Excerpt

Now that the election is over, the Federal Communications Commission is returning to the important but painfully slow business of updating its spectrum management policies for the 21st century. That includes a process the agency started in September to formalize its dangerously unstructured role in reviewing mergers and other large transactions in the communications industry.

This followed growing concern about “mission creep” at the FCC, which, in deals such as those between Comcast and NBCUniversal, AT&T and T-Mobile USA, and Verizon Wireless and SpectrumCo, has repeatedly been caught with its thumb on the scales of what is supposed to be a balance between private markets and what the Communications Act refers to as the “public interest.”

Commission reviews of private transactions are only growing more common—and more problematic. The mobile revolution is severely testing the FCC’s increasingly anachronistic approach to assigning licenses for radio frequencies in the first place, putting pressure on carriers to use mergers and other secondary market deals to obtain the bandwidth needed to satisfy exploding customer demand.

While the Department of Justice reviews these transactions under antitrust law, the FCC has the final say on the transfer of any and all spectrum licenses. Increasingly, the agency is using that limited authority to restructure communications markets, beltway-style, elevating the appearance of increased competition over the substance of an increasingly dynamic, consumer-driven mobile market.

Given the very different speeds at which Silicon Valley and Washington operate, the expanding scope of FCC intervention is increasingly doing more harm than good.

Continue reading on Bloomberg BNA

 

Some of the most significant transactions singled out recently for intensive federal review involve the communications industry. Unfortunately, communications providers face serious and potentially fatal problems of supply. Radio spectrum — the chief input and most severe constraint on the ability of carriers to support more users and more data — is essentially unavailable at any price. That’s because the Federal Communications Commission has run out of usable, unassigned spectrum to license. As consumers pull orders of magnitude more data to their smartphones, tablets, and notebook computers, carriers are becoming desperate. Network operators, already experiencing what the FCC warned in 2010 as an imminent “spectrum crunch,” have little choice but to acquire spectrum assets from other mobile operators, whose licenses can be put to immediate use once the agency approves the transfer. They have been doing so as quickly as possible, attempting or completing over a dozen major transactions since 2007. But as the urgency of spectrum-related transactions has increased, the FCC has come to play an increasingly problematic — and largely unstructured — role in the government’s review of transactions in the communications industry. This brief essay discusses the key problems with the FCC’s current approach to transactions involving spectrum license transfers.

Some of the most significant transactions singled out recently for intensive federal review involve the communications industry. These include the merger of Comcast and NBCUniversal, the failed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA, a multi-billion purchase of spectrum by Verizon from a consortium of cable companies and, just recently, the announced acquisition by T-Mobile USA of rival MetroPCS and Softbank’s offer for Sprint.

Read the full piece here.

At today’s Open Commission Meeting, the FCC is set to consider two apparently forthcoming Notices of Proposed Rulemaking that will shape the mobile broadband sector for years to come.  It’s not hyperbole to say that the FCC’s approach to the two issues at hand — the design of spectrum auctions and the definition of the FCC’s spectrum screen — can make or break wireless broadband in this country.  The FCC stands at a crossroads with respect to its role in this future, and it’s not clear that it will choose wisely.

Read the full piece here.

“Real lawyers read the footnotes!”—thus did Harold Feld chastise Geoff and Berin in a recent blog post about our CNET piece on the Verizon/SpectrumCo transaction. We argued, as did Commissioner Pai in his concurrence, that the FCC provided no legal basis for its claims of authority to review the Commercial Agreements that accompanied Verizon’s purchase of spectrum licenses—and that these agreements for joint marketing, etc. were properly subject only to DOJ review (under antitrust).

Read the full piece here.

For those who follow these things (and for those who don’t but should!), Eric Goldman just posted an excellent short essay on Section 230 immunity and account terminations.

Here’s the abstract:

An online provider’s termination of a user’s online account can be a major-and potentially even life-changing-event for the user. Account termination exiles the user from a virtual place the user wanted to be; termination disrupts any social network relationship ties in that venue, and prevents the user from sending or receiving messages there; and the user loses any virtual assets in the account, which could be anything from archived emails to accumulated game assets. The effects of account termination are especially acute in virtual worlds, where dedicated users may be spending a majority of their waking hours or have aggregated substantial in-game wealth. However, the problem arises in all online environments (including email, social networking and web hosting) where account termination disrupts investments made by users.

Because of the potentially significant consequences from online user account termination, user-rights advocates, especially in the virtual world context, have sought legal restrictions on online providers’ discretion to terminate users. However, these efforts are largely misdirected because of 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(2) (“Section 230(c)(2)”), a federal statutory immunity. This essay, written in conjunction with an April 2011 symposium at UC Irvine entitled “Governing the Magic Circle: Regulation of Virtual Worlds,” explains Section 230(c)(2)’s role in immunizing online providers’ decisions to terminate user accounts. It also explains why this immunity is sound policy.

But the meat of the essay (at least the normative part of the essay) is this:

Thus, broadly conceived, § 230(c)(2) removes legal regulation of an online provider’s account termination, making the marketplace the main governance mechanism over an online provider’s choices. Fortunately, the marketplace is effective enough to discipline those choices.

Eric doesn’t talk explicitly here about property rights and transaction costs, but that’s what he’s talking about.  Well-worth reading as a short, clear, informative introduction to this extremely important topic.

Filed under: constitutional law, contracts, technology, telecommunications, torts Tagged: Communications Decency Act. Section 230, Eric Goldman, Immunity, ISPs, Online Communities

Yesterday was seemingly a good day for users of smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices. The Federal Communications Commission approved, with conditions, Verizon’s purchase of wireless spectrum from SpectrumCo, a consortium of cable companies. The more spectrum that’s put to use, the more we’ll ease the coming “spectrum crunch” as exploding data demands outstrip supply. This particular spectrum has sat unused for years, and the FCC’s approval of the deal (following on the Department of Justice’s approval last week) clears the way for some welcome relief.

Read the full piece here.

Yesterday was seemingly a good day for users of smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices. The Federal Communications Commission approved, with conditions, Verizon’s purchase of wireless spectrum from SpectrumCo, a consortium of cable companies. The more spectrum that’s put to use, the more we’ll ease the coming “spectrum crunch” as exploding data demands outstrip supply. This particular spectrum has sat unused for years, and the FCC’s approval of the deal (following on the Department of Justice’s approval last week) clears the way for some welcome relief.

The FCC’s decision seems measured, citing both benefits and risks of the deal to consumers and rejecting most of the claims of the deal’s staunchest critics. But this apparent reasonableness masks the true, arbitrary nature of FCC review: a costly, unsupervised game of “Mother, May I?”, requiring applicants to rearrange their businesses in ways the agency could neither require by regulation nor extract as concessions without exceeding the proper scope of its transaction review. Most troublingly, the FCC need not even make its extra-legal demands explicit. Because all future applicants know that the actual approval of this deal is far less significant to them than the process behind it, even yesterday’s good news comes with an asterisk.

It’s no secret that some at the agency — to say nothing of the self-proclaimed consumer advocates who aggrandize it –seek to manage the tech sector based largely on their unsubstantiated belief that “Big is Bad.” Yesterday’s order and the conditions imposed on the parties are animated by this assertion. But it’s by no means clear that consumers are well served by this approach; rather, this maligned concentration of spectrum has been accompanied by lower prices — along with enormous investment, expanded access and rapid innovation.

[From Gerald R. Faulhaber, et al., Assessing Competition in U.S. Wireless Markets: Review of the FCC’s Competition Reports (July 11, 2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1880964.]

Of course, sometimes big really is bad. The central challenge for policymakers is ensuring they don’t erroneously thwart beneficial deals and instead heed Nobel laureate Ronald Coase’s caution: “if [a regulator] finds something — a business practice of one sort or other — that he does not understand, he looks for a monopoly explanation.” That’s why, in theory, we limit agencies’ authority to review deals. But in practice, the FCC exceeds limits on its authority, applies a vague “public interest” standard with little analytical rigor, and avoids even that minimal rigor by pressuring companies into making “voluntary” concessions.

In this case, the FCC’s review of the commercial agreements accompanying the spectrum deal exceeded the limits of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act. As Commissioner Pai noted in his concurring statement, “Congress limited the scope of our review to the proposed transfer of spectrum licenses, not to other business agreements that may involve the same parties.” We (and others) raised this concern in public comments filed with the Commission. Here’s the agency’s own legal analysis — in full: “The Commission has authority to review the Commercial Agreements and to impose conditions to protect the public interest.” There’s not even an accompanying footnote.

Accepting the limits Congress has imposed on the FCC doesn’t require approving the Verizon/SpectrumCo deal — or any other. The DOJ is perfectly willing to use antitrust to block such deals, such as rejecting the AT&T/T-Mobile merger last year. Just last week, DOJ demanded concessions of the parties to this deal (although its analysis, too, was flawed). The key difference is that DOJ can block or condition approval of a deal only if it shows the deal would substantially harm consumer welfare. And DOJ bears the burden of showing this harm, measured against extensive case law and economic analysis. But parties before the FCC bear the burden of demonstrating that their transactions enhance competition and serve the “public interest.” That phrase “lacks any definite meaning,” as Ronald Coase noted more than 50 years ago. Little has changed.

The FCC falls prey all too easily to the problem Coase identified: overestimating the dangers of concentration and underestimating how much spectrum sales and other transactions can benefit consumers. Even the Obama DOJ has cautioned the FCC against “striving for broadband markets that look like textbook markets of perfect competition….” As industry evolves and competitors vie for scarce resources (especially in wireless broadband), they meet new competitive challenges with novel business arrangements and increased investment. Economies of scale may become more important, and concentration may increase, benefiting, rather than harming, consumers. But the FCC cries “Monopoly!” — without actually having to prove it.

Perhaps worse, having firms over a barrel, the FCC uses its leverage to regulate future conduct by extracting “voluntary” conditions in the name of the public interest –often conditions it couldn’t impose by regulation. That’s almost certainly what happened here with Verizon’s concession on data roaming. Verizon (but not its competitors) will be subject, for five years, to obligations the D.C. Circuit may soon rule the FCC has no authority to impose — much as Comcast “voluntarily” agreed to net neutrality conditions in its merger with NBC Universal even stricter than the regulations the D.C. Circuit seems likely to strike down for everyone else. This creates a patchwork of rules and obligations, coerced without sound economic justification, in a fashion largely unreviewable by courts, and in contravention of limits placed on the FCC’s authority by Congress and the courts.

This effectively grants the FCC unchecked power to stop transactions it doesn’t even have the authority to review, and to regulate companies in extra-legal ways it has no authority to.

Congress should rein in the FCC. The FCC Process Reform Act passed by the House in March (but now stalled in the Senate) is a good start, requiring that conditions be narrowly tailored to real harms the FCC actually has authority to regulate. But until Congress makes clear that the public interest standard is not a carte blanche and that the limits it explicitly imposed on the scope of the Commission’s reviewing authority are binding — or, even better, that the DOJ alone has the authority to analyze a transaction’s competitive effects — the FCC will continue playing games with our high-tech economy, even when it appears to be exercising restraint.

Cross-posted from CNET

The pending wireless spectrum deal between Verizon Wireless and a group of cable companies (the SpectrumCo deal, for short) continues to attract opprobrium from self-proclaimed consumer advocates and policy scolds.  In the latest salvo, Public Knowledge’s Harold Feld (and other critics of the deal) aren’t happy that Verizon seems to be working to appease the regulators by selling off some of its spectrum in an effort to secure approval for its deal.  Critics are surely correct that appeasement is what’s going on here—but why this merits their derision is unclear.

Read the full piece here.