WASHINGTON-When the Community Technology Centers’ Network officially began its ambitious campaign in late March to persuade federal regulators to force Sprint Corp. and Nextel Communications Inc. to divest “sufficient spectrum” in the 2.5 GHz band as a condition for approval of their proposed $35 billion merger, the national non-profit group held itself out as speaking on behalf of its more than 1,000 members.
Since then, amid the hundreds of legally polished pages filed with the Federal Communications Commission in opposition to the Sprint-Nextel deal, at least two CTCNet members have come forward to declare the organization-which brings tech access to citizens in economically disadvantaged areas-does not speak for them.
The most glaring case involves a San Diego YMCA program director’s March 25 declaration attached to CTCNet’s petition to deny the Sprint-Nextel merger.
Cesar Marcano, head of the Cyber Y Technology, said the combination of Sprint’s and Nextel’s 2.5 GHz holdings-which would create a nationwide footprint-will create an entity whose market power “will have a negative effect on the price in the wireless broadband services in our market.”
Likewise, major consumer groups want Sprint and Nextel to sell 2.5 GHz assets as a prerequisite to merger approval. Sprint and Nextel say their 2.5 GHz assets are complementary-not overlapping-in most markets. In addition, the two mobile-phone operators contend there is plenty of available frequencies for prospective competitors in the wireless broadband space.
Last month, a letter surfaced in the merger proceeding written by John Merritt, information technology director of the YMCA of San Diego Country. Merritt had a different take on Sprint’s bid for Nextel.
“The signed declaration does not represent the views or opinions of the YMCA of San Diego Country nor does Mr. Marcano have any authority to make statements or declarations on behalf of the YMCA of San Diego County … The YMCA of San Diego recognizes that the technology world is continuously changing for the good of the consumer. To that end, the YMCA of San Diego County has no opinion regarding this or any other proposed telecommunications merger,” said Merritt.
KCPT TV, a public television station in Kansas City, went a step further in an April 8 submission to the FCC.
“KCPT was never asked, nor did it give permissions to list its name in CTCNet’s FCC filing,” said William Reed of KCPT. “KCPT disagrees with the CTCNet’s position and believes that the proposed Sprint and Nextel merger would be in the public interest and provide considerable benefit.” Reed added: “KCPT has found Sprint to be a strong community partner with a commitment to improving education.”
That two of CTCNet’s 1,000-plus members share different views than the one expressed by CTCNet in FCC filings cannot be regarded as necessary odd or unreasonable. But the defections in combination with other aspects of CTCNet’s intense interest in the Sprint-Nextel merger review have begun to raise some eyebrows.
CTCNet, with seven staffers in its national office here; two in Cambridge, Mass.; and one in Chicago, have filed large volumes of paper making the case against the merger. The filings lay out legal, economic and regulatory rationale-supplemented with detailed footnotes, market analyses and graphs-in support of its arguments. The filings seem to assume an encyclopedic knowledge of the 2.5 GHz market and FCC efforts to transform the band into a broadband wireless proving ground.
In other words, CTCNet’s filings have many of the telltale signs of documents prepared by an experienced communications law firm. The only names appearing on CTCNet filings are John Zoltner, director of strategy and development, and Ryan Turner, director of policy and communications.
As such, there is muted suspicion about CTCNet’s participation in the FCC’s Sprint-Nextel merger proceeding-specifically, whether perhaps a competitor in the wireless broadband sector is trying to upend the deal behind the cover of a legitimate non-profit group whose mission is to bridge the Digital Divide.
For all its outspoken criticism of the Sprint-Nextel merger in FCC filings, CTCNet’s Zoltner has not returned calls for comment. And even as Sprint and Nextel lawyers and lobbyists meet face to face with FCC officials, agency records do not appear to indicate that CTCNet has felt the need to follow up its written concerns with personal visits to federal regulators-arguably odd behavior for a stakeholder with such strong opinions on a major telecom business deal.
Meanwhile, the FCC continues to scrutinize the proposed Sprint-Nextel merger.
Last week, telecom regulators released letters asking mobile-phone carriers to supply highly detailed data about their calling plans in connection with the agency’s review of the proposed $35 billion merger of Sprint Corp. and Nextel Communications Inc.
FCC letters were sent to Western Wireless Corp., Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA Inc., SouthernLinc, Nextel Partners, Sprint, Nextel, Cingular Wireless L.L.C. and Alltel Corp.
The FCC is seeking month-by-month analyses of the billing plans-including minutes used, subscriber counts, cancellations, roaming and long-distance toll charges, promotions and overage charges-from Jan. 1, 2004, through Jan. 1, 2005.
The data request follows recent FCC letters to Sprint and Nextel seeking additional information on the deal. The combination of No. 3 Sprint PCS and No. 5 Nextel would still keep the merged entity behind No. 2 Verizon Wireless and No. 1 Cingular Wireless.
Despite consumer and CTCNet opposition, the Sprint-Nextel transaction is expected to be approved by the FCC and Justice Department later this year.
