The FCC’s data roaming order as musical theater

by on May 5, 2011 · 1 comment

For Forbes.com this morning, I take a close look at last month’s controversial FCC order requiring facilities-based wireless carriers to negotiate data roaming agreements with other carriers.

There are business, technical, and legal reasons why the order stands on unsteady ground, which the article looks at in detail.

The order, by encouraging artificial competition in nationwide mobile broadband, could also undermine arguments against AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile USA.

How so?  If every regional, local, or rural carrier can offer their customers access to the nationwide coverage of Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint, on terms overseen for “commercial reasonableness” by the FCC, what’s the risk of consumer harm from combining AT&T and T-Mobile’s infrastructure?  Indeed, doing so would create stronger nationwide 3G and 4G networks for other carriers to use.  In that sense, it’s actually pro-competitive, and a pragmatic solution to spectrum exhaustion.

The bigger question is why the FCC seems so determined to get into the business of regulating the Internet economy, when Congress has so clearly and consistently told them to stay out of it.

(The results of that wise foresight speak for themselves:  compare the health of digital life to the health of, say, wireline telephone and over-the-air TV broadcasters, which the FCC has long-regulated to within an inch of their lives, or less.)

With its historic client base rapidly disappearing, the FCC, like any good business, is looking for new markets and new clients.  But like Harold Hill, the flim-flam artist featured in Meredith Wilson’s classic “The Music Man,” it doesn’t know the territory.

Shut out of market for digital regulation by Congress (underscored repeatedly by the courts), the agency has no expertise in dealing with the business or technical dynamics of the Internet.  To paraphrase Wilson, the market is looking for mandolin picks, but the FCC keeps selling big trombones.

The result is trouble, my friends.  Right here.

  • Anonymous

    While avoiding outright deception, you nonetheless frame Brand X, a case the FCC won and which was about agency discretion (the Court ruled there was a lot of it), as a case the FCC lost after trying to extend its authority.

    Brand X left the FCC with more authority over “data,” not less. And the Court’s holding has little to do with the soundness of the FCC’s underlying decision.

Previous post:

Next post: