TMT with Mike O'Rielly – Ep 19: Keynote Convo at FSF's 17th Annual Conference

Episode 19 of "TMT with Mike O'Rielly," a videocast featuring former FCC Commissioner and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Free State Foundation Michael O'Rielly, was released on April 2. In this episode, titled "The Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference," Mr. O'Rielly has a conversation at #FSFConf17 with guests FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, and former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. Their conversation ranges a number of communications, competition, and administrative agency-related topics. Streaming video of the episode is now available: 

FCC Should Keep Verizon/Frontier Merger Clean From Extraneous Conditions

Today, April 2, Communications Daily reported on dueling ex parte filings in the Verizon/Frontier merger review proceeding. The Coalition for IP Transition has urged the FCC to condition any prospective agency approval of the merger on IP interconnection-related requirements. However, the Coalition doesn't identify any specific harms arising from the merger. Under prevailing agency precedents (even if sometimes breached to achieve pro-regulatory ends), merger conditions may only be imposed to remedy transaction-specific harms. 

In its ex parte filing, the Coalition for IP Transition raised what they call "the serious problems faced by competitorsbecause of the Applicants and other price cap Local Exchange Carriers ('LECs') refusals to interconnect on an IP-basis, despite offering IP services to other customers" (emphasis added). Notably, the Coalition addresses the practices of price cap LECs' generally, and not just those of Verizon and Frontier. Also, in the alternative to imposing conditions on the agency's prospective approval of the proposed Verizon/Frontier merger, the Coalition "urged the Commission to consider ordering all price cap LECs" to meet certain disclosure, IP interconnection, and access charge-related requirements. Such an order would require agency action through a separate, industry-wide proceeding. 

 

Thus, on its face, the Coalition's ex parte filing is addressed to matters pertaining to the entire voice services market. Accordingly, the Coalition does not raise potential harms that would arise from the Verizon/Frontier merger. Communications Daily reported that Verizon and Frontier responded by making those same points about non-transaction-specific matters. But one need not take the merging parties' word for it. The Coalition's filing makes it plain. 

 

Regardless of one's policy view about tech transitions from TDM to all-IP networks, network interconnection, and access charges in the voice services market, those matters should be addressed, if at all, through separate inquiry or rulemaking proceedings applicable to the entire market – and not through transactions involving only two merging parties. The Commission should not impose the non-transaction-specific conditions requested by the Coalition. 

 

Moreover, the Commission should be mindful that there is a dwindling amount of time left on the agency's informal "shot clock" for completing its review of the proposed Verizon/Frontier. During review periods, merging parties are vulnerable to lost economic opportunity and regulatory uncertainty costs that can undermine their competitiveness. The agency should complete its review and decide before the deadline expires, if not sooner. 

 

For a brief background on the Verizon/Frontier merger, see my blog post from February 5 of this year, "Verizon/Frontier Merger Would Make Fiber and Fixed Wireless More Competitive."

T-Mobile/UScellular Transaction Ripe for Agency Action

According to the FCC's website (see graphic below), the agency's review of the $4.4 billion T-Mobile/UScellular transaction has entered its final month. The record evidence overwhelmingly indicates that consumers, including but not limited to current UScellular customers, would be better off if this deal were approved. Therefore, action prior to the end of the 180-day shot clock is warranted.

In an Opposition to Petitions to Deny filed on January 8, 2025, FSF President Randolph May and Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow Seth Cooper expressed their view that the proposed transaction likely would produce pro-competitive benefits, benefits that would outweigh any potential harms. They also noted that arguments against the transaction generally lack supporting evidence and/or a specific nexus to the instant transaction.

T-Mobile and UScellular, GN Docket No. 24-286

Source: fcc.gov

As Mr. Cooper described in a post to the FSF Blog shortly after the parties filed their Public Interest Statement on September 13, 2025, that regulatory filing "presents a prima facie case that [the] proposed transaction … will bring public interest benefits that outweigh any potential competitive concerns."

Tangible benefits identified and documented include faster 5G mobile broadband speeds, higher data capacity, and greater availability of fixed wireless access (FWA) home broadband service, especially in rural areas.

Potential harms, meanwhile, are unlikely given the robust competition that exists in the mobile broadband marketplace, a landscape documented by the Free State Foundation in June 2024 comments to the FCC for its 2024 Communications Marketplace Competition Report. Consumers can choose between three nationwide providers, EchoStar's upstart network that is available to over 70 percent of the U.S. population, mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) such as Spectrum Mobile and Xfinity Mobile, and regional providers.

Potential harms also would be mitigated by the specific nature of this transaction – in particular, the relative disparity in their respective subscriber bases (126 million versus 4.5 million), the limited extent to which the parties directly compete (as Mr. Cooper pointed out in a February 2025 blog post, the parties "apparently do not have an overlapping competitive presence in thirty-seven percent (37%) of the Cellular Marketing Areas (CMAs) implicated by the proposed deal"), and the fact that T-Mobile sets "its pricing and service terms on a nationwide basis."

In addition, approval of this transaction would enable the efficient and timely reallocation of spectrum to its highest and best use while we wait for Congress to renew the Commission's auction authority – a priority Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) discussed in his Keynote Address at the Free State Foundation's recent Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference (video available here).

Report Forecasts Impending Spectrum Crisis, Calls for More Licensed Mid-Band Capacity

On March 27, CTIA released a report by Accenture titled "Securing the Future of U.S. Wireless Networks: The Looming Spectrum Crisis." It predicts a near-term shortfall in available spectrum to meet growing demand, which could adversely impact wireless users during peak times as soon as next year. To avert that crisis, the report calls on Congress, the NTIA, and the FCC to make more mid-band spectrum between 3.3-8.5 GHz available for full-power licensed commercial use.  

The Accenture report estimates that U.S. consumers' mobile wireless data of over 100 Gigabits in 2023 was almost double data traffic volumes for 2021, and it cites a wireless industry estimate data traffic per smartphone will increase more than 250% by 2029. The FCC has not auctioned new commercial spectrum licenses since 2022. Without new spectrum inputs to support 5G services, including fixed wireless access (FWA) and emerging artificial intelligence (AI) applications, the report concludes that "[t]he U.S. will reach an available spectrum deficit of 401 MHz by 2027 and 1423 MHz by 2032." 

 

According to the Accenture report, the looming spectrum deficit means that "network capacity will meet only 77% of data demand during peak hours by 2027, and this will worsen to networks meeting only 27% of peak demand by 2035." The report finds a future deficit will cause as much as $1.4 trillion in lost U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035 – unless more spectrum is put into full-power licensed commercial use for 5G. 

 

There is a widely-recognized need that more spectrum needs to be repurposed from government use or occupancy to commercial use. However, intense disagreements exist over how much spectrum should be reallocated on a licensed basis versus an unlicensed basis. There are also diverging views over whether particular bands should be licensed on an exclusive basis to commercial licensees or on a shared basis with government users. Accenture's report provides an important contribution to the ongoing spectrum policy debate. The report's analysis and conclusions deserve thoughtful consideration.

 

Spectrum policy was also a topic of discussion and debate at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference – #FSFConf17 – held on March 25, in Washington DC. Be sure to check out videos featuring Senator Ted Cruz's keynote address, touching on his proposed legislation to replenish the spectrum pipeline, as well as the panel on "New Directions in Communications Policy." 

Video of #FSFConf17 Available Now!

The Free State Foundation's 17th Annual Policy Conference – #FSFConf17 – was held on March 25 in Washington, DC. The entire event was livestreamed and it is available online for viewing. To hear keynote addresses by Professor Jonathan Turley, Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Richard Hudson, as well as insights from communications policy experts on topics such as spectrum repurposing and auctions, broadband subsidy programs like BEAD, state-level broadband regulation, and universal service, be sure to check out the video.

A Tell-Tale Sign Regarding the FCC's Status in the Consumers' Research Argument

During today's oral argument in the Supreme Court the Consumers' Research case regarding the constitutionality of the FCC's Universal Service regime, there was a brief tell-tale exchange that likely telegraphs the answer to the question whether a president can constitutionally remove an FCC commissioner without cause – in other words, at will.

 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh ask the government's counsel defending the Universal Service program whether it makes any difference to the government's defense against the constitutional nondelegation challenge whether the FCC is considered an independent agency or part of the executive branch subject to the president's control. The government's counsel conceded, in effect, that the FCC is not independent because there is no "for cause" restriction on the president's removal power in the Communications Act.

Yesterday, at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr made the same point in our Fireside Chat ( at 2:45) when I asked him how he thought about the question whether the FCC is an independent agency insulated from presidential control. He pointed to the lack of a restriction on removal in the Communications Act.

 

In connection with then-developing discussion regarding a president's power to remove FCC commissioners, I pointed out several weeks ago, here and here, that the Communications Act lacks statutory restrictions on removal that are contained in the laws governing the FTC, NLRB, and other agencies. This distinction, until recently, has been overlooked by most everyone, and for decades, many have referred to the FCC as an "independent" agency.

 

To the extent that a president ever attempts to remove an FCC without cause, and such removal is challenged as unconstitutional – even assuming Humphrey's Executor were to remain good law – it's likely that the Communications Act's lack of a statutory removal restriction will prove determinative.  

FCC Copper Retirement Orders Will Boost Next-Gen Network Deployment

 On March 20, the FCC announced a slate of orders that reduced regulatory burdens for voice service providers seeking to retire old legacy copper networks. Chairman Brendan Carr and agency staff deserve credit for taking proactive steps to eliminate and reduce regulations that delay and run up the costs of making technology transitions to more advanced networks. 

The FCC released four orders. The first order clarified the Commission's Adequate Replacement Test criteria for streamlining discontinuances of telecommunications services under Section 214(a), initially adopted in the 2016Technology Transitions Order. The agency found that the rules had been misunderstood in an overly expansive way as requiring pre-discontinuance network performance testing of replacement networks only according to a specific set of requirements. As a result, "there has been a significant delay in carriers availing themselves of the technology transitions streamlined discontinuance process for their own replacement services, to the detriment of consumers who have been slower to receive next-generation services than the Commission expected." Accordingly, the order states: "We thus clarify that a carrier seeking Commission authorization to discontinue a legacy voice service pursuant to the Adequate Replacement Test's totality of the circumstances with respect to its own replacement service need only show, based on the results of the carrier's routine internal testing or other types of network testing, that 'the network still provides substantially similar performance and availability' as the service being discontinued."

 

The agency's second order "waives the filing requirements in the Commission’s network change disclosure rules adopted under section 251(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934." In the order, the agency found that "good cause exists to waive any requirement to notify the Commission of network changes" by incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) such as changes resulting from the retirement of copper networks and transitions to next-generation networks. "As a result, an incumbent [local exchange carrier] LEC now is only required to post public notice of its planned network changes through industry fora, industry publications, or on the carrier’s publicly accessible Internet site, and to provide direct notice to interconnected telephone exchange service providers for copper retirements and short-term network changes." And it found that the waiver’s benefits outweighed any costs given extraordinary developments in the market over the last 30 years – including the dramatic rise of VoIP services to over 75% of fixed retail voice subscriptions at the end of 2023, while switched access lines continue to dramatically decline. 

 

Its third order waives Section 214(a) notice and application requirements for providers seeking to grandfather legacy services – that is, to stop offering those services to new customers. 

 

Additionally, the agency's fourth order waives the "stand alone service" requirement in the Commission’s rules for service discontinuance established in the agency’s 2018 Wireline Infrastructure Order. By granting the waiver, the order provides relief that was requested in a February 2025 petition by USTelecom. According to the order, USTelecom has asserted that adults in landline-only households had fallen to 1.3% of all households, and that bundled voice and broadband options, are available at prices that compare favorably to legacy voice pricing. 

 

In each of the copper retirement orders, the Commission found that relief from the regulatory requirements would free up the investment of resources in the development and deployment of more advanced communications services. 

 

The release of the four copper retirement orders coincides with Chairman Carr's announcement of the opening of the Commission's DELETE, DELETE, DELETE initiative. Under new leadership, the Commission's early actions are hopeful indicators that the agency will modernize its rules and reduce old and wasteful requirements. 

P.S. The reduction and modernization of the FCC's rules will be on the agenda for the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference - #FSFConf17 - on Tuesday, March 25, in Washington D.C. Register online. 

The Agenda for #FSFConf17 Is Released! and Free Speech Is "The Indispensable Right"

The Free State Foundation’s Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference is fast approaching on Tuesday, March 25. The agenda is here, but, as always, please note it is possible there may be adjustments in the time slots due to circumstances beyond our control.

I’m delighted that we have assembled a remarkable lineup of speakers that includes Senator Ted Cruz, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Congressman Richard Hudson, Chairman of the House Subcommittee of Communications and Technology. And Brendan Carr, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, along with many more notables, including FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, and former FCC Commissioner and FSF Adjunct Senior Fellow Michael O'Rielly. For the full list of speakers, and other conference information and a registration link, click here.

In other words, as usual, the conference will be an unrivaled forum for up-to-date discussion and debate on the most important and consequential public policy issues affecting communications and Internet law and policy, as well as competition, and consumer protection issues.

But here I want to highlight one session in particular: Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law, George Washington University Law School, and a Fox News Media Contributor, will discuss his important new book: "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," in which he explains why free speech, indeed, is "The Indispensable Right."

 

If you follow the Free State Foundation's work then you know that protecting the First Amendment's right to free speech against government infringement, and promoting a Constitutional Culture in which our nation's citizens can speak freely even when the First Amendment itself does not protect such freedom, always has been an important part of our mission.

Over the years, I have written often explaining why this aspect of our mission is so critical. Suffice it to say for my purposes here, defense of free speech is as important as ever, especially as the nation has witnessed notorious examples of censorship – by both the government and by private entities, including by some of the most dominant Internet websites – over the past five or so years.

In his book, Jonathan Turley writes: "We are living through another period of such public distemper where our most cherished institutions and rights are being questioned by both the left and the right." He goes on to say that, most menacingly, today's rage is directed at the one right that Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called "indispensable for the maintenance of all other rights: free speech."

And Professor Turley warns that the "use of euphemisms like 'disinformation' and 'content moderation' does not change the fact that they are part of a comprehensive effort to control, and, in some cases, punish the exercise of free expression."

Because I believe that the ability of our nation's individual citizens to speak freely is not only indispensable to maintaining our democracy but also to preserving the competition, innovation, and investments upon which free markets depend in order to function effectively, I can't wait to hear Professor Turley's remarks next Tuesday.

There's that – and so much more – that awaits!

Here's the agenda. And here's the link to register if you wish to attend!