1
State of California / Public Utilities CommissionSan Francisco
M E M O R A N D U M
Date:October 9, 2009
To:The Commission
(Meeting of October 15, 2009)
From:Helen Mickiewicz, Assistant General Counsel
Subject : Filing of Reply Comments in Response to FCC’s Notice of Inquiry Regarding Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless Including Commercial Mobile Radio Services
Reply Comments due October 15, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should file brief reply comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Notice of Inquiry (NOI), issued August 27, 2009, in which the FCC seeks to expand its knowledge of competition in the wireless industry beyond the voice market for Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS).[1] This NOI expands the FCC’s data collection to the entire mobile wireless “ecosystem” (NOI ¶ 7) in order to provide the FCC with a “solid foundation for FCC policy making with respect to mobile wireless services.”
Staff recommends that the Commission file comments supporting generally the FCC’s use of the existing four indicators for CMRS competition, which include assessment of market share and integration. In addition, staff recommends supporting an expanded market analysis, and, in particular, the collection of more granular data regarding the physical availability of wireless broadband services, and the sharing of all wireless deployment data with the states.
BACKGROUND: In 1993, Congress established the promotion of competition as a fundamental goal for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) policy formation and regulation. To measure progress toward this goal, Congress required the FCC to submit annual reports that analyze competitive conditions in the industry.[2] In the NOI, the FCC proposes to expand its understanding of the mobile wireless industry in three ways: 1) by inquiring about which analytic framework and data sources most clearly describe competition in the mobile wireless market; 2) by broadening the scope of inquiry to include new market segments not covered in previous reports; and 3) by inquiring into the vertical relationships between ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ market segments, and how these relationships affect competition (NOI, ¶ 5).[3]
Staff’s recommends that the CPUC’s reply comments focus on the first point of inquiry – the proper analytic framework for evaluation of market competition. Staff proposes recommending that the FCC evaluation should include an improved granularity of wireless availability data to complement the granularity of data being collected regarding wireline broadband. Furthermore, the more granular data should be shared with the states in a timely way. The sharing of data with the states is particularly important because, as the FCC notes (NOI ¶ 2), we are “in the midst of a transition from reliance on mobile voice services to increasing use of and reliance on mobile broadband services….” To the extent that wireless broadband becomes the preferred wireless alternative, driving broadband adoption, and becoming a mode of access for broadband rivaling wireline, data regarding its availability will be important to informing state broadband plans.
Contributing Staff: Rob Wullenjohn, Communications Division (RW1, 3-2265); BillJohnston, Communications Division (WEJ, 3-2124).
401585
[1]In the Matter of Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless including Commercial Mobile Services; WT Docket No. 09-66; rel. August 27, 2009. (NOI)
[2]47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)(C).
[3] “Upstream Markets” include market segments such as towers, backhaul, and transport facilities. “Downstream” or “edge” include market segments such as mobile applications, content and commerce. NOI ¶7. “Commerce” includes customer purchases and transactions made with a mobile device. See Footnote 12, at page 4 of the NOI.