PK, along with the New America Foundation, has just filed its comments on the FCC’s proposed rules on the subject of wireless signal boosters. PK and NAF are trying to keep wireless boosters from getting tied to wireless carrier contracts. What’s a wireless signal booster? Here’s one:

Gigi is out in San Diego today making a whirlwind appearance on spectrum. In addition to stopping by the FCC's workshop on mobile broadband and mobile applications (and delivering this amazing testimony here), Gigi is stopping by the International CTIA Wireless Conference to do a panel. As is often the case with these panels, they had some discussion questions to focus the group on the key issues and guide the conversation. While I expect Gigi will blog later about what actually happened, the discussion questions I saw looked pretty good to me. So I thought "hey, why not give my answers and show everyone why CTIA never invites me to speak at their conferences."

So here goes.

The August 19 Wall St. J. contains an op-ed from former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler that at first blush looks like someone here at PK might have written it. Kessler starts with Apple blocking the Google voice ap, and runs through the way spectrum auctions re-enforce industry structure and lock in a tight oligopoly that damps innovation and allows those companies that actually have a pipe to charge ridiculous prices for services such as text. He notes that because mobile services are critical to our economic growth that this holds back economic development, and observes that it massively overcharges consumers.

When Verizon Wireless decided it would be amenable to changing the ground rules by which it lets other cellphone companies serve their customers who travel through Verizon (called “roaming”), notice how it made the announcement.

And when Verizon decided to loosen its grip ever so slightly on the exclusive deals it has with cellular phone manufacturers, notice how that announcement was made.

Both were done in letters to Capitol Hill, to influential members of Congress. The first was done on Friday, July 17. It purported to set out a new policy for “allowing” really small cellular carriers to have access to some fancy mobile phones to sell to their customers six months after those phones are introduced by Verizon. In this case, the letter went to Rep.

The following statement is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge:

“Earlier today, Verizon announced a policy of ending exclusive handset arrangements for wireless carriers with fewer than 500,000 customers after a period of six months.

“Verizon’s gesture should be seen for what it is – an inadequate attempt to influence legislation and regulation. It should not be up to Verizon to decide the terms and conditions under which consumers can have the benefit of wireless handset competition.

“Corporate charity as momentum builds for a policy that one company does not like is no substitute for legislation or regulation that treats all carriers, of whatever size, alike, and all consumers, of whatever size carrier, alike.

“Obviously Verizon’s gesture applies only to it, and to no other carriers. That situation is unacceptable.

Although the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) has not confirmed it, the Wall St. Journal reported that DOJ is internally considering whether or not companies "such as AT&T and Verizon" have abused their market power. Most traditional antitrust lawyers I've seen quoted don't think it likely the telcos have market power -- especially given the hostility that courts have recently shown to antitrust. Indeed, in a world where even potential competition is supposed to be part of the market analysis, how can a modest 60% of the wireless market shared by the two companies, with no evidence of price fixing or coordinated behavior, support any sort of antitrust action?

Welcome to the more grown up and sophisticated view of market power in the more complex real world.