FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act. The rhetoric rarely matched the results.

Washington insiders are predicting Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski will leave his position early in President Obama’s second term.

It cannot come soon enough, as far as we’re concerned.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Obama Administration has been the poor performance of a chairman that originally promised a departure from the rubber stamp-mentality that allowed Big Telecom providers to win near-instant approval of just about anything asked from the Republican-dominated FCC of the Bush Administration. If only to underline that point, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell joined Republican ex-commissioner Meredith Atwell-Baker on a trip through the D.C. revolving door, taking lucrative jobs with the same cable industry both used to oversee.

We had high hopes for Mr. Genachowski when he took the helm at the FCC — particularly over Net Neutrality, media consolidation, and predatory abuse of consumers at the hands of the comfortable cable-telco duopoly. Genachowski promised strong Net Neutrality protections, better broadband — especially in rural areas, an end to rubber stamping competition killing mergers and acquisitions, and more aggressive oversight of the broadband industry generally.

What we got was the reincarnation of the Cowardly Lion.

The Washington Post reviews Genachowski’s tenure during the first term of the Obama Administration and reports he has few unabashed supporters left. Telecom companies loathe Genachowski’s more cautious approach and consumer groups hate his penchant for caving in when lobbyists come calling. In short, another Democrat that talks tough and caves in at the first sign of trouble.

“His tenure has been nothing but a huge disappointment because he’s squandered an opportunity to give consumers the competitive communications market they deserve,” Derek Turner, head of policy analysis at public interest group Free Press told the Post. “If someone like him upholds compromise, it quickly leads to capitulation, which is what he’s done. He folds…to the pressure of big companies.”

Genachowski’s Record:

• Heavily promoted rural broadband and oversaw a review program measuring actual broadband speeds against those claimed by providers. But much of the money available for improving rural broadband has been separately awarded to “middle mile” and “institutional networks” that are not accessible to most consumers or businesses. Genachowki has heaped automatic praise on many of the phone companies winning broadband funding, despite the fact many of them are satisfied giving consumers no better than 4Mbps service;
• Reformed the outdated Universal Service Fund, which long outlived much of its usefulness, into a broadband expansion fund. But some unintended consequences have led to some rural providers suspending network upgrades because of funding uncertainties still unresolved;
• Approved a blockbuster merger deal between Comcast and NBC-Universal that included temporary “hard-won” concessions Comcast later admitted they were going to offer anyway – merger or not. The result is a new high bar for tolerating super-sized media consolidation with no serious consideration of the impact on consumers. The latest evidence: support for Rupert “Phone Hacker” Murdoch’s latest efforts to buy more newspapers in the United States;
• Rejected an AT&T/T-Mobile merger deal, but only after the Justice Dept. took the lead dismissing it as an anti-consumer, anti-competition nightmare. Within hours, Genachowski’s office issued a “me, too” press release condemning the deal he said little about earlier;
• Demanded a strong Net Neutrality framework to protect the open Internet, but utterly caved under pressure from politicians receiving hefty corporate contributions from AT&T and others. The resulting loophole-ridden “protections” do not apply to wireless, and the industry-approved compromise is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by some of the same companies that earlier applauded Genachowski’s flexibility;
• Genachowski handed out his direct phone numbers to the CEO’s of the top Big Telecom companies, and has been directly lobbied by those “super-citizens,” while ordinary consumers are stuck filing comments with the FCC’s arcane Electronic Comment Filing System. Genachowski also directed closed-door meetings be held on the subject of Net Neutrality with large telecom companies. These meetings were closed to the public with no consumer representatives on hand;
• Genachowski refused to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service,” which would give the agency clear-cut authority to oversee the service. Instead, he has stuck with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s odd interpretation of broadband as “an information service,” not subject to much review by the agency;
• Appropriately nixed Philip Falcone’s LightSquared venture, the biggest threat to GPS navigation around. But Genachowski’s controversial early boosting of the venture, including support for expedited special permission to launch the network without the usual scrutiny, resulted in an embarrassing about-face after long-standing critics’ fears of navigation interference were vindicated;
• In 2012, Genachowski’s cozy relationship with the industry reached whole new levels with unabashed support for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, despite no evidence justifying them. The FCC has continued to ignore repeated requests for a review of these pricing schemes.

Tomorrow is election day in the United States. Stop the Cap! has reviewed both presidential candidates’ positions (or the lack thereof) as well as the past voting records and platforms of members of both major political parties. With this in mind, it is time for our election guide for broadband enthusiasts. Regardless of what candidate you support, please get out and vote!

Neither political party or candidate has been perfect on broadband advocacy or consumer protection.

We’ve been disappointed by the Obama Administration, whose FCC chairman has major problems standing up to large telecom companies and their friends in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Julius Genachowski promised a lot and delivered very little on broadband reform policies that protect both consumers and the open Internet. Both President Obama and Genachowski’s rhetoric simply have not matched the results.

Bitterly disappointing moments included Genachowski’s cave-in on Net Neutrality, leaving watered down net protections challenged in court by some of the same companies that praised Genachowski’s willingness to compromise. Genachowski’s thank you card arrived in the form of a lawsuit. His unwillingness to take the common sense approach of defining broadband as a “telecommunications service” has left Internet policies hanging by a tenuous thread, waiting to be snipped by the first D.C. federal judge with a pair of sharp scissors. But even worse, the FCC chairman’s blinders on usage caps and usage billing have left him unbelievably naive about this pricing scheme. No, Mr. Genachowski, usage pricing is not about innovation, it’s about monetizing broadband usage for even fatter profits at the expense of average consumers already overpaying for Internet access.

Obama

Unfortunately, the alternative choice may be worse. Let’s compare the two parties and their candidates:

The Obama Administration treats broadband comparably to alternative energy. Both deliver promise, but not if we wait for private companies to do all of the heavy lifting. The Obama Administration believes Internet expansion needs government assistance to overcome the current blockade of access for anyone failing to meet private Return On Investment requirements.

While this sober business analysis has kept private providers from upsetting investors with expensive capital investments, it has also allowed millions of Americans to go without service. The “incremental growth” argument advocated by private providers has allowed the United States’ leadership role on broadband to falter. In both Europe and Asia, even small nations now outpace the United States deploying advanced broadband networks which offer far higher capacity, usually at dramatically lower prices. Usually, other nations one-upping the United States is treated like a threat to national security. This time, the argument is that those other countries don’t actually need the broadband networks they have, nor do we.

The Obama Administration bows to the reality that private companies simply will not invest in unprofitable service areas unless the government helps pick up the tab. But those companies also want the government to spend the money with as little oversight over their networks as possible.

That sets up the classic conflict between the two political parties — Democrats who want to see broadband treated like a critically-important utility that deserves some government oversight in its current state and Republicans who want to leave matters entirely in the hands of private providers who they claim know best, and keep the government out of it.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s regular cave-ins for the benefit of Big Telecom brought heavy criticism from us for his “cowardly lion” act.

Just about the only thing the two parties agree on is reforming the Universal Service Fund, which had until recently been directing millions to keeping traditional phone service up and running even as Americans increasingly abandon landlines.

But differences quickly emerge from there.

The Obama Administration believes broadband is increasingly a service every American must be able to access if sought. The Romney-Ryan campaign hasn’t spoken to the issue much beyond the general Republican platform that market forces will resolve virtually any problem when sufficient demand arises.

Republicans almost uniformly vociferously oppose Net Neutrality, believing broadband networks are the sole property of the providers that offer the service. Many Republicans characterize Net Neutrality as a “government takeover” of the Internet and a government policy that would “micromanage broadband” like it was a railroad. Somehow, they seem to have forgotten railroad monopolies used to be a problem for the United States in the early 20th century. Robber barons, anyone?

President Obama pushed for strong Net Neutrality protections for Americans, but his FCC chairman Julius Genachowski caved to the demands of AT&T, Verizon, and the cable industry by managing Net Neutrality with a disappointing “light touch” for those providers. (We’d call it “fondling” ourselves.)

Democrats favor wireless auctions and spectrum expansion, but many favor limits that reserve certain spectrum for emerging competitors and for unlicensed wireless use. Republicans trend towards “winner take all” auctions which probably will favor deep-pocketed incumbents like AT&T and Verizon. The GOP also does not support holding back as much spectrum for unlicensed use.

Republicans have been strongly supporting the deregulation of “special access” service, critical to competitors who need backhaul access to the Internet sold by large phone companies like AT&T. Critics contend the pricing deregulation has allowed a handful of phone companies to lock out competitors, particularly on the wireless side, with extremely high prices for access without any pricing oversight. The FCC under the Obama Administration suspended that deregulation last summer, a clear sign it thinks current pricing is suspect.

Romney

Opponents of usage-based pricing of Internet access have gotten shabby treatment from both parties. Republicans have shown no interest in involving themselves in a debate about the fairness of usage pricing, but neither have many Democrats.

As for publicly-owned broadband networks, sometimes called municipal broadband, the Republican record on the state and federal level is pretty clear — they actively oppose community broadband networks and many have worked with corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to ban them on the state level. Democrats tend to be more favorable, but not always.

The biggest problem broadband advocates face on the federal and state level is the ongoing pervasive influence of Big Telecom campaign contributions. While politicians uniformly deny that corporate money holds any influence over their voting, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Nothing else explains the signatures from Democrats that received healthy injections of campaign cash from companies like AT&T, and then used the company’s own talking points to oppose Net Neutrality.

But in a story of the lesser of two-evils, we cannot forget AT&T spends even more to promote Republican interests, because often those interests are shared by AT&T:

• AT&T has spent nearly $900,000 on self-identified “tea party” candidates pledged to AT&T’s deregulation policies;
• AT&T gave nearly $2 million to the Republican Governors Association — a key part of their ALEC agenda;
• AT&T gave $100,000 to everyone’s favorite dollar-a-holler Astroturf group — The Heartland Institute, which opposes Net Neutrality and community broadband.

Cohen

Comcast’s chief lobbyist stalled plans to unveil cheaper Internet service for the financially disadvantaged to use as bait to win regulator approval of its 2009 merger with NBC-Universal.

The Washington Post today reports David Cohen’s influence at the cable operator as its chief of lobbying has helped the cable company achieve its status as America’s largest cable operator and entertainment conglomerate.

Cohen has friends in high places thanks to his status as a Democratic Party money bundler. A self-styled “consigliere” to the Roberts family that controls the company, Cohen has overseen a transformation of Comcast from one cable operator among many into a high-powered force not to reckoned with in Washington or Silicon Valley.

Comcast’s growth into a mega-corporation with $58 billion in annual revenues came, in part, from dealmaking that won regulator approval in D.C. Maintaining good relations with those regulators is a Cohen specialty. It did not take the Post too long to find former FCC officials giving Cohen high praise:

• “Every meeting with David is incredibly substantive,” Eddie Lazarus, former chief of staff to the FCC told the newspaper. “He always comes with a willingness to find solutions.”
• “David loves politics, he loves government and he has incredible situational awareness — a 360-degree view of business,” said Blair Levin, a former senior adviser to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “He’s just so good at what he does.”

Under Cohen’s leadership, Comcast has spent lavishly on its corporate lobbying and legal team. Today, 20 full time lobbyists work under Cohen’s direction, with dozens of others available on retainer. The company spent $8.3 million of its subscribers’ money solely on lobbying. The Post reports that makes Comcast the ninth biggest K Street spender, above Verizon.

The poor and disadvantaged had to wait for Comcast to seal the deal on their $30 billion acquisition of NBC-Universal before affordable Internet could become reality for them.

In 2009, Comcast insiders were hard at work on a discount program for the disadvantaged who could not afford Comcast’s regular prices for broadband service. But the program was stalled at the direction of Cohen, who wanted it to be a chip with regulators to win approval of its acquisition of NBC-Universal. The program, sure to be popular among advocates of the digitally disadvantaged, was a key part of approving the $30 billion deal.

“I held back because I knew it may be the type of voluntary commitment that would be attractive to the chairman [of the FCC],” Cohen said in a recent interview.

Regulators promoted Comcast’s “concession” to offer the discounted Internet service as a win for consumers as part of the final approval of the deal. In reality, Comcast was planning to offer the service anyway and finally introduced it in 2011 — two years after first being proposed inside the company.

That fact is a slight embarrassment to current FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, who has told audiences the discounted Internet program was partly to his credit.

“This particular program came from our reviewing of the Comcast NBC-U transaction,” Genachowski said in a speech. “Comcast embraced it as good for the country, as well as good for business. And I’m fine with that.”

Cohen defends Comcast’s lobbying expense as part of the company’s effort to combat scrutiny and challenges to its all-or-nothing video business model, denying customers access to a-la-carte programming.

Comcast’s scope has now grown so large, it has become a force few companies are willing to challenge, and those that try are quick to run into a blockade of Comcast lawyers, lobbyists, and carefully constructed contracts that protect the company’s bottom line from would-be competitors.

Deep pockets like Verizon, Apple, Netflix and Google have all tried… and failed to recast the cable television experience with on-demand programming, a-la-carte channels, and cord-cutting technology.

In response, Comcast has kept competitors tied down to the same cable packages that require subscribers to pay for everything, even if they seek only a few channels. Comcast leverages its broadband network with usage limits that effectively curtail cord-cutting among consumers looking to skip the TV package. Anyone seeking a place in today’s entertainment industry ends up dealing with Comcast sooner or later.

“They are hugely important because they can singlehandedly sink or swim multiple businesses that rely on the Internet ecosystem by virtue of controlling the dissemination of information through their pipes and now by supplying so much of the content,” said Joel Kelsey, a policy director at consumer interest group Free Press. “So many companies have come to us and ask we fight their battles for them because they are afraid of retribution.”

Cohen is well-compensated for his effectiveness. His latest three-year contract makes him one of the highest paid corporate lobbyists in Washington, with a $15 million annual compensation package and $3 million in bonuses, not including his ample stock holdings in Comcast.

His influence extends to the highest levels of the Obama Administration. Last summer, the family hosted a $1.2 million campaign fundraiser for President Obama, and the Cohens have separately contributed $877,000 to various campaigns. Comcast itself has spent $3.3 million in campaign contributions so far this year.

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.

An industry orphan?

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse probably rues the day his Board of Directors pulled the plug on a merger deal that would have combined MetroPCS and Sprint back in February. The merger was abandoned after board members openly worried the transaction would distract Sprint from its network improvement project — dubbed Network Vision — then just getting underway.

The deal with T-Mobile and MetroPCS may have limited Sprint’s takeover options, although analysts say a hostile counteroffer for MetroPCS could still take the small carrier away from T-Mobile.

Hesse himself is a proponent of additional wireless industry consolidation. He believes the current market has too many wireless carriers and the two dominant providers — AT&T and Verizon — enjoy economy of scale Sprint cannot hope to achieve in its current position.

Hesse

Wall Street was more pessimistic about Sprint after the T-Mobile/MetroPCS merger was announced, suggesting they may be an industry orphan, pushed into a corner and running out of options.

Shares of Leap Wireless, the owner of Cricket, rose as much as 17 percent after the T-Mobile deal was announced, signaling Cricket is likely an endangered species. Leap’s cellular network is similar in scope to MetroPCS, although the two companies largely serve different markets. Wall Street’s favorite dance card has Sprint and Leap Wireless as future partners, and Sprint may be forced to acquire the smaller carrier to save face. Leap operates its own modest network of cell towers and has plans to roll out LTE 4G service to its customers. That spectrum could become important to Sprint, especially in the larger urban areas Cricket targets.

An endangered species.

Some Wall Street analysts say deals with MetroPCS, Leap, and other small regional carriers are small potatoes. Many advocate for a much larger merger between Sprint and T-Mobile to more realistically confront the de-facto duopoly of AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Regulators under the Obama Administration may take a dim view of a merger that combines the third and fourth largest nationwide carriers, but nobody expects much regulatory resistance approving mergers that wipe out MetroPCS and Cricket.

“The problems that Sprint and T-Mobile have are they are not as big as AT&T and Verizon,” Piper Jaffray’s Chris Larsen told Bloomberg News in a phone interview. “They don’t have the scale so therefore it is harder to compete. Increasing your size 25 percent, it helps. But when you are less than half as big as your rival, getting 25 percent bigger narrows the gap, but it does not close the gap.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC MetroPCS Down on Merger Reports 10-3-12.flv[/flv]

CNBC reports the T-Mobile/MetroPCS deal reignites wireless consolidation and leaves Sprint in a potentially difficult position.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Sprint Left Behind as MetroPCS Joins T-Mobile 10-3-12.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports T-Mobile needs more subscribers, but some Wall Street analysts think the company is making a mistake focusing on the prepaid market.  (1 minute)