When Industry Canada announced it was planning to boost competition by setting aside certain spectrum for new competitors entering the wireless marketplace, the Conservative government promised Canadians they would see a new era of robust competition and lower prices as a result.

Today, it turns out the only competition around is watching which of the three largest wireless carriers snap up their newest competitors first.

Telus, Canada’s third largest wireless carrier, today announced it was acquiring Mobilicity for $380 million — almost exactly the amount of outstanding debt owed by the Data & Audio Visual Enterprises Holdings’ venture. That means Telus will pick up its competitor just by agreeing to pay its bills.

Mobilicity said it was burning through cash at an alarming rate and simply could not attract enough customers in its home service cities Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, to become profitable. It also reportedly lacked financial resources to take part in a forthcoming spectrum auction that would have been critical to the company’s long-term survival.

Informal merger talks among the three largest independent carriers — Wind Mobile, Public Mobile, and Mobilicity — reportedly went nowhere.

“Mobilicity has been losing a significant amount of money every month,” Mobilicity’s chief restructuring officer, William Aziz, said today. “The financial strength of Telus will allow the business to be continued in a way that will benefit customers and employees. An acquisition by Telus is the best alternative for Mobilicity.”

But that may not be the best alternative for Canadians. Regulators are expected to scrutinize the merger and current rules do not allow Telus to acquire the spectrum Mobilicity holds until next year. But with few other expected buyers, regulators may have no choice but to allow the deal to go through.

If approved, Telus will pick up Mobilicity’s 250,000 customers and likely switch them to Koodo Mobile, its prepaid division.

Mobilicity customers could do worse. Koodo Mobile, given a “C” grade by Canadian consumers, was Canada’s highest rated wireless carrier. That disparity hints at how much Canadians loathe their current wireless options.

Bay Street investors were not surprised by the announced merger, believing competition has its limits in a marketplace dominated by three enormous telecom companies — Bell (BCE), Rogers, and Telus — all collectively holding more than a 90% share of the Canadian wireless market. Many expect the remaining independent providers to also jettison their businesses or combine them in a last stand.

Industry Minister Christian Paradis, the Conservative government’s point man on independent competition in the wireless market, was caught off guard by the apparent faltering of the new carriers.

Paradis said he remains committed to making sure Canadians have a fourth choice for wireless service in every regional market in the country. But his only assured success is in Québec, where Vidéotron — the provincial cable company — competes with the big three providers. That competition has worked in that province to hold pricing down. According to The Globe & Mail, the average monthly bill in Québec dropped to $50.36 a month in 2011 from its peak in 2009 and is on par with where it stood in 2007. In comparison, according to CBC News, the average monthly wireless bill across Canada was $77 in 2013, up from $68 in last year’s survey.

Paradis is now pondering new regulations that would prevent the three largest carriers from buying out the remaining two independent providers just for their spectrum assets.

The merger will need regulatory approval from The Competition Bureau, Industry Canada, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BNN Telus in Talks to Buy Mobilicity 4-13.flv[/flv]

BNN reported back in April that Telus and Mobilicity were in acquisition talks. The news channel speaks with Maher Yaghi from Desjardins Securities about the implications the merger would have on the Canadian cell phone market and the prices consumers pay. (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BNN Telus Acquiring Mobilicity 5-16-13.flv[/flv]

BNN this morning reported the ball is back in Ottawa’s hands as the government tries to decide how it can salvage its wireless competition agenda. (6 minutes)

AT&T says government regulations have hampered the company’s plans to roll out faster broadband networks to areas where consumers and businesses want faster speeds.

Now that Google has gotten permission to roll out its gigabit fiber network only to neighborhoods that show an interest in the service, AT&T says it should be allowed to operate the same way.

CEO Randall Stephenson told investors at a J.P. Morgan investor conference in Boston that AT&T would like to build fiber networks, but government requirements that it offer the service universally across the communities it serves has made such networks financially unprofitable. Eliminating those rules would create a new incentive for fiber upgrades in areas that want them.

“I think you are going to see that begin to manifest itself around the United States, and in not just AT&T and Google,” Stephenson said. “You will see others doing this because the demand for really high-speed broadband via gigabit-type fiber-based solutions on a targeted basis is going to be very, very high.”

AT&T says Google has already changed how future broadband networks are deployed — only to areas where there is enough demand for the service. Google’s entry into Kansas City came with a pre-registration procedure that allowed the company to gauge demand for its fiber network. The neighborhoods expressing the most interest were given priority during the network buildout. Google also won the right to entirely bypass neighborhoods where an insufficient number of residents expressed interest in the service.

Traditionally, cable and phone companies constructing networks like FiOS, U-verse, and similar fiber deployments are required to offer service throughout each community. The only general exception relates to sparsely populated or very high cost areas that have an insufficient number of potential customers, making return on investment difficult. Google can bypass even the most densely populated sections of downtown Kansas City if there is insufficient demand for its service. Cable and phone providers who attempted this in the past would have been accused of “redlining” — singling out only the most lucrative, affluent service areas while bypassing low-income neighborhoods.

Now AT&T hopes Google has established a precedent it can use to cherry-pick network upgrades of its own.

“The key is being able to do it in places where you know there is going to be high demand and people willing to pay the premium for those type services,” Stephenson said, predicting in some parts of Austin, AT&T could achieve a 35 percent market share for its promised fiber network.

Stephenson also suggested an unlikely new source of money to finance fiber upgrades — content producers and applications developers who need faster networks to support sales of their online products and services. That would shift the economics of faster broadband to an entire new model — broadband providers may decide their current networks are fast enough and might avoid upgrading them without some financial compensation from the websites and content producers customers visit.

Verizon Communications has filed a formal tariff obtained by Stop the Cap! with the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) that would establish conditions under which it can abandon its wired network in favor of wireless-only service.

If approved, Verizon will be able to drop wired landline and broadband service in any area of the state if the company can:

• certify that a substantial portion of its facilities in an area are destroyed, rendered unusable, or beyond reasonable repair, or,
• demonstrates that the use of wireless to serve specified customers, or groups of customers, is otherwise reasonable in light of the geographic location, the availability of competitive facilities to serve those customers or groups of customers, or in light of other criteria acceptable to the PSC.

Verizon is using the case of Fire Island, N.Y., to attempt a rewrite of New York’s communications tariffs. Although eastern Fire Island suffered some damage from Hurricane Sandy, a considerable amount of Verizon’s infrastructure further west did not survive the storm. Verizon wants to abandon that wired infrastructure, avoid spending money to upgrade the island to fiber optic service, and switch customers to a voice-only, wireless service called Voice Link that would leave Verizon’s DSL customers without broadband.

Although Verizon has currently only applied to drop wired service to the “western portion of Fire Island,” the tariff would set conditions under which Verizon could abandon its landline network for financial reasons in other portions of the state. For example, Verizon could argue that its declining number of rural landline customers are no longer financially viable to serve because of wired network upkeep and upgrade expenses. Verizon’s application would also allow it to abandon older facilities where competitive services (wireless or wired) are available, and allow Verizon’s wireless products to be considered a suitable alternative to meet universal service requirements.

Verizon says it will offer the same basic calling packages that landline customers can get at the same or lower prices. The company also promises to adhere voluntarily to PSC regulations on customer protection, customer complaints, service quality, safety and reliability.

But Verizon does not promise to offer a functionally equivalent wireless replacement for the landline.

For example, Verizon only promises to support voice calls, access local and toll calling, emergency services with E911 capability, assistance services, telecommunications relay services, and directory listings, including the option of non-published service.

Data services are not supported. Current Verizon DSL customers with unlimited use plans will be forwarded to Verizon Wireless to sign up for the same limited use wireless broadband plans already available in the rest of the country (the ones that charge $50 for up to a handful of gigabytes of monthly usage, depending on the plan). Business customers will need to buy new equipment and sign new contracts with Verizon Wireless (or other wireless carriers) to process credit card transactions. Although some voice calling features are supported, an exact list remains unavailable.

In the event of a power failure, a built-in backup battery will provide up to two hours of talk time, after which the line will stay out of service until commercial power is restored.

Because Verizon Wireless’ existing cellular network serving Fire Island is inadequate, the company has agreed to upgrade and improve service to the island.

Verizon argues its wireless solution is the only answer that makes sense.

“The cost of replacing facilities is very high, and if hurricanes or other severe storms occur in the future, there is a significant risk that the newly installed outside plant would again be damaged or destroyed,” argues Verizon’s Manuel Sampedro, who is overseeing Verizon’s service restoration effort on Fire Island. “Wireless service is already the predominant mode of voice communication on the island.”

But in the event of another major storm, Verizon’s wireless facilities could also be knocked out of service, potentially for weeks, as happened during Hurricane Sandy.

In the nearby coastal city of Long Beach, N.Y., every cell tower in the area failed because of the storm . City Manager Jack Schnirman told the FCC at a recent hearing wireless proved no more robust than any other technology, and described a frustrating experience attempting to reach representatives from major cell phone carriers about when exactly service could be restored.

“Long Beach reached out to one of the carrier’s customer support departments, explained the devastation and inquired about the carrier deploying a cell on wheels,” Schnirman said. “The customer service rep replied, ‘you might want to look that up on the Internet, I don’t know what that is.’ Well obviously, ironically, we had no Internet at that time.”

Customers did not fare any better.

“There was one woman in particular who passed away, of natural causes, an elderly woman,” Schnirman said. “And her daughter had to walk literally a mile and a half from her home to police headquarters just to say, ‘Listen, my mom has passed, and I thought I should tell somebody.’ ”

Wireless carriers are not obligated to provide backup service in the event of a power failure. An FCC effort to set minimal standards for backup cell service was met with legal threats by the wireless industry and the FCC backed down.

Verizon is in a hurry to win approval of its tariff change, requesting its filing be approved and take effort on less than 30 days’ notice with a waiver of the requirement that it publish a public notice about the change in area newspapers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Reuters ATT Verizon try to put end to landline telephone era 4-5-13.flv[/flv]

Reporter David Cay Johnston says Verizon and AT&T’s efforts to abandon the landline are no accident. They are part of a larger lobbying effort to abandon company obligations under the “carrier of last resort” policies that guarantee every American access to quality landline telephone service. Wireless phone service is unregulated. Johnston isn’t the only one reporting on this story. Stop the Cap! has covered it repeatedly since early 2010. (2 minutes)

A freak spring snowstorm has covered up much of the anticipated publicity for CenturyLink’s plans to launch a trial of gigabit fiber broadband for 48,000 customers in western Omaha.

The phone company announced the pilot project this week amid a historic spring storm that dumped several inches of heavy, wet snow on parts of Nebraska. The media devoted most of its attention to the weather.

CenturyLink admits its gigabit fiber service is a pilot project designed to test consumer demand and the tolerance of local officials for limiting upgrades to selected neighborhoods and customers most likely to buy the service. CenturyLink has priced the gigabit service comparably to Google Fiber — $79.95 a month if bundled with other CenturyLink products. Standalone broadband is nearly twice as expensive — $149.95 a month.

“CenturyLink is pleased to offer its Omaha customers ultra-fast broadband speeds up to 1Gbps to help keep pace with growing broadband demands,” said Karen Puckett, chief operating officer. “This demonstrates our commitment to deliver communications solutions that provide our customers with the technology they need to enhance their quality of life, now and into the future.”

CenturyLink will not be building the fiber network from scratch. The company already runs a 100Gbps middle-mile/institutional fiber network in Omaha that reaches certain business clients and serves as a conduit for CenturyLink customer traffic. CenturyLink will supplement that by using the remnants of its predecessor’s long-gone Qwest Choice TV service. The company will spend millions to run fiber connections to homes and businesses, but around 9,800 residents formerly served by Qwest’s television service will be able to sign up for CenturyLink Lightspeed Broadband as early as Monday. Others may have to wait until as late as October.

CenturyLink now sells up to 40Mbps speeds in Omaha, with a 300GB monthly usage cap. The company has not said if it intends to apply a usage limit on its fiber customers.

The phone company’s largest and fastest competitor is Cox Cable, which sells up to 150/20Mbps service for $99.99 a month.

Cox Cable cannot match CenturyLink’s speeds at the moment, but does not think most Omaha residents need or want gigabit fiber.

“It is important to note that our most popular Internet package remains the one that provides speeds of 25Mbps, which meets the needs of the majority of customers,” said Cox spokesman Todd Smith. “We will continue to talk with our customers and invest in product enhancements to provide an optimal broadband experience.”

Only around 12% of metropolitan Omaha will have access to the experimental fiber service, primarily those living in West Omaha. The network will bypass residents that live further east. The boundaries of the forthcoming fiber network are notable: West Omaha comprises mostly affluent middle and upper class professionals and is one of the wealthiest areas in the metropolitan region. Winning a right to offer service on a limited basis within Omaha is an important consideration for telecom companies like CenturyLink.

AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink and other telecommunications companies are seeking deregulation that would end universal service mandates that require companies to build their networks in every neighborhood, rich and poor.

Cable and telephone companies have taken careful note Google Fiber is being allowed to provide service only where demand can be found — a significant change in long-standing municipal policies that demand cable and phone companies provide access to nearly every resident.

CenturyLink delivered a “between the lines” message to local officials when it suggested it might expand its fiber network elsewhere in Omaha and beyond, but only after evaluating the project for “positive community support, competitive parity in the marketplace and the ability to earn a reasonable return on its investment.”

In other words, keeping zoning and permit battles (and residential complaints about construction projects) to a bare minimum, allowing the company the right to choose where it will (and won’t) deploy service, and making sure people will actually buy the service are all the key factors for fiber expansion.

AT&T said much the same thing when it vaguely promised a gigabit fiber network to compete with Google in Austin.

Google may have unintentionally handed their competitors a new carrot: deregulate us in return for fancy fiber upgrades that customers crave.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWT Omaha CenturyLink Gigabit 5-1-13.flv[/flv]

WOWT in Omaha spent less than a minute reporting on CenturyLink’s forthcoming gigabit fiber trial. A spring snowstorm preoccupied most of Omaha’s media instead.  (1 minute)

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?

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?

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.”

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.