Hello! And welcome to our Friday column, Worst of the Week. There’s a lot of nutty stuff that goes on in this industry, so this column is a chance for us at RCRWireless.com to rant and rave about whatever rubs us the wrong way. We hope you enjoy it!
And without further ado:
The Federal Communications Commission’s request last week to have AT&T and Deutsche Telekom provide more information regarding claims in AT&T’s proposed $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA is yet another interesting turn in this saga that seems to be adding turns at an alarming rate.
The request, which included analysis and plans for how the deal will help AT&T handle its claimed spectrum shortages, how it would handle markets where the deal would preclude the need for roaming agreements, and the possible decommissioning of cell sites due to network overlap, appears to show that the government is indeed looking seriously at the deal. I say this knowing that the FCC is supposed to take a close look at the deal, but also knowing that recent history has shown that save a few instances, the FCC has not shied away from industry consolidation.
Sure, there have been conditions on previous deals that would appear to maintain some semblance of competition in the market, but the current balance of power shows that all of that has really been for not.
Don’t get me wrong. I would love to see this deal fall apart simply to see AT&T have to hand over a wad of cash, provide a 3G roaming agreement and give up nearly all of its 1.7/2.1 GHz spectrum assets to T-Mobile USA. That would be awesome, and would bolster T-Mobile USA’s competitive spirit to such a degree that it could make the wireless market more competitive. Hmmm, a more competitive wireless market? I wonder of the FCC is interested in such a thing?
(On a side note, what exactly is entailed in a 3G roaming agreement? I know rural carriers recently won a decisive victory with the FCC requiring such agreements be provided, but is the 3G part of that equation equal to the marketing or technical aspects of the term 3G. Basically every current technology labeled by the marketers as “4G” is really not 4G, so that means they must all be 3G, right?)
While all of this is well and good, I think the trickier component for the FCC is in dealing with device exclusivity. In this day and age of the smartphone, consumers are more apt to make their carrier decision based on which device they can select than over coverage or pricing. I think we can all agree that Apple’s iPhone has shown this to be the case, with customers flocking to whichever carrier can offer the device and those that can’t letting that fact be known.
Of course the rub is that it’s difficult to require a company like Apple make devices that are compatible with every carrier’s network. By limiting the amount of frequencies a device is compatible with inherently limits where a device can be used, and a device maker can claim that such limitations are necessary to hit certain price targets.
So, while the news that the FCC is requesting additional information regarding the AT&T/T-Mobile USA deal would appear to show it’s taking this deal seriously, until other aspects of the industry are tackled the whole who owns who question would seem secondary.
OK, enough of that.
Thanks for checking out this week’s Worst of the Week column. And now for some extras:
–While we are on the subject of the AT&T/T-Mobile USA deal, I find it increasingly amusing to see which “associations” those in favor and opposed to the deal are trotting out in support of their cause.
Just this week, AT&T touted an array of new supporters for its purchase of T-Mobile USA, including the American Federation of Teachers (not to be confused with the Teachers Federation of America); the Oasis Institute, which claims to be “dedicated to improving the lives of people 50 plus;” and Chicago-based Root Brothers Manufacturing & Supply Co. A heady list.
I see no problem with these organizations filling responses with the FCC in support of the plan, though the tangential nature of the relationship they have to the wireless space is a bit … tangential. I am sure there is a local Boy Scout troop that could see some benefit to the deal as well.
–The wave of increasingly powerful smartphones sweeping the mobile market seems to have left one industry segment in a lurch: battery makers.
I am not saying that those fine folks that make the complicated power cells powering our devices are not doing a good job, but if the lack of battery life I have witnessed from a handful of new devices is any indication, something needs to be done.
The whole notion of a mobile device is that it can be used “mobile-y,” but with the current power drain of increasing screen sized, dual-core processors and teleportation capabilities, this is really no longer the case.
I know device makers currently provide “standby” and “talk” time guidelines with their devices, but I think that needs to be updated to reflect actual usage models. What’s the point of a device that can remain powered for 34 days if it’s not being used? If I am not actually using the device for 34 days, maybe I need to question whether I really need that device.
Instead these guidelines should indicate how many hours I can play “Angry Birds,” or how many seconds of high-definition YouTube clips I can watch before the battery packs up and dies. You know, useful stuff.
I welcome your comments. Please send me an e-mail at: [email protected].
Bored? Why not follow me on Twitter
