Giant telecommunications companies and their lobbyist friends are gushing their approval for President Obama’s latest pick — Tom Wheeler — to head the Federal Communications Commission. What do they know that consumers don’t?

AT&T

I’ve known Tom Wheeler for many years, and he is an inspired pick to lead the FCC.  Mr. Wheeler’s combination of high intelligence, broad experience, and in-depth knowledge of the industry may, in fact, make him one of the most qualified people ever named to run the agency.

Mr. Wheeler will face daunting challenges at the FCC.  Already the pace of technological change is clashing with outdated laws, antiquated rules, and approaches more rooted in the past than the present.  The dedicated career staff at the FCC are grappling with these challenges now.  If the pace of change is to continue, along with the investment and job creation that fuel it, the mission of the FCC in the 21st Century must be re-examined, and its rules and methods modernized.  In this situation, I can think of no nominee more talented or whose leadership skills are more needed. Moreover, Mr. Wheeler will be joining a complement of fellow commissioners who are equally formidable and well suited for this important moment in the FCC’s history.

On behalf of AT&T, I’d like to congratulate Tom Wheeler on his nomination. We look forward to working with him once he is confirmed by the Senate. I also want to congratulate Mignon Clyburn, who will take over as interim-chair of the FCC. She’s an experienced and independent policymaker, passionate about public service, who will lead the agency over the coming months with a steady hand.

— Jim Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President

National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) — America’s largest cable industry lobbyist

We congratulate Tom Wheeler on his nomination as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. With his significant experience in both the private and public sector, Tom is an exceptional choice to lead the Commission during a time when the telecommunications marketplace is experiencing significant innovation and incredible change. We welcome the appointment of Mignon Clyburn as interim chairman as she is a distinguished and able public servant. We will continue working closely with the entire Commission as they tackle important issues facing America’s dynamic media, technology and telecommunications landscape.

— Michael Powell, NCTA President & CEO and Former FCC Chairman

Comcast/NBC

We congratulate Tom Wheeler on his nomination as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  His vast knowledge of the communications industry, as well as his proven leadership, will be invaluable as the Commission sets its course for our nation’s digital future.  We applaud President Obama’s nomination and we look forward to working with the Commission under Tom’s leadership.

Further, we commend the President’s appointment of Mignon Clyburn as Acting Chair of the FCC.  She has distinguished herself in her service as a Commissioner over the past three and a half years, and has demonstrated that she is well-suited to lead the agency.  She works passionately and tirelessly to ensure that the best interests of all Americans are given serious consideration in each matter before her.  We congratulate Chairwoman Clyburn on her well-deserved appointment as the first female chair of the FCC and look forward to continuing to work with the FCC under her leadership.

As current FCC Chairman Genachowski departs, we wish him the best and thank him for his very successful Chairmanship that has ensured the US remains the leader in the global communications marketplace.

— Comcast CEO Brian Roberts

Telecommunications Industry Association

He has the proven ability to transcend a broad range of industry perspectives to reach balanced outcomes.

— Grant Seiffert, president

CTIA – The Wireless Association — America’s top wireless industry lobbyist

Tom has a deep understanding of communications issues, a passion for hard work and creative thinking, a diverse background that spans the realm of the Internet world and a keen understanding of how mobile wireless broadband can drive our economy and innovation.

I can attest to Tom’s commitment to harness the power of communications technology to improve people’s lives, to drive our global competitiveness, and to advance the public interest,” Genachowski said. “The FCC’s role has never been more essential, and with Tom’s deep policy expertise and his first-hand experience as a technology investor, he is a superb choice to advance the FCC’s mission of promoting innovation, investment, competition, and consumer protection.

Follow the money to the real root of this argument.

After conclusive evidence that cable broadband upgrades have eliminated any congestion problems, the cable industry has finally admitted usage caps are not about “congestion relief,” but are, in their view, “about fairness.”

Reports of the Internet data exaflood, tsunami, brownouts, or even blackouts are highly exaggerated and always have been. But we knew that from the first day Stop the Cap! got started.

In the summer of 2008, Frontier Communications attempted to define a top limit on their residential DSL accounts at a staggeringly small 5GB per month. Time Warner Cable initially thought 40-60GB a month was more than fair when it tried to ram its own Internet Overcharging scheme down the throats of customers in New York, North Carolina, and Texas in April 2009. Comcast said using more than 250GB a month could create congestion problems on their network and be unfair to other customers. To this day, AT&T, one of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies, claims that anything more than 150GB on their DSL service or 250GB on U-verse could bring their entire network to its knees.

The Holy Grail of Wall Street economics for broadband is to monetize its usage, creating an endless money party for what is today a utility service. Millions have been spent lobbying anyone who will listen that usage caps and consumption billing were essential to promote investment, upgrades, and to expand broadband service into rural America. Since those arguments have been made, broadband rates have increased, investment has decreased on a per customer and often real basis, and the government is now trying to chip in public taxpayer dollars to get providers to wire areas that will never pass demanding return on investment formulas.

The second prong of selling this meme is the creation of an Internet boogeyman — the “data hog,” a largely fictional creature that supposedly cares only about consuming every possible bit of bandwidth and slowing your web browsing to a crawl. Shouldn’t he pay more, you are asked, at the same time these same companies continue to raise your rates and now attempt to limit your use of a service that should cost less.

This week, Michael Powell, former FCC chairman turned head of the nation’s largest cable lobby — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, capitulated on the “congestion” myth to an audience at the Minority Media and Telecommunications Association.

Asked by MMTC president David Honig to weigh in on data caps, Powell said that while a lot of people had tried to label the cable industry’s interest in the issue as about congestion management. “That’s wrong,” he said. “Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost.”

He said bandwidth management was part of it, though a more serious issue with wireless.

But he pointed out that the cable industry had to spend a bunch of money on its network before the first customer was signed. So, for a business that requires “enormously high” fixed costs — digging up the streets, put the wires in — and operational expense, “it is a completely rational and acceptable process to figure out how to fairly allocate those costs among your consumers who are choosing the service and will pay you to recover those costs.”

When will Washington regulators and lawmakers stop drinking the Kool-Aid handed them by high-paid lobbyists?

But our readers know Powell’s arguments are based on nothing more than the same empty rhetoric that declared the Internet exaflood was at hand.

Cable broadband was introduced as an ancillary service in the late 1990s utilizing cable television infrastructure that was constructed and paid off years earlier. Introducing broadband required only incremental investment and that remains true to this day. Cable operators more than cover their costs with sky high prices for service delivering some operators as high as 95% gross margin on broadband. Capital investments have broadly declined for years as have the costs to deliver the service on a per customer basis.

Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent admitted the days of expensive system upgrades were over and it was now time to rake in profits.

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Powell’s arguments ironically may apply partly to Verizon’s FiOS fiber network, which requires the retirement of copper wire infrastructure around since Alexander Graham Bell, but even Verizon covered much of its costs winning permission to raise rates years earlier to cover fiber upgrades. Much of that money was diverted to their wireless business instead. Today, Verizon FiOS manages just fine with no usage limits at all.

In fact, the only argument about fairness that should be open for debate regards the current cost of broadband service in the United States when compared against operators’ enormous profit margins. The lack of competition has allowed providers to increase prices and introduce “creative pricing” that always guarantees protection for the incredibly high average revenue per customer already earned.

Too often, Washington regulators and lawmakers drink the Kool-Aid handed them by an industry with an incentive to distort the truth. That incentive is the billions at stake in this fight.

Powell has even shelved the notion of the Cheetos-eating data hog burning up the Internet in his parent’s basement and has elected to try class warfare instead, claiming the most capacity is used “by a high end elite subsidized by the rest.” The real high-end elite are the telecom company executives cleaning up overcharging customers for a service that has become a necessity. Arguing for usage caps as a way to offer “lower prices” for those who cannot afford the ridiculously high prices the industry charges today only creates a new digital divide – the have’s and the have only so much.

Either way, providers laugh all the way to the bank.

Copps

Americans need to stand up and say “no” to more telecom mergers and lobbying efforts that push for additional deregulation and corporate protectionism in the telecommunications sector. Unfortunately, we are in for a fight, thanks to Washington’s problem disappointing a multi-billion industry that lavishly finances political campaigns, conventions, and vacation outings.

Michael Copps, former commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from 2001-2011 and acting chairman for the first six months of the Obama Administration ought to know.

“The consolidated world of telecom broadband did not evolve from the hand of God, the mysterious workings of natural law, or the inevitability of market-based dynamics,” Copps wrote in his essay, “Why Give Up on Competition?” “It was enabled by conscious decision-making at the federal level, largely through the abdication of its oversight responsibilities by the Federal Communications Commission over the better part of 30 years.”

In short, it did not have to turn out this way, no matter what the telecom industry and their astroturf friends have to say.

“Go to just about any telecom conference these days, and some industry maven will make the case that restoring competition to the telecom world is so 1990s,” Copps writes. “Why don’t we all just recognize the inevitable, they ask: telecom is a natural monopoly, competition is a chimera, and the sooner we flash a steady green light for more industry consolidation and less government oversight, the better off we’ll all be.”

Provider-backed ALEC advocates for the corporate interests that fund its operations.

Too many in Washington are already true believers, according to Copps, and the result is two companies controlling over 2/3rds of the wireless marketplace and a broadband duopoly for most Americans. This did not happen overnight. Enormous and expensive lobbying campaigns run for over a decade have convinced lawmakers that less is more when it comes to telecom regulation and oversight. Regulators ringing alarm bells about deregulation without sufficient competition have been picked off, says Copps, by the telecom industry-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has convinced at least 19 state legislatures to wipe away authority from state public service commissions that for years have been trying to protect consumers and preserve competition.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was originally designed to open the telecommunications marketplace to increased competition, but also ensure a level playing field for competitors by charging the FCC to implement and enforce strong rules to keep incumbent telecommunications companies from steamrolling new competitors.

No surprises here: Michael Powell was FCC chairman during the deregulation frenzy of the first term of George W. Bush. Today, he’s the president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the largest cable industry lobbying group in the country.

With the arrival of President George W. Bush, the new Republican majority at the FCC promptly began obliterating checks and balances at the behest of some of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies. The results:

• Reselling rights and wholesale leasing of facilities to competitors were wiped away, guaranteeing monopoly control of already-established networks;
• Opening up the long distance and local market to Baby Bell competition with their promise they would compete nationwide failed. Like Big Cable, the Baby Bells sold local and long distance only to their own customers, not to those located in another Baby Bell’s service area;
• Instead of competing, phone companies simply bought each other. “As soon as one transaction was approved, another one came through the door,” Copps reported. “Sometimes it seemed like the merger approval business was our only business.”;
• ” The FCC voted, over the strenuous objections of Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and me, to remove advanced telecommunications (broadband) from the purview of Title II of the Telecommunications Act—where consumer protections, competition, privacy, and public safety are clearly mandated—and placed them instead in the nebulous and uncharted land of Title I, where regulatory authority is uncertain, consumer protections are virtually non-existent, and where the huge companies are better positioned to wreak havoc on the promise of competition,” Copps said.

To right the wrongs, Copps wants some major changes to reignite competition and return to telecom innovation, eliminating the stagnation we have from today’s cozy, barely competitive marketplace:

1. Learn to say “no” to more industry mergers. Consolidation has not brought communications nirvana for consumers, just higher prices and fewer choices, often from a monopoly provider;
2. Encourage innovative approaches like municipal broadband. Copps: “‘My way or nothing’ may be the mantra of the big guys, but that means no broadband in places they don’t wish to serve.” Copps wants to see the federal government pre-empt state bans on public broadband laws provider-backed ALEC has gotten through legislatures across the country;
3. Smarter stewardship of wireless spectrum, including unlicensed spectrum use, shared spectrum, smarter technology, and a “use it or lose it” policy that pulls back unused/warehoused spectrum held by some of the nation’s largest wireless carriers.

Phillip Dampier on USF Reform: It might have been great, it could have been a lot worse, but ultimately it turned out to be not very good.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission unveiled their grand plan to reform the Universal Service Fund, a program originally designed to subsidize voice telephone service in rural areas deemed to be unprofitable or ridiculously expensive to serve.  Every American with a phone line pays into the fund through a surcharge found on phone bills. Urban Americans effectively subsidize their rural cousins, but the resulting access to telecommunications services have helped rural economies, important industries, and the jobs they bring in agriculture, cattle, resource extraction, and manufacturing.

The era of the voice landline is increasingly over, however, and the original goals of the USF have “evolved” to fund some not-so-rural projects including cell phone service for schools, wireless broadband in Hollywood, and a whole mess of projects critics call waste, fraud, and abuse.  For the last several years, USF critics have accused the program of straying far from its core mission, especially considering the costs passed on to ratepayers.  What originally began as a 5% USF surcharge is today higher than 15%, funding new projects even as Americans increasingly disconnect their landline service.

For at least a decade, proposals to reform the USF program to bridge the next urban-rural divide, namely broadband, have been available for consideration.  Most have been lobbied right off the table by independent rural phone companies who are at risk of failure without the security of the existing subsidy system.  Proposals that survived that challenge next faced larger phone company lobbyists seeking to protect their share of USF money, or by would-be competitors like the wireless industry or cable operators who have generally been barred from the USF Money Party.

This year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski finally achieved a unanimous vote to shift USF funding towards the construction and operation of rural broadband networks.  The need for broadband funding in rural areas is acute.  Most commercial providers will candidly admit they have already wired the areas deemed sufficiently profitable to earn a return on the initial investment required to provide the service.  The areas remaining without service are unlikely to get it anytime soon because they are especially rural, have expensive and difficult climate or terrain challenges to overcome, or endure a high rate of poverty among would-be customers, unable to afford the monthly cost for the service.  Some smaller independent phone companies are attempting to provide the service anyway, but too often the result is exceptionally slow speed service at a very high cost.

The new Connect America Fund will shift $4.5 billion annually towards rural broadband construction projects.  Nearly a billion dollars of that will be reserved in a “mobility fund” designated for mobile broadband networks.

The goal is to bring broadband to seven million additional households out the 18 million currently ignored by phone and cable operators.

The FCC believes AT&T will take a new interest in upgrading its rural landline networks, even as the company continues to lobby for the right to abandon them.

Unfortunately, the FCC has set the bar pretty low in its requirements for USF funding.  The FCC defines the minimum level of “broadband” they expect to result from the program — 4/1Mbps.  That’s DSL speed territory and that is no accident.  The phone companies have advocated a “less is more” strategy in broadband speed for years, arguing they can reach more rural customers if speed requirements are kept as low as possible.  DSL networks are distance sensitive.  The faster the minimum speed, the more investment phone companies need to make to reduce the length of copper wiring between their office and the customer.  Arguing 4Mbps is better than nothing has gotten them a long way in Washington, but it also foreshadows the next digital divide — urban/rural broadband speed disparity.  While large cities enjoy speeds of 50Mbps or more, rural towns will still be coping with speeds “up to” 4Mbps.

The FCC does not seem too worried, relying heavily on a mild incentive program to prod providers to upgrade their DSL service to speeds of 6/1.5Mbps.

The irony of asking AT&T to invest in an aging landline network they are lobbying to win the right to abandon is lost on Washington, and future speed upgrades for rural America from companies like Verizon are in serious doubt when they sell off their rural areas to companies like FairPoint and Frontier and leave town.

Critics of USF reform suggest the program is still stacked in favor of the phone companies, and considering the state of their copper wire networks, would-be competitors are scratching their heads.

The cable industry, in particular, is still peeved by reforms they feel leave them at a disadvantage.  Of course, Washington may simply be recognizing the fact cable companies are the least likely to wire rural America, but when they do, the service that results is often faster than what the phone company offers.  The nation’s biggest cable lobbyist — ironically also the former chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell — still feels a little abused after reading the final proposal.

“While we are disappointed in the Commission’s apparent decision to ignore its longstanding principle of competitive neutrality and provide incumbent telephone companies an unwarranted advantage for broadband support,” said National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Michael Powell, “we remain hopeful that the order otherwise reflects the pro-consumer principles of fiscal discipline and technological neutrality that will bring needed accountability and greater efficiency to the existing subsidy system.  We are particularly heartened by the Commission’s efforts to ensure that carriers are fairly compensated for completing VoIP calls.”

Wireless operators are not happy either, because the arcane requirements that come with the USF bureaucracy were written with the phone companies in mind, not them.  Small, family-owned providers find it particularly difficult to do business with the USF, if only because they don’t have the staff or time to navigate through endless documents and forms.  Phone companies do.

Your phone bill is going up.

Many consumer groups are relieved because it could have been much worse.   The FCC could have simply capitulated and adopted the phone companies’ wish-list — the ABC Plan.  Thankfully, they didn’t, but the FCC has naively left the door open to substantial rate increases for consumers by not capping the maximum annual outlay of the fund.  That follows the same recipe that invited higher phone bills and questionable subsidies awarded in an effort to justify the original USF program even after it accomplished most of its goals. Consumers may face initial rate increases of $0.50 almost immediately, and up to $2.50 a month five years from now.

The FCC, unjustifiably optimistic, suspects phone companies and other telecommunications interests won’t gouge customers with higher prices.  They predict rate increases of no more than 10-15 cents a month.  I wouldn’t take that bet and neither will consumer groups.

“We’re going to press the FCC to ensure that these are temporary increases, because history has shown that these types of costs tend to stick around and go on and on and on,” said Parul Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union.

An even bigger question left unanswered is just how far the FCC will get into the broadband arena when it refuses to take the steps necessary to ensure it has an admission ticket.  The agency has avoided classifying broadband as a telecommunications service, an important distinction that would bolster its authority to oversee the industry.  Without it, some members of Congress, and more importantly the courts, have questioned whether the FCC has any business in the broadband business.  Just one of the many high-powered players in the discussion could test that theory in the courts, and should a judge throw the FCC’s plan out, we’ll be back at square one.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C-SPAN Tom Tauke from Verizon on Changes to the Universal Service Fund 10-29-11.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s chief lobbyist Tom Tauke spent a half hour last weekend on C-SPAN taking questions about USF reform and the side issues of IP Interconnection and Net Neutrality policies. Tauke supports consolidation of small phone companies into fewer, larger companies.  He also expands on his company’s lawsuit against Net Neutrality, which fortuitously (for Verizon) will he heard by the same D.C. Court of Appeals that threw out the FCC’s fines against Comcast for throttling broadband connections.  Politico’s Kim Hart participates in the questioning, which also covered wireless spectrum issues impacting Verizon Wireless, AT&T’s stumbling merger deal with T-Mobile, and Verizon’s latest lawsuit against the FCC for data roaming notification rules.  (28 minutes)

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.