Community Leaders in Five Cities Oppose Verizon/Cable Deals
Verizon’s proposed purchase of AWS licenses from SpectrumCo and Cox, and associated market agreements, are raising objections from various civic leaders in Albany, N.Y., Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo and Syracuse who made their displeasure known in a series of filings at the FCC. The letters charge that to date Verizon has made no major investments in broadband in any of the five cities. The FCC Wireless Bureau is closely examining the proposed transactions, which were announced in December (CD Dec 5 p1).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
"Despite what we consider a strong business case, Verizon has only built its fiber optic network in one small section of one neighborhood in the city of Boston,” said a letter by various community leaders in that city (http://xrl.us/bmzh7b). Most of the city is left with just cable Internet, they said. “As a result of the proposed Verizon/cable company partnership, we are deeply concerned that Verizon will never build its FiOS network in Boston to compete with its new cable partner Comcast,” the filing said. “Such a decision will deprive our citizens, small businesses, schools, and hospitals of the benefits of the all-fiber FiOS network and video competition that is available in most of the wealthy surrounding suburbs, including neighboring towns like Belmont and Wellesley."
"We request guarantees that Verizon will expand its FiOS network to currently un- and under-served areas within its traditional telephone network footprint, including development throughout the city of Syracuse and the surrounding areas that do not have access to FiOS,” said a similar letter (http://xrl.us/bmzh9d) from Syracuse, N.Y. “Under this transaction, Baltimore will never get a fiber-optic network and the City will be at a disadvantage,” said Baltimore City Council President William Cole (http://xrl.us/bmziaa).
"The purchase of spectrum that is under review at the FCC is focused on providing consumers with the capacity to get the most out of their 4G LTE devices, and therefore, we think that the purchase is squarely in the public interest, particularly for consumers in communities who are looking for wireless high-speed broadband connectivity,” a Verizon spokesman said in response to the municipal filings. “As we have stated before, this spectrum purchase is unrelated to our clear and longstanding deployment plans for FiOS, which currently includes deployment in cities from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia to New York, and in communities where we were able to reach franchise agreements."
Verizon Wireless and the cable companies present little evidence to allay industry fears, the Rural Cellular Association said in another filing at the FCC. “The Applicants’ reply filing consists of an 80-page Joint Opposition, along with nearly 200 pages of exhibits,” RCA said. “Unfortunately, the Joint Opposition is long on words and short on substance. The Applicants fail to acknowledge the current concentration of market power in the wireless industry, and run for cover under Commission authority from a bygone, pre-duopoly and pre-spectrum crunch era.” The defense of the deal also “ignores the duopoly that has arisen in both the retail and wholesale wireless marketplaces. In the meantime, the Commission and the rest of the industry recognize that it is no longer 2004, or even 2007.”
RCA reiterated arguments that the transaction should be approved only with conditions to reduce the threat to wireless competition. Given Verizon and AT&T’s “dominance in the wireless marketplace, the Commission can no longer simply stand by and allow the largest carriers to preempt all of the critical spectrum resources, and dominate and control all competitive inputs -- such as roaming, handsets and backhaul -- that are necessary to allow other carriers to provide competitive services to consumers,” RCA said.
Consumers Union objected to both the spectrum sales and the marketing agreements unveiled in December. “The proposed transaction is not in consumers’ best interest since it will diminish competition in the video, broadband, and wireless markets,” the group said in a letter to the three FCC commissioners. “Consequently, consumers could suffer an increase in prices and face diminished competitive alternatives in the video, broadband, and wireless markets.” CU noted that Verizon already holds more spectrum than any other U.S. carrier: “Importantly, the Commission has determined Verizon Wireless holds the most low-band spectrum, which is the prime band for providing mobile broadband deployment.”