According to the rumor mill Verizon’s proposed AWS spectrum swap with T-Mobile and their 700 MHz divestitures are appeasing the FCC into accepting the SpectrumCo swap but the DOJ is still worried about the JOE with the cable companies. Whether the FCC is intent on approving it its reported they won’t do so without DOJ support as well. This is good news for consumers and competition especially if reports are accurate that the DOJ might oppose these sweetheart deals.
Opposition to Verizon’s cable deals continue from public interest groups and consumers wanting to ensure sufficient broadband and mobile broadband competition continue despite the agency resale and joint operating entity agreements between these companies. Since a Comcast executive has admitted this is an integrated transaction both the DOJ and FCC should be examining both aspects in combination. The fact is as bad as both the license transfer and JOE are individually they are far worse together for consumers. The Consumers Federation of America has even spoken out that the JOE ends the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s competitive promise for consumers by turning competitors into partners so they can divy up the spoils of the Internet market by dividing the Internet amongst themselves. These deals must not be allowed to proceed at least not with the JOE. The license transfer must either be conditionally approved and the JOE denied or both rightly denied.
In 1984 AT&T in exchange for government permission to enter the computer equipment business agreed to a breakup of its subsidiaries into several Regional Baby Bells. The breakup was very beneficial for consumers and resulted in greater competition. Unfortunately, in the 2000s AT&T Corp., as it came to be known was allowed to re-merge with two of the original Baby Bells from the Ma Bell System: SBC Communications and later Bell South. Another Baby Bell MCI eventually become part of Verizon Communications which is a co-owner of Verizon Wireless.
What some people don’t know is in 1968 the FCC ruled that wire-line telephones had to be made compatible with any telephone company. The Carterfone decision as it was called paved the way for the innovation of the fax machine and allowed innovation in the phone equipment business that the AT&T monopoly otherwise sought to curtail. Today the wireless market for cellular phones and tablets looks a lot unfortunately like the phone equipment market pre Carterfone with wireless carriers allowed to dictate which handsets work with which carriers. It is imperative that this be resolved eventually for the benefit of the consumer.
Right now the Federal Communications Commission is accepting comments on a proceeding regarding interoperability rules for carriers with 700 MHz of wireless spectrum (12-69). They also have an open proceeding on Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) rules for holders of AWS spectrum (12-70). I would encourage anyone who has not had a chance to comment on these proposals to file comments as soon as possible in support of interoperability requirements for carriers using both 700 MHz and AWS spectrum. Furthermore, anyone wanting to contribute their opinion(s) on such rules are certainly welcome in doing so and public input is certainly a good thing. Otherwise the corporations against interoperability and any rules benefiting the public’s interest would be the only ones to speak out. We need to show their is support for pro consumer policies like these that also benefit smaller wireless companies and are thus pro competitive. AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless might not like these rules but the proposed rules benefit smaller companies and consumers a like.
I have already commented myself in these proceedings and mentioned having an open equipment market for cellular phones and tablets that can work with the carrier of the individual’s choice and would encourage others to do so as well. Please note that the FCC’s next Open Commission meeting is on Friday April 27th at which time they will vote on some proposed rules in proceedings related to standardized and enhanced disclosure pertaining to broadcaster’s public interest obligations (00-168) that while still open the commenting period for rules has passed, and on a few other proceedings related to USF contributions etc.