”

The art of the possible — changing the perception that consumer interests take a back seat to the whims of professional lobbyists at the FCC has proved less than successful after four years with Julius Genachowski. President Obama is not completely responsible, but it would be dishonest not to hold him to a promise he would deliver “change we can believe in.”

Instead, at the FCC, we got “change we think we might be able to get away with, maybe, or not.”

Julius Genachowski remained silent on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger until the Department of Justice provided him with political cover to oppose it. He caved on strongly enforcing Net Neutrality, refused to make important regulatory declarations that would have satisfied federal courts the FCC has a right to oversee broadband policy, and near the end of his tenure, hobnobbed with the cable industry and declared his support for usage billing and capped Internet.

Where Does Mr. Wheeler Stand?

So we must ask ourselves, where does Mr. Wheeler, a man who spent most of his career as a consummate cable and wireless industry lobbyist, fall on these issues?

The best place those of us who have not shared lunch with him can make that determination is in his personal blog. Harold wants us to downplay some of Wheeler’s words written during his six years of blogging:

But in the ten years I’ve been blogging, I know that I’ve said many things that do not necessary reflect what I would have done if I had been the ultimate decisionmaker – as I have said on more than one occasion (noting that actual decisionmakers are not advocates). Certainly anyone who reads ten years worth of Tales of the Sausage Factory (has it really been ten years?) will have an excellent sense of my overall priorities and approach. But I can’t swear that all approximately 500 or so blog posts could hold up today as being either accurate predictions (like Wheeler, I too was a big believer in WiMax) or final expressions of what I would have done as Chair of the FCC.

We certainly agree that Wheeler’s predictions of industry trends like WiMAX, in hindsight, are not deal breakers (although they should serve as reminders that one should avoid picking too many winners and losers). But at the same time, Wheeler’s words on policy matters in nearly 60 articles since 2007 should not be ignored, rationalized away, or dismissed either. In some sense, this is comparable to the vetting process for an appointee to the Supreme Court. To get a feel for the philosophy of an individual, both the White House and Congress pour over one’s writings and public opinions. Being asked to accept someone who can reshape public policy for years based on the personal recommendation of others only goes so far.

Many of Wheeler’s views are profoundly concerning, because they seem to betray a telecom industry conventional wisdom about the state of technology, wireless spectrum, regulation, and competition. His familiarity and comfort working within the paradigm of big cable and wireless is strongly contrasted with his suspicions and surprise regarding interlopers like Google and Apple — dubbed by Wheeler as part of a “Silicon Mafia.” We sense Wheeler seems most comfortable expecting to oversee business as usual, while advocating and accommodating some minor innovation here and there.

What is almost completely absent in most of Wheeler’s writings is the perspective of, or concern for ordinary consumers. What would Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average think about yet another consolidating merger between AT&T and one of its smaller competitors? What impact would another cable merger have on the bills paid by ordinary people in Colorado, Nebraska, or Pennsylvania? Is it good for consumers to advocate eliminating wireless network redundancy, as Wheeler does, after major events from 9/11 to Hurricane Sandy to the recent Boston Marathon attack all reveal wireless networks are susceptible to call volume clogging and extended service outages?

More importantly, we are disturbed by Wheeler’s perspective about wired infrastructure that could have a major impact on the near future of rural telecommunications. Wheeler comes dangerously close to AT&T’s sentiments about its yesteryear rural landline network and its wish to switch those customers to wireless (with all the added costs, usage caps, and coverage issues). We cannot help but notice Wheeler frames the general issue much like AT&T does: an “evolution” that represents “weaning ourselves” from “the old wireline.” Ask yourself if AT&T is more or less comfortable knowing Mr. Wheeler’s attitudes about its wired telephone network. AT&T considers it an outdated money-loser and a nuisance in its rural service areas. Wireless is a license to print money, just as soon as the FCC and state regulators give the green light to go ahead. Is Wheeler to be the deciding vote?

We Don’t Believe Wheeler is an ‘Industry Plant’

Harold writes:

But while it is important to ask the right questions and give no one a free pass, it is equally important to evaluate the answers and the evidence fairly and accept their logical conclusions. The evidence that Wheeler would have approved the AT&T/T-Mobile merger had he actually been Chairman (rather than playing pundit) is pretty weak. To take that a step further and say that Wheeler’s justification for approving the merger as a means of reregulating the wireless industry was mere sham to hide his true sympathies seems to me exceedingly unjustified.

That mischaracterizes our sentiments about Mr. Wheeler. We do not believe he is some secret industry plant that is itching to deregulate the agency into a stupor. Nor do we believe a theoretical vote in favor of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is evidence he is in AT&T’s back pocket specifically. Let us be clear: he served as a professional lobbyist for these companies for nearly 30 years. His job was to absorb and reflect the views of the nation’s biggest cable and phone companies both to politicians and regulators. Some remain friends and colleagues.

It is a safe bet most of the industry will welcome and celebrate Wheeler’s appointment. Many know him personally. Many others will feel safe that he is a reachable industry insider already familiar with the issues that concern them. This is what makes the D.C. revolving door so insidious. When you move from the regulated to the regulator (and back again), the only real outsiders are average consumers.

Here is an example of Wheeler admiring AT&T’s prowess in the early days of its attempted merger with T-Mobile. Notice how he characterizes the deal’s opponents:

“The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler shows no evidence of being the FCC’s version of a game-changer like Elizabeth Warren. Instead, he’s an avowed admirer of AT&T’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi. What will that difference mean? The New York Times, reporting more broadly on the problem of D.C.’s revolving door, provides some valuable clues:

Government officials and lobbyists agree that former agency officials have a much easier time getting phone calls or e-mail messages returned from their old colleagues, and that access often extends to greater credibility in arguing their clients’ positions.

One corporate lobbyist who worked as a regulator, asked whether he believed he had an inside edge in lobbying his ex-colleagues, said: “The answer is yes, it does. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to justify getting out of bed in the morning and charging the outrageous fees that we charge our clients, which they willingly pay.”

The lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns about alienating government officials, added that “you have to work at an agency to understand the culture and the pressure points, and it helps to know the senior staff.”

The most likely outcome of a Wheeler nomination is that he will be quickly approved, maintain the agency’s relatively low profile, and avoid rocking the boat too much. Even he doubts the power of the FCC to effect regulatory change unless those regulated volunteer to submit to more regulation. That means more quid pro quo agreements attached to mergers, acquisitions, and other deals the industry brings the FCC for approval. But as this quote illustrates, the industry remains in the driving seat:

“[…] Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

Wheeler argued that the inability of the FCC to muster the political will to deal effectively with net neutrality and other broadband regulation made a consent decree around AT&T/T-Mobile the best way to update consumer protection rather than leave these services essentially unregulated.

Wheeler’s recognition of the inability of the FCC to get virtually anything done comes with no assurance he will do any better. Harold himself admits that the FCC’s track record of enforcement is “pathetic.” Has Wheeler written on his blog that he would seek to change that?

Wheeler’s reflections on the failed T-Mobile/AT&T merger present a clear sign he considers it a missed opportunity, with the usual voluntary divestiture of certain assets here and there with time limited pre-conditions that carry all the impact of one of those class action settlements that nets consumers a coupon or a $2 refund. Everybody but consumers walk away winners.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, in contrast, illustrated the usefulness of a backbone when it quickly declared the merger proposal monstrously anti-consumer and anti-competitive and announced it would sue to stop it. Deal over and dead. When is the last time the FCC issued such a clear-cut, high-profile decision all on its own? Why is it so hard for the FCC to see the same anti-competitive nightmare so visible at the Department of Justice? Public Knowledge and other consumer groups saw the dangers from day one. Does Mr. Wheeler agree with the Justice Department or does he think he can do business with that shrewd AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi to get such deals approved the ‘right way?’

Our view remains the country and the Obama Administration could do far better choosing someone to lead the FCC that has not made a career lobbying for big cable and phone companies. If we want to solve America’s rural broadband problems, enforce fair billing practices and Net Neutrality, find new creative ways to utilize and distribute wireless spectrum, and promote competition while restricting industry consolidation, would we do better choosing an ex-industry lobbyist or an engineer, network planner, professional regulator, or an antitrust attorney?

President Obama went with the ex-lobbyist.

Deutsche Telekom, the largest telecommunications company in Germany, has announced it will introduce a brazen Internet Overcharging scheme for customers signing up for its broadband DSL service, including a throttle that reduces speeds to just 384kbps after as little as 75GB of monthly broadband usage.

For now, only new Telekom Deutschland customers signing up after May 1 will be affected by the usage limits. Customers will be offered the option of upgrading their Call & Surf package to get a larger usage allowance, although many parts of Germany are still reliant on DSL and its variants that cannot deliver the advertised speeds that go with the larger allowances:

• Up to 16Mbps: 75GB per month
• Up to 50Mbps: 200GB per month
• Up to 100Mbps: 300GB per month
• Up to 200Mbps: 400GB per month

“We want to offer customers the best network in the future and we will continue to invest billions to make that happen,” said Michael Hagspihl, marketing director of Telekom Deutschland. “However we cannot continue to sustain higher usage demand while lowering our prices. Customers with very high data volumes will have to pay more in the future.”

Company officials argue German broadband usage demands are accelerating at an ever-increasing rate, putting strain on the company’s network resources.

But critics question if usage demands are the root of the problem, why is DT exempting itself and its “preferred partners” from the data cap, including certain services that offer very high bandwidth video?

The Net Neutrality activist group Netzpolitik.org says DT is “massively violating Net Neutrality while the federal government looks away dreaming that the free market will solve the problem somehow.”

The group points out DT has admitted the speed throttle only applies to content providers who have not partnered up with the German telecom giant.

DT is exempting all of its own in-house content providers, the private television service Entertain, and telephone services (when provided by DT). For everyone else: the speed throttle gets closer the more customers use services like Apple iTunes or Amazon’s Lovefilm service. But DT says those companies can also get special treatment for the right price.

DT’s preferred partner cooperating agreements let “high quality content producers” pay for a managed services contract that guarantees exemption from the speed throttle and prioritization of their traffic on DT’s network, even if it means slowing down non-preferred partner content.

“You cannot thumb your nose at Net Neutrality principles any better if you tried,” said Rene Pedersen, an Internet activist in Köln. “DT will have their emasculated two-tier Internet and all of Germany will have to suffer the consequences. Their own arguments do not even make sense. If there is a capacity crisis, how can they exempt some video providers that now consume the most network resources?”

“Until a few years ago, providers – just like the post – were just deliverers of packages,” said Netzpolitik’s Andre Masters. “This principle is called Net Neutrality – the equal treatment of data packets on the Internet, regardless of sender, recipient, or content. Now providers want to have a direct influence on the content sent, because they want to earn more money.”

Technology publisher Heise Online says the new usage restricting tariff has “triggered a veritable sh**storm” among net users who consider a 75GB usage limit untenable, particularly for families with multiple Internet users.

Heise is also critical of claims DT has made in the press that suggests German Internet users must either accept the usage caps or understand the company will have to spend at least €80 billion ($108 billion) to build a national fiber network to manage growing traffic.

In contrast, Goldman Sachs last year estimated the cost of wiring every home in the United States with Google Fiber would cost $140 billion, a number now considered inflated. Verizon FiOS managed to get costs down for its own fiber network to a level that suggests Google would only need around $90 billion — $10 billion more than DT claims it needs.

“DT is being disingenuous when they suggest it will cost €80 billion to solve their capacity problem. For that amount every household in Germany would get their own fiber cable with 200Mbps speeds or more,” Heise writes in their editorial. “To avoid slowing users down with a speed throttle, only a small fraction of this amount is needed to extend the Internet backbone and peering agreements between providers. For years network traffic has grown exponentially and DT has kept up with demand. So why does DT suddenly need to reshuffle the cards now?”

DT has also received criticism for how it has depicted its heavy users — mostly as content thieves and software pirates using file swapping networks to steal copyrighted works. But instead of dealing with copyright violations, DT wants a sweeping usage cap system that punishes every customer that wants to use their broadband connection.

“Customers are not insatiable Gierschlünde who want everything for free,” writes Heise. “They already pay a lot of money to Telekom: 12.5 million DSL customers roughly translates into around a half billion euros in sales per month.”

The German news magazine Spiegel writes DT’s usage limits strangle the Internet for millions of Germans, especially for competing video providers:

When throttled, customers will need more than 23 hours to watch a DVD-quality movie. At Blu-ray resolution, it will take about two weeks to watch just one film.

[…] The implications of the end of Net Neutrality in Germany represents a form of economic censorship, and German politicians are standing by to watch it happen.

The federal government sees the Internet as a political bargaining chip and not as the social, cultural and economic tool it represents. The government acts in the interests of certain lobbyists, not Germany’s digital future. This allows German telecommunications companies to focus on their economic self-interests without government policies that demand investment in digital infrastructure.

A number of German Internet users are expected to switch to a cable provider, where available, to escape DT’s impending speed caps.

According to the Frankfurter Rundschau, many German cable companies also reserve the right to limit speeds for customers. But in practice, most don’t impose limits until traffic exceeds 60GB daily, and the speed cap is lifted the next day. A cable industry official says its cap currently impacts about 0.1 percent of customers, almost all who use peer-to-peer file swapping networks. Exempt from measurements that bring customers closer to a speed cap: web browsing, video streaming, and video-on-demand.

For now, Germany’s cable operators facing the same traffic growth DT speaks about find no need to impose further limits, stating their networks are handling the traffic with network upgrades as a normal course of business.

“It calls out DT’s claims as fraudulent, because cable Internet users visit the same websites and do the same things DT’s customers do and there only seems to be an ‘urgent’ problem in need of a speed throttle solution on BT’s network,” says Pedersen. “What needs to be throttled are the financial expectations of DT management and shareholders. The Internet is not their personal vault waiting to be plundered.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/What if Net Neutrality.mp4[/flv]

What if Net Neutrality did not exist?  [Subtitled] (1 minute)

Note to Readers: Tom Wheeler’s blog (mobilemusings.net) was taken offline in late November, 2014. You might still find it archived at archive.org. Because the blog has been taken down, we have removed all of the original links that were originally contained in this piece.

Tom Wheeler has had a blog.

The presumptive leading candidate for America’s next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission also has a major conflict of interest problem, with at least 30 years of working directly for the business interests of the cable and telephone companies he may soon be asked to oversee in the public interest. Wheeler is the former president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) — the nation’s largest cable industry lobbying group and past CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) — the AT&T and Verizon-dominated wireless trade association. Today Wheeler serves as a managing director at Core Capital Partners, a Washington, D.C.-based venture capital firm that invests in these and other industries.

In more than 60 articles in the last six years, Wheeler has written of his trials and tribulations with federal regulators who simply refuse to see telecom industry wisdom on spectrum management, the legacy telephone network, obstinate broadcasters, outdated regulations, mergers and acquisitions, and the amazing story of private Wall Street investment and its wisdom to naturally shape America’s telecommunications landscape by “letting the marketplace work” unfettered by oversight and consumer protection laws.

Almost entirely absent in Wheeler’s writings is any interest in the plight of ordinary consumers that do business, often unhappily, with the companies Wheeler used to represent. America’s love of many-things Apple and Google, two runaway success stories heavily invested in the digital economy and well-regarded by more than a few consumers, are scorned by Wheeler as part of the “Silicon Valley mafia.”

Wheeler is the consummate Washington beltway insider, a lifelong lobbyist well-positioned to walk through the perpetually revolving door between the public and private sector. Even worse, he has maintained warm regards for not one, but two telecom industry lobbying giants — the cable and wireless industry trade associations that have daily business before the FCC. Whether Wheeler can stand up to his former best friends is open for debate. Wheeler wrote in one blog entry he remains in awe of AT&T’s chief lobbyist, Jim Ciccioni, who he called “one of the smartest and shrewdest policy mavens in the capital.”

Wheeler’s blog makes it clear he would have supported the 2011 attempted merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, with a few temporary token pre-conditions. He heaped scorn on antitrust regulators for missing an opportunity the merger approval could have had on reshaping the American wireless marketplace. Less is more in Wheeler World.

Like outgoing FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, Wheeler is a longtime Obama loyalist and was involved in Obama’s 2008 election campaign.

Wheeler relays to C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb in a 2009 interview that who you know in Washington can mean a lot. After Obama entered the 2008 race, Wheeler connected to Obama through a friend — Peter Rouse, who had recently accepted the position of Obama’s chief of staff.

“I picked up the phone one day and there was a message from Barack Obama that he wanted to talk about some issues related to technology,” Wheeler described. “Things began to develop. We got really interested in the potential of this person and the opportunity that he represented for a transformational moment in American history, and we decided that Iowa was the place.”

Wheeler and his wife Carol (employed by the National Association of Broadcasters, itself a lobbying group) had the financial resources in place to put their D.C. jobs on hold and spend six weeks in the Region 2 Obama election office in Ames, Iowa.

After Obama won the election, Lamb predicted Wheeler might find himself at the FCC. Instead, Obama’s college friend and money-bundler Julius Genachowski won the position.

Wheeler’s chances of succeeding Genachowski improved dramatically in mid-April after receiving the written support of several public policy advocates. One of them was Susan Crawford, whose recent book, Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, railed against many of the policies supported by the largest telecommunications companies Wheeler professionally represented in his roles at the NCTA and CTIA. Some consumer groups wrote President Obama directly, strongly recommended a change from the ‘business as usual’ revolving door:

During his election campaign, President Obama pledged “to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.” Yet the president is reportedly considering a candidate for the next FCC chair who was the head of not one but two major industry lobbying groups. After decades of industry-backed chairmen, we need a strong consumer advocate and public interest representative at the helm. It’s time to end regulatory capture at the FCC and restore balance to government oversight.

Those consumer groups have plenty to worry about if Tom Wheeler becomes the next head of the FCC. Stop the Cap! has found several quotes from his blog which paint a picture of a potential FCC chairman devoted to industry interests:

Close Wireless Retail Stores to Save Money and Kill Jobs: “Sprint announced plans to close eight percent of its over 1,500 company-owned retail outlets. Why stop there? Why does it make sense for wireless carriers to operate more stores than Sears and Macy’s combined?”

Wireless network redundancy is a waste of money — an interesting sentiment in light of major wireless network failures during Hurricane Sandy and insufficient capacity during the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon last week: “The history of the U.S. wireless industry is a network-centric history that wasted untold billions of dollars building duplicative networks and advertising ‘mine is better than yours.’”

WiMAX is King of the World?: “Back in the mid-1990s new digital technology called Personal Communications Service (PCS) was forecast to be the death knell of the cellular industry. It seemed all anyone could talk about was the “smaller, cheaper, lighter” handsets that would perform feats beyond the capabilities of analog cellular. Now in the mid-2000s the differentiator is speed and throughput and WiMAX is the new hot technology.”

Who needs free over the air television when only 10-15 percent of the country watches?: “What is the purpose of continuing the local TV broadcasting model when between 85 and 90 percent of American homes are connected to cable or satellite services?”

AT&T and Verizon will save us from the Great Recession, except for the fact they laid off “redundant” workers: “In the midst of the first shrinking of global economic growth in almost 70 years, the wireless industry represents what must be the largest non-governmental stimulus program in the world. Wireless is an economic recovery triple play.”

Those mooching broadcasters got their spectrum for free when Verizon and AT&T had to pay real money: “The setting for these theatrics is the digital conversion for which broadcasters lobbied so hard for. Yes, they won new spectrum – which they got for free while all other were paying billions – but getting what they asked for also brought something no one ever imagined. Broadcasting ceased to be broadcasting. Going digital meant that what used to be about moving atoms is now about moving bits.”

We need to verify broadcasters use their spectrum the way we define it or we might take it away: “But threatening a shootout at the OK Corral in order to ‘hang on to every last hertz of spectrum’ is an invitation to irrelevance and proof that the spectrum needs to be assigned to parties that think digitally and see themselves as a part of the solution to the spectrum crisis. Opportunity is knocking for the broadcasters; we’ll see if anyone is at home.”

Reduced quality of service is worth it, even if it means shutting down wired telephone service or increasing interference for wireless users: “It is time to abandon the concept of perfection in spectrum allocation. The rules for 21st century spectrum allocation need to evolve from the avoidance of interference to interference tolerance. We’ve seen this evolution in the wired network; it’s now time to bring the chaotic efficiency of Internet Protocol to wireless spectrum policy. What the FCC’s TAC is proposing is that we officially wean ourselves from the old wireline switched circuit world to embrace the reality of IP and its benefits. It’s time to start down the same road with spectrum allocation.”

Did you know your mobile bill is lower than ever and sending data wirelessly costs next to nothing? How much is your limited data plan costing you again?: “As wireless rates have plunged for both voice and data such regulation has less impact than it did in the wireline era anyway. When each connection required an analog circuit, the cost of such a connection, and the return on that investment was a more logical nexus than today’s digital networks where the incremental cost of a packet of information approaches zero.”

AT&T’s propaganda supporting its attempted merger with T-Mobile was brilliant. Those pesky consumer groups and their meddling, truth-telling agenda ruined everything. When Americans think of rural wireless broadband, the first company that comes to mind is T-Mobile, right?: “The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler sends a Hallmark card to AT&T’s most powerful lobbyist: “AT&T’s recent negotiations with the FCC on the Net Neutrality/Open Internet issue provide an insight into how the company deals with such a complex issue. Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President, is one of the smartest and shrewdest policy mavens in the capital.”

AT&T’s Jim Cicconi is the go-to-guy for determining future wireless policy, not the FCC: “Randall Stephenson may be channeling Theodore Vail, but Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

The Justice Department just proved it does not understand regulatory concepts governing relentless corporate telecom mergers because it decided Americans should have at least four wireless companies to choose from, not three: “Thus, the long-term impact of the Justice Department’s decision would appear to be the growing irrelevance of traditional telecommunications regulatory concepts on mobile broadband providers.”

Wheeler lacks the realization wireless providers are moving to usage pricing for fun and profit, not because of spectrum shortages: “Having walked away from taking the easy money, will the Congress remain as committed as they were to selling spectrum? What will be the light at the end of the tunnel for wireless carriers who see their spectrum capacity being consumed by huge increases in demand? Will the resulting shortage mean that usage based mobile pricing becomes a demand dampening and profit increasing tool?”

We don’t need free over the air television. Just tell free viewers to subscribe to cable like everyone else: “I’ve been mystified why broadcasters have declared jihad against the voluntary spectrum auction. Getting big dollars for an asset for which you paid nothing while still being able to run your traditional business over cable (the vast majority of its reach anyway) and maintain a broadcast signal at another point on the dial seems a pretty good business proposition – unless you really are serious about providing new and innovative services and need all that spectrum.”

You don’t deserve free Internet access either, because it hurts the corporate business plans of other providers: “Competition among networks for customers has put the consumer in the enviable position of being told they won’t have to pay for access to Internet services. “Free It,” the advertisements of British network operator “3” proclaim to promote their unlimited data plan, for instance. The policies that created wireless network competition have trapped operators between holding market share and giving away capacity for ever-increasing data demands. So long as there is one carrier willing to offer its capacity at a low price (or for free), the other carriers must play along thus bringing those who run networks to loggerheads with those who use the networks.”

Google and Apple are privacy invaders that collect your personal data as part of a great Silicon Valley mafia: “If wireless carriers are truly going to become “operators” participating in the broader ecosystem their focus needs to shift from running networks to managing the information created by the 21^st Century’s digital networks. The Silicon Valley mafia hijacked that information, but they could quite possibly be in the process of blowing their escape with the goods by exposing what they were really up to.”

We need a “voluntary” auction of the public airwaves with a subjective standard for what represents their “best use” (ie. the way the wireless industry defines it): “For almost four decades I have listened to businesspeople tell government policy makers to “let the marketplace work.” There is no more effective marketplace than a voluntary auction where everyone is free to decide whether to sell, how much to sell, and at what price to sell. The marketplace for wireless spectrum has spoken through its explosion; now it’s time for the marketplace to be able to decide the best use of spectrum. There is no doubt that some broadcasters will opt to use their spectrum in innovative ways [my firm, Core Capital Partners, has invested in such a belief]. Bully for the broadcast entrepreneurs! The FCC should be encouraging and rewarding of entrepreneurial initiative. Just as clearly, however, some broadcasters will choose other options. It is essential that we get on with offering that option quickly so we can nip the spectrum crunch in the bud, spur innovation, stimulate investment, create jobs, and continue American leadership in wireless services.”

Coming Clean: Wheeler ran astroturf operations that pretended to represent the interests of consumers but actually were little more than corporate sock-puppetry: “In the early days of cable television a cabal of Hollywood and broadcast interests combined to convince the Federal government to deny cable its competitive advantage of more channel choices for consumers. Corporate lobbyists told Congressmen and Senators how cable would mean the end of “free TV” unless it was stopped or controlled. Then these same groups recruited real people – the so-called “grassroots” – to back up their claims. Such lobbyist-organized grassroots efforts were the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of political organizing – I know because I used to do it.”

The alliance between Verizon and a cabal of cable companies selling each others’ products is pro-competition: “A TV subscription service like the one Apple is proposing is the heart of what cable is all about. And whatever Google is doing, they aren’t in every TV just for the heck of it. The Mongols of Silicon Valley have been behaving just like their 13^th and 14^th century predecessors. Using new technology to their advantage, the Mongols of the Middle Ages sent invasions in every direction. Soon they had the largest contiguous empire the world has ever seen.  Sound familiar? It may be a case of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” but a cable-wireless alliance is an exceedingly logical response to the impending attack. Cable operators have program distribution rights (or leveraged access to them) and Verizon has the high-speed wireless network to deliver to the growing number of mobile devices. Both these players can help each other confront the coming onslaught.”

The Wall Street Journal’s not-living-in-the-real-world editorial page strikes again.

The commentary pages have always been the weakest part of the Journal, primarily because they screech pro-corporate talking points in contrast to the more balanced reporting in the rest of the newspaper.

Mr. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. decided to distort broadband reality (again) in yesterday’s edition with a glowing commentary on how wonderful broadband providers are in his piece, “Springtime for Broadband.” The only thing missing was a border in fine print labeled, “Sponsored by Verizon, AT&T, and your cable company.”

While your Internet bill is being hiked at the same time your provider is slapping usage limits on your connection, Jenkins dismisses consumer-fueled complaints about broadband price gouging, assaulting Net Neutrality, and overall poor customer service as part of Washington’s “broadband policy circus.”

Charges fly hourly that Google or some other company is guilty of gross insult to net neutrality (that sacred principle nobody can define). Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has introduced legislation to regulate data caps and Internet pricing. Law professor Susan Crawford, until recently a White House technology adviser, clearly craves to be America’s next go-to talking head on broadband. Lately she’s been everywhere calling for a crackdown on the competing “monopolists” who supply Internet access.

How dare they complain, decries Jenkins in a robust defense of the 21st century version of the railway robber barons.

Comfortably playing patty cake with provider-fed talking points from the industry echo chamber, Jenkins is ready for battle, facts or not.

But wireless providers have invested big money to deploy high-speed mobile networks, and fixed and mobile are inevitably beginning to compete. The latest evidence: Australia recently predicted that up to 30% of households will go the all-wireless route and won’t be customers for its vaunted national broadband project.

Not exactly. The basis for this 30% figure is the National Broadband Network’s own business plan, which warns –if– the company raised prices to a maximum theoretical level, up to 30 percent of its customers would rely on wireless instead… by the year 2039. That is 26 years from now. You have nothing better to do in the meantime, right?

In fact, conservative critics of the fiber network, some defending the big wireless cell phone industry in Australia, have suggested fiber optics is a big waste of money because “wireless is the future.”

That old chestnut again.

“Now you can present a bulletin without touching a typewriter … it’s just there on the computer system, you don’t need a reel to reel tape recorder. I’ve got a touchscreen in front of me. Back then I had a big cartridge deck,” said Ray Hadley on 2GB radio. “Can you imagine the advances in technology in the next 26 years? I can’t. I can’t comprehend it. By the time they finish the NBN, it could be superseded by something we don’t even know about.”

NBN Myths, a website set up to tackle the disinformation campaign from political and industry opponents has one simple fact to convey: “Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the world that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.”

Even Telstra, the biggest telecom company in Australia scoffs at such a notion, noting a growing number of its customers have both wired and wireless service, and they do not depend on one over the other.

Research firm Telsyte found that 85 per cent of Australians want speeds of 50Mbps or higher, speeds impossible for wireless to offer. In fact, when the NBN fiber network became available to Australians, almost half the current users as of October last year had chosen an even-faster 100Mbps plan option. But Australians also want mobile broadband, and they are signing up for that as well.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics notes the number of mobile broadband Internet connections also grew by around 40% in Australia between 2009 and 2010. But here is the Achilles heel of wireless: it cannot deliver the same speeds or capacity, and providers charge high prices and deliver low usage caps. As a result, the wireless industry has pulled off a coup: they earn enormous revenues from networks they have successfully rationed. The total amount of data downloaded over Australia’s wireless networks actually fell on a per user basis, despite the growth in customers.

Much of Jenkins’ commentary is spoon-fed by the industry-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which produces industry-sponsored studies designed to tell America all is well in our broadband duopoly.

In the latest federal survey, the average broadband speed in America is up to 15.6 megabits per second, from 14.3 a year earlier. Nearly half of customers who six months ago made do with one megabit or less have now moved up to higher speeds. Since 2009, the U.S. has gone from 22nd fastest Internet to the eighth fastest.

The 15.6Mbps figure comes from the Federal Communications Commission. The statistics about our global speed ranking come from Akamai’s voluntary speed test program. Other studies rate America much lower. More importantly, while providers in the U.S. try to squeeze out more performance from their copper networks, other countries are laying speedier fiber networks that are destined to once again leapfrog over the United States. Most charge less for their broadband connections as well.

Jenkins also quotes the ITIF which touts 20 million miles of fiber were laid in America last year. But the ITIF, when pressed, will admit the majority of that fiber was “middle mile” connections, institutional or business network fiber you cannot access, or fiber to cell towers. Fiber to the home expansion has stalled, primarily because Verizon has suspended expansion of its FiOS network to new areas after Wall Street loudly complained about the cost.

Jenkins argues that if we leave providers alone and stop criticizing their growing prices, declining competition, and fat profits, the marketplace will suddenly decide to invest in network upgrades yet again.

“The day may come when even Verizon, which visibly soured on its $23 billion FiOS bet, rediscovers an urge to invest in fixed broadband infrastructure to meet growing consumer lust for hi-def services,” writes Jenkins.

Would Wall Street rather see providers invest in network upgrades or return profits to shareholders? Investment expansion in the broadband industry comes when a company senses if they do not spend the money, their business will be swept away by others that will. Cable broadband threatens telephone company DSL, so AT&T cherry-picked communities for investment in its half-measure U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network. Google Fiber, should it choose to expand, will be an even bigger threat to both cable and phone companies. Municipal fiber to the home networks upset the incumbent players so much, they spend millions of ratepayer dollars in efforts to legislate them out of existence.

Jenkins’ view that giving the industry carte blanche to do and charge as it pleases to stimulate a better broadband future is as fanciful as NBN critics in Australia suggesting fiber upgrades should be canceled in favor of waiting 20+ years for improved wireless to come along.

He even approves of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, calling it proper price discrimination in a “fiercely competitive” environment to defray a network’s fixed costs.

Do you think there is fierce competition for your broadband dollar?

Broadband’s fixed costs are so low and predictable, it literally calls out consumption pricing as just the latest overreach for enhanced profits. As Suddenlink’s CEO himself admitted, the era of big expensive cable upgrades are over. Incremental upgrades are cheap, the costs to offer broadband are declining, so it is time to reap the profits.

Jenkins closes with one recommendation we can agree with: “A low-tech way to stir up broadband competition would be to relax the regulatory obstacles to the actual physical provision of broadband.”

We can start by scrapping all the state laws the industry lobbied to enact that prohibit community-owned broadband competition. If big cable and phone companies won’t provide communities with the quality of broadband service they need to compete for 21st century jobs, let those communities do it themselves.