*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 12804.doc*
 1 
 PRESS  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER 
 MICHAEL  J.  COPPS  Dissenting 


 RE:  2000  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  Spectrum  Aggregation  Limits  For  Commercial 
 Mobile  Radio  Services  (WT  Docket  No.  01-  14)  (Rel.  November  8,  2001). 


 I  plan  to  release  a  somewhat  lengthy  but  deeply  felt  response  to  the  action  this 
 Commission  is  about  to  take.  Here  I  will  briefly  summarize  my  thoughts  on  this  issue. 
 The  development  of  the  wireless  industry  is  one  of  the  true  success  stories  of  the 
 telecommunications  industry  and  good  government  policy.  The  spectrum  cap,  almost 
 every  wireless  industry  leader  has  told  me,  played  an  important  role  in  making  this 
 happen.  If  the  cap  is  to  be  repealed,  there  must  be  a  comprehensive  finding  of  the  need 
 for  repeal  and  an  analysis  of  the  conditions  that  require  such  action  and  the  public  interest 
 benefits  to  be  derived  therefrom.  In  almost  every  market  in  the  country,  companies  have 
 not  reached  the  cap.  In  those  areas  where  spectrum  scarcity  might  develop  over  the  next 
 few  years,  surely  the  Commission  could  use  waivers  or  lift  current  limits  and  do  so 
 without  in  the  process  stifling  competition,  encouraging  industry  consolidation  and  short-changing 
 hard-  pressed  American  consumers.  Let’s  not  kid  ourselves  --  this  is,  for  some, 
 more  about  corporate  mergers  than  it  is  about  anything  else.  Just  look  at  what  the 
 analysts  are  talking  about  as  the  specter  of  spectrum  cap  renewal  approaches:  their  almost 
 exclusive  focus  is  on  evaluating  the  candidates  for  corporate  takeovers  and  handicapping 
 the  winners  and  losers  in  the  spectrum  bazaar  we  are  about  to  open. 


 Today’s  Commission  approach  is  “Ready,  Fire,  Aim.”  We  have  not  adequately 
 analyzed  spectrum  exhaustion  scenarios  in  the  short  or  near-  term.  We  have  not 
 adequately  evaluated  the  prospects  for  economic  concentration  and  the  potential  for 
 wireless  monopolies.  We  have  not  performed  the  extensive  public  interest  evaluation 
 required  by  statute  and  expected  by  Congress  and  which  would  include  impacts  upon 
 small  business,  rural  consumers,  ownership  diversity,  efficient  use  of  the  spectrum  and 
 the  encouragement  of  new  technologies.  Instead  we  simply  remove  the  cap.  And  while 
 we  are  encouraged  to  think  of  this  as  a  measured  action  –  raising  the  cap  now  and 
 repealing  it  completely  in  2003  –  today’s  action  is,  in  reality,  tantamount  to  immediate 
 repeal.  This  is  because  it  takes  some  time  for  the  players  to  jockey  into  position  to  reap 
 the  spectral  harvest. 


 Spectrum  is  a  publicly  owned  resource.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that 
 Congress  gave  the  Commission  very  specific  responsibilities  related  to  spectrum.  In  both 
 the  Budget  Act  and  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Congress  instructed  the 
 Commission  to  promote  competition,  the  efficient  and  intensive  use  of  spectrum,  diverse 
 control  of  spectrum  by  a  wide  variety  of  entities,  and  to  create  simple  rules  and  certainty 
 in  the  marketplace. 


 The  Commission  responded  to  these  responsibilities,  in  part,  through  the  spectrum 
 cap.  The  cap  prevents  concentration  of  spectrum  that  threatens  competition,  gives 
 companies  an  incentive  to  maximize  their  spectral  efficiency,  and  works  to  promote 
1
 2 
 diversity  of  control,  serving  as  an  easy  and  transparent  method  of  doing  Congress’s  will. 
 The  Commission  repeatedly  has  found  the  cap  to  be  in  the  public  interest.  Yet  today  the 
 Commission  eliminates  the  cap. 


 The  majority  properly  does  not  rely  on  any  argument  of  spectrum  exhaustion. 
 There  is  no  record  evidence  that  companies  have  even  reached  the  current  spectrum  cap. 
 I  believe  that  increasing  or  altering  the  cap  rather  than  eliminating  it  could  alleviate  future 
 needs.  Instead,  the  majority  conducts  its  public  interest  analysis  by  examining  only 
 whether  the  cap  is  necessary  to  promote  competition.  I  believe  that  statutory  directives, 
 previous  Commission  action,  and  the  public  interest  require  us  to  determine  whether  the 
 cap  supports  not  only  competition,  but  also  efficiency,  diversity,  simplicity,  and  certainty 
 in  the  market.  Because  I  believe  that  the  cap  is  necessary  in  the  public  interest  to  support 
 these  Congressionally  mandated  goals,  and  especially  because  I  am  troubled  by  the 
 prospect  of  dangerous  concentration  through  mergers,  I  support  continuation  of  the  cap. 


 I  would  have  been  open  to  addressing  the  cap  on  a  market-  by-  market  basis  in  a 
 manner  that  could  have  addressed  the  particular  challenges  of  rural  America  as  well  as 
 the  particular  circumstances  of  other  markets.  I  also  would  have  been  open  to  exploring 
 increasing  the  cap  to  a  level  that  would  have  met  our  statutory  responsibilities  while 
 providing  more  flexibility  to  wireless  companies.  But  the  stark  choice  presented  to  me  is 
 whether  to  eliminate  the  cap  or  to  keep  the  cap.  I  must  therefore  respectfully  dissent 
 because  I  believe  that  eliminating  the  cap  is  contrary  to  the  public  interest. 


 I  intend  to  release  a  full  separate  statement  when  the  item  is  released. 
2