1Media Contact:
Matthew Berry, (202) 418-2005
Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov
For Immediate Release
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
On the FCC’s Ostrich-like Approach to Competition in the Wireless Market
WASHINGTON, December 23, 2015.—Bedrock principles of good government require that we 
make fact-based decisions that reflect marketplace realities.  But doing so on a consistent basis has not 
been the hallmark of FCC decision-making in recent years.  Here’s just one example:
In Market A, 35% of households have access to four or more providers, 99% have access to three 
or more, and the number of subscribers are decreasing.
In Market B, 91.7% of consumers have access to four or more providers, 97.2% have access to 
three or more, and the number of subscribers are increasing.  
Consistent with an objective analysis of the facts, the FCC determined just six months ago that 
there is effective competition in Market A.
1
  Contrary to the evidence and common sense, the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau decides today that it can make no such determination about Market B.
What could possibly justify these markedly different conclusions?  Is it because Market A 
involves video (cable, satellite, and other programming distributors), while Market B involves wireless?  
That alone shouldn’t make any difference.
The bottom line: this FCC will never find that there is effective competition in the wireless 
market, regardless of what the facts show.  That’s because doing so would undermine the agency’s goal 
of expanding its authority to manipulate the wireless market—a goal it can’t accomplish if it deems that 
market healthy.
The FCC wasn’t always an administrative ostrich.  When the agency looked at 2007 and 2008 
data, it concluded that there was effective competition in the wireless market.
2
  How has the market 
changed since then?  If you look at the facts, it’s gotten more competitive.  The percentage of consumers 
that can choose from four or more facilities-based providers has gone up (from 90.5% to 91.7%).  The 
percentage that can choose from three or more has also increased (from 95.5% to 97.2%).  Prices have 
fallen.  Average revenues are down.  Data usage is up.  The number of MVNOs has increased.  And 
consumers continue to benefit from new and innovative service plans and offerings.  Indeed, none of the 
nation’s four largest providers has maintained the same rank in the market as measured by number of 
connections.  Put simply, there’s nothing in the evidence that says the market is no longer competitive.  
                                                     
1
See Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition, MB Docket No. 15-53, Report and 
Order, FCC 15-2 (2015); see also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of 
Video Programming, MB Docket No. 14-16, Sixteenth Report, FCC 15-41 (2015).
2
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 6002(B) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, WT Docket 
No. 08-27, Thirteenth Report, 24 FCC Rcd 6185 (Wir. Tel. Bur. 2009).
2International comparisons also show that competition in the U.S. market is thriving.  Of the 34 
OECD countries, only two (Poland and Israel) have less market concentration than the U.S. as measured 
by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index.  Even in each of those cases, the difference is miniscule.  About half 
of OECD countries have only three providers; the U.S. has around 160 facilities-based providers.  Small 
wonder, then, that the U.S. is leading the world in wireless capital investments, with carriers here 
spending twice as much per subscriber as their counterparts in Europe.  Indeed, in 2013 the two largest 
U.S. wireless companies invested more in network infrastructure than all 58 European wireless providers 
combined!  All of this investment means that 99.6% of the U.S. population now has access to LTE mobile 
broadband, the fastest technology in deployment.  That figure is only 63% in Europe.  
Finally, today’s decision once again confirms that bad process leads to bad results.  Prior to 2013, 
the FCC issued 16 wireless competition reports.  In every case except one (the one being a report issued 
during a transition between administrations), each Commissioner was given an opportunity to weigh in 
and vote on the report.  Even if Commissioners didn’t always agree on the merits, almost as a rule they 
had a chance to participate in the process.  
But now, the rule has become the exception.  The old adage “one man, one vote” has been given 
an entirely new meaning.  My involvement in this report was limited to receiving a Christmas-week, 
after-dark email attaching it.  Even though Commissioner O’Rielly and I requested that all 
Commissioners be allowed to vote on the report, the Chairman’s Office denied our request and directed 
the Bureau to release it over our objections.
I believe the agency’s work product improves when every Commissioner has the opportunity to 
provide their input.  Short-circuiting that process serves no interest other than allowing the agency to jam 
through yet another facts-optional, politically-motivated decision.  Today’s action underscores yet again 
the need for Congress to continue to oversee and act now to reform this agency’s operations.    
###
Office of Commissioner Ajit Pai: (202) 418-2000
Twitter: @AjitPaiFCC
www.fcc.gov/leadership/ajit-pai
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action.  Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes 
official action.  See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).