AT&T/T-Mobile Shows Importance of Time Limits on Roaming Negotiations, Blanca Says
T-Mobile’s ability to secure a national data roaming agreement only as part of the “breakup fee” after AT&T’s proposed buy of T-Mobile fell apart shows why the FCC needs to impose a shot clock on negotiations over roaming agreements between carriers, Blanca Telephone said in reply comments at the FCC. In a June petition, Blanca asked the FCC to “reconsider and reverse” a decision in its April data roaming order not to adopt a time limit for roaming negotiations (http://xrl.us/bmmens). The Wireless Bureau sought comment in November. But AT&T said no new information has been introduced that would justify the FCC’s reversing a policy call made in the April order.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
AT&T suggested in a filing on the petition that “the complexity and fact-intensive nature of some data roaming negotiations” means a shot clock wouldn’t work, Blanca said (http://xrl.us/bmm5f5). “AT&T makes no attempt, however, to document the extent to which roaming arrangements would in fact prove to be so complex and so fact-intensive that a single ’shot clock’ ... would be inappropriate.” Blanca cited AT&T’s failed attempt to buy T-Mobile as an example of why a time limit is necessary. “T-Mobile -- a major national carrier -- was apparently unsuccessful in obtaining a satisfactory data roaming agreement on reasonable terms and conditions with AT&T, except in the context of a merger agreement,” Blanca argued. “This intransigence regarding roaming negotiations is magnified in the dealings of the largest national carriers with small, rural, and mid-tier carriers, where the imbalance of market power is considerably greater."
A group of small carriers represented by the Blooston law firm said claims by large carriers that some roaming negotiations can’t be rushed are just an excuse for inaction (http://xrl.us/bmm5hc). “Roaming negotiations are only ‘complex and fact-intensive’ because the large carriers claim that the negotiations are ‘complex and fact-intensive,’ which is a thinly disguised justification (i.e., an excuse) for stonewalling and foot dragging,” the Blooston-represented carriers said. “The large carriers engage in such behavior because they do not want to enter into a roaming agreement with a small carrier because either a) the two companies compete in the provision of service in certain areas, or b) the agreement is of little or no benefit to the large carrier.”
AT&T replied that nothing in the record justifies imposing a shot clock (http://xrl.us/bmm5g8). It responded in particular to comments by a group of small carriers led by MetroPCS (CD Dec 20 p6) supporting Blanca’s petition. “The comments largely rehash the arguments made in Blanca Telephone Company’s Petition for Reconsideration, which were already addressed and rejected by the Commission,” AT&T said. “To the extent that the comments attempt to introduce new issues for consideration, they should be rejected because they are procedurally infirm and lack merit.” The FCC has already “correctly determined that a one-size-fits-all solution would be ill-suited to the data roaming market, in which some negotiations will be more fact-intensive and time-consuming than others,” AT&T said.