Public Knowledge has been on a little rampage, referring to Verizon’s petition to obtain AWS licenses from SpectrumCo, LLC as synonymous to a cartel. Specifically, Public Knowledge is saying that the aggregation of spectrum on the part of Verizon, combined with joint marketing, reseller, and joint operating entity agreements entered into between Verizon and SpectrumCo would effectively result in a cartel.

Should the transfer go through, Verizon and SpectrumCo, a joint venture between Comcast, Time Warner, and Bright House, will cross-sell each others’ services.

In its ex-parte letter posted on the Federal Communications Commission’s website on 18 June 2012, Public Knowledge made its cartel claim, but doesn’t seem to provide evidence of current or projected cartel behavior. For example, a cartel is defined as a group of firms with an explicit, formal agreement to fix prices and output shares in a particular market. Public Knowledge offers no evidence supporting the particular market Verizon and Spectrum intend to carve up, the level at which prices are to eb fixed, or how shares of that undefined market are to be divided up.

Without a showing that Verizon and SpectrumCo have entered a contract, combination, or conspiracy to restrain trade, a cartel argument is a non-starter.

Besides, why even bring this allegation to the FCC? This claim should be in front of the U.S. Department of Justice.

During a Senate antitrust review Wednesday, Senate antitrust committee chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) said the following: “Having won the battle for competition by blocking last year’s AT&T/T-Mobile merger, are we now in danger of losing the war?” Mr. Kohl asked.

That’s the problem, Senator Kohl. Had you, your congressional colleagues, the FCC, and DOJ not looked at the AT&T/T-Mobile deal from the standpoint as a war against “the big companies”, you wouldn’t have AT&T and Verizon buying spectrum from cable. We should be mindful of the corners we back industry into with poor public policy.

CNBC’s Julia Bornstein brings her insights to whether Google is favoring its Google + social network when consumers search the web for “@usernames”. Twitter, according to Ms. Bornstein, argues that Google suppresses the “@” sign during a consumer search, and instead sends the consumer to one of its Google search options.

The antitrust question maybe, is Google using its dominance in search to elevate its options over Twitter’s.

On the surface it seems a big what to do about nothing. If I’m that hard up to do a search for someone’s Twitter handle, I’d go to Twitter and do the search. Consumers have that option if they have problems with Google.

Hopefully the FTC or the Justice Department will find that they have other things to do.

Attorney David Balto, an anti-trust attorney and former policy director at the Federal Trade Commission, wrote an insightful article posted on The Hill.com about the Federal Communications Commissions’ staff paper released late last week. The gist of Mr. Balto’s argument is that the paper will have little, if any, impact on the lawsuit filed by the United States Department of Justice to block the AT&T, T-Mobile merger.

Release of this working paper was irresponsible. The FCC has opened itself up to having anyone subpoena its work product and use it in a court proceeding.

In addition, the FCC seems to be on a mission to confuse the public on what its role is.

With net neutrality and the notion of reclassifying broadband as a Title II service, the FCC sought to make itself out to be an uber-legislative body, willing to circumvent Congress.

With AT&T/T-Mobile, the FCC wants to play trust buster. That is not its role. It is supposed to apply its ambiguous public interest standard to the issue of whether or not wireless licenses are to be transferred from T-Mobile to AT&T. If you read the title for Docket 11-65 it says as much.

If the FCC wants to file an amicus brief, it should go through the process for certifying such a request and enter its views into the court record.

The FCC’s behavior was reckless and such tactics are best left to media manipulators, community organizers, and grass roots advocacy groups.

Profound editorial in the Lowell Sun today about the approach to the AT&T, T-Mobile merger that the federal government is taking. “Too big to allow” seems to be the mantra, as two federal agencies and a federal court hold the two companies futures in their hands.

The hung up, according to the Federal Communications Commission (which has conveniently inserted itself into the antitrust expertise category along with the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice) is that prices may rise; a competitor may be eliminated; and jobs would be lost.

History over the last decade has shown that prices have fallen, even after a number of wireless mergers, including AT&T and Cingular wireless. Smaller carriers should be given credit for bringing innovative products into the wireless markets and helping to drive prices down. Why should we not expect new entrants to continue the trend of taking advantage of new opportunities to brong innovative products into the market in the wake of another merger? Why shouldn’t we expect prices to fall even further?

Does the FCC need a reminder that they have not yet declared that the wireless market is competitive? How can the removal of T-Mobile USA now have any more detrimental impact on the market than its elimination by its own parent?

And talk about job loss. Over 300,000 people left the labor force in November. Does allowing T-Mobile to fade away make really support a “jobs creation” policy?