Thousands of Short Filings on Verizon/Cable Deals Hit FCC
With a decision by federal regulators expected over the next few weeks, Verizon Wireless’s buy of AWS licenses from SpectrumCo and Cox has faced an onslaught of “grassroots” filings in recent days, most a sentence or two in length. Meanwhile, Verizon Wireless and its partners in various proposed spectrum transactions fired back at the Rural Telecommunications Group, which last week asked for a timeout on the FCC’s review of the various deals (CD Aug 6 p1). Several critics of the deal told us Wednesday FCC staff signaled recently that with a decision on the transactions near, they should get any filings with proposed transaction conditions into the record.
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.
The FCC has logged more than 2,500 short, public comments in recent days, most apparently tied to the Communications Workers of America, which had raised concerns about the deals (CD July 26 p15). “Keep the competition alive,” said one of the comments by Daniel Poulos of Roslyn Heights, N.Y. “Save jobs keep people working. Don’t let big business destroy jobs or the middle class.” “If the deal between Verizon Wireless and large cable companies goes through, it will end up costing much more than the price of your cable bill,” said Alan Alba, of Concord, Calif. “Thousands of communications workers will lose their jobs.”
"CWA members are deeply concerned about this deal, which they believe will kill Verizon’s investment in FiOS; they understand that puts their jobs on the line,” Debbie Goldman, CWA telecommunications policy director, said Wednesday, commenting on the grassroots filings. “At a time of high unemployment, the FCC Chairman has to make good on his claim that he puts jobs first. These comments show that once people hear about a deal that makes former competitors business partners, they understand this is not good for consumers: prices will go up, choices will go down."
CWA is running a TV ad in the Washington, D.C., market starting Thursday which “explains how the deal would raise prices on consumers, kill jobs and eliminate competition,” the union said in a news release late Wednesday. CWA is running the same ad in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Richmond, Va., and a national spot on CBS’s Face the Nation will air on Sunday (http://xrl.us/bnjxx7). “Behind closed doors, Verizon and the big cable companies have cooked up a monopoly deal that would raise prices and kill jobs,” the ad claims.
The number of comments is smaller than the thousands of grassroots comments filed against AT&T’s proposed buy of T-Mobile last year. In a single day, May 21, 2010, 9,525 comments were filed on Comcast’s purchase of control in NBCUniversal.
"Verizon Wireless has made a persuasive case that bringing unused spectrum to consumers is strongly in the public interest,” a Verizon spokesman said in response to the filings. “We continue to work constructively with the FCC and [Department of Justice], and we are confident that we will receive the necessary approvals this summer."
The Verizon filing against RTG’s that calls for a time out was also signed by SpectrumCo and Cox, which are selling Verizon AWS licenses, and T-Mobile, which proposes a spectrum swap with its larger competitor. “RTG calls for suspending the informal 180-day review period because of a ‘flurry of transactions’ involving a ‘purchaser’ that is not a party to any of the transactions at issue here, AT&T,” the filing said (http://xrl.us/bnjvyd). “But RTG already has had ample opportunity to participate in the above-captioned proceedings, and to address any issues raised by these license assignment applications. And it will have the opportunity to comment on the AT&T transactions. Moreover, the Commission has consistently denied requests like RTG’s to consolidate review of separate transactions involving different parties."
"The FCC has the duty to safeguard the public interest and ensure a competitive landscape,” RTG General Counsel Carri Bennet said in response. “The FCC cannot turn a blind eye to the AT&T transactions and look at the Verizon transaction in a vacuum. It is a new world order when it comes to spectrum haves and have nots. Past precedent simply does not apply. Spectrum aggregation reform was needed four years ago when RTG filed its Petition for Rulemaking to impose spectrum caps. The FCC’s delay in implementing that rulemaking has put us in the situation we are in today. Reformation cannot wait under the guise of looking at each transaction separately. A death by a thousand cuts is still a death."
The Rural Cellular Association also took a late shot at the deals, in a blog post by President Steve Berry (http://xrl.us/bnjxh4). “The wireless industry has passed the tipping point in terms of the national concentration of power, and the traditional market-by-market spectrum screen employed by the [FCC] to analyze concentration of spectrum fails to properly assess the true competitive imbalance. The FCC must recognize that the dominant Verizon/AT&T duopoly -- and their control of most prime broadband spectrum -- makes it increasingly difficult for new entrants or competitive carriers to provide effective competition in the industry, and with fewer choices, consumers lose. Each additional MHz that Verizon and AT&T acquire permits them to exert greater control over the market, making it increasingly difficult for competitive carriers to gain access to necessary spectrum resources and other critical inputs.”
The National Consumers League, meanwhile, filed a letter at the FCC questioning whether joint marketing agreements between Verizon Wireless and the cable companies “would remove any incentive” for Verizon to further expand its FiOS footprint. “NCL shares the concerns expressed by numerous public interest commenters regarding the impact of the JMA on consumers,” the group said (http://xrl.us/bnjwks).