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)

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks sold AWS spectrum in areas shown here to Verizon Wireless, virtually guaranteeing the cable industry will not compete in the wireless phone business.

Two years ago, Cox Communications was hungry to get into the wireless phone business.  It announced it was launching “unbelievably fair” wireless — an oasis in a wireless desert of tricks and traps on offer from competing wireless companies.  No more expiring minutes, the option of affordable flat rate service, and no hidden fees or surcharges were all supposed to be part of the deal.

“Our research found that value and transparency are very important to consumers when choosing a wireless service plan, but they are not finding these qualities in the wireless plans offered today,” Stephen Bye, vice president of wireless said back in 2010, introducing the service. “Total loss of unused minutes as well as unforeseen overage charges on bills are just two examples of what our customers have told us is just unfair.”

Those same issues still exist for wireless customers today, but Cox won’t be a part of the solution.  The company announced this past May it was exiting the competitive arena of wireless and would simply resell Sprint service instead.  Last month, it announced it wouldn’t even bother with that, and will transition its remaining wireless customers directly to Sprint.

What changed Cox’s mind?  The cost of building and operating a wireless network to compete with much larger national companies.  It simply no longer made sense to build a small regional wireless carrier and rent the rest of your national coverage area from other providers, who set wholesale prices at a level high enough to protect them from would-be competitors.

The lesson Cox learned first has now been taught to America’s largest cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable (and its sidekick Bright House Networks).

All three cable operators have effectively signed a non-aggression treaty with Verizon Wireless, agreeing to sell their unused wireless spectrum acquired by auction in 2006 at a 50% markup to Big Red.  In return, Verizon will market cable service to wireless customers.  It’s the ultimate non-compete clause so wide-reaching, Verizon stores will soon be selling Time Warner Cable right next to Verizon FiOS, something unheard of in the telecommunications marketplace.

It’s a win for Verizon Wireless, which accumulates additional wireless spectrum and peace of mind knowing the cable industry will not enter the wireless communications business.  Cable companies get to profit from their purchase of the public airwaves and see the potential of a dramatic reduction in customer poaching, as cable and phone companies stop fighting each other for customers.  Ultimately, it means customers could eventually pay the cable or phone company for all of their telecommunications services from television and broadband to wired and wireless phone service.  What consumers enjoy in one-bill-convenience may eventually come with higher rates made possible from reduced competition.

Verizon Wireless' currently unused AWS spectrum favor the east coast, but not for long.

Verizon will pay $3.6 billion to Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House Networks for the spectrum.  The deal has stockholders cheering because that payment represents a tidy profit for cable operators who did absolutely nothing with the spectrum they purchased five years ago.  It also makes AT&T even more intent on completing its own spectrum merger with T-Mobile USA.

The agreement has concerned consumer advocates because it seems to signal Verizon is content making money primarily from its wireless business, and will repay the favor from the cable industry by pitching phone customers on cable service.  That could ultimately spell big trouble for Verizon’s stalled FiOS fiber-to-the-home network.  Verizon may find it easier and cheaper to end its aggressive entry into Big Cable’s territory by simply reselling traditional cable television products.  It can still market wireless products and services to cable subscribers and not endanger the new atmosphere of goodwill.  Rural broadband, where cable never competes, could be served through wireless spectrum, for example.

For now, Verizon says it intends to continue competing with its FiOS network, but the company stopped deploying the service in new areas nearly two years ago.

The deal will go before regulators at the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission for review.  What will likely concern them the most is the appearance of collusion between the cable companies and Verizon.

“A flag is raised when two rival networks move to start selling each other’s services,” a person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials told the Washington Post. “They lose their desire, impetus, to compete. That is a big antitrust flag.”

Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, expressed serious concern as well.

“Verizon was supposed to be the great competitor for Comcast in the video space, while Comcast has been looking for a wireless play to match the Verizon bundle,” he said. “The deal signals bad news for consumers, who can expect higher prices for video, fewer choices and higher prices for wireless.”

Who owns what

Four years into the deal, consumers may not know what company they are dealing with, as cable operators will be able to market Verizon Wireless service under their own respective cable brand names.

The deal is also trouble for lagging Clearwire, which had been providing wireless broadband service to both Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  Under the agreement, both cable companies will end their relationship with Clearwire, which is particularly bad news for the wireless company because of its ongoing financial distress.  Sprint, which has heavily invested in Clearwire, may ultimately find itself with an investment gone sour, troubling news for the third largest wireless company manning the barricades against a nearly-complete duopoly in wireless service between AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Cable stock cheerleader Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein seems thrilled with the prospect.  In a research note to his Wall Street clients, Moffett says AT&T could benefit from the Verizon pact with Big Cable by ending up in a “more duopolistic industry structure without paying for it.” If the FCC approves the non-aggression pact, the deal “would amount to an unmistakable step towards the duopolization of the U.S. wireless market, inasmuch it would leave T-Mobile, once again, stranded without a 4G strategy.”

Cable investors, he adds, are likely to be excited the cable industry won’t spend billions of dollars in capital building a wireless venture, and instead has agreed to work with competitors to cross-sell products and services.  With little competitive pressure, prices won’t be falling anytime soon.

That’s great news for investors, even if it is “unbelievably unfair” for consumers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Verizon to Buy Wireless Spectrum for 3-6 Billion 12-2-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explains the deal and its implications in the wireless industry spectrum battle.  (2 minutes)

Wireless operator (and cable company) Rogers Communications likes to spend big dollars pushing the message Canada is in the midst of a wireless spectrum crunch — a big reason why it wants “equal treatment”-bidding in upcoming spectrum auctions that may include “set-asides” exclusively for emerging Canadian wireless competitors.

But apparently the spectrum shortage only impacts areas outside of the province of Quebec, because Rogers plans to experiment with a new LTE wireless video on demand service it plans to pitch Quebecers, perhaps as early as next year.

Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed told the Montreal Gazette the cable company intends to enter the Quebec market with an “over-the-top” on-demand video service, distributed over Rogers’ growing LTE wireless broadband network.  While Mohamed was quick to say this doesn’t mean Rogers intends to launch a full-scale competitive invasion against provincial providers Videotron, Ltd., and Bell Canada Enterprises, it is pre-emptively getting into the business of serving cord-cutters who drop traditional cable packages to watch online video.

The new service is expected to be accessible on phones, tablets, and Internet-enabled televisions and video game consoles, presumably through a wireless Internet adapter.

Mohamed

“Video for wireless has huge potential for growth,” Mohamed told the Gazette. “It’s sort of the mirror image of (how cable evolved), which went from video, to data to voice.”

Nothing eats bandwidth like online video, and Rogers traditionally caps this and other usage on their mobile wireless network, citing spectrum and capacity shortages. But Rogers sees few impediments serving up certain kinds of online video: namely their own.

That’s not a message the company continues to deliver consumers on its “I Want My LTE” website, part of a robust lobbying effort to get its hands on as much new spectrum as possible, even if it means locking out would-be competitors.  In fact, leaving the impression the company has spectrum to spare is so politically dangerous, Mohamed took the wind out of his own announcement by mentioning, as an aside, their networks still don’t have enough capacity to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time.

“I think wireless networks in the foreseeable future will not have the capability to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time, even with LTE,” he said. “So what you will see is an integration of wired and wireless, where the wireless network will off-load the traffic to a wired network.”

Rogers’ decision to limit the service, both in scope and range, is also designed to protect itself (and other cable operators) from unnecessary competition.  Rogers won’t offer a full menu of video services outside of its traditional cable system areas in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, and only Quebec residents (where Rogers doesn’t sell cable TV) will have the option of signing up for the wireless video-on-demand service.

Shark-infested waters for AT&T and T-Mobile USA

Months after the U.S. Department of Justice announced its formal opposition to the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, the Federal Communications Commission yesterday announced it would hold its own unusual “administrative hearing” to review the deal regardless of the outcome of a Justice Department lawsuit.

It has been more than nine years since the FCC last held such a hearing, which derailed the proposed merger of satellite TV providers DISH Network and DirecTV.  It is the clearest indication yet that regulators are deeply uncomfortable with the deal.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski waited for the Justice Department to announce its opposition to the deal before making his own concerns known.  The decision to pursue the special hearing, which won’t begin until 2012 and is likely to take several months, follows the lead of antitrust regulators at the DOJ.

It represents a nightmare scenario for AT&T, which has spent millions lobbying and promoting a merger with Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA.

An unnamed FCC official told The Wall Street Journal AT&T’s campaign has been playing fast and loose with the facts, particularly relating to claims the merger will create up to 100,000 new jobs. The official, who has seen confidential document filings from AT&T, says the phone company’s secret papers reveal the exact opposite — “massive job losses” if the deal gets approved.

Most companies confronting an FCC administrative hearing think long and hard about the prospects of the deal. Unlike an antitrust legal case, which must prove that a merger will substantially undercut competition, the FCC need only prove a deal is contrary to the “public interest” to reject it, a much lower hurdle.

When DirecTV and DISH failed to win a nod from the FCC for their merger, it fell apart.

Solomon

AT&T was testy after hearing the news.

“It is yet another example of a government agency acting to prevent billions in new investment and the creation of many thousands of new jobs,” AT&T senior vice president of corporate communications Larry Solomon told the Journal. He added, “We are reviewing all options.”

A growing number of Wall Street analysts believe those options are dwindling by the day, and an all-out war by AT&T against regulators could come at a cost when the giant phone company brings other business before them. Genachowski is still willing to go to bat for AT&T, circulating a draft approval among fellow commissioners that would grant the company’s separate proposal to purchase $1.9 billion in additional wireless spectrum from Qualcomm, Inc.

Observers predict AT&T might offer to divest a larger portion of T-Mobile than it was originally comfortable considering.  That may ultimately prove less expensive than the alternative — paying Deutsche Telekom a breakup fee worth $6 billion dollars should the merger fail to succeed.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ FCC Chief to Seek Hearing on ATT Deal 11-22-11.flv[/flv]

The head of the Federal Communications Commission will seek an administrative hearing on AT&T’s proposed $39 billion deal to acquire T-Mobile USA, according to a person close to the matter. Thomas Catan has details on The Wall Street Journal’s ‘News Hub.’  (2 minutes)

AT&T pays a lot of money — millions annually — to make sure its business agenda does not run into political or legislative roadblocks in Washington, D.C.  With dozens of members of Congress effectively on AT&T’s campaign contribution payroll and the company’s unparalleled skill at convincing non-profit organizations to advocate for its interests, worrying about the government’s antitrust views on its proposed buyout of Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile was the least of its troubles.

“It’s a done deal,” several analysts predicted shortly after the deal was announced, especially after AT&T demonstrated its confidence level in the merger was as high as the enormous $6 billion dollar breakup concession payable to Telekom if it ever fell apart.

Then the government dared to put its two cents in, in the form of a “are you kidding me?”-lawsuit courtesy of the U.S. Department of Justice.  It seems, in the words of some Beltway cynics, the Obama Administration can manage to see a clear cut case of anti-competitive behavior when given enough time.

Since the lawsuit was announced on Aug. 31, it has been “all-hands-on-deck” for the company’s government relations division, packed full of the company’s top lobbyists.  While company lawyers desperately attempt to block what it sees as “pile on” objections and lawsuits from worried competitors, Sprint-Nextel in particular, AT&T lobbyists are trying to compromise away the Justice Department case with proposals of concessions and giveaways to make approval more palatable.

Further north, as fall turns into winter in New York’s financial district, Wall Street analysts are cold on the troubled deal themselves.

The Financial Times reports most analysts think there is now less than a 50-50 chance the merger will be completed unless the two companies agree to disgorge themselves of market share, territories, and increasing “shareholder value” that will come from eventual rate increases a wireless duopoly would inevitably bring.

Some are even less sanguine, predicting AT&T has only a 20 percent shot, and only if it sells off considerable chunks of valuable spectrum to competitors other than Verizon Wireless.

AT&T is retuning its “message” for the times, downplaying the original, ludicrous notion that urban-focused T-Mobile would be the keystone of a new era in 4G wireless service for rural America.  There is a reason T-Mobile isn’t the first choice for small town America’s cell phone buyers.

Instead, AT&T is now positioning the merger deal as a lifeboat for its troubled competitor.  AT&T suggests the number four carrier is in immediate peril — hemorrhaging customers, caught without a coherent 4G strategy, and an exodus of interest by its increasingly neglectful parent — Deutsche Telekom.

Could Time Warner Cable be an eventual part-owner of T-Mobile USA?

“Over the past two years, T-Mobile USA has been losing customers despite explosive demand for mobile broadband,” AT&T said in a statement this week. “T-Mobile USA has no clear path to 4G LTE, the industry’s next generation network, and its German parent, Deutsche Telekom, has said it would not continue to make significant investments in the United States.”

With AT&T predicting the demise of its smaller would-be cousin, consumers may not be in the mood to sign a two-year contract with a company that could soon be rechristened AT&T, especially those leaving AT&T for T-Mobile.

But don’t tell T-Mobile’s marketing department it’s a phone company on life support.  T-Mobile has beefed up its advertising and continues to irritate its larger competitors, particularly AT&T, with very aggressive pricing on its prepaid plans.

T-Mobile recently unveiled two disruptive $30 4G prepaid plans that offer either 1500 shared minutes/text messages and 30MB of data usage -or- 100 voice minutes combined with unlimited texting and up to 5GB of mobile data before the speed throttle kicks in.  Those prices are too low for AT&T and Verizon to ignore, especially when offered on a 4G network.

So far, the Justice Department shows no signs of backing down from their resolute opposition to the deal, minor concessions or not.  Shareholders may not appreciate giving the government too much of what it wants in order to win approval.  Washington lawmakers are split — virtually every Republican favors the merger, Democrats are less absolute, with most opposed.  Among those in favor, by how much is often a measure of what kind of campaign money AT&T has thrown their way.

AT&T absolutely denies they have a “Plan B” in case the merger eventually fails.  But the Times doubts that, reporting as time drags on, an alternative deal might emerge.  Some of the possibilities:

• T-Mobile USA could merge its spectrum with Dish Network, the satellite TV company, to launch a new 4G mobile operator in the USA;
• Combine forces (and spectrum) in a deal with leading U.S. cable companies like Cox, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable to launch a new cable-branded mobile operator;
• Sell or merge operations with MetroPCS, Leap Wireless’ Cricket, or one of several regional cell companies.

Perennial cable booster Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein predictably favors the cable solution, which would let companies offer a quad or quint-play of cable TV, wireless mobile broadband, wired broadband, phone, and cell phone service all on one bill.  It would also get the FCC off the backs of cable operators Time Warner and Comcast, who both control a total of 20MHz of favored wireless spectrum they have left unused since acquiring it at auction.  The Commission is increasingly irritated at companies who own unused spectrum at a time when the agency is trying to find additional frequencies for wireless providers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATTs 96000 Job Claim in T-Mobile Deal Questioned 11-8-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News questions AT&T’s claim its merger deal with T-Mobile will create 96,000 new jobs. [Nov. 8] (3 minutes)