The state of California is in receipt of a letter from AT&T objecting to a state workshop on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger that included 70 minutes for a panel of academic experts to share their views of one of the state’s largest wireless mergers in years.

J. David Tate, AT&T’s general attorney and associate general counsel, sent the letter in response to news California regulators would open the workshop to a presentation from academics about the impact the merger would have on California consumers, ranging from competition to roaming access to spectrum issues.

Tate called that inappropriate and asked the California Public Utilities Commission to ban their testimony:

“AT&T is raising objections to the panel because having a panel of ‘academic experts’ present at this workshop will pose significant risk of tainting the record with potentially uninformed and biased opinions. These opinions do not constitute the facts upon which the transaction should be reviewed.

“[…] Allowing academicians with unknown expertise in the wireless telecom industry the opportunity to place on the record their personal opinions regarding AT&T’s planned purchase of T-Mobile USA is procedurally improper, unfairly prejudicial to the parties, and contrary to due process principles.”

Instead of allowing those outside of the industry to present their views on the merger, AT&T suggested the best solution would be to allot the 70 minutes originally given to the academics to AT&T (and the three remaining panels AT&T does not object to) instead.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Merger Chorus 6-01-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News covers Sprint’s increasingly aggressive pushback against the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  But while Bloomberg points out consumer groups are using websites to help consumers file comments opposing the deal, they ignore the fact deal supporters are engaged in their own dollar-a-holler campaign to win the merger’s approval.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATT Concessions 6-01-11.mp4[/flv]

The opposition to the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile is growing louder and more organized as smaller carriers join Sprint’s opposition efforts. Consumer groups roundly dismiss the proposed merger as anti-competition and anti-consumer.  Michael Nelson, a securities analyst, tells Bloomberg News the vote for the merger’s approval could be close and the company will probably have to agree to more concessions than it thinks.  But considering AT&T’s enormous lobbying power, Nelson still thinks the deal will squeak through.  Nelson, however, warns the merger will bring about a considerable reduction in the disruptive pricing T-Mobile has engaged in — pricing that benefits consumers and forces larger carriers to follow suit.  To Nelson, eliminating an aggressive competitor like T-Mobile will bring about what he calls “a rational competitive environment.”  That means higher prices, no surprises, and a stagnant marketplace.  Wall Street understands the implications of this deal, all while knowingly winking at AT&T’s marketing/lobbying machine that claims reduced competition = better service.  (4 minutes)

Gov. Purdue: I Was for More Competition Before I Was Against It

Democratic Gov. Bev Purdue from North Carolina has managed to twist her logic into quite a pretzel over two statements from her office in the past two weeks.  On the community broadband front, Purdue protested legislation to reduce competitive choices in broadband in her state (all underlining ours):

May 20, 2011:

“My concern with House Bill 129 is that the restrictions the General Assembly has imposed on cities and towns who want to offer broadband services may have the effect of decreasing the number of choices available to their citizens. For these reasons, I will neither sign nor veto this bill. Instead, I call on the General Assembly to revisit this issue and adopt rules that not only promote fairness but also allow for the greatest number of high quality and affordable broadband options for consumers.”

Just 11 days later, Purdue inferred the exact opposite in her letter of support for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, which will reduce most of North Carolina to choosing among AT&T, Verizon, and in some cases Sprint.  One of her reasons?  The city of Raleigh is getting a new area code:

May 31, 2011:

The proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile presents another development in the marketplace which can benefit the people of my state.

The communications market in North Carolina, particularly in the wireless arena, is dynamic. Recently, the NC Utilities Commission announced the Raleigh area will soon implement a new area code, the eighth in the state, due primarily to the tremendous growth in wireless service.

In North Carolina we are committed to stimulating investments in advanced technology, and encourage quality service for the public. We look forward to working closely with AT&T to foster these important goals.

On behalf of the people of North Carolina, I appreciate your strong consideration in favor of the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.

Allow AT&T and T-Mobile to merge because Raleigh needs a new area code, proving wireless growth.  That may account among the most novel of all reasons to support a merger that will further reduce competition in the wireless market.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse has declared war on the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, suggesting it would result in a nationwide cell phone duopoly that will stifle innovation and eliminate competition.

“If AT&T is allowed to swallow T-Mobile, competition will be stifled, growth will be stifled and wireless innovation will be jeopardized,” Hesse told attendees at the Commonwealth Club of California Friday.

Sprint’s announced opposition to the proposed merger came during a speech that was supposed to be about the company’s environmental initiatives, but Hesse opened his remarks warning of the dire implications should the nation’s second largest wireless carrier absorb the fourth — T-Mobile.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse delivers remarks at the Commonwealth Club of California – Friday, April 15, 2011. This edited clip covers Hesse’s remarks regarding the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. (12 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Sprint has signaled it is willing to spend lobbying dollars to fight the merger in Washington, where it faces a review by the Justice Department and the FCC.  The declaration of war by Sprint did not go over well at AT&T, where the company’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi trotted out Hesse’s prior statements to use against him in a company blog post:

As recently as last October, Mr. Hesse said the wireless industry is ‘hyper competitive‘.  The month prior, his CFO talked about how ‘tough‘ retail competition is in the wireless market, citing at least six major competitors.  In February of last year, Mr. Hesse said, “M&A is absolutely a way to get the growth in the industry, if a particular transaction makes sense for anybody.”  He went on to say, “I think consolidation will be healthy for the industry, some consolidation. It is, needless to say, very competitive.”  And in January of last year at a Citi Global Conference, Mr. Hesse said, “Well, there is no question that we have an extremely competitive wireless industry in this country and that the pricing is getting much more aggressive.”

Given that Sprint is a major competitor to AT&T in the hyper competitive wireless market Mr. Hesse describes, no one should be surprised that they would oppose this merger.  But it is self-serving for them to argue that the highly competitive wireless market they cited only months ago is now threatened by the very type of transaction they seemed prepared to defend previously.

Sprint was reportedly interested in pursuing a merger with T-Mobile before AT&T sealed their own deal with the German telecommunications company.

Hesse

Cicconi’s remarks about a “hyper-competitive” marketplace conflict with marketplace reality:

• A combined AT&T/T-Mobile enterprise would control 42 percent of the American wireless marketplace;
• Verizon Wireless would control 32 percent;
• Sprint would maintain third place with a distant 17 percent;
• Every other carrier combined (Cricket, MetroPCS, Alltel, and other regional players) would have just 9 percent.

In fact, after Sprint, other carriers AT&T routinely cites as “serious competition” individually have just three percent or less of the American market.

Hesse told his audience that besides concerns about innovation and price, also-ran carriers other than AT&T and Verizon are likely going to get stuck with less advanced handsets and face little or no access to latest generation iPhone and Android smartphones, often made available exclusively to larger carriers.

“Whoever the supplier is, you can say, ‘Hey, I’ll take all of your production,'” Hesse said. “They could restrict our access to some of the cool devices.”

Hesse predicts his company will ultimately not be the only one opposing the merger.  But smaller carriers have had little to say since the merger was announced.

AT&T is buying newspaper ad space to publish a feel good message about Internet Openness that bears no reality to the company’s multi-million dollar lobbying effort to derail broadband reform, taking guarantees of a free and open Internet with it.

The advertisement’s appearance is remarkable, coming at the same time the company’s “government affairs” team of paid lobbyists and friends are browbeating elected officials and the Federal Communications Commission.  AT&T wants the right to allow preferential treatment of its selected content partners while dumping everyone else on the Internet slow lane.

The only opening AT&T supports is a new way to cash in even further on the Internet.  An “open network” to the phone giant means one that is totally deregulated and open to whatever AT&T wants to do with it.

AT&T’s “innovation” is to monetize the traffic that happens to cross their network on its way to AT&T customers.  By manipulating broadband traffic, AT&T will sell its “selected partners” priority access, shoving uncompensated traffic out of the way to make room for whatever AT&T’s special friends want you to see.  While that’s great news for companies that agree to pay AT&T’s tolls, it’s very bad news for everyone else, because the websites you choose to visit may or may not be available on the second rate “free lane.”  Given the choice between AT&T-backed video streaming or a third party provider like Netflix, guess what traffic will never get stuck “buffering” or face glitches.

Investors love the concept because AT&T can collect revenue just by sitting back and demanding tolls from content they neither produce nor host.  It’s not as if they haven’t been paid already — by their customers — to obtain access to that content.  AT&T wants another payday for their shareholders while sticking you with second-rate service.

The problem with AT&T’s world view is… AT&T’s world view.  Real innovation would mean delivering customers a world class broadband service the envy of anyone, delivered on America’s most advanced communications network, not re-purposed copper wire phone lines.  Then, “traffic management” on a mega-sized information highway wouldn’t have to squeeze the speed of some traffic to make room for “premium content.”  There would be plenty of room for one and all.

AT&T’s proposed answer for broadband reform is all about their interests, never yours.

America already experienced a corporate-sanitized online experience with preferred content partners. It was called Prodigy, and by 2000 it was fed to 77 million SBC (later AT&T) customers.

Some examples:

• Net Neutrality has been a part of AT&T’s corporate life for several years as a condition of its 2005 merger with SBC.  It didn’t harm their ability to provide all of the innovation, service, and speeds they could have, but never did.  Nothing about Net Neutrality protection harms AT&T’s ability to deliver broadband service to more of its customers. Giving AT&T whatever it wants won’t change that fact or deliver service to a single new customer;
• The freedom AT&T writes about is their idea of a Corporate Bill of Rights, which grants them the freedom to exchange their ideas and content, but says nothing about protecting your freedom of speech;
• A robust and secure network should exist regardless of Net Neutrality, considering the enormous amount of cash AT&T harvests from their Internet customers month after month.  AT&T is free to innovate all they like, on a level-playing-field, where customers can choose the best applications at the best prices, not the ones AT&T provides to them on a paid fast lane;
• AT&T’s record on competition is laughable when it spends its free cash on an army of lobbyists and “dollar-a-holler” interest groups.  Their mission?  To oppose potential competitors and enthusiastically support AT&T’s competition-busting mergers and acquisitions that further concentrate their market power;
• For AT&T’s customers, transparency alone is hardly the kind of consumer protection Internet users need.  Yes, it’s nice to be told when you are overpaying for broadband service that is “network managed.” Admitting AT&T seeks to throttle broadband speeds and potentially block websites in a monopoly/duopoly market doesn’t help much when customers can’t find another provider.  Disclosing the fact AT&T is sticking it to you is not the same thing as prohibiting them from trying in the first place.

AT&T has no interest in working with anyone that opposes their corporate interests.

The Internet should not be AT&T’s personal playground, ready and able to be “managed” out of its unique ability to deliver ideas equally — to be judged on their merit — not on the money backing them.

Americans have already experienced a corporate-sanitized online service for pre-approved ideas, products, and services.  It was called Prodigy, and by 2000 it was to become the Internet experience for 77 million SBC (later AT&T) customers. By the time the bottom fell out in 2001, SBC owned 100 percent of the service nobody wanted.  In 2005, SBC tried to sell the Prodigy brand in the United States.  There were no buyers.

That should be the outcome of AT&T’s proposal for “an open Internet.”  No deal.