China’s top economic planning agency is assessing a monopoly case involving two large telecom companies and will make a ruling soon as the Beijing government declares uncompetitive broadband against the interests of the people.

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) began to investigate the duopoly of China Telecom and China Unicom in the broadband business two years ago. The two companies, fearing reprisals, promised to end the questionable practices that brought scores of complaints from Chinese citizens over network incompatibilities, rising prices, and slow service.

The two companies together maintain a 90 percent market share of Chinese broadband, and both could face fines up to 10 percent of their annual Internet revenues if the NDRC finds they are acting as an abusive duopoly.

The Chinese government passed strict anti-monopoly laws in 2008 and has enforced them. Beijing has been particularly concerned about price discrimination against other Internet Service Providers and relentless rate hikes, even as costs to offer the service have dropped dramatically.

The NDRC said on Wednesday that the two companies submitted evidence that suggested both had significantly raised network integration, extended the direct-link bandwidth of their backbone networks, raised broadband speeds and lowered prices.

Although the Chinese government’s free market policies have brought investment and economic change to China, the government has grown increasingly concerned about leaving vital sectors of the economy unregulated. In several instances, the result has been bad for consumers and generally reduced innovation, as handfuls of conglomerates found it easier to enforce market power, reduce investment, and raise prices. The Chinese consider the country’s online networks critical to its participation in the global digital economy, with the NDRC acting as a check against uneven playing fields and abusive business practices.

Since 2005, five cable and telephone companies and their respective lobbying trade associations have donated nearly $12 million to New York politicians, making Big Telecom companies among the biggest political donors in the state. Now a government reform group wants an investigation by the state’s anti-corruption commission.

By exploiting giant loopholes in New York’s campaign finance laws, telecom companies that used to live with annual campaign finance limits of $5,000 are now donating millions to powerful political leaders in Albany – the majority conferences in the legislature, the state party committees, and the governor. Some are using secretive “housekeeping” accounts controlled by political parties. Others hide behind shadowy contributions from “limited liability corporations” (LLCs) established by some of the state’s biggest cable and phone companies and treated under current law as living, breathing people.

“Big Telecom exemplifies the pay-to-play culture which has come to define Albany, giving generously to the leadership in exchange for veto power over bills which favor the public interest,” said Common Cause-New York executive director Susan Lerner.

The Optimum donor to state “housekeeping” accounts among telecom providers is Cablevision.

No telecom company donates more in New York than Cablevision, which has given more than $5.3 million in contributions to state politicians since 2005 as it fights its way through union problems, fierce competition from Verizon, and complaints from subscribers about rising cable prices and questionable service. The cable company doesn’t just donate in name-only. Common Cause-NY discovered Cablevision using eight different LLCs to evade contribution limits, handing over $1.5 million to candidates and committees. Gov. Andrew Cuomo received $130,000 from four different Cablevision-controlled LLCs between July and October 2010. On April 29 of this year, former Nassau County executive Tom Suozzi’s campaign received $190,000 from three Cablevision-controlled LLCs on that single day.

Verizon (82%) and Time Warner Cable (70%) prefer to quietly give the largest percentage of their political donations to the parties’ secretive, soft money “housekeeping” accounts. The Republican and Democratic recipients are not using the money to buy Endust, mops or spare light bulbs, although the average voter might assume as much.

Corporations with an agenda just love New York’s hush-hush “housekeeping” accounts because they come without dollar limits or complete disclosure about how the money was ultimately spent.

The State Board of Elections says “housekeeping” money is supposed to go toward maintaining a party’s headquarters and staff or “ordinary activities that are not for the express purpose of promoting the candidacy of specific candidates.” Unfortunately, nobody bothered to require detailed accounting, allowing funds to disappear down a political rabbit hole, to be distributed at each party’s discretion.

Comcast (59%) and AT&T (53%) are considerably smaller players, in part because neither company serves many wired cable/broadband customers in New York.

Verizon’s corporate PAC also likes to raise relatively large numbers of small contributions given in the name of company executives or employees, not necessarily mentioning the company itself. Campaign finance disclosures may list only the individuals’ contribution(s), not the company that signed their paycheck.

Where does all the money go?

Common Cause-NY says most of the money is channeled to the most influential politicians in the state, with minority parties and unelected candidates typically getting much less.

To gain influence on the state level, Big Telecom companies contribute to the governor, attorney general, and the majority parties controlling the state Assembly and Senate, with Republicans getting the lion’s share (over $3.5 million) in the Senate and Democrats (over $1.6 million) in the Assembly.

For local issues of interest to the state’s local cable and phone companies, contributions are funneled to influential county-level political machines, perhaps helpful in making life difficult for a competing Wi-Fi project, a municipal fiber network, or helping to cut red tape to place a cell tower in a controversial location.

The top six recipients of Big Telecom’s political cash in the legislature:

• Key Party Leaders: Dean Skelos ($117,700), Tom Libous ($57,150), Jeff Klein ($49,450), and Sheldon Silver ($32,749.61)
• Current and former Chairs of the Senate Energy and Telecom Committee: George Maziarz ($79,718.02) and Kevin Parker ($34,444.00).

Common Cause-NY notes the corporations involved don’t give money without expecting something in return. After generous contribution checks were deposited, a number of telecom consumer protection bills mysteriously died in committee or never made it to the floor. The same fate did not meet bills offering special tax breaks for cable and Internet Service Providers that have cost New York taxpayers nearly $500 million and counting.

“Multi-million dollar campaign contributions clearly help Big Telecom maintain the status quo of corporate control, high prices, and lax regulation,” Common Cause-NY concludes.

The legislature is rife with examples of bills that would have likely passed with popular support but suddenly or “mysteriously” didn’t:

• A 7635-A / S5630-A: Establishes a moratorium on telephone corporations on the replacement of landline telephone service with a wireless system.
  • The “VoiceLink” moratorium bill, passed the Assembly, had broad bi-partisan support in the Senate but never came to a vote.
• S542: Relates to enacting the “Save New York Call Center Jobs Act of 2013,” which requires prior notice of relocation of call center jobs from New York to a foreign country; directs the Commissioner of Labor to maintain a list of employers who move call center jobs; prohibits loans or grants.
  • The “Call Center Jobs Act” would take away tax breaks and state grants if companies move a call center to another country. The bill passed the Assembly in 2012 (A9809) and had bipartisan support in Senate but was blocked. The 2013 bill died in Senate committee.
• A6003/S5577 — Directs the Department of Public Service to study and report on the current status of cable television systems providing services over fiber optic cables.
  • Bipartisan support in Assembly for further oversight of broadband but gets little support in Senate, the same bill was also blocked in 2012.
• A5234/S1075 — Enacts the “Roadway Excavation Quality Assurance Act” demanding utility companies or their contractors shall use competent workers and shall pay the prevailing wage on projects where a permit to use or open a street is required to be issued.
  • Bipartisan support in the Senate and Assembly but no passage in either 2012 and 2013.
• A6239/S4550 — Creates the State Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate to represent interests of residential utility customers.
  • Bipartisan support in Assembly, dies in Senate.
• A6757/S4449 — Requires providers of electric, gas, steam, telephone and cable television services to issue standardized bills to residential customers; provides the standards for such bills shall be established by the Public Service Commission.
  • Bipartisan support, passes Assembly, dies in Senate.

The three companies that control 90 percent of Canada’s cell phone marketplace have set what they argue is ‘cut-throat’ competition aside to team up in a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to discourage Verizon Wireless from entering the country.

Bell, Rogers, and Telus have maintained what critics charge is a “three-headed oligopoly” in the wireless business for years, leading to findings from the OECD that Canada is among the ten most expensive countries in the world for wireless service in almost every category and has among the highest roaming rates in the world.

Americans also pay high cell phone prices, and customers of both countries will find somewhat comparable pricing when comparing prices north or south of Lake Ontario. A shopper in Niagara Falls, N.Y. can find the Samsung Galaxy S4 from a Verizon reseller for $120 with a two-year contract. A shared data service plan runs as little as $80 a month for 500MB of data and unlimited domestic calling and global texting. Travel across the Rainbow Bridge to Niagara Falls, Ontario, walk into a Rogers store and the same phone runs $199 with a two-year contract (most Canadian carriers used to offer three-year contracts until the government banned them earlier this year) and a service plan running $80 a month offering the same 500MB of data and unlimited domestic calling and texting. Rogers charges extra if customers want to text a customer outside of Canada, however.

Verizon is no discount carrier. Verizon management has repeatedly stressed it offers premium service and coverage and can charge commensurately higher prices for access to that network. So the idea that Verizon’s interest in entering Canada is to launch a vicious price war is suspect, according to many telecommunications analysts.

Keep Verizon out of Canada at all costs!

They are coming.

In June, the Globe and Mail reported Verizon had shown serious interest in acquiring Canadian cellular upstart Wind Mobile with an early bid of $700 million. Wind Mobile, one of the three significant new “no-contract” entrants vying for a piece of the country’s cell phone market, has limped along since opening for business in 2009, unable to attract much interest from customers concerned about coverage gaps and the poor choice of mobile devices.

More recently, Wind Mobile’s new owner — the Russian mobile giant Vimpelcom — has expressed an interest in selling off the carrier because it cannot gain traction against the biggest three, which also control 85 percent of mobile wireless spectrum.

News that Verizon had taken an interest in the carrier leveled shock waves across the Canadian financial markets. Shares in the three largest telecom giants fell sharply on the news. Earlier this month, Bell CEO George Cope reported that Bell, Telus and Rogers have taken a $15-billion cumulative hit on the capital markets since Verizon hinted interest in Wind Mobile.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Verizon takes aim at telecom Big 3 with possible Wind Mobile bid 8-19-13.flv[/flv]

The CBC reported earlier this summer that Verizon Wireless was interested in acquiring the 600,000 customers of independent wireless provider Wind Mobile, which has an insignificant share of the Canadian wireless market. (2 minutes)

Spending a few million, or even a billion dollars, to keep Verizon south of the Canadian-U.S. border is well worth it to the three big players who have launched an expensive campaign to block the proposed transaction and are willing to pay premium prices to keep struggling carriers from being sold to deep-pocketed American telecom companies.

Telus had already done its part, attempting to scoop up another scrappy upstart carrier that wanted out of the wireless business. But the Canadian government rejected Telus’ proposed acquisition of Mobilicity, claiming it would harm efforts to expand Canadian wireless competition. Not to be deterred, Rogers is now attempting a cleverly structured deal to acquire Wind Mobile out from under Verizon with a proposed buyout worth more than $1 billion.

To avoid the anticipated rejection of the deal by Canadian regulators on competition grounds, Rogers has reportedly joined forces with Toronto-based private equity firm Birch Hill Partners that would make that firm the owners-in-name. Although Rogers wouldn’t get a direct equity stake in Wind, it would finance a good part of the deal and win access and control of Wind’s mobile spectrum for its own network. More importantly, it could keep Verizon out of Canada.

“The government is handing out loopholes to Verizon to beg them into Canada”

Cell phone companies in Canada are particularly angry that the government has set aside certain spectrum and guaranteed access for upstart providers to successfully establish themselves without having to outbid the cash-rich big three for wireless frequencies or have to build a nationwide network from scratch. Bell, Rogers and Telus have consistently opposed spectrum set-asides for small carriers, deeming them “unfair.” They argue Canadians’ voracious needs for more wireless service are unending, and it would be unfair not to sell the spectrum to benefit their larger customer bases. But hearing that Verizon, a company larger than Bell, Rogers, and Telus combined, could get preferential treatment and spectrum to enter the country has them boiling mad.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Telecom debate 8-19-13.flv[/flv]

Bell’s CEO George Cope appeared on “The Lang and O’Leary Exchange” to debate the fairness of Verizon’s possible entry into Canada’s wireless market. Cope argues Verizon is getting special favors. (9 minutes)

Cope

The idea of luring a company to move or begin offering service in a barely competitive marketplace is hardly new. Cities have offered preferential policies to airlines to fly in and out of particular cities, local governments have offered tax abatements to get companies to set up shop, and providing exemptions for zoning and infrastructure have been familiar to telecommunications companies for decades.

In 1880, the National Bell Telephone Company had incorporated, through an Act of Parliament, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada (today also known as BCE), which was given the right to build telephone lines over and along all public property and rights-of-way without compensation to the public or former owners. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, Bell would later become the dominant monopoly provider of telephone service across much of eastern Canada.

When the phone companies were handed wireless spectrum to launch their wireless businesses in the 1980s, they didn’t have anything to complain about either.

None of that history impressed Bell’s current CEO George Cope, who took to the airwaves to complain Verizon was being given preferential treatment:

• Verizon could bid on two blocks of Canadian spectrum set aside for new entrants to the market in auction later this year. Because the big three Canadian firms are not permitted to bid on these blocks, they are likely to be sold at a lower price.
• Verizon would not have to build its own networks to remote or rural communities, but would be able to piggyback on existing networks.
• Verizon can bid to acquire small Canadian companies such as Mobilicity or Wind, but Bell, Telus and Rogers are forbidden from bidding on them.

“A company of this size certainly doesn’t need handouts from Canadians or special regulatory advantages over Canadian companies,” Bell said in a full-page newspaper ad. “But that is exactly what they get in the new federal wireless regulations. We’re ready to compete head to head, but it has to be a level playing field,” Cope said in a TV interview, echoing Rogers CEO who also called for a “level playing field.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Is Verizon really the bogeyman Canada’s telecom giants claim 8-19-13.flv[/flv]

Bell, Telus, and Rogers have launched a lobbying campaign designed to make life difficult for Verizon Wireless if it chooses to enter Canada. The CBC reports Verizon will be able to bid on more spectrum than Canadian carriers and will have the right to roam on Canada’s incumbent wireless networks. (2 minutes)

Industry Minister Moore

Telus went further, claiming Verizon’s entry into Canada would result in a “bloodbath” for Canadian workers, laid off by the three largest Canadian providers to cut costs to better compete with Verizon.

But Cope said at least one Canadian carrier won’t be able to compete at all, because preferential treatment for wireless spectrum will result in at least one of the big three to lose at a forthcoming spectrum auction, guaranteeing degraded wireless broadband speeds and worse service.

The three companies have found little sympathy in Ottawa, particularly from Industry Minister James Moore, now on a road tour across Canada to promote the government’s wireless competition policies. He called the big three’s loud campaign self-serving and announced a new website sponsored by the Conservative Party of Canada to prove it.

“I think that the public instinctively knows that when they have more choices that prices go down and more competition they’re well served by that,” he told CBC News in Vancouver on Monday. “The noise that we’re hearing is about you know companies trying to protect their company’s interest. Our job as a government is larger than that, our job is to serve the public interest and make sure that the public is served in this so that’s one of the reasons why I’m pushing back a little bit.”

Industry Minister James Moore appeared on CBC Radio this morning to contest the wireless industry’s claims that Verizon is getting special treatment and will bring unfair competition to the Canadian wireless market. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Oppose Verizon Wireless. Do it for Canada!

But the wireless companies show no signs of backing down and have turned towards appealing to Canadian nationalism and fairness.

“The U.S. government is not giving Canadian wireless carriers any special access to the U.S. market,” says a website launched by the big three cell providers to drum up support for a “level playing field.” “Then why is it that our own government is giving American companies preferential treatment over our own companies?”

This week, a Reuters report citing unnamed sources suggests Bell, Telus, and Rogers are about to target Verizon directly with a new campaign warning Canadians the American giant has been implicated in allowing the U.S. government open access to network and customer data, which would represent a profound privacy threat to Canadian customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell Rogers Telus Ad 8-13.flv[/flv]

Bell, Telus, and Rogers paid to produce this ad calling on Canadians to protest unfair competition from an American wireless company.  (1 minute)

So far, Canadians’ hatred of their telecommunications providers has trumped the companies’ public relations and scare tactics. The Conservative government in Ottawa is winning support for its wireless competition war, even from unlikely places.

“Someone mark the date,” Tweeted one Halifax woman not inclined to vote Conservative. “Stephen Harper has done something I mostly support.”

“Eat it Telus/Bell/Rogers,” wrote a Calgary man fed up with the lack of competition in Canadian wireless.

John Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa, says opposition from the big three telecom companies is obvious because they don’t want to face a fourth, powerful competitor.

“They should be scared because chances are they’re going to have more competition in the Canadian market if Verizon comes in and they are going to have to lower their prices and compete harder,” Lawford told CBC News. “It’s pretty rich of them to be talking about unfairness” when they already control 90 per cent of Canadian spectrum, he added.

Iain Grant of the SeaBoard Group, a telecommunications consultancy, said government policies to open up more competition are designed to shake things up.

“[The new rules weren’t] meant to be a level playing field,” said Grant. “[They were] meant to give a leg up [to new competitors].”

“To talk of loopholes, as some do, is to not understand that the same companies who complain most loudly about loopholes in 2013 were the recipients of even greater public largesse in 1985 when the government gifted their initial spectrum as an incentive to build a wireless business in Canada,” said Grant.

Few companies have taken on the Canadian big three telecom providers because of their enormous market share, at least inside Canada.

Nine out of ten Canadian wireless users are subscribed to Bell, Telus or Rogers. Trying to convince a banker to extend capital loans to effectively confront a wireless oligopoly in a country with an enormous expanse of land but not people and find enough airwaves among the 15% not controlled by the big three is an uphill battle.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Wireless war heats up 8-19-13.flv[/flv]

CBC reports Industry Minister Moore believes increasing competition is the best way to cut Canadian cell phone bills. Regardless of whether Verizon enters Canada, the current government will continue to push for more competition. Even the threat of Verizon coming to Canada has already reduced prices. (2 minutes)

Why does Verizon want to enter Canada?

Analysts suspect Verizon’s interest in Canada has little to do with wooing Canadians to Big Red. Many suspect Verizon’s true interest is to make life easier for its traveling American customers who head north for business or pleasure.

Chief among the possible benefits is the elimination of roaming charges for Verizon customers.

“Verizon’s customers come into the country every day through all the bridges and ports of entries and they want to roam where they want to roam, whether that’s fishing in Saskatchewan or hunting in northern Ontario or wherever,” said Grant.

There are other apparent impediments that could limit the usefulness of Wind’s mobile network to Verizon. In addition to only operating in the largest Canadian cities, Wind’s infrastructure is built by Chinese firm Huawei and is not compatible with Verizon’s technology.

Huawei has been the subject of significant controversy because of its reported ties to the Chinese military. Fears that data could be intercepted by the Chinese government have kept many North American firms from doing business with the company.

Verizon also lacks bundling options for Canadian customers. The biggest three Canadian providers can offer telephone, television, and wired broadband service to their customers. Verizon can only offer wireless service.

Verizon has second thoughts

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Verizon doubts 8-15-13.flv[/flv]

CBC reports Verizon may be having second thoughts about entering Canada. Verizon may not be interested in entering a political battle to win licenses to provide service and may want to acquire its own spectrum before considering buying either Wind Mobile or another competitor like Mobilicity. (2 minutes)

Attention broadband planners: Although broadband deployment strategies differ around the world, a new report decisively concludes there is only one network technology proven to meet the demands of broadband users both today and tomorrow: a national fiber optic network.

BuddeComm’s new report, “Global Broadband – Fibre is the Infrastructure Required for the Future,” looked at every technology from variations of DSL, cable broadband, satellite, and wireless and found only fiber optics capable of handling the capacity of data and applications that will be required to run cities and countries from today onwards.

The report found that fiber optic deployment faced a range of challenges, despite its obvious technological advantages. Political obstacles are among the biggest roadblocks facing fiber networks. A combination of concerns about the cost of wiring service to procrastination has held back many national broadband improvement projects, including those in Australia and New Zealand. Incumbent commercial providers in North America have also actively attempted to block public fiber networks to protect their own commercial interests.

BuddeComm concludes America’s biggest broadband problems come as a result of incumbent providers exercising undue market power and influence over elected officials to protect their commercial interests at the price of the public good.

The report concludes that decisive political leadership is essential to overcome many of the artificial obstacles which slow down or stop fiber broadband deployments.

“One can argue endlessly about what technologies should be applied and at what cost, but we believe that all signs point to Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) networks as the best future-proof solution,” the report concludes. “One can debate about whether it is needed in five, ten or fifteen years – and again that depends on some of the differences between countries – but in the end FTTH is the best final solution for all urban and many regional premises.”

The 21st century digital economy is powered by robust broadband, and growing demands for faster speeds are coming from the healthcare, energy, media and retail sectors. Healthcare uses include file transfers of high-definition medical imagery and teleconferencing. Smart Grid technology is being deployed by many power companies to develop more efficient means of distributing and conserving energy. Media and mass entertainment providers are moving to high bandwidth online video, and the retail economy markets products and services over modern broadband networks.

The implications for the global economy are enormous. More than 120 countries have formal broadband policies and many consider high-speed Internet access a national priority. In the last century, North America and western Europe were considered the dominant economic players, in part because they established and maintained infrastructure to support their manufacturing and service economies. But many of these countries are falling far behind in the 21st century digital economy, where countries like Japan and Korea, parts of eastern Europe, the Baltic States, and Scandinavia are taking the lead in infrastructure deployment.

“Broadband infrastructure is perceived by all to be critical for the development of the digital economy, healthcare, education, e-government and so on,” the report notes. “From a financial and investment point of view broadband infrastructure should be treated as utility infrastructure.”

The interests of the private sector are not always aligned with the public interest, particularly when it comes to spending capital on upgrading network infrastructure. The report recommends that governments step in and build a public fiber highway system on which all providers can offer services.

“A National Broadband Network (NBN) should be based upon an open network as this makes it possible to offer the basic infrastructure on a utility basis to content and service providers,” the report concludes.

The governments of Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and others are already moving in that direction, setting up broadband authorities to build fiber infrastructure dismissed as too expensive or unnecessary by commercial providers who answer first to financial markets, shareholders, and private banks.

Under most NBN plans, providers get access to the fiber network at wholesale rates and help recoup its cost.

Australia’s National Broadband Network is on the way.

Where politicians answer to the whims of the private sector before considering the public good, the report finds:

• Private cable companies, particularly in North America, will continue to support and incrementally upgrade their HFC networks, but new cable operators are more likely to deploy fiber at the outset, not coaxial copper cable. Network costs, efficiencies, and reliability are all in fiber’s favor. In Europe, cable broadband is regularly losing market share to faster fiber technology. The share of all broadband subscribers held by HFC networks across Europe fell from 26% in 2002 to about 11% by mid-2013;
• Private telephone companies that do not face robust competition will continue to rely on their existing DSL networks. In cities and larger towns, expect phone companies to eventually upgrade to VDSL fiber-to-the-neighborhood (and its variants) in the largest markets with the most competition. Rural areas will continue to receive less robust DSL service, particularly where no cable competitor provides service;
• Rural areas may receive fixed wireless or satellite broadband service, but this is not a solution for more populated areas.

Although the global economic downturn stalled many fiber network deployments and suppressed demand, the report finds broadband usage and demand for faster speeds are quickly accelerating. Some other highlights:

• Asia continues to be the leader in fiber optic deployment;
• Sufficient customer demand to make the investment in fiber worthwhile is increasingly likely once fiber service becomes widely available in countries like the Netherlands, China, France, Israel, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden;
• International connectivity in Africa remains a challenge, but fiber bandwidth is expected to more than double by 2014;
• The Middle East will see rapid growth in fiber broadband once international capacity constraints are eased.

Obtaining a copy of the full BuddeComm report is prohibitively expensive for consumers, priced at $995.

Phillip “Friends Can Agree to Disagree” Dampier

Are we being unnecessarily pessimistic and cynical when we oppose the likely nomination of Thomas Wheeler to replace Julius Genachowski as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission?

Some of our colleagues in the consumer-focused public policy arena suspect we might be.

Stop the Cap! is very skeptical that appointing a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist with 30+ years of experience is the best choice for consumers at the FCC.

Our friend Harold Feld from Public Knowledge, which has announced cautious support for Wheeler’s appointment, has a more optimistic view about his potential:

I understand where my friends are coming from when they look at Wheeler’s resume and think “oh God, another Washington insider, why can’t we ever get a real progressive!” But I cannot agree with Senator Rockefeller’s statement that “a lobbyist, is a lobbyist,” or the view of some that the taint of industry clings insidiously forever and corrodes the soul. It’s been ten years since Wheeler left CTIA, longer than that since he left NTCA. Had he really been interested in advancing the agendas of these industries, he was in an excellent position to do so when he headed up the Obama transition team. He did not. Indeed, Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach, long-time stalwarts of the public interest who worked for Wheeler on the transition team, have joined other public interest luminaries as Wheelers strongest public supporters. Had Wheeler been working behind the scenes in the transition to promote the incumbents, I expect Susan and Kevin would have known.

I also recognize that support from public interest friends is also not conclusive. But it should surely weigh in the evaluation of Wheeler as much as any blog post. And I recognize I’m also a “Washington insider” and as likely to be led astray by my personal friendships and the whole “Washington Bubble” culture as any other human being. That’s why I’m glad people in the community are asking the right questions and putting Wheeler on notice that, like any Chairman, he needs to prove himself as a champion of the public interest. We at PK have also made it clear we expect Wheeler to not just talk a good game, but to get his hands dirty and make tough decisions that will piss off incumbents. And when we disagree, as we expect we will, have no doubt we will make our displeasure known.

Harold specifically commented on our piece reviewing Wheeler’s personal blog, in which Wheeler fell all over himself praising AT&T’s chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi, and seemed resigned to approving a proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger with some preconditions:

It is certainly true that behavioral conditions often fall short, are short lived, and that companies generally find ways to work around them (and the FCC’s track record for enforcement is pathetic). Indeed, we at PK made these arguments in the context of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger for why no set of merger remedies could adequately address the harms such a merger would cause. But there is a huge difference between my belief that Wheeler was wrong about the best strategy to advance the public interest and accepting that he was motivated by a covert desire to support consolidation and deregulation.

It is more than likely we will have to do business with Tom Wheeler, and we can certainly understand efforts to paint a more optimistic and hopeful picture of the likely new chairman. But we would be dishonest if we said we have high hopes Wheeler will think first about ordinary Americans before steering the country’s telecommunications future. We have learned from the past.

Remember Your History: Catering to Big Special Interests is Bipartisan

Having covered the telecommunications industry since the 1980s when Dr. John Malone of Tele-Communications, Inc., was the American consumers’ worst nightmare, confronting today’s increasingly consolidated and expensive telecommunications marketplace is a case of “Back to the Future.” The deregulation and industry consolidation abuses in the 1980s riled up both Republicans and Democrats — wherever constituents flooded offices with complaints about the local cable monopoly. The “problem politicians” that reflexively defended the abusers were just as bipartisan. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) primarily represented the interests of the cable companies that were headquartered in his state. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended the cable companies. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) was outraged at the abuses cable operators like TCI heaped on Missouri consumers and not only introduced legislation to stop the abuse in 1992, he also was instrumental in overriding a presidential veto of the measure.

The first mistake one can make in this fight is characterizing this as “progressive” vs. “conservative.” Real conservatives want all-out competition to manage winners and losers. Progressives want to make sure in the absence of that competition, someone — anyone can act to check the power of concentrated markets that suppress competition, raise prices, and deliver less than compelling service. Five years ago, Barack Obama promised change and a D.C. reset that would have ended “politics as usual.”

The art of the possible — changing the perception that consumer interests take a back seat to the whims of professional lobbyists at the FCC has proved less than successful after four years with Julius Genachowski. President Obama is not completely responsible, but it would be dishonest not to hold him to a promise he would deliver “change we can believe in.”

Instead, at the FCC, we got “change we think we might be able to get away with, maybe, or not.”

Julius Genachowski remained silent on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger until the Department of Justice provided him with political cover to oppose it. He caved on strongly enforcing Net Neutrality, refused to make important regulatory declarations that would have satisfied federal courts the FCC has a right to oversee broadband policy, and near the end of his tenure, hobnobbed with the cable industry and declared his support for usage billing and capped Internet.

Where Does Mr. Wheeler Stand?

(Image: MuniNetworks)

So we must ask ourselves, where does Mr. Wheeler, a man who spent most of his career as a consummate cable and wireless industry lobbyist, fall on these issues?

The best place those of us who have not shared lunch with him can make that determination is in his personal blog. Harold wants us to downplay some of Wheeler’s words written during his six years of blogging:

But in the ten years I’ve been blogging, I know that I’ve said many things that do not necessary reflect what I would have done if I had been the ultimate decisionmaker – as I have said on more than one occasion (noting that actual decisionmakers are not advocates). Certainly anyone who reads ten years worth of Tales of the Sausage Factory (has it really been ten years?) will have an excellent sense of my overall priorities and approach. But I can’t swear that all approximately 500 or so blog posts could hold up today as being either accurate predictions (like Wheeler, I too was a big believer in WiMax) or final expressions of what I would have done as Chair of the FCC.

We certainly agree that Wheeler’s predictions of industry trends like WiMAX, in hindsight, are not deal breakers (although they should serve as reminders that one should avoid picking too many winners and losers). But at the same time, Wheeler’s words on policy matters in nearly 60 articles since 2007 should not be ignored, rationalized away, or dismissed either. In some sense, this is comparable to the vetting process for an appointee to the Supreme Court. To get a feel for the philosophy of an individual, both the White House and Congress pour over one’s writings and public opinions. Being asked to accept someone who can reshape public policy for years based on the personal recommendation of others only goes so far.

Many of Wheeler’s views are profoundly concerning, because they seem to betray a telecom industry conventional wisdom about the state of technology, wireless spectrum, regulation, and competition. His familiarity and comfort working within the paradigm of big cable and wireless is strongly contrasted with his suspicions and surprise regarding interlopers like Google and Apple — dubbed by Wheeler as part of a “Silicon Mafia.” We sense Wheeler seems most comfortable expecting to oversee business as usual, while advocating and accommodating some minor innovation here and there.

What is almost completely absent in most of Wheeler’s writings is the perspective of, or concern for ordinary consumers. What would Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average think about yet another consolidating merger between AT&T and one of its smaller competitors? What impact would another cable merger have on the bills paid by ordinary people in Colorado, Nebraska, or Pennsylvania? Is it good for consumers to advocate eliminating wireless network redundancy, as Wheeler does, after major events from 9/11 to Hurricane Sandy to the recent Boston Marathon attack all reveal wireless networks are susceptible to call volume clogging and extended service outages?

Tom Wheeler is an admirer of AT&T’s top-lobbyist Jim Cicconi.

More importantly, we are disturbed by Wheeler’s perspective about wired infrastructure that could have a major impact on the near future of rural telecommunications. Wheeler comes dangerously close to AT&T’s sentiments about its yesteryear rural landline network and its wish to switch those customers to wireless (with all the added costs, usage caps, and coverage issues). We cannot help but notice Wheeler frames the general issue much like AT&T does: an “evolution” that represents “weaning ourselves” from “the old wireline.” Ask yourself if AT&T is more or less comfortable knowing Mr. Wheeler’s attitudes about its wired telephone network. AT&T considers it an outdated money-loser and a nuisance in its rural service areas. Wireless is a license to print money, just as soon as the FCC and state regulators give the green light to go ahead. Is Wheeler to be the deciding vote?

We Don’t Believe Wheeler is an ‘Industry Plant’

Harold writes:

But while it is important to ask the right questions and give no one a free pass, it is equally important to evaluate the answers and the evidence fairly and accept their logical conclusions. The evidence that Wheeler would have approved the AT&T/T-Mobile merger had he actually been Chairman (rather than playing pundit) is pretty weak. To take that a step further and say that Wheeler’s justification for approving the merger as a means of reregulating the wireless industry was mere sham to hide his true sympathies seems to me exceedingly unjustified.

That mischaracterizes our sentiments about Mr. Wheeler. We do not believe he is some secret industry plant that is itching to deregulate the agency into a stupor. Nor do we believe a theoretical vote in favor of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is evidence he is in AT&T’s back pocket specifically. Let us be clear: he served as a professional lobbyist for these companies for nearly 30 years. His job was to absorb and reflect the views of the nation’s biggest cable and phone companies both to politicians and regulators. Some remain friends and colleagues.

It is a safe bet most of the industry will welcome and celebrate Wheeler’s appointment. Many know him personally. Many others will feel safe that he is a reachable industry insider already familiar with the issues that concern them. This is what makes the D.C. revolving door so insidious. When you move from the regulated to the regulator (and back again), the only real outsiders are average consumers.

Here is an example of Wheeler admiring AT&T’s prowess in the early days of its attempted merger with T-Mobile. Notice how he characterizes the deal’s opponents:

“The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler shows no evidence of being the FCC’s version of a game-changer like Elizabeth Warren. Instead, he’s an avowed admirer of AT&T’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi. What will that difference mean? The New York Times, reporting more broadly on the problem of D.C.’s revolving door, provides some valuable clues:

Government officials and lobbyists agree that former agency officials have a much easier time getting phone calls or e-mail messages returned from their old colleagues, and that access often extends to greater credibility in arguing their clients’ positions.

One corporate lobbyist who worked as a regulator, asked whether he believed he had an inside edge in lobbying his ex-colleagues, said: “The answer is yes, it does. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to justify getting out of bed in the morning and charging the outrageous fees that we charge our clients, which they willingly pay.”

The lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns about alienating government officials, added that “you have to work at an agency to understand the culture and the pressure points, and it helps to know the senior staff.”

Not quite

The most likely outcome of a Wheeler nomination is that he will be quickly approved, maintain the agency’s relatively low profile, and avoid rocking the boat too much. Even he doubts the power of the FCC to effect regulatory change unless those regulated volunteer to submit to more regulation. That means more quid pro quo agreements attached to mergers, acquisitions, and other deals the industry brings the FCC for approval. But as this quote illustrates, the industry remains in the driving seat:

“[…] Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

Wheeler argued that the inability of the FCC to muster the political will to deal effectively with net neutrality and other broadband regulation made a consent decree around AT&T/T-Mobile the best way to update consumer protection rather than leave these services essentially unregulated.

Wheeler’s recognition of the inability of the FCC to get virtually anything done comes with no assurance he will do any better. Harold himself admits that the FCC’s track record of enforcement is “pathetic.” Has Wheeler written on his blog that he would seek to change that?

Wheeler’s reflections on the failed T-Mobile/AT&T merger present a clear sign he considers it a missed opportunity, with the usual voluntary divestiture of certain assets here and there with time limited pre-conditions that carry all the impact of one of those class action settlements that nets consumers a coupon or a $2 refund. Everybody but consumers walk away winners.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, in contrast, illustrated the usefulness of a backbone when it quickly declared the merger proposal monstrously anti-consumer and anti-competitive and announced it would sue to stop it. Deal over and dead. When is the last time the FCC issued such a clear-cut, high-profile decision all on its own? Why is it so hard for the FCC to see the same anti-competitive nightmare so visible at the Department of Justice? Public Knowledge and other consumer groups saw the dangers from day one. Does Mr. Wheeler agree with the Justice Department or does he think he can do business with that shrewd AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi to get such deals approved the ‘right way?’

Our view remains the country and the Obama Administration could do far better choosing someone to lead the FCC that has not made a career lobbying for big cable and phone companies. If we want to solve America’s rural broadband problems, enforce fair billing practices and Net Neutrality, find new creative ways to utilize and distribute wireless spectrum, and promote competition while restricting industry consolidation, would we do better choosing an ex-industry lobbyist or an engineer, network planner, professional regulator, or an antitrust attorney?

President Obama went with the ex-lobbyist.