More falsehoods from AT&T

AT&T does not like the report from the Federal Communications Commission on its takeover of T-Mobile. They don't like that the report was released. Surprise.

So they trot out a smart man to try to cast doubt. Let's look at what he had to say.

"The document is so obviously one-sided that any fair-minded person reading it is left with the clear impression that it is an advocacy piece, and not a considered analysis," Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, wrote in a blog post.

Actually, no. The report simply states reasons why FCC staff do not support the merger. The "analysis" is elsewhere. For nine months AT&T filled the atmosphere with falsehoods about how "what's good for AT&T is good for America." FCC disagreed, and said why. That's all.

AT&T claimed acquiring T-Mobile would help the rollout of its 4G LTE network. The FCC agreed with AT&T rivals who argued that AT&T is going to build out its 4G network with or without T-Mobile because of competition. Cicconi denied that, pointing to "sworn declarations" about its 4G LTE plans.

Oh, please. "Sworn declarations?" And we should wait for AT&T to say "Oh, that sworn declaration? Yeah, about that, well, our plans have changed." That's what always happens when the consequences for lying are less than the benefits. Guess we'll see if AT&T will let Verizon be the only company with a nationwide 4G network.

"The report apparently assumes a high enough level of competition exists in rural areas to compel billions of dollars in investment," Cicconi wrote. "Yet the report elsewhere argues that the level of wireless competition in more populated areas of America is so fragile that the merger must be disallowed. At the very least, these conclusions show a logical inconsistency."

Mr. Cicconi is a smart man. So he must be a lawyer to use the word "competition," which means different things in different situations, and claim it only means one thing and the FCC is being inconsistent.

There is nothing inconsistent in saying AT&T will roll out 4G in rural areas with or without T-Mobile, and loss of competition in 99 out of 100 urban markets (where the money is) would be bad for consumers. This is just a tricky trap of language, common to a certain political class.

The FCC says the deal will kill jobs, Cicconi says AT&T has "promised" to create jobs. No. AT&T was going to recoup the $39 billion it was willing to spend on T-Mobile instead of spending $4 billion to build out its own LTE by cutting jobs and raising prices, which it will be able to do in a duopoly with Verizon across most of America. Somewhere there is a document that shows that, an email, meeting notes. Let's find it and send perjurers to jail.

Cicconi says the FCC is hypocritical in saying there is a national spectrum shortage but saying two national companies face "no such constraints." He thinks we're stupid.

Yes, more spectrum is needed for new phone technology for the public good. But the public, as a whole, does not benefit from one company gobbling the spectrum of another. If you agree with his argument, walk into the coffee shop with a dollar in in your right pocket, move it to your left, tell the server you have a dollar in each pocket for a $1.50 cup of coffee, and, of course, you plan to leave a 50¢ tip.

Cicconi says the report lacks credibility, and distorts the facts. We think the report was a good summation of reasons why the merger should not go through, and Cicconi's response validates that conclusion.

I want a dumb pipe

I don't want to be a captive of AT&T or Verizon. I want them to serve me.

In Europe, the owner of T-Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, prohibits its subscribers from using Skype in its terms and conditions. AT&T and Verizon would love to be able to impose the same terms and conditions here.

What's it going to be, Congress? Oregon representatives DeFazio, Wu, Walden, Blumenauer and Schrader need to stand up and protect the market from the power of the duopoly. You too, Wyden and Merkley. Be heard on this.

I love the iPhone, and I love my Evo 4G and my Nexus S. I think it is wonderful to be able to buy these phones with all the features preloaded and have a two-year contract and a high value added by Sprint or AT&T or Verizon. They should be able to sell that.

But I want more choice. I want to be able to use the phone I want in the way I want and pay a fair price for access that I control.

I don 't want AT&T or Verizon to dumb down my phone so I can't use it on my home's wifi network the way they do now. I want to use my home's broadband conveniently to make a call and not be forced to kludge a solution.

I don't want AT&T or Verizon to cut sweetheart deals with Samsung or HTC or Motorola so that I can't get the phone I want to work on the technology I want, the way they do now.

I want to pay for megabytes I choose to download and upload, and not be forced to pay for data sent by automatic programs that AT&T or Apple or Google have loaded on my phone that suck up my personal data and sneak it to their servers without my knowledge.

I don't want NFL or NASCAR or anybody else's bloatware on my phone, or at least be able to get rid of it, which I can't do now. At what point does "protect network security" become an excuse for "keep competition out?"

And by the way, I want to pay for my call minutes in tenths: a call that lasts two minutes and six seconds should be billed at 2.1 minutes, not three, which is nothing but a 30% theft by the phone company.

If the telecom's don't want to become "dumb pipes," then I want our government to ensure, through the mechanism of the free market, that I have the right to choose a "dumb pipe" for my mobile phone and data services.

In fact, I need to be able to choose between two dumb pipes, either GSM or CDMA technology. I want to be able to use any phone I want on whichever pipe that I choose. I want to own the phone, and be able to customize it in any way that I want, use it in any legal way that I want.

The current system is being abused, protections for the consumer are few, because the market has failed to be transparent enough to drive the abuses out through the mechanism of consumer choice.

That will get worse if the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is approved.

We need competition in the market place and a government that has reduced barriers to entry into the market of access to airwaves, "spectrum," that is owned and licensed by "We the People."

Our founding fathers would have been as outraged by the threat of corporate power as they were of royal power had such a thing existed in their day. It is up to us to stand up and demand our rights in a this new world. We do this by protecting the free market, doing what we need to foster competition and freedom of choice.

It is time our representatives in government took the threat to the future of communications seriously. We cannot let the consolidation continue by those who seek a monopoly. It is bad for markets, bad for America.

Hooray for Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) who earlier this week held a news conference urging regulators to block the deal, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Thank you for your free market stance that helps small business and consumers.

Power corrupts, even the economic power of private enterprise. The best antidote for that corruption is competition, functioning markets, and effective oversight.

Wake up.

Verizon is complicit

In a story (read it here) on May 24, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal, under the headline "These Companies Hate the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger," it was noted by reporter Shira Ovide that Verizon, which would drop from largest to second largest wireless company after AT&T swallows T-Mobile, has not come out against the proposed merger.

Duh.

Ovide notes the Verizon CEO is saying only “We’re not going to get distracted by this.”

Ovide refers to analysts who opine that the reason for Verizon's calm reaction is that "Verizon Wireless ... could get a lift if AT&T strips low-cost rival T-Mobile from the market. At the same time, AT&T could be distracted for a year or more securing all the necessary government clearances for the deal, and then integrating T-Mobile into the fold. The lull might help Verizon poach subscribers from its biggest competitor."

Sometimes it is hard to believe what passes for journalism. Distracted? Please.

One would think that a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would understand the value of a duopoly (like a monopoly, but with two) to one of the duopolists. In other words, if AT&T becomes the only GSM wireless company, and is able to hammer suppliers and gouge consumers, then Verizon, as by far the largest of the CDMA wireless group, would also benefit. Even without direct collusion.

Markets require competition to work effectively. AT&T and Verizon are doing everything they can in the media, in Texas, and before the U.S. Senate to cloud the issues.

"We don't know if the market is best served by three or four carriers," burbles one wireless exec. "If we don't have more spectrum, ambulances will be unreachable," growls another from AT&T.

Nonsense. This merger is about AT&T sucking up spectrum now, dollars and dollars later, from a distortion of a market that rides on licenses to use airways owned … by… us.

We need more choices of which carrier to use, not fewer choices. We need three or four GSM carriers, and three or four CDMA carriers, for there to be a truly competitive "free" market. There is less competition if there are only three, if Sprint hobbles along as a distant 3rd, or two if Verizon sucks up Sprint.

Verizon is sanguine about the AT&T and T-Mobile merger because Verizon executives know that even as number two, they will still get a larger slice of porker pie than they do now, even if it is not the largest one on the table.

The U.S. government should protect consumers and small business and refuse to go along with this merger. Communication is the economy's lifeblood now more than ever. Republicans should live up to their ideals of doing what is good for business, and that does not mean just doing good for one of their largest political donors. Where the hell is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

AT&T was broken up once before. We should look at this power grab as a reason to consider doing it again.