U.S. spectrum sale must spur wireless competition - Justice Department

[Rawvega]

A minor war of words between Sprint & AT&T, more like a skirmish actually:

 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/492974-Sprint_CEO_Hesse_Plugs_FCC_Weighted_Spectrum_Screen.php

 

Sprint CEO Hesse Plugs FCC Weighted Spectrum Screen

Praises Justice for backing that position in recent comments to FCC, Hill

 

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 4/18/2013 10:56:29 AM

 

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse praised the FCC on Thursday for its pro-competitive stance, and urged it to adjust its spectrum screen to ensure that the upcoming broadcast incentive auctions are not dominated by the larger carriers -- AT&T and Verizon notably among those.

 

"The way we screen and value spectrum needs to change," he said in a speech to the Competitive Carriers Association Global Expo in New Orleans. Hesse applauded the Justice Department for its support of a spectrum screen that gives more weight to more attractive low-band spectrum. He pointed out that 75% of that spectrum is now held by AT&T and Verizon.

 

The screen is the level of spectrum holdings by one company in a market that triggers additional FCC scrutiny for possible undue concentration.

 

In those comments -- the FCC sought input on whether and how to change that screen as it prepares to auction broadcast spectrum -- Justice said the FCC should come up with some "competition-focused" rules on spectrum acquisitions, particularly auctions, including taking into account the differing propagation qualities of different spectrum bands that make one more valuable than another.

 

William Baer, assistant attorney general in the DOJ antitrust division (the new Christine Varney) echoed that support in a Senate antitrust oversight hearing this week.

 

Any action the commission takes should promote access to spectrum by competitive carriers, said Hesse, obviously preaching to the choir. The FCC's upcoming auction of 600 MHz spectrum reclaimed from broadcasters is the next opportunity for those competitive carriers to get a "foothold" in low-band spectrum, he pointed out.

 

Low-band spectrum is more attractive for wireless communications because of its superior propagation characteristics that make it less prone to disruption from buildings and other obstacles.

 

 

"It never ceases to amaze me how some executives can go to Wall Street and brag about their unique and massive spectrum position, then come to Washington and claim the exact opposite and then demand the government allocate spectrum to them rather than auction it in an open bidding process as Congress directed," said AT&T senior EVP Jim Cicconi in response to Hesse's comments. "Particularly when that company has failed to even bid in previous auctions of lower band spectrum. This is nonsense, and would simply lead to a failed auction as anyone with sense understands. Moreover, it's not the government's job to give to any company advantages it's been unable to win from consumers in a free market."

[Fraydog]

AT&T was more or less granted a monopoly back in the 30's due to government action. Does that not sink into Cicconi's head? Or how bad the cellular auction process was?

[WiWavelength]

AT&T was more or less granted a monopoly back in the 30's due to government action. Does that not sink into Cicconi's head? Or how bad the cellular auction process was?

 

"It never ceases to amaze me how some executives can go to Wall Street and brag about their unique and massive spectrum position, then come to Washington and claim the exact opposite and then demand the government allocate spectrum to them rather than auction it in an open bidding process as Congress directed," said AT&T senior EVP Jim Cicconi in response to Hesse's comments. "Particularly when that company has failed to even bid in previous auctions of lower band spectrum. This is nonsense, and would simply lead to a failed auction as anyone with sense understands. Moreover, it's not the government's job to give to any company advantages it's been unable to win from consumers in a free market."

 

"It never ceases to amaze" Jim Cicconi because he speaks from direct experience. He and AT&T made basically the same two faced argument regarding the T-Mobile merger. Tell shareholders that AT&T has a great spectrum portfolio. Tell the FCC that AT&T must have T-Mobile's spectrum to roll out nationwide LTE.

 

Additionally, Jimbo claims that "it's not the government's job to give any company advantages..." Ah, but it is the government's job to address and respond to anti competitive activities. And, Jimbo, the wireless industry is not and never has been a "free market."

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

In all seriousness, I don't know if I would want to go to quite that extreme. I like the concept, but I would feel more comfortable with something a little more private that ensures competition for the sake of technology progression...then I could be persuaded.

 

For a counterpoint, many "jizz-um" and "3G-pee-pee" fans think that tech "progression" led to tech fragmentation among US wireless carriers. They look upon Qualcomm with disdain and imagine a US, like Europe, in which all carriers chose GSM (or were legislated into choosing GSM). To some extent, they have a point. Equipment portability across wireless carriers has been established there for roughly 20 years now. A "Wireless Network Corporation" here would naturally impose the same.

 

AJ