Commenters Weigh In on Verizon's Cable Spectrum Deals

It was rush hour in the Verizon/SpectrumCo/Cox Federal Communications Commission docket as comments came in in advance of the midnight Feb. 21 deadline.

Among the comments the FCC asked for is how it should treat the separate, exchange-of-service agreements between Verizon and the cable companies. Public interest groups and wireless competitors critical of the deal have said the FCC should pay a lot of attention to them. But the Free State Foundation, a free market think tank critical of government overregulation and too heavy a hand in merger reviews, said the commission should not include those deals in its consideration of this one. "These separate commercial agreements, which do not involve the transfer of any licenses, are not contingent on approval of the proposed transfers of spectrum licenses, or vice versa, and by their terms they do not call for commission review," said Free State in its filing. The Tech Policy Institute was all for the deal, saying that the deal "should benefit consumers and does not in itself raise antitrust concerns because the spectrum is currently not being used," according to its filing.

The New Jersey rate counsel, which advocates for consumers during rate-setting proceedings for public utilities, said the FCC should block the transaction because the deal would eliminate possible competitors and enrich sellers that hoarded airwaves.

Free Press filed a petition to deny, saying the transaction would tilt the playing field toward a wireless/wireline cartel of cable and telco operators via separate joint marketing agreements. "Neither the spectrum sale nor the joint-marketing agreements that are part of these transactions would succeed as stand-alone deals," said Free Press. "And while Verizon wants this spectrum, it does not need it, and we don't believe it intends to put this highly valuable resource to its most immediate and efficient use."