Walden

When lawmakers talk about “unleashing” anything for “innovation,” it’s a safe bet we’re about to be treated to an anti-regulatory rant about how government rules are ruining everything for big business.  Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) does not disappoint.

Walden is chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an important place to be if you want to influence telecommunications policy in the United States.  Walden slammed the Federal Communications Commission this morning in an editorial piece in Politico, accusing the agency of regulating communications companies before they have a chance to engage in bad behavior:

Sometimes the FCC acts before thoroughly examining whether regulation is needed. It’s now time to stop putting the regulatory cart before the horse. That’s why this bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace, identify a failure and conduct a cost-benefit analysis before imposing rules.

[…] When the FCC reviews a merger, it now often imposes unrelated conditions. These extraneous agreements may not correspond to any harm presented by the transaction, may not be justified industry-wide and, in some cases, are outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

Such bootstrapping is unfair to the singled-out parties. It also results in poor policy. Imposing extraneous conditions on a transaction that is not otherwise harmful is inappropriate. And if a transaction is harmful, imposing extraneous conditions cannot cure it. Merger conditions should be directly related to transaction-specific harms, and within the FCC’s general authority.

Walden’s concerns coincide with the corporate agendas of some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies he oversees as chairman.  That may not be surprising, considering seven of the top 10 corporate contributors to his campaign fund are all telecommunications companies.

Walden's top campaign contributors (Source: Opensecrets.org)

Walden’s record on “innovation” is open to interpretation.  He is on record opposing Net Neutrality, has sought to “streamline” the FCC by hamstringing its authority, and has favored a variety of mergers and acquisitions that have effectively reduced competition for American consumers.

The FCC’s zeal for increased competition appears occasionally in its rulemakings, although the agency under Chairman Julius Genachowski can hardly be considered aggressive and out of control when it comes to some of the most contentious telecom issues that have arisen during the Obama Administration.  It only followed the Justice Department’s lead opposing the AT&T/T-Mobile USA merger.  It punted on Net Neutrality enforcement, doesn’t oppose Internet Overcharging, and has granted more mergers and acquisitions than it has sought to block.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has not always successfully stared down industry efforts to consolidate and deregulate.

Some examples of “unrelated conditions” the FCC has imposed on mergers include no price hikes for consumers for a limited time (Sirius-XM), a discounted Internet service for poor families (Comcast-NBC Universal), and spinoffs of acquired cellular network assets in barely competitive markets (Verizon Wireless-Alltel).

Sirius-XM mostly kept to their agreement, but promptly raised prices when it expired, Comcast followed the FCC’s agreement to the letter but found ways to limit the number of qualified families, and Verizon Wireless sold some of their acquired Alltel assets to AT&T, which at least provided improved AT&T reception in certain markets they largely ignored earlier.

Consumer advocates would argue the FCC should never have approved these transactions in the first place, and the conditions the FCC imposed were so mild, they faced little opposition from the companies involved. But apparently even that is too much for Walden, who we have a hard time seeing opposing any of these mergers.  Besides, some of the largest companies donating to Walden’s campaign fund are already adept at working around the FCC, suing their way past the regulations they oppose.

Walden advocates the FCC only perform its oversight functions after the industry is proven to have imposed unfair, anti-competitive, and discriminatory policies against consumers, not to act to prevent those abuses in the first place.  In short, he wants the FCC to regulate only after the damage has been done. That would be akin to calling the fire department after your house burned to the ground. Companies would be free to walk away with their ill-gotten gains with little threat the FCC would punish bad behavior and fine the bad actors.

If you are Comcast, that is innovation.  If you are a consumer, it’s something else.

When the nation’s largest phone and cable companies get together, it’s never good news for consumers.

Verizon has struck a backroom deal with a cartel of cable companies — including Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications — to stop competing against one another and instead divvy up the spoils of the growing mobile market.  And they’re keeping mum on the details of this arrangement.

The cable industry wants to sell Verizon the mobile phone spectrum it originally considered using to give Verizon Wireless a little competition.  In return, Verizon Wireless is going to start selling you Comcast/Time Warner/Cox cable TV service.  It’s all great for them, but if you were waiting for Verizon FiOS or a better deal for your cell phone, these phone and cable companies want to make sure you’ll wait a long… LONG time.

They claim they are not getting together in an anti-competition pact.  They are just getting differently apart. It’s like divorcing someone by agreeing to move in with them.

It’s a bad marriage for consumers and now is the time for the Federal Communications Commission to deliver some parental supervision.

Stop the Cap! joins Free Press in calling on consumers to tell the FCC to expose Verizon’s backroom shenanigans.

Tell the Commission you aren’t happy with secret handshake deals that hand over the public airwaves to Verizon Wireless to consolidate its market concentration.

Even worse, you don’t want America’s largest competitor for big cable TV — telco-delivered broadband, TV, and phone service — eliminated so the phone companies can pitch you overpriced, non-competitive cable service from their new best friends.

What part of “monopoly cartel” doesn’t the FCC understand?  Tell them you want these deals stopped and you demand real competition, not more of the same.

In the era of today’s “triple play” package of voice, data, and phone service, satellite television providers have been left at a competitive disadvantage.  Both Dish Network and DirecTV can sell you all the television signals you want, but their satellite-based distribution limits the options to include broadband and telephone service in the package.  Now Dish wants to convert some of their satellite spectrum to sell voice and data service over a network of land based wireless towers that will put the company in direct competition with AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Dish CEO Charlie Ergen hopes to avoid making the same mistakes that threaten to kill a similar venture — LightSquared, because of interference concerns.

Dish’s spectrum is way, way up the radio dial, above 2,000MHz.  Other spectrum users in the neighborhood are primarily low-powered, line of sight communications, often satellite-based.  LightSquared’s service would have operated at around 1,500MHz, had it not obliterated reception of global positioning satellite services (GPS) in certain instances.  Whenever new spectrum users begin to move into a neighborhood, those already there feel threatened, primarily from the fear of interference problems.

Both LightSquared and Dish’s proposed services operate at considerably higher power than other incumbent users, and interference to existing services is a proven problem when sensitive reception equipment is unprepared to deal with signal overload.  The Federal Communications Commission found just cause to deny LightSquared operating permission for precisely that reason.  Ergen hopes to sell the FCC on a plan he says will avoid those interference problems.

Ergen

Ergen’s spectrum doesn’t sit immediately next door to other, existing users.  His frequencies are comparable to living the next block over, and there is a protective fence keeping the neighbors apart.

“It’s not as close to GPS, so it’s unlikely to interfere,” Matthew Desch, chief executive officer of Iridium Communications Inc., which operates more than 60 satellites, told Bloomberg News. “But the approval is going to take some time. The FCC is going to make sure they don’t have another LightSquared problem on their hands.”

Mike Marcus, director of Marcus Spectrum Solutions LLC adds Dish has some space between its frequencies — known as a guard band — and other users.  Marcus believes Dish won’t have an interference problem unless existing wireless carriers market handsets and other equipment insufficiently selective to reject interference from higher powered users nearby.

But whether Dish will ultimately spend the billions required to build a nationwide satellite and land-based broadband and phone network to accompany its existing satellite service remains unknown.

Bloomberg reports Wall Street analysts may prefer Dish sell its spectrum assets for a quick profit.  Barclays Capital estimates Dish’s spectrum could net the company about $7.3 billion.  If AT&T or Verizon Wireless were buyers, it would also protect them from new competition in the wireless market.

Regulators may be prepared to limit any such sale, however.  Industry analysts note a similar license for LightSquared required government approval before leasing capacity (or selling the network outright) to AT&T or Verizon Wireless.  The government may seek the same limits on Dish Network’s spectrum.

Ergen may have the final word however.

Vijay Jayant, an analyst at ISI Group in New York:

If the government sets rules that limit how Dish can use the spectrum, Ergen may choose to hoard it, said Jayant, which could be antithetical to the government’s mission of promoting wireless competition.

“Dish isn’t a patsy for the government,” Jayant said. “Dish’s attitude is, ‘Make the rules fair and we’ll do the right thing. Make them unfair and we’ll sit on the spectrum,’ and it will be another black eye for the government.”

CNN's Scare Stories on Wireless

As part of our ongoing coverage of the telecommunications industry, I talk with a variety of reporters in both Canada and the United States.  We have educated local newspapers, national wire services, local TV news, and even big national consumer magazines about the problems consumers have with the North American telecommunications industry.  Whether you are a wireless customer facing eroding usage caps and increasing prices, or a wired broadband customer now being slapped with Internet Overcharging schemes that monetize your usage, the truth about why your bill has gone up isn’t too hard to find, if you bother to look.

Unfortunately, CNN-Money just published a “week-long” series on the wireless mobile phone market that might as well have been written by the CTIA, the nation’s cell phone lobby.

“The Spectrum Crunch” was supposed to be a sober and objective report about the state of congestion on America’s cell phone networks. Instead, the reporter decided industry press releases and lobbyist talking points were good enough to form the premise that America is deep in a cell phone crisis.

Sorry America, Your Airwaves Are Full

Part one of CNN’s special report is a laundry list of disaster predictions, explaining away rate increases and usage caps, and an industry-skewed view that the answer to the “crisis” is to give wireless carriers all the frequencies they want.

The spectrum crunch is not an inherently American problem, but its effects are magnified here, since the United States has an enormous population of connected users. This country serves more than twice as many customers per megahertz of spectrum as the next nearest spectrum-constrained nations, Japan and Mexico.

When spectrum runs short, service degrades sharply: calls get dropped and data speeds slow down.

That’s a nightmare scenario for the wireless carriers. To stave it off, they’re turning over rocks and searching the couch cushions for excess spectrum.

They have tried to limit customers’ data usage by putting caps in place, throttling speeds and raising prices. Carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, MetroPCS and Leap have been spending billions to make more efficient use of the spectrum they do hold and billions more to get their hands on new spectrum. And they have tried to merge with one another to consolidate resources.

The FCC has also been working to free up more spectrum for wireless operators. Congress reached a tentative deal last week, approving voluntary auctions that would let TV broadcasters’ spectrum licenses be repurposed for wireless broadband use.

[…] The bad news is that none of the fixes are quick, and all are expensive. For the situation to improve, carriers — and, therefore, their customers — will have to pay more.

The United States also covers more ground, with lots of wide open spaces where frequencies can be used and re-used without interference problems.  As AT&T keeps illustrating, how you run your business has a lot to do with the quality of your service, spectrum crisis or not.  AT&T customers in heavily-populated urban markets cope with dropped calls and slow data not because the company has run out of frequencies, but because AT&T has failed to appropriately invest in its own network.  AT&T’s problems are generally not shared by customers of other carriers.  Even T-Mobile, which has the least spectrum of all major carriers, does not share AT&T’s capacity issues.

CNN reporter David Goldman suggests mergers and consolidation have been a solution for ‘wireless shortages’ of the past.  But are mergers about consolidating resources or leveraging profits?

The spectrum war’s winners and losers

AT&T’s failed $39 billion bid for T-Mobile was largely aimed at getting its rival’s spectrum. The Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission killed the deal, saying it would be too damaging to wireless competition.

That put the entire industry on notice: The carriers will have to solve their problems without any blockbuster takeovers.

The regulators’ main concern was that the deal would take the ranks of national carriers down from four to three. That’s why experts now expect the big players to focus instead on acquiring smaller, low-cost carriers like MetroPCS and Leap Wireless. Their spectrum could relieve capacity issues in large metro areas, which are the places most crippled by the crunch.

Industry analysts also think that Sprint and T-Mobile could gain approval to merge, though that’s a bit like two drowning victims clinging together. Sprint is losing piles of money every quarter, while T-Mobile is hemorrhaging customers with contracts.

Another possibility is that several carriers could partner in a spectrum-sharing joint venture.

But the most likely scenario is that the carriers continue fighting each other to snap up the last remaining large swaths of high-quality spectrum.

Stephenson

The claim that AT&T sought the purchase of T-Mobile USA for spectrum acquisition falls apart when you examine the record.  For instance, during AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson’s presentation at the merger announcement, shareholders were told the buyout would deliver cost synergies and savings, would stabilize earnings from a more predictable mobile market (with T-Mobile’s ‘market disruptive’ pricing out of the way), and would allow the company to secure additional frequencies.  However, as Stop the Cap! reported back in August, documents released by the FCC showed AT&T unprepared to specify what T-Mobile spectrum it expected to acquire, much less how the company intended to use it.

The “problem” AT&T sought to solve, in the eyes of both the Justice Department and the FCC, was pesky competition from T-Mobile and the reduced profits AT&T endured as T-Mobile forced competitors to deliver better service at lower prices.

Even Goldman admits T-Mobile had the smallest inventory of wireless spectrum among the major carriers — scant reason for AT&T to court a merger for spectrum purposes.

The spectrum winners continue to be AT&T and Verizon, who have the largest inventory of favorable frequencies, and both continue to warehouse spectrum they are not using for anything.

Your Cell Phone Bill is Going Up

Has your mobile phone bill jumped this past year?

Get used to it.

Demand for wireless data services is soaring, forcing carriers to invest massively to keep up. They have two main options: Upgrade their network technology or acquire more wireless spectrum to give them more bandwidth.

“Massively” is in the eye of the beholder.  Verizon outspent AT&T on network upgrades and continues to enjoy enormous returns on that investment.  Most major cell companies spend billions on network improvements, but also earn tens of billions from their customers.  Yet in the midst of the “spectrum crisis,” AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told investors revenue was up — way up:

“We’ll expand wireless and consolidated margins. We’ll achieve mid-single-digit EPS growth or better. Cash generation continues to look very strong again next year. And given the operational momentum we have in the business, all of this appears very achievable and probably at the conservative end of our expectations.”

AT&T’s chief financial officer John J. Stephens put a spotlight on it:

In 2011, 76% of our revenues came from wireless and wireline data and managed services. That’s up from 68% or more than $10 billion from just 2 years ago. And revenues from these areas grew about $7 billion last year or more than 7% for 2011. We’re confident this mix shift will continue. In fact, in 2012 we expect consolidated revenues to continue to grow, thanks to strength in these growth drivers with little expected lift from the economy.

[…] We also continue to bring more subscribers onto our network with tiered data plans, more than 22 million at the end of the quarter, with most choosing the higher-priced plan. As more of our base moves to tiered plans and as data use increases, we expect our compelling [average revenue per subscriber] growth story to continue.

That’s a story AT&T has avoided sharing with customers, because more than a few might take exception that the past year’s rate increases have more to do with the company’s “compelling growth story” than a spectrum shortage.

CNN could have reported this themselves, had they bothered to look beyond the press releases and talking points from the wireless industry. The reporter even conflated recent increases in early termination fees as part of the “spectrum shortage.”

Readers have to glean the real story by reading between the lines.  Here is an example:

As Suraj Shetty, Cisco’s marketing chief, puts it: “Data caps are curbing the top 1% of users, but not the top 20%.”

For carriers, finding the sweet spot is a delicate balancing act. Heavy data consumption is costly for them. On the flip side, smartphone users, who are typically required to buy pricey monthly data plans, are their most lucrative customers.

The ideal customer is someone with a smartphone they use sparingly.

That reality could eventually be reflected in your monthly bill. All four of the major carriers declined to comment about their future pricing strategies, but analysts expect them to start experimenting with new “pay for what you consume” approaches.

The real agenda is finding customers who buy the most service and use it the least.  Usage caps and throttles don’t even work, if one believes Mr. Shetty.  Curbing one percent of your heaviest users does little to curtail congestion when the top 20% remain within plan limits and create an even greater strain on the network.

It’s another hallmark of Internet Overcharging — monetizing broadband usage while using “congestion” as an excuse.  If a customer uses 10GB on an unlimited usage plan or 10GB on a limited use plan, the impact on the network is precisely the same.  Only the profit-taking is different.

There Are Solutions

Only in the last part of the series does CNN’s reporter discover there are some practical solutions to the spectrum crunch.  They include:

• Splitting cell phone traffic to reduce tower load.  Adding additional towers is one solution, but not all have to be huge, unsightly monstrosities.  In parts of Canada and Europe, new “micro-cells” on top of traditional power poles or buildings can reduce tower load, especially in urban areas.  These units, which can fit in the palm of your hand, are especially good at serving fixed location users, such as those sitting at home, work, or in a shopping center.  They don’t create eyesores, are relatively inexpensive, and are effective.
• Allocation of spectrum.  The FCC is working on making additional wireless spectrum available.  Some carriers are cooperating to alleviate capacity issues, share towers, and collaborate on new tower planning.
• Consider Wi-Fi.  AT&T found offloading traffic to Wi-Fi and even home-based “femtocells” — mini in-home cell towers have effectively reduced demand on their wireless 3G/4G networks.  There is still room to expand.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Solutions to the spectrum crunch 2-2012.flv[/flv]

Alcatel-Lucent has a solution to the capacity crunch — a microcell cube that can be attached to a building or phone pole.  (3 minutes)

...some of that juicy 700MHz spectrum Verizon is getting from the nation's biggest cable companies.

In an ironic turnabout, Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA, last year an acquisition target of AT&T, has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission opposing Verizon’s spectrum purchase from the nation’s largest cable companies as “contrary to the public interest.”

Verizon Wireless is seeking to acquire a substantial block of unused AWS spectrum that is unlikely to provide any near-term benefits to Verizon Wireless customers (indeed, the company already holds other AWS spectrum and has not even put it to use yet). Rather, the principal impact of the acquisition would be to foreclose the possibility that this spectrum could be acquired by smaller competitors – such as T-Mobile – who would use it more quickly, more intensively, and more efficiently than Verizon Wireless. The acquisitions will limit the deployment of LTE by competitors of Verizon Wireless and the bandwidth available for such deployments.

If these transactions go forward, the end result will be less LTE capacity available overall and reduced competition in the provision of LTE, which would be contrary to the public interest.

T-Mobile, in particular, is upset because it owns no spectrum in the valuable 700MHz range — frequencies that can travel longer distances and easily penetrate buildings.  Verizon Wireless does, and will acquire much more if the FCC approves the deal to transfer spectrum from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox. [Correction: As one of our readers pointed out, the spectrum being acquired is in the AWS band, which T-Mobile argues in its filing is still suitable for a 4G network deployment.]  T-Mobile argues Verizon does not need the spectrum, and will effectively “warehouse” the frequencies to keep them off the open market.  Without prime spectrum, T-Mobile argues, it will be difficult for the company to deliver a 4G experience to its customers.

T-Mobile also has a bone to pick with Verizon Wireless and the cable industry over what it suspects is a non-compete agreement:

At least in effect, this has all the hallmarks of a pure horizontal allocation of markets.

From the limited information available, it appears as though Verizon, the majority owner of Verizon Wireless, has agreed (tacitly if not expressly) to halt its extensive efforts to expand into the cable business and the cable companies have, in turn, traded their control of valuable spectrum in exchange for this protection of their cable markets.

It has been publicly reported that, coincident with acquiring the cable companies’ spectrum, thereby eliminating potential new competition in mobile wireless, Verizon ended its FiOS build out plans and terminated its agreement to resell satellite television. This series of acts appears to limit Verizon’s activity as a potential competitor in the video market and limit the cable companies’ role as potential competitors in the wireless market, while at the same time foreclosing competing providers from one of the only available sources of spectrum.

As a result of this “triple play,” competition in both markets will be substantially reduced. The antitrust laws have long condemned such agreements, even among potential competitors.

Not All Frequencies Are Created Equal

Will Verizon ultimately warehouse its newest acquired spectrum?

Unless you are well-acquainted with the wireless industry, all most people know about their cell phones is that they turn them on and a signal strength meter indicates what kind of reception quality you are getting.  In fact, wireless companies use a range of frequencies across several different frequency bands to handle voice calls and data.  As an end user, you never know the difference.  But if your wireless company is forced to use higher frequencies, they often have a harder time penetrating buildings or provide only limited distance coverage.  That’s why AT&T and Verizon customers have a better chance of making and receiving calls in the middle of a supermarket or office building while others lose reception.

Clearwire has an extensive holding of very high frequencies at its disposal — frequencies the company cannot effectively use because they require considerably more infrastructure (ie. more cell towers) to provide an effective service to customers.  Clearwire customers already complain about poor reception inside buildings, a problem exacerbated by the very high frequencies the company has to use for its service.  Verizon and AT&T collectively control the majority of the best, more robust spectrum — the 700MHz band.  Verizon’s LTE network, for example, relies on spectrum that used to be used by high numbered UHF television channels.

Companies like T-Mobile rely on frequencies in the 1700MHz and 1900MHz bands.  While certainly adequate in urban and suburban areas, T-Mobile has to spend more on cell tower deployment and be especially concerned with rural coverage, especially in areas where the terrain makes “line of sight” reception from cell towers more difficult.

While today’s 2G and 3G networks have made due with current spectrum, companies like T-Mobile are having a hard time finding space to launch the next generation — LTE/4G technology — on their current spectrum.  Without LTE, T-Mobile (and others) will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.  The company argues it should have the right to acquire some of the frequencies Verizon intends to capture from the cable industry, especially if Verizon has no immediate plans to use the spectrum.

Some of the wrangling by T-Mobile seems especially ironic because parent company Deutsche Telekom has indicated it wants to sell T-Mobile USA and leave the American wireless market.  It has shown little interest so far investing in a LTE/4G network upgrade.  Additionally, as part of AT&T’s failed merger bid, T-Mobile is expecting to receive frequencies from AT&T as part of the “failed transaction” clause in the original merger proposal.