AT&T and Verizon Wireless have the largest share of wireless customers. (Wall Street Journal)

The Department of Justice has recommended the Federal Communications Commission promote competition by setting aside certain future low-frequency wireless spectrum for auctions open exclusively to smaller wireless carriers including Sprint and T-Mobile USA.

“Today, the two leading carriers have the vast majority of low-frequency spectrum whereas the two other nationwide carriers have virtually none,” the Department of Justice wrote in comments to the FCC. “This results in the two smaller nationwide carriers having a somewhat diminished ability to compete, particularly in rural areas where the cost to build out coverage is higher with high-frequency spectrum.”

The Justice Department’s antitrust division has monitored the wireless industry with increasing concern consumers are not getting benefits from a robustly competitive marketplace increasingly concentrated in the hands of two wireless giants: AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

That dominance is made possible, in part, from the control of lower frequency spectrum, particularly in the 600-800MHz range that easily penetrates buildings and delivers a more reliable signal over longer distances than frequencies counted in the gigahertz. Verizon and AT&T control large swaths of these lower frequencies that work well indoors and provide longer distance coverage in rural areas. Conversely, Sprint and T-Mobile, among other smaller carriers, rely heavily on higher frequencies that need a larger network of cell towers to support good signal levels.

It often means rural customers may find reception with AT&T or Verizon Wireless but end up with a roaming indicator or no service at all with smaller providers.

The Justice Department worries that auctioning off future prime 600MHz spectrum carved out of the UHF television band reallocated for wireless services will end up in the hands of the deepest pocketed providers — AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and further hamper the ability of Sprint, T-Mobile and other small carriers to compete.

“Due to the scarcity of spectrum, the Department is concerned that carriers may have incentives to acquire spectrum for purposes other than efficiently expanding their own capacity or services,” writes the DoJ. “Namely, the more concentrated a wireless market is, the more likely a carrier will find it profitable to acquire spectrum with the aim of raising competitors’ costs. This could take the shape, for example, of pursuing spectrum in order to prevent its use by a competitor, independent of how efficiently the carrier uses the spectrum. Indeed, a carrier may even have incentives to acquire spectrum and not use it at all.”

The Justice Department echoes critics’ contentions that given a chance, large wireless carriers will “warehouse” acquired spectrum, unused, denying it from the competition. Carriers object to that claim, calling it baseless. But incentives remain for providers to drag their feet: spectrum warehousing forces competitors to pay even higher prices for other scarce spectrum, the necessity of constructing a larger network of costly cell towers to offer robust coverage, and fighting customers’ perceptions of inferior quality indoor phone reception.

In response, AT&T sent a multi-page, thinly veiled threat to sue if the Commission adopted the recommendations of the Justice Department.

“The Department is quite candid about its motive for this blatant favoritism: it hopes that reducing competition for the spectrum may enable Sprint and T-Mobile ‘to mount stronger challenges’ to AT&T and Verizon,” AT&T wrote in response. “Picking winners and losers in this fashion would be patently unlawful.”

AT&T also claimed the Justice Department’s recommendations were specifically tailored to help the two competitors, despite the fact neither company has shown much interest in acquiring low-frequency wireless spectrum, much less further expand the reach of their wireless networks:

“It is especially puzzling that the Department feels the need to help Sprint and T-Mobile in particular. Sprint already has by far the largest nationwide portfolio of spectrum, and holds vastly more spectrum than either AT&T or Verizon. It will also have ample financial resources at its disposal, as the Department has already approved Sprint’s purchase by Softbank, a financially strong Japanese company, and Dish Network has now made a competing offer for Sprint, citing the financial and strategic advantages of its own proposed combination.

Regardless of how this bidding war turns out, Sprint will receive a sizable infusion of cash, spectrum or both. T-Mobile, which is owned by Deutsche Telekom, one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world, just recently acquired substantial amounts of spectrum from both AT&T and Verizon, and is on the verge of completing a merger with MetroPCS that will add another trove of spectrum. So it is surely not for a lack of spectrum resources or financial backing that the Department needs to propose a financial giveaway to these companies.

Moreover, neither company even chose to bid at the Commission’s last auction of low-frequency spectrum, nor have they availed themselves of opportunities to acquire such spectrum in secondary markets. If low-frequency spectrum was critical to their business plans, as the Department simply assumes, someone should have informed their management, which has, instead chosen to acquire deep holdings in [higher frequency] PCS, AWS, and BRS/EBS spectrum.”

The Justice Department filing did not name Sprint or T-Mobile directly, but both companies are the only remaining national competitors to both AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Spectrum set-asides are not unusual in telecommunications regulation. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission set aside significant wireless spectrum exclusively for new entrants to promote competition. Ultimately, the new competitors had little impact with less than a 10 percent market share and all three are now considered up for sale. That spectrum may eventually end up in the hands of the largest Canadian wireless companies regardless of the CRTC’s original intentions when license transfer restrictions expire in 2014. All three could be acquired by one or more of the major providers.

Other stories of interest:

1. FCC on Verizon-Big Cable Spectrum Deal: Sure, Why Not?; But Justice Dept. Thinking Twice
2. Wall Street Wants Two Wireless Carriers for Americans: AT&T and Verizon
3. Moody’s Declares AT&T and Verizon the Winners — Sprint and T-Mobile Can “Never Catch Up”
4. Breaking: Justice Dept. Files Suit to Stop AT&T/T-Mobile Merger
5. The AT&T/Verizon Wireless Duopoly: “Humpty Dumpty Has Been Put Back Together Again”

Wheeler

Tom Wheeler has a blog.

The presumptive leading candidate for America’s next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission also has a major conflict of interest problem, with at least 30 years of working directly for the business interests of the cable and telephone companies he may soon be asked to oversee in the public interest. Wheeler is the former president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) — the nation’s largest cable industry lobbying group and past CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) — the AT&T and Verizon-dominated wireless trade association. Today Wheeler serves as a managing director at Core Capital Partners, a Washington, D.C.-based venture capital firm that invests in these and other industries.

In more than 60 articles in the last six years, Wheeler has written of his trials and tribulations with federal regulators who simply refuse to see telecom industry wisdom on spectrum management, the legacy telephone network, obstinate broadcasters, outdated regulations, mergers and acquisitions, and the amazing story of private Wall Street investment and its wisdom to naturally shape America’s telecommunications landscape by “letting the marketplace work” unfettered by oversight and consumer protection laws.

Almost entirely absent in Wheeler’s writings is any interest in the plight of ordinary consumers that do business, often unhappily, with the companies Wheeler used to represent. America’s love of many-things Apple and Google, two runaway success stories heavily invested in the digital economy and well-regarded by more than a few consumers, are scorned by Wheeler as part of the “Silicon Valley mafia.”

Wheeler is the consummate Washington beltway insider, a lifelong lobbyist well-positioned to walk through the perpetually revolving door between the public and private sector. Even worse, he has maintained warm regards for not one, but two telecom industry lobbying giants — the cable and wireless industry trade associations that have daily business before the FCC. Whether Wheeler can stand up to his former best friends is open for debate. Wheeler wrote in one blog entry he remains in awe of AT&T’s chief lobbyist, Jim Ciccioni, who he called “one of the smartest and shrewdest policy mavens in the capital.”

Wheeler’s blog makes it clear he would have supported the 2011 attempted merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, with a few temporary token pre-conditions. He heaped scorn on antitrust regulators for missing an opportunity the merger approval could have had on reshaping the American wireless marketplace. Less is more in Wheeler World.

D.C.’s perpetually revolving door keeps on spinning.

Like outgoing FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, Wheeler is a longtime Obama loyalist and was involved in Obama’s 2008 election campaign.

Wheeler relays to C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb in a 2009 interview that who you know in Washington can mean a lot. After Obama entered the 2008 race, Wheeler connected to Obama through a friend — Peter Rouse, who had recently accepted the position of Obama’s chief of staff.

“I picked up the phone one day and there was a message from Barack Obama that he wanted to talk about some issues related to technology,” Wheeler described. “Things began to develop. We got really interested in the potential of this person and the opportunity that he represented for a transformational moment in American history, and we decided that Iowa was the place.”

Wheeler and his wife Carol (employed by the National Association of Broadcasters, itself a lobbying group) had the financial resources in place to put their D.C. jobs on hold and spend six weeks in the Region 2 Obama election office in Ames, Iowa.

After Obama won the election, Lamb predicted Wheeler might find himself at the FCC. Instead, Obama’s college friend and money-bundler Julius Genachowski won the position.

Wheeler’s chances of succeeding Genachowski improved dramatically in mid-April after receiving the written support of several public policy advocates. One of them was Susan Crawford, whose recent book, Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, railed against many of the policies supported by the largest telecommunications companies Wheeler professionally represented in his roles at the NCTA and CTIA. Some consumer groups wrote President Obama directly, strongly recommended a change from the ‘business as usual’ revolving door:

During his election campaign, President Obama pledged “to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.” Yet the president is reportedly considering a candidate for the next FCC chair who was the head of not one but two major industry lobbying groups. After decades of industry-backed chairmen, we need a strong consumer advocate and public interest representative at the helm. It’s time to end regulatory capture at the FCC and restore balance to government oversight.

Those consumer groups have plenty to worry about if Tom Wheeler becomes the next head of the FCC. Stop the Cap! has found several quotes from his blog which paint a picture of a potential FCC chairman devoted to industry interests:

Close Wireless Retail Stores to Save Money and Kill Jobs: “Sprint announced plans to close eight percent of its over 1,500 company-owned retail outlets. Why stop there? Why does it make sense for wireless carriers to operate more stores than Sears and Macy’s combined?”

Wireless network redundancy is a waste of money — an interesting sentiment in light of major wireless network failures during Hurricane Sandy and insufficient capacity during the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon last week: “The history of the U.S. wireless industry is a network-centric history that wasted untold billions of dollars building duplicative networks and advertising ‘mine is better than yours.’”

The failed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile represented a missed opportunity in Wheeler’s view.

WiMAX is King of the World?: “Back in the mid-1990s new digital technology called Personal Communications Service (PCS) was forecast to be the death knell of the cellular industry. It seemed all anyone could talk about was the “smaller, cheaper, lighter” handsets that would perform feats beyond the capabilities of analog cellular. Now in the mid-2000s the differentiator is speed and throughput and WiMAX is the new hot technology.”

Who needs free over the air television when only 10-15 percent of the country watches?: “What is the purpose of continuing the local TV broadcasting model when between 85 and 90 percent of American homes are connected to cable or satellite services?”

AT&T and Verizon will save us from the Great Recession, except for the fact they laid off “redundant” workers: “In the midst of the first shrinking of global economic growth in almost 70 years, the wireless industry represents what must be the largest non-governmental stimulus program in the world. Wireless is an economic recovery triple play.”

Those mooching broadcasters got their spectrum for free when Verizon and AT&T had to pay real money: “The setting for these theatrics is the digital conversion for which broadcasters lobbied so hard for. Yes, they won new spectrum – which they got for free while all other were paying billions – but getting what they asked for also brought something no one ever imagined. Broadcasting ceased to be broadcasting. Going digital meant that what used to be about moving atoms is now about moving bits.”

We need to verify broadcasters use their spectrum the way we define it or we might take it away: “But threatening a shootout at the OK Corral in order to ‘hang on to every last hertz of spectrum’ is an invitation to irrelevance and proof that the spectrum needs to be assigned to parties that think digitally and see themselves as a part of the solution to the spectrum crisis. Opportunity is knocking for the broadcasters; we’ll see if anyone is at home.”

Cicconi

Reduced quality of service is worth it, even if it means shutting down wired telephone service or increasing interference for wireless users: “It is time to abandon the concept of perfection in spectrum allocation. The rules for 21st century spectrum allocation need to evolve from the avoidance of interference to interference tolerance. We’ve seen this evolution in the wired network; it’s now time to bring the chaotic efficiency of Internet Protocol to wireless spectrum policy. What the FCC’s TAC is proposing is that we officially wean ourselves from the old wireline switched circuit world to embrace the reality of IP and its benefits. It’s time to start down the same road with spectrum allocation.“

Did you know your mobile bill is lower than ever and sending data wirelessly costs next to nothing? How much is your limited data plan costing you again?: “As wireless rates have plunged for both voice and data such regulation has less impact than it did in the wireline era anyway. When each connection required an analog circuit, the cost of such a connection, and the return on that investment was a more logical nexus than today’s digital networks where the incremental cost of a packet of information approaches zero.”

AT&T’s propaganda supporting its attempted merger with T-Mobile was brilliant. Those pesky consumer groups and their meddling, truth-telling agenda ruined everything. When Americans think of rural wireless broadband, the first company that comes to mind is T-Mobile, right?: “The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler sends a Hallmark card to AT&T’s most powerful lobbyist: “AT&T’s recent negotiations with the FCC on the Net Neutrality/Open Internet issue provide an insight into how the company deals with such a complex issue. Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President, is one of the smartest and shrewdest policy mavens in the capital.”

What do they know about it?

AT&T’s Jim Cicconi is the go-to-guy for determining future wireless policy, not the FCC: “Randall Stephenson may be channeling Theodore Vail, but Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

The Justice Department just proved it does not understand regulatory concepts governing relentless corporate telecom mergers because it decided Americans should have at least four wireless companies to choose from, not three: “Thus, the long-term impact of the Justice Department’s decision would appear to be the growing irrelevance of traditional telecommunications regulatory concepts on mobile broadband providers.”

Wheeler lacks the realization wireless providers are moving to usage pricing for fun and profit, not because of spectrum shortages: “Having walked away from taking the easy money, will the Congress remain as committed as they were to selling spectrum? What will be the light at the end of the tunnel for wireless carriers who see their spectrum capacity being consumed by huge increases in demand? Will the resulting shortage mean that usage based mobile pricing becomes a demand dampening and profit increasing tool?“

We don’t need free over the air television. Just tell free viewers to subscribe to cable like everyone else: “I’ve been mystified why broadcasters have declared jihad against the voluntary spectrum auction. Getting big dollars for an asset for which you paid nothing while still being able to run your traditional business over cable (the vast majority of its reach anyway) and maintain a broadcast signal at another point on the dial seems a pretty good business proposition – unless you really are serious about providing new and innovative services and need all that spectrum.”

You don’t deserve free Internet access either, because it hurts the corporate business plans of other providers: “Competition among networks for customers has put the consumer in the enviable position of being told they won’t have to pay for access to Internet services. “Free It,” the advertisements of British network operator “3″ proclaim to promote their unlimited data plan, for instance. The policies that created wireless network competition have trapped operators between holding market share and giving away capacity for ever-increasing data demands. So long as there is one carrier willing to offer its capacity at a low price (or for free), the other carriers must play along thus bringing those who run networks to loggerheads with those who use the networks.”

(Image courtesy: FCC.com)

Google and Apple are privacy invaders that collect your personal data as part of a great Silicon Valley mafia: “If wireless carriers are truly going to become “operators” participating in the broader ecosystem their focus needs to shift from running networks to managing the information created by the 21^st Century’s digital networks. The Silicon Valley mafia hijacked that information, but they could quite possibly be in the process of blowing their escape with the goods by exposing what they were really up to.”

We need a “voluntary” auction of the public airwaves with a subjective standard for what represents their “best use” (ie. the way the wireless industry defines it): “For almost four decades I have listened to businesspeople tell government policy makers to “let the marketplace work.” There is no more effective marketplace than a voluntary auction where everyone is free to decide whether to sell, how much to sell, and at what price to sell. The marketplace for wireless spectrum has spoken through its explosion; now it’s time for the marketplace to be able to decide the best use of spectrum. There is no doubt that some broadcasters will opt to use their spectrum in innovative ways [my firm, Core Capital Partners, has invested in such a belief]. Bully for the broadcast entrepreneurs! The FCC should be encouraging and rewarding of entrepreneurial initiative. Just as clearly, however, some broadcasters will choose other options. It is essential that we get on with offering that option quickly so we can nip the spectrum crunch in the bud, spur innovation, stimulate investment, create jobs, and continue American leadership in wireless services.”

Coming Clean: Wheeler ran astroturf operations that pretended to represent the interests of consumers but actually were little more than corporate sock-puppetry: “In the early days of cable television a cabal of Hollywood and broadcast interests combined to convince the Federal government to deny cable its competitive advantage of more channel choices for consumers. Corporate lobbyists told Congressmen and Senators how cable would mean the end of “free TV” unless it was stopped or controlled. Then these same groups recruited real people – the so-called “grassroots” – to back up their claims. Such lobbyist-organized grassroots efforts were the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of political organizing – I know because I used to do it.”

The alliance between Verizon and a cabal of cable companies selling each others’ products is pro-competition: “A TV subscription service like the one Apple is proposing is the heart of what cable is all about. And whatever Google is doing, they aren’t in every TV just for the heck of it. The Mongols of Silicon Valley have been behaving just like their 13^th and 14^th century predecessors. Using new technology to their advantage, the Mongols of the Middle Ages sent invasions in every direction. Soon they had the largest contiguous empire the world has ever seen.  Sound familiar? It may be a case of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” but a cable-wireless alliance is an exceedingly logical response to the impending attack. Cable operators have program distribution rights (or leveraged access to them) and Verizon has the high-speed wireless network to deliver to the growing number of mobile devices. Both these players can help each other confront the coming onslaught.”

Other stories of interest:

1. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Roadshow: Now He’ll Headline the Cable Industry’s Big Splash
2. FCC Chairman Mouths Telecom Industry Talking Points on Usage Pricing, “Innovation”
3. FCC Chairman Opens Wireless Industry Convention Mouthing AT&T Talking Points
4. The Wall Street Journal’s Revisionist History: AT&T Isn’t the Problem, the Government Is?
5. The Fat Lady Sings: What Happens Next Now That AT&T-Mobile Merger Deal is Dead

T-Mobile has scrapped the traditional two-year cell phone contract.

T-Mobile’s shift away from subsidized smartphones and standard two-year contracts could be a game-changer for American wireless consumers, but does the scrappy carrier have a good deal for you or mostly for itself?

T-Mobile is and has been America’s fourth largest carrier — the smallest among those offering nationwide home coverage. The provider has lost contract customers for years. T-Mobile’s coverage has been less than great in many areas and it often did not offer the latest and most popular smartphones. After its merger effort with AT&T was shot down by the Department of Justice for anti-competitive reasons, T-Mobile has attempted to remake itself by changing the rules under which most of us buy mobile service.

The biggest change of all is the end of the subsidized phone. For years, cell phone companies have offered free or low-cost phones to customers, earning back that subsidy by charging higher monthly rates and locking customers to two-year contracts with early termination fees. T-Mobile will still give you an affordable phone, only now you will pay it off in small installments over a two-year financing agreement.

What difference does this make? Customers who bounce from one two-year contract to the next may not see much difference. But if you keep your phone longer than two years or buy one elsewhere, your monthly rate with T-Mobile will no longer include an artificially higher price designed to recover the phone subsidy you no longer receive.

It also means nothing traps you with T-Mobile. If after six months you find their service unbecoming, you can leave without hundreds of dollars in termination fees. But customers on financing agreements will continue to make their payments for equipment purchases, and those phones will not be unlocked for use on another carrier until the remaining balance is paid off.

A typical T-Mobile customer looking for the latest iPhone will pay a $100 down payment and then finance the remaining balance, paying $20 a month for 24 months. Your monthly rate will start at $50 a month, which includes unlimited talk and texting, and a 500MB data allowance. If that is insufficient, an extra $10 a month will buy you an extra 2GB of data. If you want unlimited data, that plan is available for an extra $20 a month.

T-Mobile says their plans will save you $1,000 over the life of a two-year contract with AT&T or Verizon. We think they are exaggerating a bit.

Like their competition, T-Mobile is moving away from budget-minded “minute plans” that bundle calling, text and data. Instead, T-Mobile charges at least $50 a month for unlimited talk/text and a small data plan whether you want those features or not.

The Associated Press found that although T-Mobile ends up being the cheapest, the savings over its rivals is closer to $700 on average. The price over two years for a 16-gigabyte iPhone 5 with unlimited calling, unlimited texting and 2.5 gigabytes of data usage per month, excluding taxes, is:

• T-Mobile: $2,020
• AT&T/Verizon: $2,635 (2-3GB data plan)
• Sprint: $2,840 (unlimited data plan included)

Some other things to consider:

• Once your phone is paid off, your ongoing T-Mobile bill will no longer show a phone subsidy payback built into prices charged by other carriers;
• You can pay your phone off early, with no penalty;
• T-Mobile’s 4G network is a mix of HSPA+ and LTE. The more commonly encountered HSPA+ network gets good marks for speed, but a number of densely populated T-Mobile coverage areas surprisingly often default to their older 2G network, which is painfully slow. LTE is only available in about seven cities at the moment, so it is still a rarity;
• T-Mobile’s unlimited service is free from tricks and traps like soft caps and speed throttles. It also performs better than Sprint’s unlimited service on its overloaded 3G and spotty Clearwire 4G WiMAX network. Sprint’s LTE network is on the way… slowly. It seems to be rolling out first in small cities you have never heard of;
• T-Mobile’s coverage in rural and exurban areas is frankly terrible. Travelers on main highways may not encounter many signal gaps, but those living in small towns or off the beaten path may get a roaming signal or poor or no reception from T-Mobile’s own towers at all. The frequencies used for its data service also do not work as well indoors as its larger rivals.

T-Mobile channels Oprah in this new ad as the big four wireless cowboys get in touch with their feelings. But only one is ready to don a pink hat and ride off on his own. (1 minute)

Other stories of interest:

1. Sprint’s iPhone? Company Rumored to Introduce Iconic Phone in October
2. AT&T’s Apple iPhone 5 Customers Can Keep “Unlimited Data” Plans
3. Wireless Carriers’ Dream Come True: The End of the Phone Subsidy; T-Mobile May Start Trend
4. What Bandwidth Crisis: Unlimited Data War Erupts Between T-Mobile, Sprint, MetroPCS
5. Sprint Will Continue Offering Unlimited Data On Its Forthcoming LTE 4G Network

Riding away with your phone subsidy.

T-Mobile USA has thrown down the gauntlet, announcing it intends to end the kind of phone subsidies that have allowed customers to pick up pricey smartphones like the iPhone for as low as $99, with a two-year contract.

Wireless subsidies have been part of the North American wireless experience for nearly two decades. In an effort to bring new customers on board, carriers wanted the upfront cost to consumers to be as low as possible. Until expensive smartphones arrived, consumers were assured they could get a new, cutting-edge phone at contract renewal time for very little money. Carriers tolerated the subsidy even for existing customers because the difference between the company’s cost and the amount consumers paid wasn’t large enough to negatively affect a carrier’s balance sheet.

Companies gradually earn back the subsidy over the course of a typical two year contract by artificially inflating prices for service plans and add-ons. Because wireless rates have been set with the assumption a customer has received a subsidized phone, it made sense to keep getting new equipment every two years, because customers pay for it on each monthly bill.

In most countries outside of North America, it works very differently. Most customers either pay for a phone outright or agree to finance its purchase through a wireless company, paying monthly installments for smartphones that often cost more than $600. Some companies offer more aggressive discounts if one agrees to a 1-3 year contract, but buyers still cover much of the cost themselves. In return, wireless companies abroad typically charge much lower rates for service and do not force people into lengthy contracts. Customers also find they can switch companies as easily as replacing a SIM card, activating an old phone on a new carrier’s network.

There are pros and cons to the subsidy model:

PROS

• Consumers get the latest phones at a reduced up-front cost up to every two-years;
• The subsidy win-back is collected gradually over the course of 24 months;
• Carriers aggressively compete on huge subsidies for popular phones;
• The reduced price of a subsidized phone brings reticent consumers into the market;
• Carriers have increased control over the equipment that is used on their network through price incentives;

CONS

• The subsidy model gives carriers an incentive to lock discounted phones to their network;
• Customers pay artificially higher prices for service, whether they take advantage of a subsidized phone offer or not;
• Consumers don’t realize the true cost of the phones and expect them to cost less than $200 regardless of their retail price;
• Customers are locked into lengthy contracts with stiff early termination fees to protect the subsidy win-back structure;
• Without a subsidy, equipment manufacturers would face natural market pressure to cut costs to remain affordable;

Legere

T-Mobile announced last week it was ending its phone subsidy program next year, and customers will be expected to bring their own phone, buy one at an unsubsidized rate, or finance a full price phone with the carrier. In return, customers will get a lower priced T-Mobile calling and data plan.

Some in the tech press are heralding the announcement as a consumer victory and a breakthrough for lower priced service plans. But before throwing the confetti, consider this.

T-Mobile is making customers bring or buy their own phones, but will still lock them into a two year contract with a $200 early termination fee.

T-Mobile’s retention of its contract plans might delineate the postpaid side of its business and its month-to-month, contract-free, prepaid business. But that does not mean much for customers.

John Legere, the new CEO of T-Mobile USA hinted the measure is designed to reduce customer churn — customers coming and going. Locking a customer in place with termination penalties assures shareholders customers are more likely to remain with T-Mobile for the life of their contract.

That represents a win for T-Mobile, but not for customers. Legere explained the benefits to investors:

“[We are going] to have a lower device subsidy obviously and overall value,” Legere told attendees at the Capital Markets Day Conference. “[... because of the] device margin — $200 to $250 — which we do not have to eat. Over a 24-month period [we get] a customer life value that is the difference between $550 on a Classic [traditional subsidy contract] plan and $600 on a Value [no-subsidy] plan.”

In other words, T-Mobile doesn’t have to front a device subsidy, still holds a customer with a two-year contract, and despite the lower-priced service plans, comes out $50 richer when the contract expires.  T-Mobile is essentially admitting it does not return the entire value of its former subsidy back to the customer.

What is more, T-Mobile may pave the way for other carriers to also drop handset subsidies, keep the traditional two-year contract, and only slightly lower prices.

Nothing peeves Wall Street more than the huge subsidy costs carriers pay up front to discount the latest smartphones. Getting rid of subsidies while only mildly adjusting prices could be the next hidden “price increase,” the perfect gift for an investor that demands higher revenue from every customer.

Other stories of interest:

1. Deutsche Telekom Approves T-Mobile USA, MetroPCS Merger – MetroPCS Network Shutting Down
2. Sprint’s iPhone? Company Rumored to Introduce Iconic Phone in October
3. AT&T: Pay Us $36 If You Really Want to Upgrade That Smartphone
4. New iPhone Comes With New $325 AT&T Early Contract Termination Fee
5. Verizon Wireless Extends “Smartphones Talk Free” Offer: $9.99 Off New Smartphone Lines

AT&T has once again received the dubious distinction of being America’s worst cell phone company, according to ratings (sub. required) from Consumer Reports.

AT&T’s bottom-of-the-barrel status has become something of an annual tradition in the consumer magazine’s ratings, as the company remains in last place year after year for dreadful performance, poor value, and downright lousy customer service. Its one bright spot: the company’s new 4G LTE service, which gets top marks for speed, although that rating comes before the majority of its customers are on the new network.

Verizon Wireless also took a tumble in the ratings published in the January 2013 issue. Verizon got downgraded for its new Share Everything plan, rated as only a fair value. Verizon’s vaunted customer service also declined significantly.

The highest ratings went to companies many never heard of:

• Consumer Cellular: This company resells AT&T service. The disparity between this top-rated, no contract provider and AT&T demonstrates that a bad customer experience with AT&T’s high prices and poor customer service can topple your ratings across the board. Consumer Cellular will face the same growing pains AT&T’s customers do in congested cities, but their customers seem to tolerate them better;
• U.S. Cellular: Top rated last year, this regional carrier provides service in the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, parts of the East and New England. The carrier, like the southern U.S. provider C-Spire, would probably have been acquired by one of the top-four carriers if the Justice Department seemed willing to accept further market consolidation. Its customers benefit from the company’s independence.
• Credo Mobile: Resells the Sprint network, but delivers superior customer service, which boosts its overall ratings. Formerly known as Working Assets, this progressive organization also enjoys loyalty because customers approve of the political and social causes with which it affiliates.

Overall, the magazine increasingly recommends consumers investigate no-contract or prepaid service plans before signing an expensive 2-year contract with the major four carriers. Pricing changes in 2012 have caused many subscribers to see bills rise, even as perks and benefits continue to erode. Device activation fees, upgrade fees, limits on early upgrades, restricted data plans, and all-or-nothing offerings that deliver (and charge) for features many consumers don’t use much have all reduced the value of contract service.

What keeps most customers coming back to another two-year contract is the chance to grab the hottest new smartphone at a discount. But consumers ultimately pay back whatever they have saved in higher fees over the life of the contract, which may make buying your own device at full price a better value with a no-contract plan.

Other stories of interest:

1. AT&T Scores Last (Again) in Consumer Reports’ Ratings; Oddly AT&T Reseller Scores Highest
2. Senator Amy Klobuchar To Introduce Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act: Protects Consumers from Excessive Cancel Fees
3. Canadians Trash Their Cell Phone Options: Bad Service, Worse Value; Koodo Rates Highest
4. Verizon Targets Frontier, AT&T and Cable ‘Digital Phone’ Landline Customers in Rochester, N.Y. and Conn.
5. Cell Phone Companies Back for More: Price Hikes, Mandatory Data Plans, Huge Bills

Phillip “Do you want to depend on AT&T for phone service that could be gone with the wind for weeks?” Dampier

Superstorm Sandy is getting credit for exposing the thin veneer of the “wireless future” some phone companies want to give their most rural customers after disconnecting their home phone lines in favor of wireless service.

Unfortunately for the providers selling you on the wireless revolution, reality intruded last month when Category 1 Hurricane Sandy arrived. In its wake, the storm obliterated a significant amount of wireless phone service for weeks in some of the most urbanized sections of the country, while leaving underground, traditional wired phone service largely untouched.

The storm that blew into the northeastern U.S. Oct. 29 left a legacy of interrupted or inadequate cell service that lasted more than two weeks. AT&T and Verizon Wireless reported their networks were not fully restored until Nov. 15. Sprint and T-Mobile are still addressing some issues with their networks as of today.

Although the storm was enormous in scope, it was only a Category 1 hurricane. It could have been much worse.

So where did things go wrong?

Although some sites lost their wired backhaul connection which connects the tower to the provider, the biggest problem was commercial power interruption. Without power, many providers were caught flat-footed with inadequate on-site backup plans to keep cell towers up and running until regular power could be restored.

The wireless industry fought tooth and nail against common sense regulations proposed by the Federal Communications Commission after Hurricane Katrina devastated infrastructure and power facilities in southern Louisiana and Mississippi.

The FCC proposed that every cell tower be equipped with on site battery backup equipment that could sustain service for a minimum of eight hours — sufficient time for power to be restored or company engineers to arrive with more robust generators.

Providers howled about the cost of outfitting the nation’s 200,000 cell sites with even a conservative amount of backup power. The cellular industry lobbying group and Sprint sued, calling it a wasteful and unnecessary mandate. The Bush Administration eventually dropped the whole matter in November 2008 as part of its war on “burdensome” regulation.

Since then, providers have been free to design their own emergency backup plans, or have none at all. Few have made those detailed plans public, giving customers information about how likely their cell phone will work in the event of a disaster.

Verizon Wireless has been the most aggressive, voluntarily adopting the proposed FCC standards and outfitting all of their cell sites with a minimum of eight hours of battery backup power. Other providers have backup facilities at some sites, often with lower capacity batteries that won’t last as long.

Sandy illustrated that even eight hours might be inadequate. Many cell sites were on generator power for more than a week, assuming engineers could regularly reach each tower with equipment and fuel.

Other cell sites could not be returned to service immediately because of major wind damage or flooding. Those that were in service were often overburdened by enormous call volumes.

Meanwhile, unless your landline provider’s central office was flooded, your phone line kept working during and after the storm, especially if your neighborhood wiring is buried underground.

In many cases, it was the only thing working, because traditional phone lines are independently powered and not dependent on electric service in your home to operate. That is what kept your dial tone humming even as your smartphone’s battery ran out.

Ironically, the network that performed the best through the storm is the same one AT&T and Verizon would like to phase out, starting in rural areas. AT&T wants to completely abandon wired service in its most rural service areas, where calling and waiting for emergency assistance is already a hindrance. AT&T plans to spend billions to bolster its rural cell tower network to cover the landline areas it wants to abandon, but those communities would be entirely dependent on the reliability of that network, because AT&T’s competitors are unlikely to build additional infrastructure to compete.

As Sandy just demonstrated, if high-profit Manhattan customers could not be assured of reliable cell phone service from any company that provide service there, how likely is it that a customer in rural Kansas will be in real trouble summoning help over AT&T’s wireless infrastructure in the event of a cell tower failure, wiping out the only telecommunications service available in nearby towns?

Other stories of interest:

1. AT&T Cell Towers in Connecticut Damaged by Winter Storm: 152; Verizon Wireless: 0
2. Hurricane Sandy’s Wrath on Telecommunications Extends Beyond the Hardest Hit Areas
3. Verizon Making Storm Preparations for Sandy’s Impact on Landline/Wireless Network
4. Mid-Atlantic Storm Damage Shows Big Telecom Unprepared for Bad Weather
5. Hurricane Irene Did Its Worst in North Carolina, Upstate NY, and New England

T-Mobile and AT&T customers in the impact zone of Hurricane Sandy will share cellular networks through a mutual aid pact announced today by both companies.

The temporary roaming agreement will allow customers of AT&T and T-Mobile to use cell sites providing the strongest reception and the highest call completion rate in areas of New York and New Jersey where cell service has degraded.

T-Mobile said the temporary arrangement will provide a seamless roaming experience because both companies share GSM technology. There will be no additional charges for this service. We have no information as to whether this agreement will also cover texting and data services.

Earlier today, T-Mobile provided this update to customers about restoration progress:

T-Mobile network engineers are working as quickly as possible to restore service to areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. In Washington, D.C. the network is more than 90% operational. In New York City, the network is more than 80% operational. Restoration work continues in the harder hit areas of lower Manhattan, Staten Island, Long Island, coastal and Northern New Jersey, Connecticut and portions of Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia.

T-Mobile rapid response engineering teams have staged equipment throughout the areas most severely impacted and continue to make assessments regarding how quickly we may be able to begin restoration, and where it is needed most.

Other stories of interest:

1. Hurricane Sandy’s Wrath on Telecommunications Extends Beyond the Hardest Hit Areas
2. Verizon Making Storm Preparations for Sandy’s Impact on Landline/Wireless Network
3. Hurricane Irene Did Its Worst in North Carolina, Upstate NY, and New England
4. While Connecticut Waits for Power, AT&T Customers Also Feel Left in the Dark
5. Verizon’s Cleanup After Sandy Ravages Northeast: Things Look “Bleak” in Lower Manhattan

Hurricane Sandy’s destructive forces of wind and water, combined with extensive electrical outages has wreaked havoc with telecommunications services from Maine to Virginia, leaving some customers potentially without service for weeks.

The storm has flooded Verizon‘s central switching offices in New York City, did extensive damage to Sprint’s wireless network and infrastructure, has left large sections of upstate and downstate New York without cable service, and clocks ticking for wireless cell customers using cell sites currently running on battery backup power.

Some of the worst problems are affecting Verizon’s landline and FiOS networks after the company lost two critical switching centers in Manhattan to extensive flooding. That has contributed to significant problems for Verizon customers across Manhattan, Queens, and Long Island. Further afield, Verizon customers without service can blame power outages and fallen trees that took out overhead wiring. Together, Verizon customers are experiencing significant problems with landline, broadband, and FiOS TV and Internet services in some areas.

Many Verizon Wireless cell sites are operating on battery backup units which maintain service for only a limited time. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut customers report increasing difficulty maintaining cell service signals as those battery backup units start to fail. Verizon engineering crews can restore undamaged cell sites with backup generators once permitted into storm-ravaged areas.

One of the hardest hit wireless carriers

Cablevision‘s business largely depends on areas that took a direct hit from Hurricane Sandy. Cablevision repair crews are encountering extensive power outages and damaged overhead wiring brought down during the storm in Connecticut and Long Island. Its service area closer to New York City has been primarily affected by power outages. Comcast said it was still starting an assessment process and was not prepared to report on the current state of its network, which operates in cities north and south of the New York City metro area.

While Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley reports little damage to Time Warner Cable’s systems, many remain offline from power interruptions, and Time Warner’s Twitter feed for upstate New York reports isolated outages in Portland, Maine and across upstate New York, primarily due to power losses or damage to infrastructure.

Sprint appears to be the hardest hit wireless carrier with widespread service outages, interruptions and call completion issues throughout the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, Maryland, North Virginia and New England. Some customers far away from the worst-hit areas report trouble making and receiving calls on Sprint’s network. Many cell sites are also damaged.

AT&T is assessing damage to its landline operations in Connecticut, where it is the dominant phone company. Many AT&T cell phone sites, like Verizon, are operating on battery backup in power outage areas until AT&T can bring generators online to maintain service.

T-Mobile and MetroPCS report damage and service outages to their cellular networks as well, mostly from power outages.

Lyndhurst, NJ

Even old style communications networks were not spared from Hurricane Sandy. The Northeast Radio Watch reports a large number of broadcasters across the region off the air as of this morning:

• Outside of WOR (710), most New York City area AM stations are off the air. WOR survived the storm with its recently built three tower site located just above the flood waters. Chief engineer Tom Ray told NERW the water is 10 feet deep at WOR’s transmitter site in the Meadowlands. Many AM stations in New York favor transmitter locations in now-ravaged Lyndhurst and the Meadowlands. The result: indefinite absence of all-news WINS (1010) (it’s now back up — thanks to an update from Scott Fybush), which is now being heard on WXRK (92.3). Also missing: WLIB (1190), WSNR (620), WMCA (570), WNYC (820), WPAT (930), WNYM (970), WADO (1280) and WWRV (1330). FM outlets favor much higher transmitter locations, usually atop large skyscrapers, that escaped flood damage.
• WABC continues to air the audio portion of its broadcast on WEPN-AM (1050) and FM (98.7) for the benefit of those without power. WCBS studios are currently powered “by candlelight.”
• The Jersey shore’s FM outlets are mostly silent. Atlantic City was among the hardest hit, and some stations may be off the air for some time while rebuilding.
• Connecticut stations are also off the air. Powerhouse WICC (600) in Bridgeport has transmitters on Long Island Sound — a poor choice to withstand Sandy. It is likely underwater. Also gone: WGCH (1490 Greenwich), WAXB (850 Ridgefield) and WSHU (1260 Westport) and WALK-FM (97.5 Patchogue).

Repair crews for all concerned will likely only start assessing damage later today, but many will have to wait for power crews to complete work — they have first priority. Those lucky enough to see service restoration once power returns will be in far better shape than others who could wait weeks to get their Internet, television and phone service back.

Correction: Original story included reference to studio power knocked out at WOR-TV. That should have said WOR-AM (radio). 

Other stories of interest:

1. Hurricane Irene Did Its Worst in North Carolina, Upstate NY, and New England
2. AT&T Cell Towers in Connecticut Damaged by Winter Storm: 152; Verizon Wireless: 0
3. Goodnight Irene: Some Customers Will Have to Wait Until October for Restored Internet Service
4. Major Earthquake Overwhelms Southern New Zealand Telecommunications Networks
5. Time Running Out on New England Cable/Phone Customers Seeking Storm-Related Credits

Verizon Wireless is proud of its new “business intelligence” initiative that will collect your browsing habits and online behavior, aggregate it with other customers similar to you, and then package and sell it to anyone willing to pay.

For your convenience, Verizon has automatically opted you in to their Precision initiative, and it is up to you to make the effort to opt out.

“Companies are always seeking opportunities to understand and act on their customers’ preferences, and Verizon is in a unique position to offer information and insight in a format that can help,” said Colson Hillier, vice president, Precision Market Insights, Verizon Wireless.  “At the same time, protecting customer data and safeguarding privacy have always been high priorities at Verizon, and we give our customers choice and control over their privacy preferences.”

The first set of services from Precision will help brands and companies such as outdoor media companies, sport venues, and other marketers, to understand the characteristics of the audiences for their products and services so that they can better reach and serve those customers.  Business and marketing insights use information from Verizon’s mobile network that is gathered and combined with demographic data, then aggregated to provide real insights into consumer behavior.  Data associated with the preparation of business and marketing reports is anonymous and secure and will not allow the identification of an individual.

Precision plans to introduce additional services including one that will help brands tailor the type of advertising customers see on their mobile phones, also known as relevant mobile advertising, and others that will help marketers create opportunities to better address their consumers and their consumers’ needs.

Still, Verizon’s lucrative new program delivers all of the benefits to themselves, while sticking you with an ever-increasing mobile phone bill. If Verizon Wireless wants to collect your browsing data and other “aggregated” information to sell to advertisers, then the company ought to be paying customers to participate. As usual, they keep all of the money for themselves.

Verizon Wireless obfuscates this privacy invasion with technobabble. They call it: Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), ironic for a program that sells “precision” information to Verizon’s clients. In fact, Verizon tracks your location, collects ongoing statistics that can be used to predict where you will be at any given time, and offers that information up to mobile advertisers. They in turn deliver you “relevant advertising,” that eats your limited data allowance. It represents a win-win for the company and advertisers. Sell your data and then collect even more revenue as advertisers pelt you with unwanted ads.

But customers do not have to be the losers. You can deny Verizon their latest Money Party until they share some of the proceeds with you:

1. Login to your account at Verizon Wireless.
2. Scroll to “I want to…” and find “profile.”
3. Choose “Manage privacy settings.”
4. Note the section: “Customer Proprietary Network Information”.
5. Choose “Don’t Share My CPNI” for each relevant cellular number.
6. Make sure to click the “Save Changes” button when finished or your choices will not be saved.

You may want to also block Verizon from cashing in on your data for their Business and Marketing Reports and Relevant Mobile Advertising. Those settings appear just below the CPNI section. Make sure you “Save Changes” for each section.

Not a Verizon Wireless customer? Look out. Your carrier may be packaging and reselling your browsing habits as well.

• Sprint: Collects and markets subscriber data. Login to your Sprint account and select “My Choices” to opt out or call 1-855-596-2397 from each of your mobile devices.
• AT&T: Collects and markets subscriber data. Visit AT&T’s privacy options after logging into your account and opt out as needed.
• T-Mobile: Legalese overload. Would the average customer understand this: “We may obtain your consent in several ways, such as in writing; online, through ‘click-through’ agreements; orally, including through interactive voice response; or when your consent is part of this policy or the terms and conditions pursuant to which we provide you service. Your consent is sometimes implicit.”

Other stories of interest:

1. Verizon/Verizon Wireless Plans to Share Your Physical Address With Advertisers to Target Ads
2. PC Magazine Hands Out Fastest Wireless Data Awards, But Does It Matter?
3. Updated: Stop the Cap! Helps Verizon Wireless Customers Sign Up for Unlimited Data Through Loophole
4. Fraudulent Verizon Wireless Websites Phish for Your Phone Information
5. Verizon Will Cease Selling Standalone DSL Service May 6th; Voice With DSL Only, Please