13 Tough Questions For Verizon’s McAdam

Right about now, I imagine that folks at NAB and Verizon are busy scripting the NAB Show general session in which NAB President Gordon Smith will interview Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam.

Having witnessed many of these staged events over the years I know not to expect much in the way of news. They have great marquee value, but little in the way of takeaway. That the NAB organizers are promising a “candid conversation” signals that it pretty much will be anything but.

As always I’m here to help. I offer these questions to Smith, guaranteeing they will liven up the affair and keep ’em coming back for more next year.

1) Do you really think the American people want you and AT&T to have near total control of mobile communications in this country?

2) A couple of weeks ago, one of your executives said that Verizon FIOS wants to start paying fees to programmers based on the number of viewers they attract. Two questions: Does that mean that broadcasters should expect to receive 30%-35% of the fees you pay since they account for 30%-35% of the TV audience? Can we make this retroactive?

3) I’m a well-educated and accomplished man. I was successful in business and was once a U.S. Senator. In addition to representing broadcasters in Washington, I am a respected leader of the Mormon Church. So, how come I can’t understand my Verizon Wireless bill? And what’s with all these extras — a 16-cent regulatory fee and  a 90-cent administrative charge? Do you just make these up? Does the FTC know what you are doing?

4) In your presentation at CES in January, which might be best described as a live infomercial for Verizon, you talked about developing a broadcast service to deliver live video over your broadband network. First, you said, quote: “With LTE broadcast, we’ll be able to stream to everybody over the same channel at the same time.” Then, after bringing NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on stage, you said, quote, “We would love to be able to broadcast that Super Bowl to everybody mobilely in the 2014 time frame.”

Is “mobilely” a word? I kid. Seriously, the Super Bowl! It sounds like you want to compete head-to-head with broadcasters. What other kinds of programming do you envision broadcasting?

5) That you want to be a quote-unquote broadcaster puts everything in a new light. Is your interest in siphoning off TV spectrum driven by your need for additional spectrum or by your desire to handicap broadcasters — a potential competitor in mobile broadcasting?

6) We already have a broadcasting system — one offering a mix of top-quality national and local programming. Why do we need another?

7) Would you be willing to pay broadcasters to distribute their signals on your mobile broadcast platform as FIOS does to distribute them on its fiber-to-the-home platform?

8) Broadcasters have been having trouble getting their mobile DTV service off the ground. One of the reason is that you and AT&T are discouraging phone makers from incorporating the mobile DTV chips in the phones you co-market. How come?

9) Would you oppose legislation mandating that all phones come equipped with mobile DTV receivers?

10) Given the complexity of the proposed incentive auction, do you think the FCC can achieve its goal of holding the auction next year?

11) The success of the incentive auction ultimately depends on their being a lot of wireless bidders with a lot of money showing up. If the FCC restricts your ability to bid in the auction, would you accept the limited role or walk away?

12) This is a long question. Please bear with me. As you know, the big concern of NAB members is protecting the coverage of stations that choose not to participate in the spectrum auction. They fear that after the repacking of the band, their signals and coverage will be significantly diminished. Those fears were heightened by news that the FCC wants to modify the computer program that’s used for calculating the coverage of stations. The NAB has essentially said it will sue the FCC if it screws around with the program. CTIA, your big wireless lobby, has told the FCC that its modified program is great. Do you agree? If not, how about using your influence at CTIA to get it to back off on this issue?

13) It’s been really great having your here and I appreciate your candor. Just one last question: Why don’t you and the rest of the wireless carriers just keep your megahertz-grubbing mitts off our TV spectrum?

This was fun. Maybe next week I’ll do FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. He’s being interviewed at NAB by Paul Karpowicz, chairman of the NAB joint board and president of the Meredith station group.

On another matter: You would think that after my semi-endorsement last week, Tom Wheeler would have a mortal lock on succeeding Julius Genachowski as FCC chairmanship. Well, some don’t think so, including Democratic FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who is running her own campaign for the post. In a move that surprised many FCC watchers and that one called “ballsy,” Rosenworcel apparently got 37 Democratic Senators to sign a letter to President Obama recommending her for the job.

Meanwhile, a group of 28 public interest groups including Free Press sent a letter to Obama expressing dismay that Obama was considering a candidate who was once “head of not one, but two major industry lobbying groups.” (i.e., Tom Wheeler).

“After decades of industry-backed chairmen, we need a strong consumer advocate and public interest representative at the helm,” the PI group say. A former aid to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman and old-school liberal Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Rosenworcel certainly fits the job description.

Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsCheck. He can be contacted at 973-701-1067 or[email protected]. You can read earlier columns here.