Sources close to the Clinton campaign told Politico three names are emerging as potential FCC nominees in a presumed Clinton Administration, and all three are close friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton, all have spent time traveling through the revolving door of D.C. politics and the private sector or lobbying, and one served as a FCC commissioner before under Bill Clinton’s presidency.

All three are classic D.C. Establishment types, so there should be no surprises or rebellion from within the Democratic ranks.

Ness

Susan Ness: A former FCC commissioner, Ness today serves as a top Clinton fundraiser. Prior to her FCC appointment, Ness was a senior lender to communications companies as a group head and vice president of a regional financial institution. She served as Assistant Counsel to the Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing of the U.S. House of Representatives, and she founded and directed the Judicial Appointments Project of the National Women’s Political Caucus. Ness is a member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ Committee on Communications, the Federal Communications Bar Association, and Leadership Washington (Class of 1988). Before she joined the FCC, she served in many civic leadership roles, including chair of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Charter Review Commission; vice chair of the Montgomery County Task Force on Community Access Television; and president of the Montgomery County Commission for Women.

In her favor, Ness didn’t end her service with the FCC and become a paid lobbyist, preferring to spend her years outside of public service in the private sector. However, she was a director for Adelphia, America’s first criminally convicted cable company (the principal owners, the Rigas family, went to prison for a variety of white-collar crimes). Ness was also an apologist for the disastrous telecom deregulation policies of the Clinton Administration, which backfired and created mass corporate consolidation and higher bills for consumers.

In a speech in January 1999, Ness promised good times were ahead because of Clinton Administration’s support for deregulation:

It takes good business planning, raising capital, provisioning, and investment before the fruits of competition can be harvested. And sometimes companies succeed and sometimes they fail. That’s the marketplace at work.

That’s why I’ve been somewhat surprised at the impatience with which some pundits have viewed the level of local competition under the ’96 Act.

On the first anniversary, folks were asking “where’s the competition?” I observed then that this was like piling the family into the car for a long trip, and, before you’ve reached the end of the driveway, there is a plaintive voice from the back seat, “Are we there yet?”

No, we’re not there yet — even now, two years further into the journey.

Kornbluh

Unfortunately for Americans, we’re still not there more than 15 years later. The marketplace and regulatory agencies have rigged the game into a comfortable duopoly where competition benefits exist primarily for new customers getting a sign-up promotion. Once expired, high prices predominate. Ness promised competition. We got consolidation and more deregulation instead, and Americans are paying some of the highest broadband and wireless prices in the world as a result. We’re uncertain if she has learned her lesson.

Karen Kornbluh: Her middle initials should be “D.C.” because she’s been there for so long. Kornbluh is the Democratic Party establishment through and through, with a record of public service dating back to the 1980s. From 1991-1994, she was a legislative aide for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) She spent two years at the Treasury Department, then spent three years as a Tech Fellow at the New America Foundation think tank. She served as a policy director for Barack Obama when he was a senator from Illinois and was appointed as ambassador to the OECD in 2009, which means she is at least aware of how poorly the U.S. compares in broadband speeds to the rest of the world. Kornbluh will not rock the boat as a FCC commissioner, but should be a reliable vote for all of a presumed President Clinton’s telecom initiatives.

Phil Verveer serves as a senior counselor to current FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler, which may offer some continuity for Chairman Wheeler’s policies under the Obama Administration in a presumed Clinton Administration. Verveer is a longtime friend of the Clintons. He also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and US Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy with Ambassadorial rank from 2009 to 2013.

Verveer

Verveer has practiced communications and antitrust law in the government and in private law firms for more than 40 years.  From 1969 to 1981, he practiced as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, as a supervisory attorney in the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission, and as the Chief of the Cable Television Bureau, and the Common Carrier Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission.  Between 1973 and 1977, he served at the Antitrust Division’s first lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., the case that eventuated in the divestiture of the Bell System.  As a bureau Chief at the FCC, Verveer participated in a series of decisions that enabled increased competition in video and telephone services, introduced asymmetric telecommunications regulation, and limited regulation of information services. But he was also a telecom lobbyist or counsel for Willkie, Farr and Gallagher (1999-2005) and Jenner & Block (2006-2009).

With those three names now out in the public view, Big Telecom lobbyists are reportedly “coalescing around those perceived to be frontrunners for a commission spot,” reports Politico.

“Nearly everyone on the list is part of the Clinton campaign’s network of tech advisers, which helped draft the Democratic nominee’s tech policy platform,” Politico adds, which means it is likely what Secretary Clinton has promised in her campaign documents about future telecom policy will likely move forward under the stewardship of her potential appointees who helped write it.

In the Netherlands, having access to two broadband competitors isn’t enough to guarantee broadband competition, and Dutch telecom regulators are not about to deregulate Internet service in the country until consumers have more choices for broadband access.

The Dutch telecom regulator on Friday announced it will keep wholesale access regulations in place for an extra three years to guarantee KPN – the former state-owned telephone company – plays fair with competitors.

“If ACM were not to step in, there would be too little choice: Dutch telecom company KPN and cable company UPC/Ziggo would then dominate the market,” says the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) in a written statement. “In ACM’s opinion, having just two providers in these markets cannot be considered healthy competition.”

“Furthermore, KPN and UPC/Ziggo are challenged by their competitors to continue to invest in their networks and to innovate,” said Henk Don, a board member of ACM. “As a result, faster and better connections become available in the Netherlands.”

KPN

The Dutch telephone and mobile provider will be required to continue allowing competitors such as Vodafone and Tele2 access to KPN’s landline and fiber to the home networks to offer competitive broadband service. ACM reports that Dutch consumers are saving at least $312 million a year in lower Internet access pricing just by forcing KPN to allow other companies to compete using its network.

KPN isn’t hampered by the forced openness, because ACM has also given the phone company relaxed operating rules to allow it to invest in DSL upgrades including vectoring and the forthcoming G.Fast standard, which could dramatically boost broadband speeds.

Most Dutch consumers, like those in North America, realistically have a choice between one telephone and one cable company — usually Ziggo (currently merging with UPC), for broadband service. But unlike in the United States, Dutch regulators have remained wholly unconvinced an effective duopoly is subject to enough competitive pressure to protect consumers and nascent competition from upstarts. Therefore, ACM has applied regulatory checks and balances to protect the marketplace and consumers from abusive pricing and service practices.

U.S. telecom companies argue that regulations hamper investment and delay network improvements. In the Netherlands, where broadband speed rankings exceed the United States, prices are also lower.

Executives at Canada’s largest telecom companies are sighing relief after Verizon announced it was not interested in competing in Canada.

“Verizon is not going to Canada,” Lowell McAdam, chief executive officer of New York-based Verizon, said yesterday in a phone interview with Bloomberg News. “It has nothing to do with the Vodafone deal, it has to do with our view of what kind of value we could get for shareholders. If we thought it had great value creation we would do it.”

McAdam added he thought speculation about Verizon’s plans in Canada was “way overblown.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Big 3 Canada telecom stocks surge as Verizon threat fades 9-3-13.flv[/flv]

The CBC reports three of the largest telecom companies in Canada are seeing their stock prices soar on news Verizon won’t enter Canada. Kevin O’Leary takes a position shared by Bell, Telus and Rogers that no spectrum should be set aside for new competitors. Instead, he seeks a “winner takes all” auction, even if it means dominant incumbent carriers monopolize every available frequency. (3 minutes)

McAdam

Verizon’s possible entry into Canada was among the hottest stories of the summer, even reported on the CBC’s national nightly news. The potential new competition provoked Bell, Rogers, and Telus — three of Canada’s largest phone and cable companies — to join forces in a multimillion dollar lobbying effort to slow Verizon down and make the wireless business in Canada less attractive. The Harper government used news of Verizon’s potential entry to promote its policies favoring competition over regulation.

Verizon Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo said the company was considering a wireless venture in Canada at a June Wall Street investor conference.

“We’re looking at the opportunity,” Shammo said at the time. “This is just us dipping our toe in the water.”

Verizon took its toe out yesterday, despite the potential profits available in a country criticized for its extremely expensive cell phone service.

“I’m surprised that Verizon isn’t interested in Canada,” tweeted Adam Shore. “There are over 33 million suckers up here that will pay ridiculous cell phone rates.”

Bell joined Telus and Rogers in launching a multi-million dollar lobbying effort to make Verizon’s entry into Canada difficult.

The three companies most Canadians now buy wireless service from denied they wanted to keep Verizon out, arguing they simply wanted a “level playing field.”

Industry Minister James Moore suggested a fourth large player could provoke a price war in a way much smaller wireless providers like Wind Mobile or Mobilicity never could. The government was willing to set aside coveted 700MHz wireless spectrum at a forthcoming auction to help a new entrant — any new entrant — get started.

Verizon’s decision to stay out might have delivered a damaging blow to the Conservative government’s “pro-competition” solution to the problem of high cell phone bills. After the announcement, Moore was left promising only that spectrum auctions would carry on regardless of Verizon’s decision.

For now, the best chance of increased competition comes from Quebecor, which is gradually expanding its wireless network. Spectrum set asides almost guarantee the owner of Quebec’s cable giant Vidéotron will be able to bid for and win significant spectrum at the upcoming auction, some at a discount.

“If Verizon doesn’t show up, they’re actually in a very strong position to buy a block of spectrum that will not be very expensive,” Maher Yaghi, an analyst at Desjardins Securities Inc., told Bloomberg News. “Wireless is currently providing them with a nice growth platform.”

Without a surprise late entrant suddenly announcing interest by the auction filing deadline of Sept. 17, many analysts predict the outcome will likely not deliver Canadians any significant changes in cell phone service and pricing. The government may also be disappointed with the auction proceeds. Canada’s big three will likely avoid overbidding and still end up dividing most of the available airwaves between them. Quebecor may end up with most of the rest at comparatively “fire sale” prices. The Montreal-based company must then decide how much it will spend to expand its home coverage areas outside of Quebec, Toronto, and southeastern Ontario.

[flv width=”640″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BNN Verizon Wont Enter Canada 9-3-13.flv[/flv]

BNN reports Verizon’s decision not to enter Canada leaves the Conservative government without an effective means to moderate cell phone pricing in the country. Mary Anne de Monte-Whelan, president of The Delan Group, observed the government may be forced to take a more regulatory approach to control expensive cell service, possibly starting with roaming rates.  (7 minutes)

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.

Minister Paradis

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)