Earlier this week AT&T's top lobbyist Jim Cicconi could barely contain his laughter at the fact that regulators had ignored recommendations that the U.S. employ open access policies if they wanted to see competition and lower prices in the U.S. broadband market. Cicconi has also now issued a blog post in which he (surprise!) agrees wholeheartedly with Verizon lobbyists, who this week insisted the government should have no substantive ability to impose consumer protections upon phone companies. Cicconi essentially threatens both the FCC and Congress, warning them that they shouldn't even bother to try:As opposed to telecom policy dictated by under-aged mimes? The old "investment uncertainty" is a line carriers like to use as a carrot on a stick. Verizon, for instance, threatens Massachussets with "investment uncertainty" (no FiOS) if they force the carrier to pay property taxes. The threat, only made possible by a lack of competition in the first place, is a little less compelling when AT&T attempts it. Despite unprecedented deregulation over the last decade, AT&T chose to nurse last-mile copper instead of investing in fiber to the home. The investment uncertainty is AT&T's fault alone.

Cicconi is, in very pleasant lobbyist speak, threatening both the FCC and Congress should they try to either extend existing authority, or even attempt to defend their existing authority. This is a new chapter in a very old fight, and it's a fight that's going to heat up substantially over the next few years as the FCC begins the rule-making procedures necessary to define network neutrality and put aspects of their national broadband plan into motion.

The FCC is currently in court fighting over whether they had the right to "sanction" Comcast for lying to customers about throttling P2P services (a debate that actually began right here at Broadband Reports). They're in court because the rather flimsy network neutrality principles created by previous FCC administrations were painfully vague. Should the FCC lose their fight over Title 1 authority, the FCC may try to reclassify broadband services as Title 2 common carriage, giving them broader authority.

That terrifies our friend Jim because consumer protections could mean slightly smaller huge bags of money, and Jim's job is, of course, to protect AT&T's pocket book. Jim -- and all the loyal politicians, think tankers, and PR folk Jim throws money at -- do this by pretending the path to low prices and telecom nirvana in the broadband sector is created when you allow AT&T and Verizon to do absolutely whatever they'd like. According to folks like Jim, Uncle Sam should simply be there to dole out subsidies and repeat press releases when asked. Both Jim, and the FCC, have a big fight ahead of them.