As an analyst and a writer, I have followed Mr. Cicconi for some time. Never have I read so heartfelt a release from a corporate leader. This is not an “I told you so” statement. This is a “take heed” statement.

Mr. Cicconi’s points are well taken. The FCC did step out of its bounds. If the FCC wants to micro-manage the macro economy, maybe it should apply basic economics in its analysis. Maybe it should stop being afraid of market behavior and not get in the way of it. Maybe it should allow businesses to exercise business judgment and defer to it, just like it expects a court to defer to its regulatory expertise. The FCC messed up, and the industry and consumers have a right to be ticked .

Just read an insightful piece in Forbes Magazine about the advantages that would accrue to AT&T and DISH Networks from a strategic partnership that would allow AT&T to use DISH’s spectrum.

That sounds like a good partnership. A partnership framework would hopefully have a better chance of passing FCC/DOJ muster than an acquisition. Somewhere along the line you’d expect both of these agencies to lighten up and allow a market strategy to go in effect and serve consumers.

The one thing I would be concerned about if I were AT&T would be DISH’s customer service record. Federal Trade Commission reports show that the agency has a suit against DISH in federal district court for violation of Section 5 and the Telemarketing Sales Rule in connection with abandoned calls and telephone calls to consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The trial is set for April 2013. Plenty of time to settle.

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.

The Wall Street Journal has an informative piece on efforts carriers like Verizon and AT&T are making to get more capacity out of the current spectrum they hold. You can see the article here.

I like that the article mentioned efforts to squeeze out capacity in urban areas given that minority populations are more concentrated in these areas, thus increasing their ability to stay connected.

Does the word “communications” or “telecommunications” mean anything anymore? Communications refers to the act of imparting or interchanging thoughts, opinions, or information by signs, writing, or speech. A communication may be a document or message imparting news, views, or information.

If I talk to my son, I’m communicating (or trying to. Kids are hard headed.). If I call him on his cell phone, we are still communicating since the only thing happening is that electrons are moving up and down a wire and the message isn’t being changed by the phone company (But as parents we know the message is being changed in our kids’ heads…).

The reason I’m pondering the definition is because I’d love to see Apple, Google, or Facebook make a play for a wireless or even a wireline company. I don’t want to see them get bogged down by 20th century notions of what communications is, however. The FCC and a bunch of state regulatory commissions would love to get their hands on a piece of Apple’s, Google’s or Facebook’s cash flow.

With people using their smart phones as miniature and mobile information access terminals (I avoid using the term computer or phone when I can), maybe some type of separations cost scheme is needed, much like the separations mechanism used by the FCC and the states to share access revenues. That would really give Apple, Google, or Facebook an advantage by reducing their cost of entry into the wireless market while giving AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile a run for their money.

I expect, given their truly nationwide network that AT&T and Verizon would do well. Deadweight companies like Sprint and T-Mobile would probably go the away like the wind, given their networks are not as large or as fast.

Let’s face it. Apple, Google, and Facebook are media companies. It’s only logical that they would want to secure the distributional channels for the information that they want to share, namely our information. It would be like AMC Studios owning movie theatres. They produce the flick, they sell the flick.

Can FCC follow policy that would keep them out of the way of a potential mega deal?