Last week, AT&T announced its intention to abandon an appeal of a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granting the Federal Trade Commission the right to continue its lawsuit against AT&T for speed throttling its “unlimited data” wireless customers.

The notification came in a surprising four sentence notice filed with the court May 30:

At the May 10, 2018 case management conference in this matter, AT&T informed the Court that it expected at that time to request a 60-day extension from the Supreme Court of the deadline to file a petition for certiorari. See Audio Recording of May 10, 2018 Hr’g at 7:22. Since that hearing, AT&T has decided not to request such an extension and not to file a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the en banc Ninth Circuit, see 883 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2018). The deadline to file a petition for certiorari lapsed on May 29, 2018.

AT&T spokesman Mike Balmoris later told reporters: “We have decided not to seek review by the Supreme Court, to focus instead on negotiating a fair resolution of the case with the Federal Trade Commission.”

AT&T’s sudden change of heart surprised many observers, including some closely following the case at the 9th Circuit, which has held regular court supervised meetings to prepare for the widely expected Supreme Court challenge. AT&T notified the court in early May it would file its appeal as soon as May 29, and the court was preparing new discovery guidelines and deadlines between the two parties as the case proceeded.

AT&T had achieved a major victory in 2017 when a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit agreed with AT&T’s argument that the FTC had no jurisdiction over the company because part of its business includes traditional telephone service, something defined in law as being regulated exclusively by the FCC. At the same time, the FCC did not seem to have jurisdiction either, because wireless data throttling took place over a network not subject to common carrier service regulations.

The Ninth Circuit then agreed to hear the case once again, this time “en banc” — meaning the full court would re-hear the case instead of a limited panel of three judges. In February, the court unanimously found the FTC did have regulatory jurisdiction over AT&T after all:

We conclude that the exemption in Section 5 of the FTC Act – “except . . . common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce” – bars the FTC from regulating “common carriers” only to the extent that they engage in common-carriage activity. By extension, this interpretation means that the FTC may regulate common carriers’ non-common-carriage activities.

[…] This statutory interpretation also accords with common sense. The FTC is the leading federal consumer protection agency and, for many decades, has been the chief federal agency on privacy policy and enforcement. Permitting the FTC to oversee unfair and deceptive non-common-carriage practices of telecommunications companies has practical ramifications. New technologies have spawned new regulatory challenges. A phone company is no longer just a phone company. The transformation of information services and the ubiquity of digital technology mean that telecommunications operators have expanded into website operation, video distribution, news and entertainment production, interactive entertainment services and devices, home security and more. Reaffirming FTC jurisdiction over activities that fall outside of common-carrier services avoids regulatory gaps and provides consistency and predictability in regulatory enforcement.

In short, AT&T’s “get out of regulatory oversight free”-card was revoked, much to its consternation. The company promised a fast appeal to the Supreme Court. The case concerned a number of observers, not the least of which was the Federal Communications Commission, which has been so concerned about AT&T’s novel argument to escape regulation, it filed a brief supporting the FTC with the court:

If the en banc Court were to adopt AT&T’s position that the FTC Act’s common-carrier exception is “status-based” rather than “activity-based,” contrary to the reasoned analysis of the district court below, the fact that AT&T provides traditional common-carrier voice telephone service could potentially immunize the company from any FTC oversight of its noncommon-carrier offerings, even when the FCC lacks authority over those offerings—creating a potentially substantial regulatory gap where neither the FTC nor the FCC has regulatory authority.

That approach is contrary to a common-sense reading of the relevant statutes and could weaken or eliminate important consumer protections. While AT&T may prefer to offer services in a regulatory no man’s land, the law does not dance to AT&T’s whims.

While AT&T publicly expressed confidence about its appeal right up to the day it abandoned it, minutes from the Ninth Circuit trial scheduling and progress conferences reveal AT&T and the FTC were already privately talking with each other to avoid further litigation:

“Parties reported that they are conducting settlement negotiations.”

All observers agree a successful appeal by AT&T to the Supreme Court could have put telecommunications laws and regulations into chaos. Had AT&T successfully restored the three-judge panel’s decision, any telecommunications company could walk away with impunity from FCC and FTC oversight by simply starting a small telephone company serving just a handful of customers. Just one product or service subject to common carrier rules could effectively immunize a phone or cable company from regulations indefinitely, or until Congress changed the law to close that loophole.

Some observers predict AT&T’s decision not to appeal is a prelude to an imminent, favorable permanent settlement of the four-year old case. The evidence strongly suggests AT&T will likely escape any significant monetary punishment, and affected consumers may not get significant (if any) compensation for AT&T’s prior acts:

• The FCC shows no sign of following through on a 2015 press release threatening AT&T with $100 million in fines for its failure to properly disclose its speed throttling policy arbitrarily imposed on unlimited data customers who exceeded a company-defined amount of data usage. At the time the press release was issued, there were three Democrats and two Republicans serving on the Commission. Both of those Republicans opposed the fine and are now part of the Republican majority at the FCC under the Trump Administration. The FCC admitted in court papers that no further action has been taken to fine AT&T. The case was largely left in the hands of the FTC.
• During the Obama Administration, the FTC claimed it was interested in pursuing refunds for affected customers and punishing AT&T for its throttling practices. Last week, Andrew Smith, the FTC’s new director of the Consumer Protection Bureau told an audience today’s priority it to monitor providers over traffic throttling and making sure those practices are transparently disclosed to customers. “We’re planning to examine current practices in the industry,” Smith said. “We’re looking for areas in which ISPs may be engaged in unfair or deceptive practices, and we will bring enforcement action as appropriate.”

For AT&T, the decision to drop its appeal may have come down to whether it preferred to temporarily escape regulatory oversight until an enraged Congress passed new laws to put AT&T and other telecom companies back under oversight, or living with the kind of “light-to-little touch” regulatory approach favored by the Trump Administration and its regulatory agencies. Whatever deal emerges between AT&T and the Trump Administration’s FTC will likely be “win-win” for the company and the regulator, with consumers offered only token relief.

The goals likely to be achieved in any settlement:

• AT&T would clearly like to avoid a $100 million fine and other enforcement actions, so agreeing to ease throttling (something it has done already) and better disclose the practice would hardly create a problem for the company, especially if fines are dropped as a result.
• The FCC’s new “net neutrality” policy depends almost entirely on effectively abdicating oversight responsibility to the FTC, something embarrassing and hard to justify if AT&T managed to permanently bar the agency from regulating the company.
• The FTC can claim victory by telling consumers they are watching ISPs for undisclosed and unwarranted throttling, without opening up new legal challenges by outright banning of the practice, heavily fining violators, or collecting damages on behalf of customers victimized by prior bad acts.

Earlier press accounts that AT&T paid $200,000 to President Donald Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen for “consulting work” was actually closer to $600,000, according to a source talking to Reuters on Wednesday.

AT&T acknowledged on Tuesday it paid $200,000 to Cohen-owned Essential Consultants, a limited liability shell company, claiming it was to help the telecom company gain “insights” into the Trump Administration at the same time it was lobbying to win federal approval of its merger with Time Warner, Inc., and was seeking regulatory favors on issues including net neutrality, broadband regulation, pole attachment fees, municipal broadband, and decommissioning its rural landline network.

The first revelations about AT&T’s payment to the same company used to pay $130,000 in hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels came from her attorney, Michael Avenatti, who released detailed information about payments from AT&T, a pharmaceutical company, and a firm with direct ties to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, a close confidante of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Reuters reports it was unclear how Avenatti knew about those payments, but his information was detailed and partly confirmed by AT&T, noting payments of $50,000 in October-December, 2017 and one additional payment in January, 2018 of $50,000 — totaling $200,000.

However, the contract was for a year, the source told Reuters, meaning AT&T likely paid more than $200,000 to Cohen’s company. A full year contract for $50,000 per month would total $600,000. The source declined to give a total for the payments made by AT&T to Cohen’s company.

It is not known what happened to the money AT&T paid Cohen, but there is speculation the president could have known about the payments and seen them as a goodwill gesture as AT&T battles with the Administration’s Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission over its $85 billion merger deal and accusations it speed-throttled wireless customers who exceeded an arbitrary usage allowance.

AT&T today released a company-wide letter to employees explaining its position on the matter:

From: T Now
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 12:10 PM
Subject: Perspective on the news

To: All U.S. AT&T employees

Late yesterday, many media outlets reported that in 2017, AT&T hired Michael Cohen, a former lawyer with the Trump Organization. We want you to know the facts.

In early 2017, as President Trump was taking office, we hired several consultants to help us understand how the President and his administration might approach a wide range of policy issues important to the company, including regulatory reform at the FCC, corporate tax reform and antitrust enforcement. Companies often hire consultants for these purposes, especially at the beginning of a new Presidential Administration, and we have done so in previous Administrations, as well.

Cohen was one of those consultants. Cohen did no legal or lobbying work for us, and our contract with Cohen expired at the end of its term in December 2017. It was not until the following month in January 2018 that the media first reported, and AT&T first became aware of, the current controversy surrounding Cohen.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, said at a press conference that the Judiciary Committee should review the payments AT&T and other companies made to Cohen.

Blumenthal speculated those payments “may well have been used to influence the president of the United States, using Michael Cohen and his shell company as a conduit.”

One of the telecom industry’s most notorious favorites – Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-AT&T), is running for departing Sen. Bob Corker’s seat in the U.S. Senate, and she will enjoy extra support from Sinclair-owned television stations across the state of Tennessee, sometimes whether those stations want to support her candidacy or not.

Blackburn has a long history supporting the corporate agendas of AT&T and Comcast, pushing for deregulation, blocks on community-owned broadband networks, and opposition to net neutrality. She is the telecom industry’s most reliable member of Congress, willing to introduce new legislation custom-written by industry lobbyists. The Tennessee Tribune noted that Blackburn’s lackluster performance in Congress as little more than an “errand boy” was foreshadowed by Blackburn herself in each of her political races:

During political events when Blackburn first ran for Congress, she said she wanted the job so she could support George W. Bush’s agenda. Later it was to fight Barrack Obama. Now, as Blackburn spokesperson Andrea Bozek told the Associated Press, “We want to ensure President Trump has a reliable vote in the U.S. Senate.”

The AP’s Feb. 14 story confirms the congressman’s consistent posture displayed in person and other ways. She’s spoken of the “leadership” she’s followed. Blackburn’s also behaved like loyal party members by holding private, invited-guests-only sessions, usually for fundraising. In recent months, she excluded the press from a program on telecommunications.

Blackburn has boldly said she’s doing what the people tell her they want. Now, she wants to be a U.S. senator.

Polls in Tennessee show Blackburn trailing against moderate Democrat Phil Bredesen, a former Tennessee governor. That has her corporate allies worried, particularly in the telecommunications and broadcasting business.

Baltimore-area based Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns or runs more than 200 television stations around the United States, has been under fire for quietly inserting conservative and pro-Trump stories into the local newscasts of the stations it programs, without disclosing those stories have a deliberate spin defending the Trump Administration or various conservative causes favored by Sinclair Broadcasting’s executives. In March, Deadspin produced a video showing uncomfortable local newscasters across the country forced to read a scripted Sinclair promotion attacking the media for “fake news” — a corporate campaign that quickly won praise from President Donald Trump and scorn by media watchdog groups and many viewers.

So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 2, 2018

Sinclair is the only station owner in the country that requires its stations to insert pre-produced news stories and commentaries it calls “must-runs” that do not always tell viewers in full disclosure  those segments and news stories were produced by Sinclair’s corporate owners from studios in Maryland. This fall, Sinclair plans to ramp up coverage of the 2018 mid-term elections with recently hired reporters, one who formerly worked for the Russian government-owned RT propaganda outlet, to produce political stories that will be required to air by Sinclair’s local stations nationwide. In fact, Sinclair has hundreds of job listings on help-wanted websites.

Among Sinclair’s top priorities for the fall is getting Rep. Blackburn installed in the U.S. Senate. No elected official has received greater support from Sinclair’s PAC than Blackburn. According to Poyntor, Blackburn has already received $4,500 from Sinclair this year. She is the current chair of the House Communications and Technology subcommittee, which oversees the FCC, the same agency headed by Chairman Ajit Pai that has bent over backwards for Sinclair and its efforts to acquire additional stations, including some of the biggest outlets in the country currently owned by Tribune Broadcasting. Pai is now under investigation by the FCC’s inspector general for possible collusion with Sinclair.

The New York Times’ investigation into the close relationship between Sinclair and Pai has been strengthened with evidence Pai and his staff members have frequently met and corresponded with Sinclair executives several times, usually coinciding with agenda items at the telecommunications regulator that have an impact on Sinclair’s business. The meetings, including one with Sinclair’s executive chairman just days before Pai was appointed to head the FCC by President Trump, have raised eyebrows among some members of Congress, but not Rep. Blackburn.

Sinclair’s top lobbyist, a former FCC official, also communicated frequently with former agency colleagues and pushed for the relaxation of media ownership rules, the Times reported. Pai’s talking points about relaxing media ownership rules were suspiciously nearly identical to the language the lobbyist provided the agency promoting the rules change that will allow Sinclair to grow even larger.

Sinclair’s executives need Blackburn’s support to keep Congress in check as the company grows its station count well above long-standing federal station ownership caps that Pai has systematically sought to relax. Putting her in the U.S. Senate could be critical to protect Sinclair, especially if Republicans lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives in this year’s mid-term elections.

In January, Sinclair mailed letters to its station’s managers urging they quietly participate in Sinclair’s PAC, asking each to contribute up to $5,000. Sinclair will spend that money supporting candidates like Blackburn. A copy of the letter was obtained by FTVLive.

You are receiving this letter because you are eligible to participate in the Sinclair Political Action Committee (PAC), our fund that supports candidates for Congress who can influence the future of broadcasting. The Federal Election Commission strictly defines who may participate, and not everyone in the company meets these qualifications, so please do not forward this letter to anyone.

[…] Since the change in administration last year, we now have an FCC chairman who appreciates the important role of local broadcasting enough to launch a number of politically unpopular deregulatory initiatives necessary to ensure the future of our industry. In response, there have been Congressional efforts to counter those actions, such as a legislative proposal to eliminate the UHF discount, which will prevent any broadcaster from meaningful growth in the future. […] We need allies in Congress who understand the role of local television  and who are willing to defend it in today’s ever-changing landscape.

Corporate contributions to federal candidates are prohibited by law, but our PAC is a legally acceptable way for eligible Sinclair employees to make our collective voice heard in the electoral process.

In addition to direct financial support, Sinclair is expected to produce additional news stories and commentaries it will force-air on its stations that echo the themes and views of the candidates the company supports. Sinclair owns five stations in Nashville and Chattanooga and will own a sixth in Memphis if the FCC approves Sinclair’s acquisition of Tribune-owned television stations.

Sinclair’s Tennessee stations are already loaded with Sinclair’s editorials and slanted news coverage pieces that are required to air as part of the stations’ local newscasts. But some stations also air extra weekly news shows that swing to the right, including one hosted by conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who bought television stations through his entity Howard Stirk Holdings, using Sinclair’s money and contracts with Sinclair to run “his” stations.

WTVC (NewsChannel 9) and WFLI (The CW) in Chattanooga

• Sinclair-owned WTVC (NewsChannel 9) in Chattanooga regularly airs at least some of Sinclair’s “must-run” content, including nationally produced news packages, and it aired the recent anchor-read scripted segments about media bias. News Channel 9 also airs Sinclair’s weekly news shows Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson and The Armstrong Williams Show. WTVC 9.2 (a subchannel of WTVC) hosts Chattanooga’s Fox affiliate, Fox Chattanooga.
• MPS Media-owned WFLI (The CW Chattanooga) “receives certain services from an affiliation of Sinclair” and occasionally re-airs some of Fox Chattanooga’s local news programming, such as its 10 p.m. Saturday newscasts. The two stations share a main studio address.

WZTV (Fox 17), WUXP (My30), and WNAB (CW58) in Nashville

• Sinclair-owned WZTV (Fox 17) also regularly airs at least some of Sinclair’s “must-run” content, including nationally produced news packages, fearmongering “Terrorism Alert Desk” updates, and the weekly show Full Measure.
• Sinclair-owned WUXP (My30) shares a main studio address with Fox 17 and re-airs at least some of Fox 17’s local news programming.
• Nashville Broadcasting-owned WNAB (The CW58) “receives certain services from an affiliation of Sinclair Broadcast Group” and also shares a main studio address with Fox 17 and My30. It does not appear to regularly air news programming.

Coming soon: WREG (News Channel 3) in Memphis

• WREG (News Channel 3) in Memphis is currently owned by Tribune Media but will soon be owned by Sinclair if the company’s pending acquisition of up to 42 Tribune stations is approved.

(programming details courtesy of Media Matters)

AT&T successfully bribed a Oklahoma telecom regulator to allow the phone company to keep at least $30 million annually in excess revenue. Despite the fact two key players in the bribery scandal were eventually sent to federal prison, Oklahoma’s state government has done all it can to protect AT&T. At issue is up to $16 billion in refunds and damages payable by AT&T — approximately $15,000 per customer, that the state claims would not be in the public interest. Now a consumer group — Oklahomans Against Bribery — is taking its case for refunds to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Remarkably, AT&T has remained so confident of its case and close relationship with Oklahoma state officials, the company drew gasps in a 2015 hearing after its attorney argued even bribed votes count at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), the state’s telecommunications regulator, and the Commission has no jurisdiction to tell AT&T to make things right with Oklahoma ratepayers.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission: “Perjury Palace”

The notorious scandal began with the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 during the Reagan Administration. Echoing recent tax changes passed during the Trump Administration, Republicans argued that reduced taxes would cut the burden on corporations by changing the way those taxes were calculated, with savings trickling down to individual taxpayers. Under Oklahoma law, when a regulated utility wins a tax break, so should ratepayers in the form of lower rates. In June, 1987 the OCC ordered utilities including Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (today doing business as AT&T) to be prepared to refund the excess revenue that came as a result of the tax cut.

Only AT&T had no serious intention of refunding the money to its customers. Investigators claimed the company’s senior Oklahoma executives conspired with at least one of their attorneys to bribe Corporation Commissioner Bob Hopkins with a $10,000 payment in return for his vote allowing AT&T to “invest” the excess money in network upgrades. AT&T got its wish in a 2-1 vote. For almost 30 years, the lone dissenter in that vote, Corporation Commissioner Bob Anthony, has led the charge to reopen the case and get consumers a long overdue refund.

In 1988, when he was running for a seat on the Corporation Commission, Anthony said he was warned he would not be a good fit.

“A friend and Crowe and Dunlevy attorney advised me that someone like me should not run for election to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, calling it the ‘perjury palace,'” Anthony wrote in a 2016 dissent opinion of the rate case.

Even before Anthony won his seat on the Commission, the bribery attempts began, often involving a high-powered utility lawyer named William Anderson, hired by SBC/AT&T:

“My first introduction to this entire episode was in about the last six weeks of my campaign….I was sent word that some people wanted to meet me. Well, I was running a campaign so I was happy to meet people interested.

“So, I went over to Mr. [William] Anderson’s office, and we had a nice chat. He’s…an authority on utility regulation. We had a nice little chat, and he handed me an envelope, and I put it in my pocket. And I remember driving home, not at the first stop light, but at the second stop light, I opened up the envelope and there were 10 $100 dollar bills in it, with a little slip of paper in one person’s handwriting that had five names written on it. Now, I was supposed to assume that that was five people [who] contributed $200 apiece, and that I didn’t have to report it by name.

“I told this story to a high school friend of mine who just happened to be the U.S. Attorney at the time. And before I told him the name of the person, he said, ‘Was that Bill Anderson?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s who that was.’ And he said, ‘Well, Bob, we’ve been interested in his activities for a long period of time, but it’s awfully difficult to get inside information.’ And I said, ‘If he continues to have dealings with me, I’ll keep you posted.'”

It wasn’t long before Anthony associated Anderson’s presence with pocketfuls of cash waiting to fall on the table:

“I remember the time he had 50 $100 dollar bills. And I said, ‘You know I grew up in the business world, and we counted money when it came in.’ And so he’d chuckle, and then I’d start counting it out, 1-2-3-4, and then it would get up to 45-46-47-48-49-50! And, uh, he had a funny little thing he’d like to say,…’Well, if there was one extra, I’d a’ jumped up there and grabbed it.’ And we’d chuckle about that.

“Then he’d go on and explain about what was expected for the money. The definition of bribery, out of Black’s Law Dictionary, includes a quid pro quo. If he just gives me a gift that’s not necessarily a bribe. But, if he does, like he did, say, ‘You know, these companies I represent, they expect to make a profit. They expect to be in business a long time. And we’re not going to bother you every day, but someday there will be some officer of one of the companies I represent, and we’ll need an appointment, and we’d expect for you to give us an appointment.’

“Well, a certain amount of this is a wink and a nod, too. But, there was no doubt in our minds what was going on. Very clearly what was happening was people were giving me a large number of hundred dollar bills because they were buying access, and they were buying influence. And those words were even used in conversations that I had with utility executives.

“So my high school friend arranged for me to meet him in his US Attorney’s office, and there were two top FBI agents from the city who were there. And I agreed to keep them informed if activities continued.

“And Mr. Anderson called, and he called again, and he wanted to establish a relationship. And eventually they got recording equipment put in my office, and he continued his activity.”

Anthony recounted how utility lobbyists and lawyers introduced themselves, almost always around the issue of money.

“You know, sometimes I get money for the commissioners,” one lawyer told Anthony, adding some lawyers and lobbyists frequently offer $300 or $400 in “walking around money.” Those lobbying Anthony also reminded him they were aware of his campaign deficit, and despite being illegal, one offered to bundle a $10,000 contribution to help retire his debt.

The SBC/AT&T Bribery Case

The prospect of AT&T getting to keep at least $30 million in excess revenue a year (later revised upwards in an independent audit to $120 million annually) meant going the extra mile with commissioners to assure a vote in AT&T’s favor. By this time, Anthony had volunteered to serve as a FBI informant and had turned over any money he received improperly to the government. Federal investigators also obtained wiretap warrants, which caught telephone company executives discussing the bribe they didn’t want to know about.

“Do it and don’t let me know how you do it,” Oklahoma SBC/AT&T division president Royce Caldwell is heard saying on one wiretap.

Anthony argues there is substantial evidence that AT&T’s bribery is only a part of a much broader conspiracy involving a variety of utilities who were routinely bribing regulators to win votes at the OCC. But the AT&T case was special because of the amount of money involved.

“Multiple executives and attorneys were involved,” he said. A judge that later reviewed the case called the money given to Anthony, “no more or no less than an effort to have him look with favor on their pending rate matters.”

Other executives named by Anthony in the case were David Miller, SBC’s vice president in Oklahoma for governmental and regulation affairs and SBC attorneys William Free and Glen Glass.

In a sworn affidavit, Anthony cited a FBI wiretapped conversation between Anderson and Free in which Anderson said, “[Glen] Glass knew the whole deal. We all knew. They all knew we were trying to work something.”

What they apparently knew is that their attorney, Mr. Anderson, had found OCC Commissioner Robert Hopkins, a grateful recipient of $10,000 in telephone company bribe money, and the critical second vote in favor of AT&T being allowed to keep its excess revenue.

In 1994, a federal grand jury indicted Anderson and Hopkins for illegal bribery and conspiracy charges. Both were found guilty in late 1994 and sentenced to federal prison.

The Bribery Worked: AT&T Still Benefits Today from Rigged Vote That Was Never Overturned

Despite convictions, jail time, and clear and convincing evidence of a corrupted regulatory process, the order granting AT&T permission to keep the money was never overturned, despite repeated efforts by Anthony to throw out the tainted vote.

Since the late 1980s, AT&T has collected an estimated $16 billion in excess charges from Oklahoma ratepayers, including interest. But every effort to see that money returned to Oklahoma consumers and businesses has met a roadblock of resistance from AT&T, the Oklahoma state government, and regulatory agencies who call the case “ancient history” and “closed for further debate.”

The most serious effort to overturn the OCC’s original vote came in 2015-2016, when a coalition of consumers, business leaders, and philanthropists teamed up to convince the OCC and the courts they should toss out the tainted vote. They ran head-on into then Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (today the head of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Trump Administration.)

Pruitt had been a staunch defender and supporter of AT&T in his role as Attorney General. In 2014, shortly after Pruitt dismissed another challenge about excess revenue in favor of AT&T, the phone company and its executives richly rewarded Pruitt’s campaign coffers with $43,500 — 44.5% of all donations for the summer and fall 2014 period. Pruitt ran unopposed in 2014.

Pruitt’s office renewed opposition to those challenging AT&T once again in 2015:

The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office has maintained the position that the PUD 260 matter should not be reopened for nearly 20 years. As Attorney General Drew Edmondson stated to the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1997, and again in 2010, “[t]he public interest would not be served by reopening an evidentiary hearing occurring nearly [two] decade[s] ago. The resources of the Commission and of the parties could be better utilized than by rehashing ‘ancient history.’ Accordingly, a rehearing of this cause is not in the best interests of [Southwestern Bell Telephone]’s customers and is not advocated by the Attorney General.”

Independent news site NonDoc took issue with Pruitt’s premise:

How can Pruitt expect his position on PUD 260 to ring true with the public considering his lengthy and documented history of defending major corporate interests in Oklahoma?

For a politician so well-versed in the art of pandering — whose campaign website asks voters to “Help Scott protect the citizens of Oklahoma” — how does the potential reimbursement of an estimated $15,000 for every qualifying AT&T customer in the state not serve their “best interests?”

Whose best interest is really protected by refusing to re-examine a corrupt moment in Oklahoma’s political history?

The answer likely lies somewhere in the political realities of our time. When corporations are considered people, it’s corporate dollars that count, especially when most actual people can’t be bothered to get out and vote.

In 2016, the OCC dismissed yet another attempt to revisit the issue, this time with prejudice, telling the group and consumers across Oklahoma the issue cannot be litigated ever again.

Headed for the U.S. Supreme Court

After being uniformly rejected by Oklahoma’s conservative politicians and judiciary, the group of citizens fighting to get the original late 1980s ruling overturned and force refunds for customers is taking their case to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

Oklahomans Against Bribery continues to believe the law is on their side, despite arguments from AT&T’s attorneys that even bribery-tainted votes count.

“We took on this fight when the Attorney General stopped representing Oklahoma ratepayers and started defending AT&T,” said bribery refund applicant and Nichols Hills Mayor Sody Clements. “We hoped the Corporation Commission and the Oklahoma Supreme Court would finally do the right thing – declare once and for all that bribed votes don’t count in this state, and give the billions stolen by AT&T back to the ratepayers.  Unfortunately everyone has passed the buck and claimed it’s someone else’s problem to fix. We believe the buck will stop at the United States Supreme Court.”

Their petition for writ of certiorari, filed March 19, argues their “right to petition” under the First Amendment was violated when the OCC dismissed their bribery refund application “with prejudice,” prohibiting them from ever raising the issue again.

“Denying citizens the right to further petition their legislative bodies on legislative matters – especially matters involving proven public corruption – threatens and undermines our very republican form of government,” the petition argues. “The high importance of this case to the public interest, both from a monetary standpoint and from the standpoint of harm done – now and in the future – to ‘the good order of society,’ warrants review.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the petition before the end of its term in early summer 2018.

Even bribed votes still count at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, argues AT&T’s attorneys. This overview looks at the AT&T Bribery Case still on appeal. (5:46)

CTIA, America’s largest wireless industry trade group and lobbyist, commissioned a research consultant to produce a six-page analysis that unsurprisingly concludes stripping some oversight responsibilities regarding cell tower placement would reduce the cost to deploy 5G wireless small cells by as much as $1.6 billion over the next nine years.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering industry-friendly proposals that would “streamline” and “modernize” the historic and environmental regulatory requirements for wireless deployments, exclude small cells from certain federal regulatory reviews, and put a strict limit on completing environmental impact reviews on new tower and antenna installations or else they will be automatically approved.

The Accenture analysis, produced at the request of CTIA, claims that it will cost an average of $9,730 for each 5G small cell regulatory review. But the report also states only 28-29% of installations will face this type of review. The CTIA implies it is much worse than that in its new 30-second ad complaining about regulatory burdens. That ad suggests 5G small cell “approval can take a couple of years.”

As the FCC ponders further deregulation of cell tower and antenna placement, wireless industry players are sharing their horror stories with the FCC to strengthen the agency’s likely  view that installation rules and oversight should be relaxed.

In January, Sprint complained it faced a demand to pay a $90,000 “tribal review fee” for six tower upgrades in the Chicago area. The company claims the towers were located in historic preservation areas, but not in areas of tribal significance. Sprint added in its letter to the FCC it only planned to install additional antenna equipment at those tower sites to increase capacity, not erect new towers.

The wireless industry is also lobbying to get cut-rate access to public infrastructure like street lights, on which it eventually plans to place 5G network equipment.

In states like California, AT&T has pushed hard for new legislation that would mandate cities and counties to give the company open access to public infrastructure in public rights-of-way or utility easements. In a 2017 bill before the California Senate, companies like AT&T would face a fee limit of $100-850 per small cell per year, indexed for inflation,

With multiple wireless companies prepared to enter the 5G marketplace, utility poles could get crowded.

Cities and counties may also find their right to object to what eventually ends up on their poles curtailed as a result of the deregulation effort.

CTIA’s new 30-second advertisement claims 5G small cells can be installed in about 90 minutes, but only after waiting years for a sluggish review process. (30 seconds)