December 31, 2011 3:54 PM
Well, here it is: New Year's Eve 2011, and--in case you haven't been reading along--over the past several months, I kind of took to calling Sprint "the Whale" in one of my blog posts based on their disproportionate (to their size in the market) influence in Washington (everything they do is "crazy big"). So when it came time to recognize a regulatory "player of the year", I have to give props where they're due, and congratulate the Whale.
Whether you like it or not, and whether by skill or luck, you have to give the Whale credit . . . of all the big telecom players/issues considered this year, the Whale pulled a clear-cut victory on their priority issue when AT&T and DT announced they were abandoning their deal to allow AT&T to acquire T-Mobile. This doesn't happen much, and you have to recognize that this is no easy feat. For this alone, 2011 was the year of the Whale, and 2012 will, by virtue of the Whale's win in 2011, by no means be the year of the consumer.
Not taking anything away from Sprint's achievement, the coordinated actions of the DoJ and the FCC, did ensure that AT&T was never going to get an opportunity to defend itself on the merits in front of an impartial arbiter. This is because, once it becomes clear that the regulator (which has much broader authority to deny the merger than that conferred on federal judges under Section 7 of the Clayton Act) has made up its mind to deny a merger, a court has a lot less incentive to even try an antitrust case.
Consider that a U.S. District Court--under its Section 7 analysis--can only prevent the merger if it finds that it will lessen competition. The FCC, on the other hand, seems free to ignore the analytical framework the court is bound by, and the FCC does not have to approve a merger unless the parties convincingly demonstrate that the merger "promotes" the public interest. Thus, the FCC always holds the final cards.
In cases like the DoJ/AT&T case--where DoJ seeks a permanent injunction (equitable relief that requires a longer trial/discovery period than traditional "extraordinary" merger relief, such as preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, courts might well be much more likely to include the regulator in the process early, so as to avoid "wasting time." Unfortunately, administrative/judicial efficiency can come at the cost of the merging parties' due process rights.
So, Congratulations! are in order for Sprint this New Year's Eve, and, looking forward, I would say that the way the "2 layer" merger review process (Justice/FTC + Regulatory Agency review) was exploited this year by the Agency, will possibly tee up this issue for legislative elimination in 2012.
Happy New Years! to all my readers. Thanks for taking the time to read my blog--I'm grateful for every "unique" view that I get--so tell all your friends! Best wishes to all for a safe and successful 2012!
December 9, 2011 2:20 PM
"Public Interest" merger "efficiencies" are in the eye of the beholder. The term "efficiency" is hardly a precisely-defined, universally-understood concept. For many, if a merger created more capacity to better serve the basic mobility communications (voice, text, and limited data) needs of those that would otherwise go without these benefits, the merger could be said to be "socially efficient."
On the other hand, "efficiency" could be considered from an engineering perspective to use the latest technology to squeeze every last drop of bandwidth out of a given amount of spectrum in order to better satisfy the data demands of the most technologically advanced consumers. The consumers that use these devices most intensively have a powerful voice in Washington, and might be called the "tech-nobility."
Throughout the analysis of the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger, the only "efficiency" benefits that have mattered are those that are important to the "tech-nobility." And who represents the "tech-nobility"?
Well, it's clear from last week's "Staff Report and Analysis
" ("Staff Report"), by who it chose prominently to cite, that the FCC sides with the "tech-nobility"--a group whose views are most stridently expressed by the self-appointed "defenders" of advanced telecommunications consumers--Public Knowledge
and Free Press
paras 165-245 of the Staff Report. The only potential efficiencies of concern to the Commission are those that can be demonstrated to further wireless broadband deployment.The Parties' Argument and the Commission's Reaction
Unfortunately for the parties, a lot of their efficiency claims seem to depend on combining their 2G and 3G networks. The Commission, while recognizing this possibility, seems openly contemptuous that AT&T and T-Mobile would be even operating these networks. See, e.g
., ("While it may be true that the spectrum gained from control channel elimination could result in increased deployment of advanced technologies it could also prolong AT&T's reliance on outdated and inefficient GSM technology
.) Report, para 203. (emphasis added)
Similarly, in paras 216-225, the Commission criticizes AT&T's claims of merger-specific efficiencies, because it believes that AT&T could and should be more aggressively moving GSM devices off its network--though the Commission acknowledges that AT&T has virtually eliminated the retail
sale of 2G GSM devices. For example, while the FCC doesn't dispute that the transaction could provide the parties more "head room" in gradually phasing out their GSM networks, while moving spectrum to "higher" uses, the Commission concludes, "prolonging the use of less efficient technology should not be deemed a benefit for purposes of assessing this transaction." Report, para 221.Does Anyone Benefit from "Less Efficient" Technology?
Well, the answer is "yes", but the population benefited is only the poor and elderly, and they hardly count as constituents of Public Knowledge, Free Press, and the Commission's "Broadband Nation." Who says the underserved, including the poor and elderly, benefit from lower priced, simpler offerings?
The FCC, for one, took this point of view only six months ago in its Wireless Competition Report
noting that, "MVNOs [Mobile Virtual Network Operators--companies which buy capacity from facilities-based carriers to create their own product/service offerings] often increase the range of services offered by the host facilities-based provider by targeting certain market segments, including segments not previously served by the hosting facilities-based providers." Wireless Report at para 33.
Unfortunately, in conducting its "efficiency" analysis in the Staff Report, the FCC seemed to neglect the increasingly important role of MVNOs, by ignoring the parties' claimed engineering benefits--which flowed from the bottom up. The problem is one of bias--toward the "tech-nobility" as represented by Public Knowledge and Free Press.
You see, neither the Commission nor the interest groups could put themselves in the place of a large carrier with a responsibility to serve all segments of the market--including those segments served indirectly through MVNOs. AT&T has contractual responsibilities to its wholesale MVNO customers. Let's consider their "social efficiencies" for a moment, since the Commission ignored this productive use of technologically-inferior networks.The PoorTracfone
is the country's fifth largest mobile wireless provider with approximately 20 million subscribers.
TracFone serves the value-oriented portion of the market, including customers poor enough to qualify for Lifeline subsidies. TracFone offers a variety of affordable plans and phones from readily accessible general merchandisers and convenience stores.
AT&T and T-Mobile are two of TracFone's largest underlying carriers. Dislocating TracFone's GSM customers would impose costs on those least able to afford these costs and maintain cellular service. Is it the best policy for the Commission to choose technological efficiency over social efficiency in order for the merger to be in the public
America's seniors gain two major benefits from mobility--health and safety, and mitigation of loneliness, which often accompanies old age. These consumers do not, for the most part, use advanced mobile broadband services. One of my clients, Consumer Cellular, Inc
. is the exclusive affinity provider of AARP
and focuses on serving America's seniors.
Recently, Consumer Reports
announced that Consumer Cellular
was rated highest in customer satisfaction
among all mobile wireless service providers. While Consumer Cellular was ranked highest in customer satisfaction, it should be noted that Consumer Cellular is an AT&T MVNO. Paradoxically, Consumer Reports
also ranked AT&T the lowest of the major carriers in terms of customer satisfaction. Why?
The simple answer is that Consumer Cellular's customers use phones supported by the 2G and 3G networks for which the merging parties claim the greatest efficiency benefits from being able to combine. It is also notable, in all the rhetoric surrounding adjacent markets in this merger, that Consumer Cellular offers its customers phones for which it has exclusive distribution arrangements. These phones are made by Doro and have earned high reviews from consumers
and tech experts
alike for their performance tailored to the elderly and hard-of-hearing customer segments.
It goes without saying that, if AT&T were to quickly abandon its more "inefficient" networks as the FCC "tech-nobility" would demand, it would be punished for its own innovation targeted at an underserved market. Thus, it's no surprise why Consumer Cellular CEO, John Marick, sees the efficiencies from the merger that the Commission chooses to ignore.
Who would you trust, an engineering model modified to generate the Commission's pre-determined views on "efficiency" or a wholesale customer, providing what a majority of its consumers believe to be the best mobile service in the country . . . using a network that it believes will become more efficient as the result of the merger?
December 1, 2011 11:53 PM
Yesterday, the Senate held confirmation hearings on the nominations of Jessica Rosenworcel (testimony here
), and Ajit Pai (testimony here
) to fill two FCC seats--one of which is vacant, and another will become vacant upon the adjournment of the present Congress. I have had the privilege to work with both nominees, and this is probably the last time I can respectfully refer to either by their first names (instead of "Commissioner"). I can't think of two better candidates, or more deserving people to serve on the Commission. Sometimes even Congress gets it right.
I worked with Ajit as a colleague at the Antitrust Division. He's got a great sense of humor, and is a truly committed public servant. Plus, he's a super-smart lawyer. I like Ajit a lot, I've worked with him personally, and I'm very proud of him. He'll do a wonderful job for the public and I really look forward to seeing him make a positive difference at the Commission.
As far as Jessica goes, I've known her for more than 10 years--though I've never "worked with" her in the sense that we both got paid by the same employer--I have worked with her in my capacity as an attorney representing competitive carriers. Whether as a staff attorney, or a legal advisor to Commissioner Copps, Jessica was always fair, patient, and willing to hear you out.
She made sure she understood your arguments, even if she didn't agree, and was never dismissive no matter how small the party or their issue of concern. She is also a super-smart lawyer, and has exceptional political instincts, which will make her seem a lot more like a "veteran" commissioner than most people just stepping into the job.
Both candidates acquitted themselves well in the face of questioning by the Senate Commerce Committee. Don't believe me? Then watch it for yourself here
Finally, Ajit--you did great, brother, and I mean that sincerely. But, on the "speaking truth to power", "keeping it real" front, there's no question that Jessica laid it down and picked it up.
Check out the hearing
at about the 1:08 point where both are asked the same question by Sen. Blunt (R-MO)--about whether the FCC staff or the Chairman released the "staff report and analysis" as part of the Wireless Telecommunication's Bureau order granting AT&T and DT's joint request to withdraw their license transfer applications. See previous blog
for background. Jessica could have hedged, but instead she laid down the stone cold truth. I love