Phillip Dampier

Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski is racking up those frequent flier miles as he travels from one telecom industry trade show to another.  In addition to less-than-thrilling appearances at industry events run by the wireless industry and broadcasters, the chairman is now scheduled to be the headline act at the cable industry trade show to be held June 15 in Chicago.

Instead of devoting time and attention to provider profiteering and the ongoing concentration of the wireless marketplace, Genachowski will be shaking hands with big cable executives, sharing the stage with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  (Powell is a classic example of Revolving Door Syndrome: Start a career in public service and finish it using your government connections to cash in with a six figure salary working for the industry you used to oversee.)

While the current FCC chairman gets to bloat his expense account, his performance on behalf of the American people leaves plenty to be desired:

1. His vision of our broadband future is all talk and little action, with National Broadband Plan goals seen as increasingly anemic when contrasted with broadband development abroad;
2. Genachowski has caved on important consumer protections for broadband consumers, most notably with a very-industry-friendly Net Neutrality policy that won him little thanks (Verizon sued anyway);
3. His “white space” broadband plan to carve up UHF broadcast spectrum for mobile broadband comes poorly conceived, infuriating broadcasters who promise to spend millions in a lobbying death match;

Julius Genachowski has plenty of time for speeches, but never enough time to protect consumers who want better broadband, more competition, and lower prices..

At the NCTA convention, Genachowski is likely to deal with the hot potato retransmission consent issue — the one that pits you in the middle of million-dollar squabbles over what pay TV provider gets to carry what networks (and how much you will pay for them).  Also on the agenda: CableCARD 2: Electric Boogaloo, also known as AllVid, the almost certainly Dead on Arrival replacement for the first generation CableCARD set top box replacement that practically nob0dy uses.

Although Google loves AllVid, the powerful entertainment and cable industry is less impressed.  The Motion Picture Association of America considers it a piracy gateway because it lacks sufficient copyright protection mechanisms, and the cable industry has always been wary of standardized set top equipment that could tie down on-demand programming, signal theft protection, and future innovations.

Genachowski is sure to get a warmer reception at the cable show than he got from broadcasters earlier this month, who were downright hostile over his proposal to carve up the UHF TV dial (channels 14-51), selling off “extra” channels for wireless broadband.

The National Association of Broadcasters is starting to get a little worried, not feeling the love the Commission has bestowed on big cable and phone companies who got their lobbying wish-lists largely granted.  Instead, a year after being dragged into an expensive digital TV conversion, the FCC is back for more from television broadcasters, taking back perhaps a dozen or more channels for “white space broadband,” a vaguely-explained plan to enhance the amount of space available for wireless data.

Unfortunately, with thousands of television stations, the FCC will have to find enough channels for everyone to share without interfering with each other.  The FCC still hasn’t released a definitive plan about how to accomplish this, and with big wireless interests suggesting TV stations should slash their transmitter power and share the same or adjacent channels, a lot of stations fear they will be crammed together like a Japanese train at rush hour.

But the wireless industry wants it, even if it drives some stations in densely populated areas off the air completely.  In many other areas, especially in the northeast and southern California, stations might have to cut their signal coverage areas to avoid interfering with stations sharing the same channel in an adjacent city.  Rural residents relying on over the air television could be out of luck, even with a rooftop antenna.

In a bidding war, who would likely win the spectrum up for sale?  AT&T, Verizon, and perhaps some large cable companies looking for enhanced wireless services to sell.  No wonder the NAB is worried.  The FCC could favor selling spectrum out from under your local stations and sell it to their biggest competitors in the pay television business.

Consumers should be concerned as well.  Should today’s biggest wireless carriers scoop up “white space” frequencies, it will do nothing to bring enhanced competition or lower prices.  It will just lock up even more spectrum for a wireless industry that threatens to become a duopoly.

Instead of flying all over the country to attend trade shows and shake hands with industry leaders, Chairman Genachowski should be spending more of his time looking for creative, effective solutions to enhance competition and protect consumers, not simply throw them under the bus for the benefit of a handful of industry players already too large for the common good.

Genachowski

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski spent this morning in Orlando delivering a keynote address opening the wireless industry’s annual trade show.

Stop the Cap! spent part of the morning following the event over a live stream that most wireless customers would never dare to watch — fearing they’d blow past their monthly usage limits.  Genachowski steered well clear of commenting on yesterday’s merger announcement between AT&T and T-Mobile.  But then AT&T must have hacked their way into the tablet the FCC chairman was reading from, because he suddenly launched into a series of talking points that could have come right off of AT&T’s government affairs website.

“Mobile broadband is being adopted faster than any technology in history, but there’s a catch,” Genachowski said. The chairman said the demand for wireless broadband is overwhelming the country’s wireless infrastructure. “The coming spectrum crunch threatens America’s leadership in mobile,” Genachowski said.

It appears Julius has been listening to AT&T executives who have made the spectrum crunch and “America’s leadership in wireless broadband” bullet points a hallmark of their argument for a merger with T-Mobile.

In fact, although T-Mobile delivers AT&T additional mobile broadband capacity in selected major cities, the company is likely to find many of T-Mobile’s cell sites redundant, and some of T-Mobile’s spectrum is incompatible with AT&T’s network unless customers are handed new devices.

America’s “leadership in mobile broadband” can be judged in many different ways.  For example, we feel many in Washington are helping AT&T lead the way to a mobile duopoly.  We are also leading with some of the most expensive mobile broadband service in the world, a fact of life that will never change in America’s shrinking competitive landscape.

Spectrum issues are solvable by the FCC without destroying competition with yet another colossal merger.  The chairman’s telegraphing of AT&T’s talking points can only be seen as an encouraging road map by which the huge telecom company can sell its deal to regulators by selling out consumers.

Consumer Reports underlines the point: America's worst cell phone company promises America better things by merging with America's second-worst cell phone company. Is this a good deal for America or just for AT&T and T-Mobile?

This morning’s announced deal of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is what antitrust rules were made to prevent.  This bold merger would not have even been attempted had the two companies believed they could not get it past supine regulators and members of Congress who receive substantial contributions from AT&T.

Ordinary consumers can see right through AT&T’s business plans, so why can’t our regulators and policymakers?  In a word, money.

The FCC’s own National Broadband Plan delivers clear warnings that the growing concentration in the wireless industry will hamper better broadband in the United States, not enhance it.  Reduced consumer choice and competition takes the pressure off carriers to innovate, expand, and keep wireless costs under control.

Reducing the number of players on the field delivers countless benefits to carriers and their shareholders.  But for consumers, there is nothing but a few promised spoonfuls of sugar to help the industry’s agenda go down — with vague promises of better rural service, faster wireless data, and new handsets.

In a truly-competitive marketplace, Washington regulators need not exact promises of better service from mega-sized carriers: the much-vaunted “free market” would deliver them naturally, as competitors invest and innovate to succeed.  But that kind of market is increasingly disappearing with every merger.

Nowadays, officials at the FCC and Justice Department are willing to accept deals if they promise some token bone-throwing, at least until the company lobbyists inevitably manage to get those conditions discarded during the next round of deregulation — cutting away rules that “tie the hands” of companies picking your pockets.

Money makes the impossible very possible, and AT&T intends to spend plenty to earn plenty more down the road.  Let’s review how the game will be played, and what you can do to stop it.

The “Free Market” Crowd Sells Out

Randolph May is willing to sell robust competition down the river if it means he can get 4G network access faster.

When the chorus of capitalism capitulates on the most important formula for success in a deregulated marketplace — robust competition on a level-playing field, we know there is a problem.  Take Randolph May.  He works for the free market think tank Free State Foundation.  Watch what happens when even the most ardent supporter of ‘letting the marketplace sort things out’ twists and turns around admitting America is facing a future duopoly in wireless:

“In an ‘idealized’ marketplace, the more competitors the better. But the telecom marketplace is not an idealized market. It is one that requires huge ongoing capital investments to build broadband networks that deliver ever more bandwidth for the ever more bandwidth-intensive, innovative services consumers are demanding,” he says.  “My preliminary sense is that the benefits from the proposed merger, with the promise of enhanced 4G network capabilities implemented more quickly than otherwise would be the case, outweigh the costs. Even after the merger, the wireless market should remain effectively competitive with the companies that remain.”

That’s a remarkable admission for someone who normally argues that marketplace fundamentals are more important than individual players.

May is willing to sell a robust competitive marketplace down the river in return for 4G — a standard AT&T is hurrying to bring to its customers threatening to depart for better service elsewhere.  With this deal, disgruntled customers will have one fewer choice to turn to for service.

Make no mistake: a free, unregulated wireless marketplace requires more than two national carriers and a much-smaller third (Sprint) to deliver real competition.

The Dollar-A-Holler Phoney Baloney Astroturf Groups

AT&T will waste no time trotting out comments from non-profit groups essentially on their payroll who will peddle filings with regulators promoting AT&T’s business agenda in return for substantial sized donation checks to their causes.  The usual suspects, which include groups serving minority communities, will tout the “wonderful things” the deal will bring to their constituencies.

Already out this morning is this curious remark picked up by Broadcasting & Cable from Debra Berlyn, who claims to represent consumers as part of a group called the Consumer Awareness Project:

Beryln's consumer group has a few problems: It's not a group, it doesn't represent consumers, and she is an industry consultant.

“Wireless acquisitions over the course of the past decade have not led to price increases for consumers and, in fact, the statistics show that prices have declined during this period. While some consumer voices have focused on the loss of a wireless competitor in relation to AT&T’s recently announced plans to acquire T-Mobile USA, the news for consumers should be seen in another light with a focus on the benefits that this merger can bring to consumers across the U.S.”

Perhaps the first goal of any group trying to make consumers aware of anything is to actually have a website associated with your group.  The “Consumer Awareness Project” forgot this important first step, but we eventually found the “group” using a re-purposed web address, “consumerprivacyawareness.org,” and note they have only recently become significantly active on this issue, now peddling AT&T’s agenda with gobbledygook.

When Berlyn isn’t pounding out prose to benefit AT&T, she is making guest appearances in Comcast’s corporate blog or being a favorite source of industry-connected groups like the nation’s largest broadband astroturf effort, Broadband for America.

In fact, after some digging, one learns there are no actual consumers involved with the “Consumer Awareness Project.”  The entire affair is actually a project of a Washington, D.C., lobbying-consultancy firm — Consumer Policy Solutions, which counts among its services:

• Federal advocacy: Legislative and regulatory advocacy work before Congress, federal agencies and the administration.
• State and local advocacy: Policy development and implementation and grassroots mobilization.

That is the very definition of interest group “astroturf.”  But my favorite section of this company’s website is the promise paying clients will get Berlyn’s experience “in communicating complex language and issues into easily understandable, applicable messages for consumers.”

Such as: AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile is good for consumers, even if it raises prices and reduces competition.

I’m sold.

The Cowardly Lion & A Myopic Justice Department

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's cowardly cave-ins set the stage for AT&T's bold merger move, believing they have government oversight under their control.

The first hurdle this deal will need to overcome is among Washington regulators, most of whom are either way over their heads understanding the implications of super-sized mergers like this or are simply terrified of going out on a limb with a multi-billion dollar company that can create headaches for your agency in Congress.

AT&T will sell this deal within a very limited context of the deal itself, and urge regulators to ignore “emotional” issues about the increasingly concentrated wireless marketplace.  Verizon did much the same with its acquisition of Alltel — urging regulators to ignore the fact they were removing a player in the market and focus instead on the benefits Verizon’s size and scope could bring to existing Alltel customers.  Of course, in many areas Alltel served, customers were free to do that themselves simply by signing up for Verizon service.

Dan Frommer, a senior staff writer at Business Insider, delivers a TripTik outlining AT&T’s roadmap to deal approval:

“AT&T believes its experience with regulatory review has given it a good picture of what’s realistic and what isn’t from an approval standpoint, and believes it can frame the deal in a way that won’t be rejected,” he writes.  “AT&T says the Feds are looking at “the facts” — hinting that they aren’t acting based on emotions or politics. Though, no doubt, there will be plenty of jockeying in the press and among lobbyists from those on both sides of the deal.”

But Frommer wades in too deep and drowns his credibility claiming the combination of some of the largest wireless carriers in the country still leave plenty of competitors.  Besides Verizon, there is just a single national player of consequence remaining – Sprint.  MetroPCS and Cricket deliver service in urban areas in selected cities. US Cellular, Cellular South, and several others deliver service to an even smaller number of communities, entirely dependent on large carriers for roaming coverage.

The Justice Department’s typical solution to antitrust concerns is to force limited concessions like divestiture of assets in particularly concentrated markets.  In most cases, companies agree because those assets are often redundant and would be sold anyway, or cover such a limited area as to be inconsequential to the greater deal.  Former Alltel customers found themselves traded first to Verizon and then divested away to AT&T.

Most of the customers divested away from T-Mobile’s future with AT&T will likely end up switched to Verizon, hardly a success story for increased competition.

FCC lawyers will likely review this transaction with a narrow scope, too.  Instead of contemplating the implications of the inevitable duopoly that could result, the FCC will likely find itself negotiating over individual details of the deal without considering an outright rejection of it.

AT&T admits they are on a mission to monetize data usage.

At the FCC, Julius Genachowski’s performance as a regulator has been nothing short of a disaster, pleasing almost nobody in the process.  His “cowardly lion” approach to regulation has delivered rhetoric without substance and a whole lot of broken promises.  Genachowski has proven to be unable to stand up to the companies he is tasked with regulating.  With two Republican commissioners likely to favor the deal and Michael Copps almost certainly in opposition, it will be up to Julius Genachowski and Mignon Clyburn to vote this deal up or down.

But regulators are also responsive to Congressional pressure and dramatic backlash by consumers, such as what happened just a few years ago when big media companies lobbied to relax media ownership rules.  When consumers (and voters) revolt, regulators will change their tune… and fast.

What You Can Do

Consumers can make a difference in what comes next for T-Mobile and AT&T.  The first step is to make this an issue with your member of Congress and two senators.  Let them know you have profound concerns about another huge wireless merger.

There is simply no tangible benefit that can outweigh the loss of another important competitor in the American wireless marketplace.

AT&T’s bottom-rated service will not become any better acquiring the second-to-last rated service.  The company must invest in its network to compete, not simply pick off competitors to save money.  The loss of T-Mobile would mean only three national carriers, and it is highly unlikely Sprint would be able to withstand pressures on Wall Street to merge themselves away, probably to Verizon.

Tell your elected officials the AT&T/T-Mobile deal is a consumer nightmare and should not be approved under any circumstances.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Glenchur Says Regulatory Risk Substantial for ATT 3-21-11.mp4[/flv]

The always optimistic Bloomberg News says AT&T’s deal could still get past regulators, but there is a substantial risk as well.  Consumers can help make that risk unsustainable by telling the Obama Administration and Congress better broadband does not come from a duopoly, no matter how well-intentioned.  (4 minutes)

Just shy of one month after adoption, the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality rules face a legal challenge by one of the parties that helped write them.

Verizon Communications filed suit Thursday in the same federal court that in April threw out much of the authority the FCC thought it had over online telecommunications.

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” said Michael E. Glover, Verizon’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel. “We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

Verizon’s lead attorney in the case in Helgi Walker, who will be a familiar face in the court — Walker successfully argued the original case Comcast brought against the Commission for trying to regulate its Internet service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's cowardly cave-in on strong Net Neutrality was rewarded with... a lawsuit from Verizon to overturn the regulations the company helped write.

But Verizon wants an even greater shot at success, asking for the same panel of judges who ruled in the Comcast case to also hear its challenge.

“Verizon has made a blatant attempt to locate its challenge in a favorable appeals court forum,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of the Media Access Project.

Outgunned.  Again.

The earlier decision in the Comcast case not only stripped the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband under a regulatory framework established under the Bush Administration, it derided the logic behind it.  During arguments, the FCC’s general counsel acknowledged he was likely to lose the case, and actually asked the Court for guidance on how to write better rules.

Remarkably, Verizon’s legal challenge comes after the company worked closely with the Commission to moderate Net Neutrality regulations.  The rules issued in December exempted wireless communications and were criticized by consumer groups for not truly representing a free and open Internet.

Rob Pegoraro, a Washington Post columnist, was incredulous the phone company was spending subscribers’ money fighting net policies that nearly mirrored the voluntary agreement it reached with Google last year.

“Okay, so you’re going to spend some of my money to fight a minimal set of regulations written to stop you from tampering with my Internet access? How is that supposed to make me feel comfortable doing business with you?

“(Note to Verizon: You are not only an enormous telecom conglomerate, you are The Phone Company. You don’t get to say “trust me.”)

“Then I got more annoyed.

“The regulations that Verizon regards as an affront to the Constitution match up closely with the proposal that Verizon published with Google in August–a suggested regulatory framework that many people, myself included, criticized for its minimal restrictions on wireless broadband services.

[…] “And not only did Verizon think that its proposed set of rules would be good for business last summer, it did so as recently as 2:25 p.m. Thursday, when a post on its public-policy blog favorably cited those suggestions.”

Nate Anderson at Ars Technica isn’t sure why Verizon is spending time fighting rules it supposedly agrees with either, and he produced a chart proving it:

Excerpted below are the main Verizon/Google provisions, followed by their matching item in the FCC’s “open Internet” order from December. All are exact quotes.

Despite the perceived rush to court, legal challenges against the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules were widely expected.  The FCC continues to tell the press (on background), it believes it has the authority to enact Internet-related regulations and policies.  But many court watchers familiar with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals think it is more likely than not Verizon will prevail on similar legal arguments Comcast used to win its case.

What then?

Pegoraro: “I’d like to think that it would be fitting if the FCC responded by returning to the regulatory strategy it should have adopted in the first place: putting broadband Internet services back under a simplified form of the “Title II” common-carrier regulation that most operated under until 2005.”

“But if the FCC couldn’t find the gumption to choose that more aggressive but more legally grounded option before, why would it now?”

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sold President Obama's campaign pledge, his credibility, and you down the river in a sweetheart deal with Big Telecom.

The Federal Communications Commission voted today to pass what Chairman Julius Genachowski called “Net Neutrality” — reforms that will guarantee a free and open Internet.  But critics charge any similarity to actual Net Neutrality is purely coincidental.

In a 3-2 vote along party lines, the Democratic Commissioners approved Genachowski’s framework to keep providers from blocking access to websites.

Genachowski claims the rules will protect consumers from providers controlling the free flow of online content and will provide regulatory certainty for the broadband marketplace.  Providers, who have either lined up behind the chairman or have muted their criticism of the proposal in recent days, suggest they weren’t about to censor Internet content in the first place and that Net Neutrality is a cause in search of a problem.

Public interest groups were less than satisfied, dismissing today’s proceedings as “Net Neutrality-lite,” or “Net Neutrality with more (loop)holes than Swiss cheese.”  In particular, Genachowski’s willingness to exempt wireless broadband from the rules was a very sore spot among Net Neutrality proponents and some in Congress.

“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) “If the FCC passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”

Franken is convinced excluding wireless networks from open Internet rules is the first step towards a free speech calamity.

“If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.”

Craig Aaron, managing director at Free Press bemoaned today’s vote over rules he suggests were written by the industry itself.

“These rules don’t do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination. No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop,” Aaron said. “The rules pave the way for AT&T to block your access to third-party applications and to require you to use its own preferred applications.”

The Obama Administration is likely to claim credit for the new rules and declare Net Neutrality a campaign promise fulfilled, a claim that makes several net activists’ blood boil.

“Chairman Genachowski ignored President Obama’s promise to the American people to take a ‘back seat to no one’ on Net Neutrality,” says Aaron. “He ignored the 2 million voices who petitioned for real Net Neutrality and the hundreds who came to public hearings across the country to ask him to protect the open Internet. And he ignored policymakers who urged him to protect consumers and maintain the Internet as a platform for innovation. It’s unfortunate that the only voices he chose to listen to were those coming from the very industry he’s charged with overseeing.”

Aneesh Chopra, Obama’s chief technology officer said on Dec. 1 that the FCC proposal was an “important step in preventing abuses and continuing to advance the Internet as an engine of productivity growth and innovation.”

Genachowski’s two fellow Democratic commissioners agreed, noting the policies probably don’t go far enough, but it’s a start and they wouldn’t oppose them.  But Commissioner Michael Copps made it clear he remains unhappy with how the entire debate was managed.  He fears corporate control of broadband content will bring the same mediocrity large corporations have managed to deliver Americans over radio and television.

“I don’t want the Internet to travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries — radio, television, film and cable — have traveled,” Copps said. “What an historic tragedy it would be,” he said, “to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet.”

If today’s mild net reforms are a step forward, it’s a small one say critics like the Center for Media Justice.  They suggest the FCC’s idea of Net Neutrality offers “minimal protections” for consumers.

“Our greatest fears have been realized,” said Malkia Cyril, Executive Director of the Center for Media Justice. “The Internet can only work if it’s a truly level playing field. Telecommunications companies have used their considerable wealth and lobbying might to exclude some of the most vulnerable communities from the only protection there is from their corporate abuses. These rules aren’t fair, and they don’t provide a path to equity or opportunity. We’re deeply concerned that today’s vote sends a clear message to our communities that if you access the Internet through your cell phone, you don’t count. The FCC has sadly shirked its responsibility to protect all Internet users equally.”

All of the debate may ultimately mean nothing should one of the providers decide to challenge the new rules in court.  The Commission failed to address an earlier court decision that ruled the Commission’s regulatory framework was based on nothing more than good intentions.  The agency was toying with the idea of reasserting authority over broadband using a different framework, but providers furiously lobbied against that, claiming it would “regulate the Internet” under rules designed for landlines.  The Commission’s decision to proceed under a foundation condemned by an earlier federal court ruling exposes an obvious weak spot providers could attack in additional lawsuits.

“We know these rules will be hotly contested,” said Betty Yu, MAG-Net Coordinator. “As they roll out, grassroots communities will continue to monitor the process, ensuring that the rights of wireless users are protected from the over reach and abuses of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other telecommunications companies. These rules are a compromise- unfortunately, what was lost in the deal are the rights of wireless users.”

Verizon may make things easier for Yu and other consumer groups to clear the playing field and start over again.  The company released a statement today that foreshadows a willingness to challenge the agency’s Net Neutrality rulemaking in court (underlining ours):

“While it will take some time for us to analyze the F.C.C.’s rules and the order once they are released, the F.C.C.’s decision apparently reaches far beyond the net neutrality rules it announced today,” the company said in a statement. “Based on today’s announcement, the FCC appears to assert broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband wireline and wireless networks and the Internet itself. This assertion of authority without solid statutory underpinnings will yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators, and investors. In the long run, that is harmful to consumers and the nation.”

Net Neutrality Order Snippets

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

The Federal Communications Commission’s Open Meeting introducing Net Neutrality and includes a vote on the rulemaking.  (2 hours, 42 minutes)