A coalition of high tech companies including Google and Alcatel-Lucent are warning South Carolina legislators they are playing with future high tech jobs and will stifle the state’s digital economy if they grant the request of large phone and cable companies to make it difficult, if not impossible for community-owned broadband to compete.  Alcatel-Lucent, American Public Power Association, Atlantic Engineering, Fiber to the Home Council, Google, OnTrac, Southeast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, Telecommunications Industry Association, and the Utilities Telecom Council all co-signed the letter addressed to the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee:

Dear Senator McConnell and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We, the private-sector companies and trade associations listed below, urge you to oppose H.3508 because these bills, on top of South Carolina’s existing barrier to public communications initiatives, codified in SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., will harm both the public and private sectors, stifle economic growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of jobs, hamper work force development and diminish the quality of life in South Carolina. In particular, these bills will hurt the private sector in several ways: by curtailing public-private partnerships, stifling private companies that sell equipment and services to public broadband providers, and impairing educational and occupational opportunities that contribute to a skilled workforce from which businesses across the state will benefit.

Clearwire's coverage map shows no service in South Carolina.

The United States continues to suffer through difficult economic times.  The private sector alone cannot lift the United States out of this crisis.  As a result, federal and state efforts are taking place across the Nation to deploy both private and public broadband infrastructure to stimulate and support economic development and jobs, especially in economically distressed areas.  For example, in South Carolina, Orangeburg and Oconee Counties have received broadband stimulus awards to bring much-needed broadband services and capabilities to communities that the private sector has chosen not to serve adequately.  H.3508, together with SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., would impose burdensome financial and regulatory requirements that will prevent public broadband providers from building the sorely needed advanced broadband infrastructure that will stimulate local businesses development, foster work force retraining, and boost employment in these economically depressed areas.

Consistent with these expressions of national unity, public entities across America, including South Carolina, are ready, willing, and able to do their share to bring affordable high-capacity broadband connectivity to all Americans. Enactment or retention of direct or effective barriers to community broadband, such as H.3508 and SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., would be counterproductive to the achievement of these goals.  These measures are also inconsistent with our country’s National Broadband Plan, which recommends that no new barriers be enacted and that existing barriers be removed.

We support strong, fair and open competition to ensure that users can enjoy the widest range of choices and opportunities.  H.3508 is a step in the wrong direction.  South Carolina should be removing barriers to public broadband initiatives rather than establishing new ones, so that high technology companies can spread and prosper into all the communities in this beautiful state.  Please oppose H.3508, repeal SC Code § 58‑9‑2600 et seq., and reject any future measures that could significantly impair municipal broadband deployments or public-private partnerships in South Carolina.

Stop the Cap! earlier noted this legislation is heavily sponsored by AT&T and other telecommunications companies already operating in South Carolina.  Several months ago, we reported on South Carolina’s woeful broadband: A Corridor of Shame, with large sections of the state without anything close to “broadband” service, even as state legislators in 2009 leased away the state’s publicly owned Educational Broadband Service-spectrum to private companies like Clearwire that don’t appear to be delivering any service in South Carolina.

Haven't we been here before?

History is best ignored when a Wall Street Journal columnist frames an argument in favor of strengthening the hegemony of Ma Bell, and darn ‘ole past precedent gets in the way of the writer’s “facts.”

Gordon Crovitz is a media and information industry adviser and executive, including former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, executive vice president of Dow Jones and president of its Consumer Media Group.  But today he’s unofficially, unabashedly AT&T.

In a column published this week, Crovitz hosts a whine and cheese festival on behalf of poor and abused AT&T, whose multi-billion dollar takeover of T-Mobile is in tatters. Crovitz places the blame squarely on the government for ruining everything:

How soon we forget the risks of overregulation: Last week, the Federal Communications Commission flexed the same muscle it once used to quash market forces in the phone industry to quash market forces in the wireless industry.

Today’s AT&T, a spinoff from the original, needs more spectrum to catch up with market leader Verizon, also a Ma Bell descendant, to support iPhones, Androids and other devices that feature video and sophisticated apps. It wants to buy T-Mobile, a division of a German company, which doesn’t have the resources to compete in the United States on its own. But the FCC decided to apply antitrust theory from the industrial era and claims to know better than wireless companies how they should operate their businesses.

AT&T’s proposed acquisition is best understood as a private-sector solution to a government-created problem. The FCC has not been able to get Congress to approve auctions to reallocate spectrum to wireless from less valuable uses. AT&T wants T-Mobile’s bandwidth so it can extend the latest fourth-generation network to 97% of the country from 80% and improve its spotty service in congested areas.

Under laws dating to the 1920s, the FCC gets to decide if a merger is in the “public interest,” a vague standard for top-down decision making. Government is the last institution in this era of fast technological innovation to act as if it has the information and power to dictate how change happens.

Crovitz apparently prefers AT&T and its phone pal Verizon Wireless dictate how “change happens,” because the two companies control the vast majority of wireless telecommunications in the United States.  Both also charge near-identical prices for near-identical levels of service.  AT&T & VZW are completely comfortable with that status quo, especially if disruptive competitor T-Mobile is dealt with in the usual industry manner (merger/buyout).

There is nothing vague about the FCC report that condemns the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile for the anti-competitive monstrosity it represents.  In hundreds of pages Crovitz evidently never read, a careful and credible argument against the deal was laid out for all to examine.  That evidence is far more persuasive than AT&T’s heavily-redacted filings the public was not authorized to see (for ‘competitive reasons’), and a multi-million-dollar-a-holler public relations distortion strategy based on hollow promises.

Playing Catch-Up With Verizon Wireless?  Hardly.

AT&T hardly needs to “catch up” with Verizon Wireless.  Both companies own wireless spectrum they have warehoused for “future use.”  As a backdrop to the merger, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has already indicated the agency is hard at work carefully re-allocating spectrum to make more room for wireless services.  The “bandwidth crisis” AT&T talks about is a convenient argument for a merger, until you realize T-Mobile’s mostly-urban wireless network won’t help AT&T achieve its goal of rural wireless expansion.  T-Mobile has never provided service in rural America and never will.

Crovitz attempts to leverage Verizon Wireless’ recent deal with America’s largest cable companies as an argument for the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, suggesting that deal was a game changer.  What goes unsaid is the fact AT&T could have pursued that deal for themselves.  Did they?  No.  Despite AT&T’s public relations spin, the proposed merger with T-Mobile is much more than a spectrum acquisition. As the FCC and the Justice Department have argued, this merger is about ridding AT&T of a competitor willing to offer more services at lower prices.  That forces AT&T to respond in kind to compete, and consumers have benefited greatly from that competition. Verizon Wireless is hardly competition at all considering both companies price services nearly identically.  Beyond that is Sprint, already saddled with the financial albatross Clearwire and questions about its long term viability in a duopolistic wireless market.

Crovitz is wrong on his other “facts” as well:

Deutsche Telekom is hardly short on cash.  The company has plenty of resources and could bolster T-Mobile USA to compete if it saw fit.  It doesn’t, preferring to focus on its more lucrative European markets.  Instead of selling the operation on the open market to other players, which could include foreign providers interested in competing in the high-priced American market, it elected to be courted by AT&T.

Overconfident AT&T

Henry De Lamar Clayton, Jr.: Author of the Clayton Act

The merger illustrates AT&T’s unparalleled level of overconfidence it could deal with regulators and consumer groups who would certainly object to the deal.  The company has since spent millions it could have used to improve its network on campaign-contribution-fueled support building on Capitol Hill, a shameless dollar-a-holler astroturf campaign that pays off non-profit groups to sing the deal’s praises, and an expensive ad campaign to sucker Americans into thinking reduced competition will somehow deliver lower prices and better service.

Even former Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would have likely paused over such an obvious monopoly-building operation.  The Obama Administration’s FCC chairman — Julius Genachowski –  while often too timid for our tastes, at least knows when it is time to join the chorus of opposition.

The FCC doesn’t pretend to tell AT&T how to run its business.  It does, however, serve the public interest by providing checks and balances to unfettered corporate power.  While the Wall Street Journal‘s world view of capitalism would have been favored by the most egregious robber barons, history has taught us that when big corporations get a stranglehold on vital industries, the entire economy can suffer.

Crovitz would have us ignore the massive corporate abuses of 100 years ago that eventually provoked Congress into trust-busting legislative reform, breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies that presided over the railways, early telecommunications networks, and industrial raw materials like oil and steel.  Restrained competition brought monopoly prices and blockades against would-be competitors.  What was true then is still true now, only the technology has changed.

In 1911, the economy was powered in part by railroads, which transported goods and raw materials.  Telecommunications networks like the telegraph and early telephone helped conduct business and coordinated the movement of goods.  In 2011′s growing digital economy, telecommunications increasingly represents the railroads, telegraph, and telephone all combined-into-one.  Some of America’s richest tech companies depend on broadband and communications to fuel demand for their products.  Allowing AT&T to control the largest part of that pipeline could be disastrous to everyone but that company and their shareholders.

History Repeats Itself

In 1914, the Clayton Act was passed to put a stop to increasing anti-competitive activity and abusive market tactics.  Amazingly, the problems being solved a century ago are back with a vengeance today, all thanks to the endless drumbeat for deregulation, which has fueled mergers, acquisitions, and increased concentration of market power.  That Act cracked down on:

• Price discrimination: selling products and services at different prices to similarly situated buyers;
• Tying and exclusive-dealing contracts: sales on condition that the buyer sign exclusive contracts that force an end to dealing with the seller’s competitors;
• Corporate mergers: acquisitions of competing companies to reduce competition; and
• Interlocking directorates: Boards of directors of competing companies, packed with common members.

Today’s laissez-faire attitude towards government checks and balances helped provoke the Great Recession, corporate scandals of epic proportions, and a revolving door in Washington where regulators end up working for the companies they used to regulate. Just ask former FCC chairman Michael Powell. Three years ago he worked for us.  Today he works for Big Cable’s largest lobbying group — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker went to work for Comcast shortly after green-lighting their super-merger with NBC-Universal.

It’s All About the Money. Always.

The only thing stopping AT&T from providing wireless nirvana to rural America is its own unwillingness to spend money on behalf of customers to upgrade its network.  The company claims it didn’t see the value of spending nearly $4 billion needed to deliver expansive 4G service, but suddenly had no trouble at all finding nearly ten times that amount to purchase T-Mobile USA.

Did AT&T suddenly win PowerBall?

AT&T saw crushing a competitor Job #1.  Central Idaho’s 4G service could wait.

Crovitz later notes AT&T “was unusually blunt” criticizing the FCC report, a classic case of protesting too much.  The company got caught with its rhetorical pants down, with a series of evolving arguments for a deal that never made the first bit of sense once you began to dig deeper into their case.

In the end, Mr. Crovitz wants you to blame Big Government for AT&T’s pervasive dropped-call problem that its competitors don’t seem to have.

It’s not the company that owns and runs the network, it is that Obama and his nasty henchmen at the FCC who are responsible!  Who knew?

Bloomberg News reports the FCC found AT&T failed to demonstrate any real public benefit of its merger with T-Mobile USA.  (2 minutes)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Sprint is preparing to launch its own 4G LTE network early next year in an undetermined number of markets to increase 4G speeds and compete with AT&T and Verizon.

Sprint’s existing 4G service, based on older WiMax technology that powers the Clearwire network, has not kept up with subscriber demands, and many of Sprint’s “4G”-capable markets have speeds more in common with 3G than Verizon’s LTE or AT&T HSPA+ 4G networks.  As Clearwire continues to struggle through serious financial problems (the service has not expanded into a new market since 2010), lawsuits, and disgruntled customers, Sprint isn’t waiting around for Clearwire’s own planned upgrade to TD-LTE, which would require at least $600 million in financing to undertake.

Instead, Sprint is deploying the same technology used by Verizon for its LTE network.

CNET reports Sprint will initially use its G-block spectrum (1900MHz) for its LTE network, but the most robust coverage will come in 2013 when Sprint retires the Nextel iDEN network which currently resides in the 800MHz band, more suitable for longer range reception.

Sprint says the 4G LTE upgrade is all part of its Network Vision plan, which upgrades virtually the entire Sprint network at a cost of $4-5 billion.  But shareholders aren’t reacting over Sprint’s LTE spending, because it is included in the earlier budget already disclosed to Wall Street.

For consumers, the upgrade will mean the company that first embraced 4G will once again deliver speeds worthy of that label.  Sprint customers across the country have reported network speeds have suffered as more customers have piled on Sprint’s and Clearwire’s network.  Clearwire will remain a Sprint partner, but that wireless provider will increasingly depend on Sprint’s network, a reversal of Sprint’s current dependence on Clearwire WiMax for their existing 4G service.  Clearwire may ultimately be unable to finance its own upgrades.

Sprint also announced it will keep its unlimited smartphone data plans, because they attract customers from AT&T and Verizon who do not want limited-use plans.  But preserving unlimited data comes at a cost.  Sprint has been cutting perks all month:

1. Sprint nearly doubled its early termination fee from $200 to $350 effective Sept. 9.
2. Sprint slashed its satisfaction guarantee program for new customers from 30 to 14 days on Sept. 16.  Sprint’s guarantee allows new customers the opportunity to test Sprint’s network before committing to a two-year contract.  The company also now expects to be paid for whatever airtime charges were incurred during the trial.
3. Sprint has announced it is ending its Premier Program Dec. 31.  Premier gave customers who spend more than $89 a month on an individual cell plan the opportunity to upgrade their phones annually, penalty-free.  Members also received free minutes, discounts on accessories, early buying opportunities for the newest phones, and regular plan reviews.  Instead, customers will be dropped into the same New for You^SM Upgrade Program lower spenders receive.  But Sprint will be changing that program too:

Unlimited data... for now.

On October 2, the following changes to our New for You^SM Upgrade Program will take effect:

• New lines of service and existing customers who upgrade on or after October 2, 2011 will receive future upgrades after 20 months;
• $75 and $25 upgrade discounts will no longer be available for customers signing up for a 1-year agreement or 2-year agreement after 12 months or signing a 1-year agreement after 22 months.

Additional information for existing customers. As of October 2:

• If you’ve already qualified for a full upgrade, nothing changes. When you sign up for a new 2-year agreement and take your device offer, future upgrades will be available after 20 months;
• If you haven’t qualified for your full upgrade yet, to receive a discount you’ll wait until you qualify for your full upgrade at 22 months.

On Oct. 5, Sprint is expected to introduce the Apple iPhone on its network for the first time.  Some analysts predict iPhone will be the catalyst to drive Sprint’s unlimited data plan into the ground, because the phone has a reputation for being a favorite for heavy data users.  iPhone 5 will remain dependent on 3G networks for connectivity outside of Wi-Fi, which could drive data usage higher than any other Sprint phone.  Should that overwhelm Sprint’s 3G network before its 4G service enjoys a widespread rollout (and Apple introduces a phone that works on 4G), Sprint may find itself limiting data usage as well, as least on its 3G network.

Sprint’s promotional video promoting its current 4G WiMax network, powered by Clearwire.  (3 minutes)

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.”

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.