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.

As consumers continue to blow through their $30 2-3GB usage capped 4G/LTE wireless tablet plans offered by Verizon Wireless and AT&T, Public Knowledge is repeating calls for the Federal Communications Commission to launch a formal investigation into data caps.

“It’s a ridiculous situation that the carriers sell millions of these devices specifically designed to view video on one hand, while they restrict the usage of their networks for video on the other,” said Gigi B. Sohn, president and CEO of the consumer group.

Public Knowledge is specifically calling out wireless phone companies because they stand to make millions as customers rack up usage charges when using 4G-equipped tablets with the carriers’ usage-limited wireless networks.

“It is simply inexcusable that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not even seen fit to ask wireless and landline carriers to explain why those caps are necessary, how they are set and how consumers are affected by them,” Sohn added. “If the Commission is truly interested in consumer protection, it will ask the crucial questions and come up with some answers before consumers start getting hit with ever-increasing bills just for using the devices they bought in good faith.”

Sohn

Although the majority of Apple iPads sold in North America only support Wi-Fi, 4G-equipped models have proven addictive, with some customers obliterating their usage allowances with AT&T and Verizon after just a few hours of use.

Wireless carriers largely blame online video for the heavy usage.

“Streaming video consumes the most data of all possible activities and is often the reason customers are among the top 5% of heaviest users,” AT&T notes on its website.

The Federal Communications Commission’s apparent lack of interest in investigating data caps may not be that surprising, however.

In releasing the Commission’s own proposed Net Neutrality rules in late 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski made it clear he was open to new billing models that charge by how much data a user consumes.  With a green light for Internet Overcharging, carriers responded with usage limits and usage-based pricing, raising customer bills in the process.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Senate Hearing on Verizon-Comcast Deal 3-21-12.flv[/flv]

This afternoon, the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held a hearing on the potential antitrust implications of a deal between Verizon and some of the nation’s largest cable companies that would deliver Verizon warehoused, unused wireless spectrum owned by four of the nation’s largest cable operators and open the door to Verizon Wireless pitching cable television subscriptions.  The hearing: “The Verizon/Cable Deals: Harmless Collaboration or a Threat to Competition and Consumers?” lasts 2 hours, 23 minutes.

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.”