Posted on behalf of Joshua Trevino

Nearly everyone has heard Aesop's old fable about the goose that laid the golden eggs: the goose's owners killed it to get at the gold inside, only to find themselves impoverished once the source of their wealth was gone. The morals -- to leave well enough alone, to not be greedy, and to respect natural processes -- seem obvious, but they're not so obvious to the lawmakers and bureaucrats who want to cripple America's wireless industry.

A Chicago Tribune story by Wailin Wong on March 21st, 2008, "Call for wireless regulation gets louder," laid forth the threat to the country's wireless telecommunications sector with distressing clarity. Wong cited proposed legislation at the federal level from Rep. Ed Markey, Democrat from Massachusetts, and Sen. Mark Pryor, Democrat from Arkansas. Both the proposed bills were drafted in response to supposed iniquities and shortcomings in the existing wireless marketplace.

Sen. Pryor's bill, S.2171, is currently before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: it would deprive states and local governments of the power to regulate wireless telecommunications contracts, and require the FCC to adopt a uniform code for customer contracts within one year. Rep. Markey's proposed legislation only exists as a draft on his website thus far, but it is substantively more ambitious. Rather than allow the FCC to draft its own regulations, Rep. Markey spells out in excruciating detail his vision of the wireless marketplace, complete with prohibitions on common contractual practices, demands for technically impossible coverage maps, and quality-of-service assessments by the FCC. Weirdly, Rep. Markey's proposed legislation also hinders, in the name of "Community Broadband Empowerment," the extension of high-speed data service to new communities with a series of public-consultation mandates. It is, admittedly, difficult to imagine a community that would not want the best wireless or data service available; but Rep. Ed Markey believes that community may exist, and wishes to give it a voice.

These are more than vanity bills by obscure legislators on Capitol Hill. Mark Pryor is a United States Senator from what may be a swing state in November, and Ed Markey is the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. When they state their intention to seize control of how America's wireless industry does business, we ought to take them seriously. And, given, the state of America's wireless industry, we ought to be afraid.

The truth is that our nation's wireless telecommunications sector is the envy of the world. Far from an unresponsive behemoth desperately needing intervention from Washington, D.C., for its own good and the good of the American people, our wireless sector is an agile, responsive, and profoundly innovative segment of our national economy. In a period when economic news is too often grim, America's wireless industry is a bright spot that will only dim if federal policymakers seize control of its destiny.

A January 8th, 2008, report from CTIA-The Wireless Association, a wireless telecommunications industry group, lays out in stark detail the immense successes of this sector. Just to cite a few of its findings: America has over twice the number of wireless subscribers than the next-largest nation, Japan; Americans use more wireless minutes than any other nation on the planet; the American wireless sector is so competitive, it derives the smallest revenue per minute of use of any OECD country; and rated by market share, the American wireless sector's competitiveness for consumers is second only to the United Kingdom.

These startling data reveal a wireless telecommunications sector that is thriving and at the top of its form versus the rest of the world. Where, then, is the chronic disservice to consumers that Rep. Markey and Sen. Pryor allege demands their heavy hand of intervention? It defies reason to believe that an industry shot through with poor practices and terminal unresponsiveness would flourish in quite this way. The truth is not merely in the industry's own reports on itself -- even Wong's piece in the Chicago Tribune acknowledged that "according to [Better Business Bureau] data, the wireless industry has a higher rate of resolving consumer complaints than the overall rate for all businesses." That's not just within its sector: the wireless telecommunications industry surpasses all businesses in its responsiveness to customer concerns.

Where, then, is the rationale for federal intervention?

The sad truth is that the rationale advanced by the proponents of government intervention is not terribly rational. Instead of sound policymaking driven by data and common sense, these proponents advocate dangerous legislation based upon ignorance, gut feeling, and misguided populism. Nothing illustrates this regrettable combination more than Rep. Markey himself, in an incredible monologue delivered to his own House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on July 11th, 2007. His topic was the then-just-released Apple iPhone, widely acknowledged then and since as a triumph of American design and ingenuity. Rep. Markey, on the other hand, saw only danger: "[T]he advent of the iPhone," he declared, "raises questions about the fact that a consumer can't use this phone with other wireless carriers, and that consumers in some areas of the country where AT&T doesn't provide service, that they can't use it actually in some neighborhoods at all."

Most Americans grasp the reality that not all wireless coverage is available in all places, and that some carriers have proprietary devices. Then, astoundingly, Rep. Markey went on: "This highlights the problems with the current marketplace structure, where devices are provided by carriers ... It has become increasingly clear that wireless carriers are exerting far too much control over the features, the functions, and applications that wireless gadget-makers and content entrepreneurs can offer directly to consumers. I believe that this is stultifying innovation and unquestionably diminishes consumer choice." Of course, the situation with the iPhone that spurred Rep. Markey's comments is precisely the opposite: the carrier, AT&T, gave up an unprecedented amount of control over "the features, the functions, and applications" to the "wireless gadget-makers and content entrepreneurs" so that the remarkable device could be built.

That Rep. Markey and those like him are ignorant of the basic facts on the sector they wish to exert control over is troubling. That they believe the precise opposite of those basic facts is inexcusable. As the American public witnesses this new round of calls for restrictive legislation on our thriving wireless telecommunications industry, we ought to do what's best for our economy, our reputation, and our jobs -- and reject them all.

Joshua S. Treviño Trevino Strategies and Media, Inc. joshua.trevino@trevinostrategies.com Cell +1.415.317.8543

This piece was originally drafted as an op-ed, but did not find placement swiftly enough to be timely.