Mr. Largent Goes (Back) to Washington

Steve Largent retired from the NFL's Seattle Seahawks as one of the game’s all-time greats--a seven-time Pro Bowl wide receiver, he was enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. But instead of entering the broadcast booth or simply retiring to a quiet life on the golf course, Largent returned to his home state of Oklahoma and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, serving from 1995 to 2001, when he resigned his post to make an unsuccessful bid for Oklahoma’s gubernatorial seat. Earlier this year, Largent was appointed the new president and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, replacing the outgoing Tom Wheeler. Jason Ankeny spoke with Largent to discuss his new role, the future of CTIA and the future of the wireless industry he now represents; for more of this interview, check out the January 2004 issue of Wireless Review.

On the transition from pro sports to politics:

When you talk about professional athletes, you’re talking about people that are tremendously competitive and who are very accomplished and used to setting high goals for themselves. The thought that you can be a professional athlete for 10 or 12 or 14 years, and compete at the highest levels and be considered in an elite class and field--and then just go away and hang up your cleats and go play golf for the rest of your life--is highly unlikely. One of the arenas that you have an opportunity to make a real difference is the political arena. You have high name recognition and, hopefully, a positive reputation, and can utilize that for some higher purpose.

On his CTIA appointment:

If I could put on the hat of the search committee in looking at me as a third person, I would say that the inventory that they were measuring includes my experience as a member of Congress, that I served on the Telecommunications Subcommittee and the Commerce Full Committee and that I was in Congress when the Telecommunications Act was passed in ’96. I think all of that was important to them. I think my relationship with members on both sides of the aisle and both chambers [of Congress] was important. But probably more significantly, they saw the leadership capacity, and the vision for the organization--as well as for the industry--that I espouse as being something that aligned with their vision.

On how CTIA will change under his leadership:

We are doing a total bottoms-up review of everything we do at CTIA. I’m talking about going back and breaking it down to having a mission statement that is usable and practical and applicable, having core values that we practice, and driving the branding of CTIA within our consumer audience, which of course is not everybody in the country but our member companies and within association life. We’re really stripping down CTIA to its bare essentials and rebuilding it. That’s not because I think that CTIA was really screwed up or anything--I think it was very effective and it was operating in a smooth way. I just think this is a really healthy time to do this kind of internal analysis--to evaluate who we are, what we believe, how we’re doing things, how we’re seen and seeing if there’s not a way we can even be better. When I first took this job I said my goal was to take CTIA to the next level, and I think over time, you will see significant changes in the way CTIA operates. We’re creating an organization that will be more transparent and more effective.

On the challenges facing CTIA:

There’s no easing into this job. It’s jumping off the cliff headfirst. We have a lot of dust stirred up around us right now--at a pragmatic level, we have just purchased a new home and are in the process of transitioning over the next eight weeks to a new address about five or six blocks away from where we’re currently located. Just that physical transition creates a lot of issues. We’ve got the leadership change between Tom and myself, and we’re still figuring all of that out. On the external side, if you’re talking about state, federal, FCC-type issues--well, Congress is winding down and it looks like we’re going to get a spam bill that protects the small-screen issues we have in the wireless world. We may or may not get the spectrum relocation bill out--that’s still kind of a jump ball. At the FCC, we’ve got the whole 800 MHz issue with Nextel that is very much still hanging in the balance, and we don’t anticipate anything happening on that--at least in the real near future, probably not before the end of the year anyway. I think we were very effective in communicating some of the issues in E-911 and have communicated the fact that the industry as a whole has done its part and is prepared to move forward and let some of the public safety groups be made to shore up their leg of that stool. Congress is responding by putting some more money and effort in that direction. We view number portability as water under the bridge to some degree in terms of the legislative and regulatory issues, and now it’s a matter of trying to fine-tune the implementation phase. We’re working to ensure that our customers are having a positive experience. Another front-burner issue is California and Pennsylvania, where we’re confronting some of the state regulatory issues and sensing that the battle lines are shifting from Washington, D.C. to the state PUCs--and how we’re going to respond as an organization and as an industry to those efforts. Another thing we are doing that we feel is big-picture is trying to get approval to move forward on an image campaign for the wireless industry and also developing a wireless consumer advocacy group. One of the strengths that we have that we have underutilized--if we’ve utilized it at all--is that we have 140 million subscribers, and they are a tremendous asset. We want to try to tap into the loyalty we have in many of our subscribers. We want to convey who we are. We’re not a utility, we’re not a phone company--we’re a competitive industry.

On U.S. spectrum policy:

Spectrum is the lifeblood of this industry. If we don’t have enough spectrum that allows us to continue to offer new services and to move into a completed 3G world, then we’re dead in the water. Although a lot of times different issues pop up that seem to be more important in the long run, I think spectrum policy in this country is absolutely critical to the future of this industry. Our job as the people that watch out for the industry as a whole is to always keep our eye on that ball. A lot of companies will have peripheral issues that in their view are more important, but we have to always be the ones who are looking out for the forest as opposed to the individual trees that may appear so close in the windshield.

On the impact of wireless on his own life:

The best example is my wife, who is the prototypical wireless consumer. She would rather leave the house without her purse than without her cell phone. For her it’s all about staying connected to the kids. We’ve got four kids, and now they’re scattered across Oklahoma and across the country at various schools and colleges and jobs. Just this last week she was working in the yard and on one hip she had the cordless phone in case anybody called the house and on the other hip she had her cell phone. She’s not so anal that she can’t miss a phone call--it’s just that if one of her kids needs her, she wants to be able to respond. The fact that she can now take that phone on her hip wherever she goes--whether she’s running or playing tennis or whatever--is really important and valuable to her. It’s almost like it wouldn’t matter to her at this point how much it costs--we would pay it. It’s become an integral part of life for the Largent family.