LTE-Unlicensed is a new wireless communications technology, which may soon be operating in the unlicensed spectrum space shared by other technologies like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Its developers – chipset makers, smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers – believe it holds huge promise for the wireless marketplace and consumers.

But there’s a “little” hold up.

You see, Big Cable thinks it’s a gatekeeper and wants to keep LTE-U out of the wireless marketplace altogether.

By all measures, LTE-U will offer consumers a better, more innovative, secure and truly mobile service than Big Cable’s static Wi-Fi hot-spot offerings. Moreover, testing shows that LTE-U can “play nicely” with others in the Wi-Fi space, making it even more attractive to the wireless ecosystem. Big Cable rightfully sees this as a major competitive threat as consumers could choose the new and more advanced service over Big Cable’s Wi-Fi network. And so, it’s created – and is telling any regulator who will listen – the unsubstantiated claim that LTE-U somehow damages the Wi-Fi commons.

Contrary to its usual opposition to FCC regulations on other issues, Big Cable is leading the charge in aggressively lobbying the FCC to shut down LTE-U through needless and unprecedented regulation.

As you know, Big Cable has an exceptionally poor reputation with consumers. It can’t just come out and say, “Because LTE-U is better than our service, we are opposing it.” The truth would only re-affirm its perennially low standing in the eyes of customers. Instead, it needs the FCC’s cover to derail new competition. Among other things, it’s demanding that the Commission insert itself directly into the non-governmental standards-setting process, which for three decades has brought immense, unregulated benefit to the unlicensed marketplace and consumers in the form of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and other products we all use in our daily lives. Even though the FCC has never done this before, Big Cable wants it there now to ensure LTE-U’s “co-existence” with its wireless properties.

Like any good Washington scheme, Big Cable is playing a game of misdirection. There’s the good cop routine, with the cable industry and Google vigorously insisting that they’re intent on finding industry “solutions” (to a “problem” they’ve created) rather than having the Commission get involved.

Then there’s the bad cop, inside game. That’s where the real story gets told. Spoiler alert — it ain’t a pretty one for consumers.

Through some of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world, Big Cable has essentially ordered the FCC to:

Ensure that “non-standard LTE-U” does not get launched;

Decline to certify LTE-U equipment until the agency’s understanding of the technology and how “fair sharing” will occur is complete, informed by, among other inputs, the testing that Big Cable and its proxies intend to conduct; and

Be ready to consider “regulatory action” if these efforts do not yield proper results.

Translation: FCC, don’t let LTE-U out of the starting gate. Consumers be damned.

The latest Big Cable-inspired misdirection comes from New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. On top of urging the FCC to deny the certification of LTE-U devices, OTI wants the agency to extend to the unlicensed space Section 333 of the Communications Act – one which was specifically designed by Congress to prevent malicious interference of licensed radio stations. Regardless, it’s asking the FCC to ignore Congress’ intent and use Section 333 in a novel, “context-dependent” manner to “protect” Wi-Fi, and in doing so stop “anti-competitive” LTE-U.

But there’s a rub with this theory. It directly conflicts with the Commission’s Part 15 rules which guide the operation of unlicensed devices like Wi-Fi. Those rules note that “Operation … is subject to the condition[] … that interference must be accepted[.]” If Section 333 is extended to the unlicensed sphere, it will penalize what is otherwise legal by the Commission’s Part 15 rules. Meaning, all present Wi-Fi practices would be swept up into this regulatory vortex.

Recent actions by the Commission suggest OTI’s request might find a sympathetic ear, however. Earlier this year, the agency’s Enforcement Bureau broke new ground and used Section 333 to impose fines on a handful of hotels for their alleged “malicious” blocking of their guests’ Wi-Fi. This month, it used that same tactic again, provoking stinging dissents from the FCC’s lone minority Commissioners, Mike O’Reilly and Ajit Pai – not necessarily for the outcome (both want to limit Wi-Fi blocking where it legitimately occurs), but rather for the murky, almost lawless process by which the Bureau – and by extension, the Commission – arrived at its decision. In their view, the FCC plainly lacks the authority to use Section 333 in this novel way.

Applying that “off the rails” process to LTE-U – not to mention all the other hurdles Big Cable is demanding – would not only be an unnecessary roadblock to rolling out the nascent offering, it would destroy pro-consumer, permission-less innovation as we know it today.

Big Cable should compete in the marketplace, not through its destructive lobbying interference. To this end, LTE-U must be allowed to develop as consumers demand, free from unnecessary regulations designed only to slow new competitors and next generation technologies.