Public Knowledge, a public interest, pro-consumer group, has filed a petition calling on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce conditions imposed on the Comcast/NBC-Universal merger dealing with Comcast’s usage caps policy.

The group wants the FCC to investigate the legality of Comcast’s decision to exempt its own online video service from the usage caps Comcast is reintroducing on its broadband customers:

In evaluating the merger, both the FCC and the Department of Justice recognized that a combined Comcast/NBC-Universal would have an enhanced motive to discriminate against unaffiliated online video services that might compete with Comcast’s pay-TV cable service.  Because Comcast controls their subscribers’ connection to the internet, and subscribers could use that very connection to access video services  not controlled by Comcast, Comcast has the ability to manipulate those internet connections in a way that would disadvantage video competitors.

Specifically, Public Knowledge accuses Comcast of violating FCC condition G.1.a.:

“Neither Comcast nor C-NBCU shall engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or prevent any MVPD or OVD from providing Video Programming online to subscribers or customers.”

The group argues that unfairly applied usage caps impact Comcast’s online video competitors. Customers will choose the service that does not eat away at their monthly broadband usage allowance, making competitors operate on an unfair playing ground.

The group has raised questions about the industry’s movement towards Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles and has repeatedly requested the FCC question how data allowance levels are developed, evaluated, and evolve over time.

...some of that juicy 700MHz spectrum Verizon is getting from the nation's biggest cable companies.

In an ironic turnabout, Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA, last year an acquisition target of AT&T, has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission opposing Verizon’s spectrum purchase from the nation’s largest cable companies as “contrary to the public interest.”

Verizon Wireless is seeking to acquire a substantial block of unused AWS spectrum that is unlikely to provide any near-term benefits to Verizon Wireless customers (indeed, the company already holds other AWS spectrum and has not even put it to use yet). Rather, the principal impact of the acquisition would be to foreclose the possibility that this spectrum could be acquired by smaller competitors – such as T-Mobile – who would use it more quickly, more intensively, and more efficiently than Verizon Wireless. The acquisitions will limit the deployment of LTE by competitors of Verizon Wireless and the bandwidth available for such deployments.

If these transactions go forward, the end result will be less LTE capacity available overall and reduced competition in the provision of LTE, which would be contrary to the public interest.

T-Mobile, in particular, is upset because it owns no spectrum in the valuable 700MHz range — frequencies that can travel longer distances and easily penetrate buildings.  Verizon Wireless does, and will acquire much more if the FCC approves the deal to transfer spectrum from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox. [Correction: As one of our readers pointed out, the spectrum being acquired is in the AWS band, which T-Mobile argues in its filing is still suitable for a 4G network deployment.]  T-Mobile argues Verizon does not need the spectrum, and will effectively “warehouse” the frequencies to keep them off the open market.  Without prime spectrum, T-Mobile argues, it will be difficult for the company to deliver a 4G experience to its customers.

T-Mobile also has a bone to pick with Verizon Wireless and the cable industry over what it suspects is a non-compete agreement:

At least in effect, this has all the hallmarks of a pure horizontal allocation of markets.

From the limited information available, it appears as though Verizon, the majority owner of Verizon Wireless, has agreed (tacitly if not expressly) to halt its extensive efforts to expand into the cable business and the cable companies have, in turn, traded their control of valuable spectrum in exchange for this protection of their cable markets.

It has been publicly reported that, coincident with acquiring the cable companies’ spectrum, thereby eliminating potential new competition in mobile wireless, Verizon ended its FiOS build out plans and terminated its agreement to resell satellite television. This series of acts appears to limit Verizon’s activity as a potential competitor in the video market and limit the cable companies’ role as potential competitors in the wireless market, while at the same time foreclosing competing providers from one of the only available sources of spectrum.

As a result of this “triple play,” competition in both markets will be substantially reduced. The antitrust laws have long condemned such agreements, even among potential competitors.

Not All Frequencies Are Created Equal

Will Verizon ultimately warehouse its newest acquired spectrum?

Unless you are well-acquainted with the wireless industry, all most people know about their cell phones is that they turn them on and a signal strength meter indicates what kind of reception quality you are getting.  In fact, wireless companies use a range of frequencies across several different frequency bands to handle voice calls and data.  As an end user, you never know the difference.  But if your wireless company is forced to use higher frequencies, they often have a harder time penetrating buildings or provide only limited distance coverage.  That’s why AT&T and Verizon customers have a better chance of making and receiving calls in the middle of a supermarket or office building while others lose reception.

Clearwire has an extensive holding of very high frequencies at its disposal — frequencies the company cannot effectively use because they require considerably more infrastructure (ie. more cell towers) to provide an effective service to customers.  Clearwire customers already complain about poor reception inside buildings, a problem exacerbated by the very high frequencies the company has to use for its service.  Verizon and AT&T collectively control the majority of the best, more robust spectrum — the 700MHz band.  Verizon’s LTE network, for example, relies on spectrum that used to be used by high numbered UHF television channels.

Companies like T-Mobile rely on frequencies in the 1700MHz and 1900MHz bands.  While certainly adequate in urban and suburban areas, T-Mobile has to spend more on cell tower deployment and be especially concerned with rural coverage, especially in areas where the terrain makes “line of sight” reception from cell towers more difficult.

While today’s 2G and 3G networks have made due with current spectrum, companies like T-Mobile are having a hard time finding space to launch the next generation — LTE/4G technology — on their current spectrum.  Without LTE, T-Mobile (and others) will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.  The company argues it should have the right to acquire some of the frequencies Verizon intends to capture from the cable industry, especially if Verizon has no immediate plans to use the spectrum.

Some of the wrangling by T-Mobile seems especially ironic because parent company Deutsche Telekom has indicated it wants to sell T-Mobile USA and leave the American wireless market.  It has shown little interest so far investing in a LTE/4G network upgrade.  Additionally, as part of AT&T’s failed merger bid, T-Mobile is expecting to receive frequencies from AT&T as part of the “failed transaction” clause in the original merger proposal.

Phillip "Break Free from 'What's In It For Me'-AT&T" Dampier

[We are reprinting this because it succinctly and persuasively proves a point we’ve been making at Stop the Cap! since 2008.  Broadband is not just a “nice thing to have.” It is as important as a phone line, electricity, and safe drinking water.  News, education, commerce, and culture increasingly utilize the Internet to share information and entertain us. Essential utility services can either be provided by a private company operating as a monopoly with oversight and regulation, or operate strictly in the public interest in the form of a customer-owned cooperative, a direct service of local government, or a quasi-public independent non-profit.

In North America, broadband was originally considered a non-essential service, and private providers in the United States lobbied heavily to maintain absolute control of their broadband networks, free to open them to share with other providers, or not.  They also won sweeping deregulation and are still fighting today for decreased oversight.  The results have been uneven service.  Large, compact cities enjoy modern and fast broadband while smaller communities are forced to live with a fraction of the speeds offered elsewhere, if they have access to the service at all.

With broadband now deemed “essential,” local governments have increasingly sought to end the same old excuses with the “don’t care”-cable company or “what’s in it for me”-AT&T and provide 21st century service themselves, especially where local commercial providers simply won’t step up to the plate at all.  Suddenly, big cable and phone companies are more possessive than your last boy/girlfriend. The companies that for years couldn’t care less about your broadband needs suddenly obsess when someone else moves in on “their territory.” They want special laws (that apply only to the competition) to make sure your broadband future lies exclusively in their hands.

Susan P. Crawford understand how this dysfunctional, controlling relationship comes at the expense of rural America.  She’s a visiting professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. In 2009, she was a special assistant to President Barack Obama for science, technology and innovation policy. Her opinions were originally shared with readers of Bloomberg News.]

In cities and towns across the U.S., a familiar story is replaying itself: Powerful companies are preventing local governments from providing an essential service to their citizens. More than 100 years ago, it was electricity. Today, it is the public provision of communications services.

Susan Crawford

The Georgia legislature is currently considering a bill that would effectively make it impossible for any city in the state to provide for high-speed Internet access networks — even in areas in which the private sector cannot or will not. Nebraska, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee already have similar laws in place. South Carolina is considering one, as is Florida.

Mayors across the U.S. are desperate to attract good jobs and provide residents with educational opportunities, access to affordable health care, and other benefits that depend on affordable, fast connectivity — something that people in other industrialized countries take for granted. But powerful incumbent providers such as AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. are hamstringing municipalities.

At the beginning of the 20th century, private power companies electrified only the most lucrative population centers and ignored most of America, particularly rural America. By the mid-1920s, 15 holding companies controlled 85 percent of the nation’s electricity distribution, and the Federal Trade Commission found that the power trusts routinely gouged consumers.

Costly and Dangerous

In response, and recognizing that cheap, plentiful electricity was essential to economic development and quality of life, thousands of communities formed electric utilities of their own. Predictably, the private utilities claimed that public ownership of electrical utilities was “costly and dangerous” and “always a failure,” according to the November 1906 issue of Moody’s Magazine. Now more than 2,000 communities in the U.S., including Seattle, San Antonio and Los Angeles, provide their own electricity.

Today, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which advocates for community broadband initiatives, is tracking more than 60 municipal governments that have built or are building successful fiber networks, just as they created electric systems during the 20th century. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example, the city’s publicly owned electric company provides fast, affordable and reliable fiber Internet access. Some businesses based in Knoxville — 100 miles to the northeast — are adding jobs in Chattanooga, where connectivity can cost an eighth as much.

Meanwhile, less than 8 percent of Americans currently receive fiber service to their homes, compared with more than 50 percent of households in South Korea, and almost 40 percent in Japan. Where it’s available, Americans pay five or six times as much for their fiber access as people in other countries do. Fully a third of Americans don’t subscribe to high-speed Internet access at all, and AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said last month that the company was “trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America, and we’re not finding one, to be quite candid.” America is rapidly losing the global race for high-speed connectivity.

Tamping Down Enthusiasm

We've done something like this once before.

Like the power trusts of the 20th century, the enormous consolidated providers of wired Internet access want to tamp down any enthusiasm for municipal networks. Last year, telecom lobbyists spent more than $300,000 in a failed effort to block a referendum in Longmont, Colorado, to allow that city to provide Internet access. Time Warner Cable managed to get a North Carolina law enacted last year that makes launching municipal networks there extraordinarily difficult. The pending measures in Georgia and South Carolina are modeled on the North Carolina bill.

The Georgia bill is chock-full of sand traps and areas of deep statutory fog from which no local public network is likely ever to emerge. In addition to the ordinary public hearings that any municipality would hold on the subject, a town looking to build a public network would have to hold a referendum. It wouldn’t be allowed to spend any money in support of its position (there would be no such prohibition on the deep-pocketed incumbents). The community wouldn’t be allowed to support its network with local taxes or surplus revenues from any other services (although incumbents routinely and massively subsidize their networks with revenue from other businesses).

Most pernicious of all, the public operator would have to include in the costs of its service the phantom, imputed “capital costs” and “taxes” of a private provider. This is a fertile area for disputes, litigation and delay, as no one knows what precise costs and taxes are at issue, much less how to calculate these amounts. The public provider would also have to comply with all laws and “requirements” applicable to “the communications service,” if it were made available by “a private provider,” although again the law doesn’t specify which service is involved or which provider is relevant.

The end result of all this vague language will be to make it all but impossible for a city to obtain financing to build its network. Although the proponents of Georgia’s bill claim that they are merely trying to create a level playing field, these are terms and conditions that no new entrant, public or private, can meet — and that the incumbents themselves do not live by. You can almost hear the drafters laughing about how impossible the entire enterprise will be.

Globally Competitive Networks

Right now, state legislatures — where the incumbents wield great power — are keeping towns and cities in the U.S. from making their own choices about their communications networks. Meanwhile, municipalities, cooperatives and small independent companies are practically the only entities building globally competitive networks these days. Both AT&T and Verizon have ceased the expansion of next-generation fiber installations across the U.S., and the cable companies’ services greatly favor downloads over uploads.

Congress needs to intervene. One way it could help is by preempting state laws that erect barriers to the ability of local jurisdictions to provide communications services to their citizens.

Running for president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt emphasized the right of communities to provide their own electricity. “I might call the right of the people to own and operate their own utility a birch rod in the cupboard,” he said, “to be taken out and used only when the child gets beyond the point where more scolding does any good.” It’s time to take out that birch rod.

Haven't we been here before?

History is best ignored when a Wall Street Journal columnist frames an argument in favor of strengthening the hegemony of Ma Bell, and darn ‘ole past precedent gets in the way of the writer’s “facts.”

Gordon Crovitz is a media and information industry adviser and executive, including former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, executive vice president of Dow Jones and president of its Consumer Media Group.  But today he’s unofficially, unabashedly AT&T.

In a column published this week, Crovitz hosts a whine and cheese festival on behalf of poor and abused AT&T, whose multi-billion dollar takeover of T-Mobile is in tatters. Crovitz places the blame squarely on the government for ruining everything:

How soon we forget the risks of overregulation: Last week, the Federal Communications Commission flexed the same muscle it once used to quash market forces in the phone industry to quash market forces in the wireless industry.

Today’s AT&T, a spinoff from the original, needs more spectrum to catch up with market leader Verizon, also a Ma Bell descendant, to support iPhones, Androids and other devices that feature video and sophisticated apps. It wants to buy T-Mobile, a division of a German company, which doesn’t have the resources to compete in the United States on its own. But the FCC decided to apply antitrust theory from the industrial era and claims to know better than wireless companies how they should operate their businesses.

AT&T’s proposed acquisition is best understood as a private-sector solution to a government-created problem. The FCC has not been able to get Congress to approve auctions to reallocate spectrum to wireless from less valuable uses. AT&T wants T-Mobile’s bandwidth so it can extend the latest fourth-generation network to 97% of the country from 80% and improve its spotty service in congested areas.

Under laws dating to the 1920s, the FCC gets to decide if a merger is in the “public interest,” a vague standard for top-down decision making. Government is the last institution in this era of fast technological innovation to act as if it has the information and power to dictate how change happens.

Crovitz apparently prefers AT&T and its phone pal Verizon Wireless dictate how “change happens,” because the two companies control the vast majority of wireless telecommunications in the United States.  Both also charge near-identical prices for near-identical levels of service.  AT&T & VZW are completely comfortable with that status quo, especially if disruptive competitor T-Mobile is dealt with in the usual industry manner (merger/buyout).

There is nothing vague about the FCC report that condemns the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile for the anti-competitive monstrosity it represents.  In hundreds of pages Crovitz evidently never read, a careful and credible argument against the deal was laid out for all to examine.  That evidence is far more persuasive than AT&T’s heavily-redacted filings the public was not authorized to see (for ‘competitive reasons’), and a multi-million-dollar-a-holler public relations distortion strategy based on hollow promises.

Playing Catch-Up With Verizon Wireless?  Hardly.

AT&T hardly needs to “catch up” with Verizon Wireless.  Both companies own wireless spectrum they have warehoused for “future use.”  As a backdrop to the merger, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has already indicated the agency is hard at work carefully re-allocating spectrum to make more room for wireless services.  The “bandwidth crisis” AT&T talks about is a convenient argument for a merger, until you realize T-Mobile’s mostly-urban wireless network won’t help AT&T achieve its goal of rural wireless expansion.  T-Mobile has never provided service in rural America and never will.

Crovitz attempts to leverage Verizon Wireless’ recent deal with America’s largest cable companies as an argument for the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, suggesting that deal was a game changer.  What goes unsaid is the fact AT&T could have pursued that deal for themselves.  Did they?  No.  Despite AT&T’s public relations spin, the proposed merger with T-Mobile is much more than a spectrum acquisition. As the FCC and the Justice Department have argued, this merger is about ridding AT&T of a competitor willing to offer more services at lower prices.  That forces AT&T to respond in kind to compete, and consumers have benefited greatly from that competition. Verizon Wireless is hardly competition at all considering both companies price services nearly identically.  Beyond that is Sprint, already saddled with the financial albatross Clearwire and questions about its long term viability in a duopolistic wireless market.

Crovitz is wrong on his other “facts” as well:

Deutsche Telekom is hardly short on cash.  The company has plenty of resources and could bolster T-Mobile USA to compete if it saw fit.  It doesn’t, preferring to focus on its more lucrative European markets.  Instead of selling the operation on the open market to other players, which could include foreign providers interested in competing in the high-priced American market, it elected to be courted by AT&T.

Overconfident AT&T

Henry De Lamar Clayton, Jr.: Author of the Clayton Act

The merger illustrates AT&T’s unparalleled level of overconfidence it could deal with regulators and consumer groups who would certainly object to the deal.  The company has since spent millions it could have used to improve its network on campaign-contribution-fueled support building on Capitol Hill, a shameless dollar-a-holler astroturf campaign that pays off non-profit groups to sing the deal’s praises, and an expensive ad campaign to sucker Americans into thinking reduced competition will somehow deliver lower prices and better service.

Even former Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would have likely paused over such an obvious monopoly-building operation.  The Obama Administration’s FCC chairman — Julius Genachowski —  while often too timid for our tastes, at least knows when it is time to join the chorus of opposition.

The FCC doesn’t pretend to tell AT&T how to run its business.  It does, however, serve the public interest by providing checks and balances to unfettered corporate power.  While the Wall Street Journal‘s world view of capitalism would have been favored by the most egregious robber barons, history has taught us that when big corporations get a stranglehold on vital industries, the entire economy can suffer.

Crovitz would have us ignore the massive corporate abuses of 100 years ago that eventually provoked Congress into trust-busting legislative reform, breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies that presided over the railways, early telecommunications networks, and industrial raw materials like oil and steel.  Restrained competition brought monopoly prices and blockades against would-be competitors.  What was true then is still true now, only the technology has changed.

In 1911, the economy was powered in part by railroads, which transported goods and raw materials.  Telecommunications networks like the telegraph and early telephone helped conduct business and coordinated the movement of goods.  In 2011’s growing digital economy, telecommunications increasingly represents the railroads, telegraph, and telephone all combined-into-one.  Some of America’s richest tech companies depend on broadband and communications to fuel demand for their products.  Allowing AT&T to control the largest part of that pipeline could be disastrous to everyone but that company and their shareholders.

History Repeats Itself

In 1914, the Clayton Act was passed to put a stop to increasing anti-competitive activity and abusive market tactics.  Amazingly, the problems being solved a century ago are back with a vengeance today, all thanks to the endless drumbeat for deregulation, which has fueled mergers, acquisitions, and increased concentration of market power.  That Act cracked down on:

• Price discrimination: selling products and services at different prices to similarly situated buyers;
• Tying and exclusive-dealing contracts: sales on condition that the buyer sign exclusive contracts that force an end to dealing with the seller’s competitors;
• Corporate mergers: acquisitions of competing companies to reduce competition; and
• Interlocking directorates: Boards of directors of competing companies, packed with common members.

Today’s laissez-faire attitude towards government checks and balances helped provoke the Great Recession, corporate scandals of epic proportions, and a revolving door in Washington where regulators end up working for the companies they used to regulate. Just ask former FCC chairman Michael Powell. Three years ago he worked for us.  Today he works for Big Cable’s largest lobbying group — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker went to work for Comcast shortly after green-lighting their super-merger with NBC-Universal.

It’s All About the Money. Always.

The only thing stopping AT&T from providing wireless nirvana to rural America is its own unwillingness to spend money on behalf of customers to upgrade its network.  The company claims it didn’t see the value of spending nearly $4 billion needed to deliver expansive 4G service, but suddenly had no trouble at all finding nearly ten times that amount to purchase T-Mobile USA.

Did AT&T suddenly win PowerBall?

AT&T saw crushing a competitor Job #1.  Central Idaho’s 4G service could wait.

Crovitz later notes AT&T “was unusually blunt” criticizing the FCC report, a classic case of protesting too much.  The company got caught with its rhetorical pants down, with a series of evolving arguments for a deal that never made the first bit of sense once you began to dig deeper into their case.

In the end, Mr. Crovitz wants you to blame Big Government for AT&T’s pervasive dropped-call problem that its competitors don’t seem to have.

It’s not the company that owns and runs the network, it is that Obama and his nasty henchmen at the FCC who are responsible!  Who knew?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg FCC Says ATT Failed to Show Public Benefit of Merger 11-30-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports the FCC found AT&T failed to demonstrate any real public benefit of its merger with T-Mobile USA.  (2 minutes)

The Federal Communications Commission has concluded allowing AT&T and T-Mobile to merge will cause huge job losses and knock out a vital wireless competitor in an increasingly concentrated U.S. wireless marketplace.

The new 266-page document, produced by FCC staffers, directly challenges AT&T’s contention that the merger will bring about job creation and an improved mobile broadband network for millions of rural Americans.

The report comes on the heels of news the Commission will allow the FCC to withdraw its pending application before the FCC to win approval of the merger.  That allows the company to resubmit the merger request at a later date.

The FCC determined prices will increase an average of 6-7% in these cities if the merger deal gets approved.

The new report, occasionally redacted to remove competitive information, found AT&T vastly exaggerating the benefits of the deal, questioning whether it would indeed lead to lower prices for consumers, bring about enhanced service, and create new jobs.

Overall, the agency concludes, AT&T and T-Mobile have failed to meet their burden of proof that the merger is in the public interest.  The FCC staffers found no compelling reason why AT&T needed T-Mobile to build out its 4G network to the majority of the country.  Indeed, memos accidentally leaked to the Commission by AT&T’s legal team suggested AT&T executives rejected expansion plans as too costly.  Instead, they proposed a $39 billion dollar merger with T-Mobile with a $6 billion deal cancellation clause.  That penalty exceeds the $3.8 billion AT&T rejected spending to pursue 4G upgrades on its own.

Among the Commission report’s findings:

• The merger would increasingly concentrate the U.S. wireless marketplace, leading to unilateral and coordinated efforts to raise prices by remaining carriers;
• Roaming agreements for remaining smaller and regional carriers could become more difficult and expensive to reach with fewer players in the marketplace;
• Pricing innovation, a hallmark of T-Mobile, would be lost.  T-Mobile is cited by the FCC as one of America’s most-disruptive carriers, forcing other companies to match their aggressive offers;
• Despite AT&T’s promises to grandfather existing T-Mobile customers to their existing plans, customers would be unable to upgrade to an equally innovative plan T-Mobile probably would have offered on its own.  Instead, customers would be forced to choose one of AT&T’s more expensive, traditional plans;
• AT&T is overstating the importance of remaining competitors, especially regional carriers and Leap Wireless’ Cricket and MetroPCS, which all have a negligible market share and depend heavily on roaming agreements with companies like Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T to survive;
• Substantial evidence exists to believe without T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon Wireless would likely raise prices and mimic each others’ respective service plans, pricing, usage allowances, and network policies;
• Sprint will probably be forced to raise prices as a consequence of the merger to pay for increasingly expensive backhaul and roaming services, often purchased from AT&T or Verizon.  Sprint would also be pressured by market forces into pricing its services closer to AT&T and Verizon, if only to pay for handset and subscriber acquisition costs.  Sprint’s new customers often come from T-Mobile or smaller providers — less often from AT&T and Verizon.
• AT&T did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate the combination of T-Mobile and AT&T’s cell sites would substantially relieve congestion issues, especially in America’s largest cities where AT&T’s network issues are the worst;
• AT&T’s own documents suggest the company will fire most of T-Mobile’s customer service staff post-merger, leading ironically to the loss of a customer service support unit that has a higher customer satisfaction rating than AT&T itself.  Not only would T-Mobile customers be forced to deal with AT&T’s customer service, AT&T customers will have to compete with millions of T-Mobile customers for the time and attention of AT&T’s existing customer service representatives — a recipe for a congestion of a different kind;
• Much of the cost savings realized from the merger, earned from laying off T-Mobile workers, closing T-Mobile retail stores, terminating reseller agreements, and unifying billing, administration, and network technologies, will be realized by AT&T (and its shareholders), not average customers.  The end effect for consumers will be higher prices and a deteriorating level of customer service.

Smaller, scrappier carriers with aggressive pricing have historically forced larger companies like AT&T and Verizon to compete by lowering prices and offering more generous calling and data plans.

The report angered AT&T’s chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, who called its release “troubling” because, in his words, it represents a “staff draft” not voted on by the Commission as a whole.

“It has no force or effect under the law, which raises questions as to why the FCC would choose to release it,” Cicconi said in a statement. “The draft report has also not been made available to AT&T prior to today, so we have had no opportunity to address or rebut its claims, which makes its release all the more improper.”

But the report’s substantial research suggests FCC staffers have taken a very close look at the arguments and the evidence submitted by AT&T, T-Mobile and opponents of the deal.  The findings only favor AT&T and T-Mobile with a mild agreement that combining resources in certain markets where both compete might reduce network redundancy.  But the cost to consumers is way too high, the report concludes.

Sprint couldn’t be happier with the report’s findings, saying in a statement:

“The investigation’s findings are clear. Approval of AT&T’s bid for T-Mobile would lead to higher prices for consumers, eliminate jobs, harm competition, and dampen innovation across the wireless industry.”

An unredacted copy of the findings will be available to the U.S. Department of Justice for its consideration as it presses its own legal case against AT&T to derail the merger on anti-competitive grounds.

Should T-Mobile remain independent, the FCC says wireless prices will decline.