Stop the Cap! » Clearwire

Cable Companies & Verizon Sign Non-Aggression Pact; Consumers May Pay the Price

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:08:41 +0000

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks sold AWS spectrum in areas shown here to Verizon Wireless, virtually guaranteeing the cable industry will not compete in the wireless phone business.

Two years ago, Cox Communications was hungry to get into the wireless phone business. It announced it was launching “unbelievably fair” wireless — an oasis in a wireless desert of tricks and traps on offer from competing wireless companies. No more expiring minutes, the option of affordable flat rate service, and no hidden fees or surcharges were all supposed to be part of the deal.

“Our research found that value and transparency are very important to consumers when choosing a wireless service plan, but they are not finding these qualities in the wireless plans offered today,” Stephen Bye, vice president of wireless said back in 2010, introducing the service. “Total loss of unused minutes as well as unforeseen overage charges on bills are just two examples of what our customers have told us is just unfair.”

Those same issues still exist for wireless customers today, but Cox won’t be a part of the solution. The company announced this past May it was exiting the competitive arena of wireless and would simply resell Sprint service instead. Last month, it announced it wouldn’t even bother with that, and will transition its remaining wireless customers directly to Sprint.

What changed Cox’s mind? The cost of building and operating a wireless network to compete with much larger national companies. It simply no longer made sense to build a small regional wireless carrier and rent the rest of your national coverage area from other providers, who set wholesale prices at a level high enough to protect them from would-be competitors.

The lesson Cox learned first has now been taught to America’s largest cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable (and its sidekick Bright House Networks).

All three cable operators have effectively signed a non-aggression treaty with Verizon Wireless, agreeing to sell their unused wireless spectrum acquired by auction in 2006 at a 50% markup to Big Red. In return, Verizon will market cable service to wireless customers. It’s the ultimate non-compete clause so wide-reaching, Verizon stores will soon be selling Time Warner Cable right next to Verizon FiOS, something unheard of in the telecommunications marketplace.

It’s a win for Verizon Wireless, which accumulates additional wireless spectrum and peace of mind knowing the cable industry will not enter the wireless communications business. Cable companies get to profit from their purchase of the public airwaves and see the potential of a dramatic reduction in customer poaching, as cable and phone companies stop fighting each other for customers. Ultimately, it means customers could eventually pay the cable or phone company for all of their telecommunications services from television and broadband to wired and wireless phone service. What consumers enjoy in one-bill-convenience may eventually come with higher rates made possible from reduced competition.

Verizon Wireless' currently unused AWS spectrum favor the east coast, but not for long.

Verizon will pay $3.6 billion to Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House Networks for the spectrum. The deal has stockholders cheering because that payment represents a tidy profit for cable operators who did absolutely nothing with the spectrum they purchased five years ago. It also makes AT&T even more intent on completing its own spectrum merger with T-Mobile USA.

The agreement has concerned consumer advocates because it seems to signal Verizon is content making money primarily from its wireless business, and will repay the favor from the cable industry by pitching phone customers on cable service. That could ultimately spell big trouble for Verizon’s stalled FiOS fiber-to-the-home network. Verizon may find it easier and cheaper to end its aggressive entry into Big Cable’s territory by simply reselling traditional cable television products. It can still market wireless products and services to cable subscribers and not endanger the new atmosphere of goodwill. Rural broadband, where cable never competes, could be served through wireless spectrum, for example.

For now, Verizon says it intends to continue competing with its FiOS network, but the company stopped deploying the service in new areas nearly two years ago.

The deal will go before regulators at the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission for review. What will likely concern them the most is the appearance of collusion between the cable companies and Verizon.

“A flag is raised when two rival networks move to start selling each other’s services,” a person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials told the Washington Post. “They lose their desire, impetus, to compete. That is a big antitrust flag.”

Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, expressed serious concern as well.

“Verizon was supposed to be the great competitor for Comcast in the video space, while Comcast has been looking for a wireless play to match the Verizon bundle,” he said. “The deal signals bad news for consumers, who can expect higher prices for video, fewer choices and higher prices for wireless.”

Who owns what

Four years into the deal, consumers may not know what company they are dealing with, as cable operators will be able to market Verizon Wireless service under their own respective cable brand names.

The deal is also trouble for lagging Clearwire, which had been providing wireless broadband service to both Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Under the agreement, both cable companies will end their relationship with Clearwire, which is particularly bad news for the wireless company because of its ongoing financial distress. Sprint, which has heavily invested in Clearwire, may ultimately find itself with an investment gone sour, troubling news for the third largest wireless company manning the barricades against a nearly-complete duopoly in wireless service between AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Cable stock cheerleader Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein seems thrilled with the prospect. In a research note to his Wall Street clients, Moffett says AT&T could benefit from the Verizon pact with Big Cable by ending up in a “more duopolistic industry structure without paying for it.” If the FCC approves the non-aggression pact, the deal “would amount to an unmistakable step towards the duopolization of the U.S. wireless market, inasmuch it would leave T-Mobile, once again, stranded without a 4G strategy.”

Cable investors, he adds, are likely to be excited the cable industry won’t spend billions of dollars in capital building a wireless venture, and instead has agreed to work with competitors to cross-sell products and services. With little competitive pressure, prices won’t be falling anytime soon.

That’s great news for investors, even if it is “unbelievably unfair” for consumers.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Bloomberg News explains the deal and its implications in the wireless industry spectrum battle. (2 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Clearwire Consolidates: Company Pushing $50 4G Mobile Broadband With Throttling Plan

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:13:39 +0000

Now all prepaid and contract-free.

Clearwire customers are being informed the wireless broadband provider is consolidating service plans in a move the company hopes will simplify what’s on offer. Following on the heels of Leap Wireless’ Cricket, which launched simplified pricing last year, Clearwire will now market prepaid, no-contract broadband to new customers effective today.

Broadband Reports has been talking with Clearwire after forum members began noticing changes on some dealer websites that eliminated 3G coverage and dropped postpaid bundles of voice and data plans. Earlier today, the company confirmed it was getting rid of contracts, early termination fees, rental fees for devices, and activation fees. New customers will be asked to purchase their own mobile broadband device which will work exclusively on Clearwire’s own 4G WiMax network. You can purchase plans that work by the day, week, or month.

The most popular anticipated plan will offer “unlimited” 4G wireless broadband for $50 a month.

Gone is the bundled Sprint 3G voice option and the annoying early termination fees customers howled about when Clearwire’s advertised coverage didn’t live up to expectations. Although Clearwire continues to pitch “unlimited mobile broadband,” their notorious speed throttles will remain for “congested cell sites.” Customers have dropped the service over significant throttling issues in some areas, which reduce speeds to near dial-up in some cases.

Broadband Reports speculates Clearwire wants to be in the wholesale broadband business, and slowly exit the retail business that has earned them the scorn (and threatened legal action) of some of their customers.

Existing customers will be able to keep their existing plans, at least for now.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Wall Street Attacks: Sprint CEO in Big Trouble for Plans to Upgrade Sprint’s Network to LTE

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:59:34 +0000

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse is now at risk of losing his job over decisions to increase spending to upgrade network performance and capacity. In the last week, Sprint announced it will likely seek outside financing to accelerate the launch of its new 4G LTE network, while concurrently deciding to stop selling 4G WiMax smartphones that work on the troubled Clearwire network by the end of this year.

Wall Street hates companies spending money to upgrade their networks, particularly when there is little evidence Sprint will enhance profits with price increases or cut costs by limiting customers’ data usage.

For several major investment firms and banks, the last straw was Hesse’s revelation that the company will likely need to borrow money to complete its Network Vision plan, which calls for major upgrades of Sprint’s wireless network to support much faster data speeds for customers. His earlier commitment to spend up to $20 billion on Sprint’s version of the Apple iPhone did not help matters.

Sprint’s stock price took a beating last week, sliding 26 percent to the lowest level since February 2009 as investors fled.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KSHB in Kansas City reports Sprint intends to stop selling devices that work on the company’s existing 4G/Clearwire WiMax service by the end of this year in favor of Sprint’s forthcoming launch of a new 4G LTE network. (1 minute)

The Detroit News reports an investor meeting with Sprint executives “grew ugly” after Hesse announced the company needed to spend money to upgrade and refused to show a clear pathway to enhanced profits earned from those upgrades.

Wall Street to Hesse: Don't Get Comfortable

“Hesse is on thin ice now,” Ed Snyder, an analyst with Charter Equity Research, told the newspaper. “One, perhaps two, more big mistakes and he’s probably gone.”

More than a half-dozen Wall Street analysts have slashed their ratings on the wireless company because they believe Sprint’s spending plans will hurt liquidity.

While customers are increasingly rewarding Hesse and Sprint for making customer service improvements and retaining customer friendly unlimited service plans, Wall Street shows no signs of being charitable to Hesse’s management of the Overland Park, Kansas company.

Ben Abramowitz, an analyst with Kaufman Bros., downgraded the stock to “hold” from “buy,” excoriating the company for expensive strategic shifts, including network upgrades and the company’s recent commitment to Apple to sell millions of Apple iPhones on Sprint’s network.

“Management credibility is lost with investors,” Abramowitz wrote.

Jonathan Schildkraut from Evercore Partners told CNBC the spending at Sprint may just be getting started. Millions of customers remain connected to Nextel’s legacy iDEN network, which Sprint intends to decommission. Schildkraut believes Sprint will have to provide deep discounts or free phones for displaced customers who will need to move to Sprint’s primary network. He also notes that despite Sprint’s plans to abandon Clearwire’s WiMax network for 4G, the company will likely make further investments to maintain the partnership, and Clearwire’s network, for other purposes.

Sprint’s decision to adopt Apple’s iPhone and upgrade their network may make competitive sense against larger players AT&T and Verizon Wireless, but Schildkraut notes Apple commands top dollar for the popular phone — upwards of $600 on the wholesale level, which carriers in turn subsidize to lure customers to sign two-year contracts. But Sprint would do well to consider Verizon’s experience with the iPhone, he says. Most of Verizon’s iPhones were sold to customers who already owned smartphones. That forced Verizon to subsidize up to $400 for each iPhone with no chance of increasing the average revenue collected from customers. Investors were hoping the iPhone would instead attract budget handset customers who would upgrade to more expensive smartphone service plans.

Because the iPhone still does not support 4G technology, it seems less likely existing Sprint 4G WiMax smartphone owners would consider the Apple 4S an upgrade, and may hold off waiting for the anticipated iPhone 5. But as Sprint begins to promote its forthcoming 4G LTE network, those Sprint customers using WiMax phones will be tempted to move to something else. Either way, phone subsidies could create a significant drag on Sprint’s cash on hand at a time when the company is spending heavily on upgrading its network.

In the telecommunications business, upgraded service helps customers and spurs competition. But it is nearly always the enemy of Wall Street unless a clear pathway to enhanced profits can be shown. Investors may ultimately have the last word on those upgrades, and the person responsible for green-lighting them. Hesse may learn that lesson first hand if the company can’t find a way to boost its stock price, and soon.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Wall Street goes on the attack, unhappy that Sprint is spending their money to upgrade its networks for the benefit of Sprint customers. CNBC covers all the business angles. (6 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Wall Street Wants Two Wireless Carriers for Americans: AT&T and Verizon

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:56:49 +0000

Wall Street is pushing back against Justice Department efforts to unwind a merger proposal between AT&T and T-Mobile that will leave America with three national carriers. Some investment firms even believe three carriers are still “too many” and want mergers and acquisitions to accelerate to allow two dominant national carriers to emerge.

“It’s pretty clear what the end game is in wireless,” said Julie Richardson, managing director at Providence Equity Partners Inc. “LTE, 4G — you have to have those services to compete. One of the most interesting things to watch in telecom will be these players coming together.”

Richardson shares the view among many on Wall Street that carriers forced to build costly 4G services like LTE need less competition and more cash-on-hand to pay for upgrades and to obtain needed spectrum.

Only AT&T and Verizon Communications have the resources to support a national 4G Long Term Evolution network, Richardson said. Sprint, the third-biggest U.S. wireless operator, is struggling to compete against larger rivals and has lost money for 15 consecutive quarters, Bloomberg News reports.

Among smaller players, Richardson believes the future is clear: mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships. Sprint is moving increasingly closer to the nation’s cable companies, which have sought a cost-efficient way to deliver the ultimate “quad-play” service package that includes wireless, landline, cable-TV, and Internet service, all from the cable company. But talk of constructing competing cell networks has gone largely nowhere, and cable companies that do offer some type of wireless service typically resell an existing service under their own brand. Road Runner Mobile, from Time Warner Cable, for example, is really Clearwire under a different name. Same for Comcast’s wireless Internet service. Cox is pitching “unbelievably fair” wireless phone service that actually comes from Sprint.

But cable operators currently don’t seem to be interested in outright acquisitions of cell companies like Sprint, preferring to partner with them instead.

Clearwire, which needs financing and better wireless spectrum, may eventually find a friend in Dish Networks, the satellite TV company. Dish controls wireless frequency spectrum it currently does not use, and has expressed an interest in expanding beyond a traditional satellite television provider. An acquisition of Sprint or Clearwire could help them accomplish that.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Clearwire Nearly Doubles “Lifetime” Rates for Some of Their Earliest Customers in Pacific Northwest

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:59:56 +0000

Some of Clearwire’s very first, and most loyal customers in the Pacific Northwest are receiving an unwelcome message of thanks for their years of service with the company: a massive rate increase.

The company is nearly doubling rates for customers who were promised special “lifetime” discounts for agreeing to remain with the wireless 4G broadband service, which has been experiencing financial problems recently.

D.B. in Seattle has been a Clearwire customer for years, even before the company upgraded to WiMax speeds. In 2009, Clearwire sent him an offer he couldn’t refuse: stay with Clear and pay just $22 a month (plus $5 modem rental fee) for life.

“Of course I accepted immediately,” D.B. writes. “Then Clear [sent me a letter recently] telling me my monthly fee was going up to approximately $47 a month with the modem fee.”

D.B. has been calling and e-mailing Clearwire asking what happened to the $22-for-life promotion he has in writing from the company, but “nobody knows anything.”

Clearwire says they have improved their service recently in Seattle, but D.B. isn’t impressed.

“I’m here to tell the world that is not true,” he says. “Plus the times I’ve had this thing freeze up has greatly increased, and usually I have to unplug the modem for five minutes [to get service back].”

Mireille in Seattle managed to get an even lower “lifetime” rate from Clearwire two years ago.

“They offered me a monthly rate of $19.95 for as long as I maintained uninterrupted Clearwire service. That means forever and ever until I cancel.,” she says. “Last week they sent me an email letting me know that they were raising my rate to $35.95 a month (that includes a $10 a month ‘long time customer discount’) and since I was such a good customer I was being offered that rate for the life of my uninterrupted Clearwire service. Sound familiar?”

Mireille calls it something else: breach of contract.

“I spoke to three different people and no one had anything to say besides that they were sorry but they were not able offer me that rate anymore.”

Customers in the Portland, Ore. area are getting similar e-mails, and The Oregonian took note:

Clearwire Corp., a wireless Internet provider that operates as Clear, is raising prices for 30,000 customers who signed up for the service soon after its 2009 launch.

The Kirkland, Wash.-based company didn’t provide details of the rate hikes, but e-mails to customers show that monthly rates for some home Internet plans will rise from $35 to $45 beginning in October.

Clearwire said the rate hike affects both home and mobile customers who subscribed when the service was first available, at a time when rates were lower or promotional prices were available.

Clearwire still offers a home Internet plan for $35 a month, but it limits download speeds to 1.5 megabits per second — one-eighth the speed of Comcast’s standard plan. Clear’s standard plan, which now costs $45, promises downloads between 3 and 6 megabits per second.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

South Carolina: America’s Broadband ‘Corridor of Shame’

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:28:40 +0000

In the fall of 2009, South Carolina’s Budget and Control Board approved a fire-sale deal that leased out 95 percent of the state’s public wireless broadband spectrum to two private companies in a 30-year contract valued at $143 million, with the promise South Carolina would enjoy better broadband as a result.

Two years later, South Carolina’s broadband standing has been called “a Corridor of Shame” according to one provider that is trying to expand service while Clearwire and DigitalBridge — the contract winners, sit on their respective hands.

Both companies secured access to the statewide Educational Broadband Service spectrum they get to control with near-exclusivity for less than $5 million annually — around $1 a year for every South Carolinian that could eventually be served with improved broadband. But nobody is getting service from either provider, indefinitely.

Columbia’s Free-Times notes neither company has concrete plans to bring broadband to anyone in South Carolina. Clearwire, now in financial trouble, provides no service in the state and DigitalBridge refused to comment for the newspaper’s story. Free-Times reporter Corey Hutchins could not find anyone able to provide any definitive information about either company’s short or long-term plans to hold up their end of the bargain.

Khush Tata, chief information officer for the S.C. Technical College System suspects one might not even exist. So long as these two companies maintain a lock on the spectrum, nobody else can deliver the wireless service either.

“I haven’t seen any big cohesive strategy since [the leasing] at all,” Tata told the newspaper. “I think that it’s still based on market and business viability for each provider so they’re sort of on their own. Each provider, they invest based on their return on investment, which is good for their business, but as a state there isn’t any overall planning or approach — and I think the leasing of spectrum provided the largest overall strategy opportunity, which is a pity that it hasn’t panned out yet.”

Don’t tell that to industry-connected Connected Nation, whose South Carolina chapter claims the state is doing better than most providing broadband service. The group has published maps, based entirely on data provided by the state’s phone and cable companies, that suggest most residents not only get the service, but have a choice in providers.

“That’s just plain bull,” says Stop the Cap! reader Jeff Lodge, who lives outside of Columbia. Not only does the local cable company pass him by, but there is no DSL either. He relies on an unlimited wireless data plan from AT&T and does most of his web browsing during breaks at work.

No Plans

“I live in a community of 22,000 people and only those along the main streets in this community have access to broadband,” he says. “The cable company doesn’t go far off the beaten path, and the here-and-there DSL some get is dreadful.”

Even Connect South Carolina acknowledges broadband speeds in the state are often woefully behind others in the region. Many well-populated census tracts have no wired broadband at all.

With the pervasive lack of broadband, incumbent providers have been heavily lobbying the state to keep others off their spartan turf — pushing for the same type of legislation effectively banning community broadband networks that North Carolina passed earlier this year.

“It’s Time Warner Cable and AT&T… again, that are behind most of this effort, and those two companies treat South Carolina like a forgotten bastard child now,” Lodge says. “Can you imagine the arrogance of big cable and phone companies to keep competition away even when they, themselves, won’t compete?”

No Comment

One company trying to make a difference: GlobalCo and their partner On-Time-Communications. A review of the under-developed website of the latter suggests neither entity is well-positioned or backed to deliver broadband without significant financial assistance. But at least they recognize the problem.

“In South Carolina there’s 10 counties that made [the FCC's report on broadband unavailability] and the majority of them come out of what’s commonly referred to as the ‘Corridor of Shame’,” Ronnie Wyche, GlobalCo’s vice president of sales told Free-Times.

None of this comes as a surprise to Brett Bursey, director of the South Carolina Progressive Network, who opposed the spectrum sell-off.

“The bargain basement lease of the nation’s only statewide broadband system was a theft from, and insult to, the taxpayers who built and own the system,” Bursey told the paper. “The system is not being developed by the companies who won the lease and the Legislature is ideologically opposed to public ownership.”

No related stories.

Frontier: America’s Worst Wired ISP for Netflix Viewing (Second Time Winner!)

Phillip Dampier — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:13:09 +0000

Click to Enlarge

Frontier Communications’ DSL service delivers abysmal results for customers looking for quality time with Netflix. For the second quarter running, the independent phone company’s ability to keep up with Netflix’s high quality video is about on par with a garden slug in a triathlon — yes, it may eventually reach the finish line, but you’ll be dead before it happens. Even more embarrassing for Frontier, their service is occasionally beaten by Clearwire, a wireless ISP with a bandwidth throttler that can reduce your online experience to the painful days of dial-up if deemed to be using “too much.”

“Frontier sucks,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Doug in Charleston, W.V. “After they took over where Verizon fled, my ability to watch Netflix online became a source of endless frustration, so now I limit myself to mailing DVD’s back and forth.”

Remarkably, Charter Cable, which does poorly in customer satisfaction surveys, is again the runaway winner, followed by Comcast, the heavily usage-capped Cable One, Time Warner Cable, and Cox. Verizon and AT&T only deliver middling performance.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Clearwire’s Credit Standards: If You Had a Pulse You Were Approved, Say Dealers

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:50:47 +0000

In a desperate bid to inflate subscriber numbers, dealer commissions, and attract additional investors, some Clearwire retailers slashed credit standards resulting in widespread approval of customers who would later skip out on paying the bill. At least one dealer offered to override any failed credit check for even the most credit risky customers, according to a Bloomberg News investigation.

Those charges, made by three former dealers and distributors, bring additional controversy to a wireless venture already facing lawsuits for false advertising and misleading business practices.

From late 2009 until earlier this year, Clearwire dealers were strongly encouraged to sign up new customers for its wireless services, which include a home broadband replacement offering “unlimited wireless broadband” to customers. In many markets, scores of would-be customers in urban and poor areas failed the company’s credit checks. One former salesman told Bloomberg as many as 60 percent of his would-be customers couldn’t pass the credit check without a manual override, often done with a copy of a driver’s license and evidence of residence in the area, such as two consecutive utility bills.

Millions of new Clearwire customers were signed up for service during 2010, with dealers and salesmen earning significant sign-up commissions and parent company Clear winning favorable media coverage for its high subscriber growth, used to attract new investment.

One distributor called the lax credit standards “a time bomb,” one that began going off as customers reneged on their contracts, didn’t bother to pay the bills, or simply canceled service while ignoring collection efforts. But the credit standards remained surprisingly loose for an industry that routinely profiles potential customers before signing them up to service.

By mid-2010, Clearwire dealers were no longer even required to pull a hard credit report with a Social Security number. Scores of immigrants, many without documentation, could now sign up for Clearwire service showing proof they had managed to make at least one rent payment on time. Even customers with no credit experience were signed up for service, some who paid exclusively in cash.

One Texas dealer reported as many as 80 percent of his customers were approved with credit overrides.

Much of Clear’s dealer network is independently owned and operated, especially now that the company faces financial challenges. The company provides dealers with strong financial incentives, including bonuses, for new customer signups. Several former salespeople report distributors and dealers routinely pressured salespeople to sign up new customers at all costs.

“I always hear from reps ‘I’m not selling because no one can pass credit checks’,” one manager wrote. “The time has come for you to call BS and on your reps (and yourself if needed!) and for the credit excuse to END now! I will personally enter in the credit overrides under your dealer code.”

“PS, you can thank me later for DOUBLING YOUR COMMISSIONS!” the e-mail dated March 2010 read.

Some ex-Clearwire customers were not happy when their speeds were reduced to 250kbps on the company's overcrowded network.

Some customers even managed to skip out paying on one Clearwire account while establishing another. The runaway growth propelled network traffic for Clearwire, leading the company to implement “fair use” policies that restricted the use of the service, despite being pitched as “unlimited.” In addition to customers who simply refused to pay their bills, some creditworthy customers signing up for service were gone within weeks after finding the service unusable.

Bloomberg notes Clear’s own numbers suggest the company had 688,000 customers at the end of 2009. As of the end of the first quarter of 2011, that number is now 6.15 million. But Clear’s numbers show the churn rate — customers coming and going — is high for the wireless industry at 3 percent or higher for the past seven quarters. Verizon Wireless, in contrast, has a churn rate of 1.33 percent.

A high churn rate is a major problem because it requires Clear to spend more in marketing and sign up promotions to entice a steady supply of new customers replacing those who have left or been shut off.

Most providers who find a would-be customer saddled with sub-prime credit scores ask for a substantial deposit for service, or encourage a prepaid calling plan instead. But Clear shows no indications of moving in either direction.

The company has managed to protect itself from financial losses from the customer merry-go-round, often at the expense of dealers who over-enthusiastically signed up deadbeat customers. If a customer leaves or is shut off within the first six months, the dealer commission is forfeited back to Clear.

For some, this has meant the end of their business. One dealer lost more than $500,000 in “chargebacks,” while others owe tens of thousands in repayments to Clear.

Clear’s business depends on more than just its own Clearwire customers. Several cable companies, including Time Warner Cable and Comcast, resell Clearwire service under their respective brand names. So does Best Buy.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Sprint Hiking Unlimited Smartphone Data Plans $10 Later This Month

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:57:41 +0000

Unless you own Sprint’s premiere smartphones — the Evo 4G and the Epic, get out your wallet — Sprint is increasing the price on its unlimited data plan by $10, effective later this month.

Evo and Epic owners already pay the $10 “premium data” fee that will be extended to all smartphone customers Jan. 30 (customers on existing contracts will not be affected).

The reason for the price increase? Heavy usage on its wireless network, which partly includes Virgin Mobile (ending its unlimited service Feb. 14) and Clearwire, which heavily throttles speeds of customers deemed to be “using too much.”

Chief executive Dan Hesse says Sprint will retain its unlimited service plans, which the company calls the best value in the wireless industry. But the pricing change will present minor challenges as Sprint markets themselves as the least costly.

Sprint's marketing focuses on its unlimited use offers, some of which are about to get more expensive.

Sprint’s “Everything Data” plan, which also includes unlimited cell-to-cell calls will now cost $79.99 per month. Comparable plans from T-Mobile are priced at $99.99 for that company’s 4G network and $119.98 on Verizon Wireless’ slower, but more ubiquitous 3G network.

“Sprint has been the price leader in the market,” said Jennifer Fritzsche, a Wells Fargo & Co. analyst in Chicago who has an “outperform” rating on the stock. “Sprint may be more confident in the pricing power it has with customers.”

The Wall Street Journal also shares positive views of the price increase from Wall Street:

Wall Street applauded the move, with many seeing it as a sign of pricing power returning to the wireless industry. “It is more likely that Sprint believes that consumers value unlimited and that they can get away with higher pricing,” said Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst at Credit Suisse.

The price hike also suggests that Sprint has seen stronger smartphone growth over the past three months, he added, noting that the carrier likely wouldn’t have made the change if it were still concerned about stabilizing its base on contract customers.

But some other analysts are less impressed with Sprint, especially because of challenges the company faces with its Clearwire partnership.

Patrick Comack from Zachary Investment Research has downgraded Sprint stock, particularly because of technology issues Clearwire faces.

Comack told CNBC Clearwire is stuck with defective spectrum for much of its wireless broadband service.

“It can’t penetrate walls,” Comack said, noting most Clearwire customers are trying to use wireless broadband in the 2GHz range, which presents plenty of problems from obstacles between the tower and the customer.

Comack also believes Sprint’s network simply cannot compete with Verizon Wireless, which he suspects could pick up a number of Sprint customers once it fully activates its 4G network nationwide.

Verizon Wireless network delivers significantly better coverage than Sprint, which focuses on urban and suburban markets, and the major highways that connect them.

Click here to view the embedded video.

CNBC: Debating Sprint and Clearwire, with Todd Rethemeier, Hudson Square Research and Patrick Comack Zachary Investment Research. (6 minutes)

(Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader PreventCAPS for sharing the news.)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

4G Hype: Why Wireless Will Never Be a Replacement for Traditional ISPs

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 03:17:09 +0000

Media excitement about recent iterations of allegedly “4G” networks aside, no currently available wireless broadband service will replace the need for traditional wired broadband so long as providers limit consumption to 5GB (or less) per month.

As average consumption per household is now at least three times that level, wireless broadband customers will be faced with three choices:

Supplement a wireless broadband account with an unlimited, wired broadband service;
Be prepared to pay overlimit fees or purchase additional accounts or “usage packs;”
Reduce usage to remain within plan limits.

Sprint currently remains the largest carrier offering unlimited access to its 4G network, also sold independently under the Clearwire brand. But as Clear subscribers found out, “unlimited” comes with “unlimited hassles” if Clear’s “intelligent network management” software catches you using it “too much.” Speeds are quickly throttled downwards, well below even Sprint’s slower 3G network.

Many of Clear’s customers signed up in response to ads promising the 4G wireless service as a “home broadband replacement.” Ditch your cable modem or DSL service for a wireless alternative! Some salespeople even dared to suggest Clear was faster than cable or DSL. Only for most it is not.

Every carrier has their own version of “4G” here or on the way, most of which can deliver better and faster service than the 3G alternative, but wireless providers are hellbent on ensuring customers never get used to the concept of truly unlimited service.

Glenn Britt, CEO of Time Warner Cable, admits the wired broadband industry erred when it got people used to all-you-can-use broadband.

“We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension,” Britt told investors back in 2009 when the company was contemplating its own metered usage trials.

4G networks can bring out the "data hog" in everyone if you actually take advantage of the faster speeds to stream multimedia.

Wireless providers are working hard not to repeat that mistake.

AT&T found usage caps anger customers, but got away with implementing a 2GB monthly wireless usage cap tied with the introduction of the wildly popular newest iPhone (and helped by grandfathering existing unlimited customers until their next phone upgrade.)

“If I had a baby in my hand and my iPhone and I had to drop one, I’d drop the baby,” laughed Dallas iPhone owner Luisa Benton. But Benton’s love for her Apple phone does not extend to AT&T’s network, noting she has dropped calls and had poor reception in certain areas.

Many iPhone owners retain their cable or DSL broadband service because AT&T’s wireless usage cap limits what they can manage online, and the company’s network problems only adds insult to pocketbook injury. With many locked into two year contracts, few are going to brave early termination fees to find an alternative.

As providers upgrade their networks, they are also upgrading their prices. Verizon’s new LTE network, for example, carries a premium price tag for those wishing to use it.

Customers looking for a faster wireless experience will pay $50 for 5 GB or $80 for 10 GB of data on Verizon’s new network. Run over those limits and an overlimit fee of $10 per gigabyte kicks in.

“People are never going to use wireless networks the way you see them on the commercials,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jo-Anne in Seattle. “They are always watching movies or TV shows — services you absolutely don’t want to risk at those prices.”

J0-Anne asked a Verizon representative if new 4G smartphones would be permitted to use unlimited data plans.

“‘Don’t bet on it,’ was the reply I got — Verizon may keep unlimited around for 3G network users only,” she said.

If true, Verizon will deliver overpriced, inadequate service for any customer looking to leave their home broadband account behind. As soon as multimedia gets involved, usage caps rapidly become a dealbreaker.

Verizon recently contracted with Bridgewater Systems Corporation to supply it with data management software. Bridgewater is also a major supplier of network throttling solutions to ferret out heavy users and impede their speed, as part of “fair use policy” regimes.

Some wireless companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too — selling “unlimited” wireless broadband service hampered by an aggressive “policy control” network management scheme. You’ve seen the ads promising unlimited access, but probably missed the fine print warning the provider will throttle your wireless broadband speed to something comparable to dial-up once they deem you a data hog.

Cricket and Clear are both notorious for throttling customer speeds and delivering disclosures of the practice more impenetrable than North Korea.

A Clear blog entry tried to simplify the legalese:

During times of high network utilization our network management system may limit speeds, but we never limit the amount of data a customer with an unlimited data plan may use. The algorithm in place reviews several factors including long and short-term usage, current network capacity, and network demand to determine if network management needs to be applied.

The end result is that a few heavy users temporarily give up some speed during limited times of high demand so that everyone can have a good experience. A majority of customers are having a positive experience and experiencing faster speeds during times of greatest demand since these enhancements were enacted.

The “positive experience” Clear’s blogger reports may be wishful thinking, however, after reading the company’s support forums. They’re overloaded with thousands of angry customers and probably many more ex-customers. An “unlimited” broadband experience is meaningless if customers endure speeds well below the minimum acceptable definition of “broadband,” often for days on end.

Cricket is no better:

Cricket sets usage levels on the amount of data a customer can upload and download within stated periods of time. If you exceed your rate plan usage levels, Cricket will temporarily reduce the speed at which you can send and receive data over the Cricket network. You will still be able to use the service but your speed will be slower. Cricket may use other traffic management and prioritization tools to help ensure equitable access to the Cricket network for all customers. Your service speed is not guaranteed and is subject to this Fair Use Policy.

Cricket has set a data usage level (“Usage Level”) per customer. As shown in your rate plan brochure or on www.mycricket.com, this Usage Level varies based on the rate plan you’ve selected. Every day, we measure your upload and download data usage (“Actual Usage”) to determine if your total Actual Usage, as aggregated over your bill cycle (“Usage Total”), exceeds the Usage Level for the rate plan you selected. During hours of operation, you can inquire about your Usage Total versus your monthly Usage Level by calling 1-800-Cricket and speaking with a Care representative.

Once you begin a new bill cycle your rate plan Usage Level upload and download speeds will be restored.

The average Cricket customer is unlikely to grasp anything beyond the fact their speed sucks if they are targeted by Cricket’s throttle. It’s not as simple as breaking through your monthly usage allowance. Cricket can and does throttle customers who seem like they could exceed the limit, based on their daily account activity.

In the end, most wireless customers pay more for less service. The primary benefit is portability, and carriers consider that worth the premium prices charged. But as the Internet’s love affair with all things multimedia continues, none of these providers will provide a suitable alternative to the traditional home-wired broadband account.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Last year like this year, WFAA-TV in Dallas reports frustrations continue with AT&T’s wireless data network. The company’s response? Limit customers’ use of it and push more of them off to Wi-Fi alternatives. (2 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy: