Stop the Cap! » Clearwire

Sprint Will Continue Offering Unlimited Data On Its Forthcoming LTE 4G Network

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:32:32 +0000

A Sprint spokesperson this week confirmed the company will continue selling “unlimited data” service on their forthcoming LTE 4G network.

Sprint’s Nichole Cappitelli told TechHog the carrier plans to extend unlimited access, with no speed throttling, to those buying Sprint’s first LTE phone, the Viper 4G.

Sprint begins accepting pre-orders for the LG phone April 12, with an anticipated shipping date by the end of the month.

Sprint’s 4G LTE network, still under construction, will provide improved 4G speed and value for customers looking for some savings over AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Sprint currently delivers slower 4G WiMAX service from its partner Clearwire.

The Viper 4G phone will sell for $100 with a 2-year contract and $50 mail-in rebate. With Sprint’s Everything plan, $80 will buy you unlimited mobile data, texting, and calling. A similar plan from Verizon that only includes 2GB of mobile data is priced $40 higher.

Until July 22, Sprint will bundle 50GB of free cloud storage and sharing from Box, available from the Google Play app store.

Sprint is America’s only national mobile phone company offering unlimited and unthrottled data plans.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

FreedomPop Threatens to Tear Up Wireless Data Business Model With Free GB of 4G

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:41:41 +0000

“Disruptive” is perhaps too timid a word to use for Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstrom, the man who brought Excedrin-strength headaches to the music industry with file-swapping software Kazaa and streamed video across the net for free with Joost. Now he wants to blow up America’s business model for expensive wireless data by literally giving it away to wireless phone users.

FreedomPop has a “freemium” business model of its very own — give away 1GB of 4G data through Clearwire to iPhone owners willing to use FreedomPop’s WiMAX-fitted phone case with the hope users will throw more business their way for around $10/GB after the first gigabyte is gone.

Zennstrom

Clearwire has been in the mood to make deals with all-comers to leverage its WiMAX network that carriers like Sprint plan to abandon for LTE 4G service in the not-too-distant future. By giving away 1GB of free usage (and it remains unclear whether this is a “one-off” deal or if the meter resets to zero every month), the company is set to draw plenty of free press.

FreedomPop is likely to appeal to price-sensitive customers who don’t want to pay providers $30 a month for 2-3GB of usage when a much smaller, cheaper data plan combined with the free service will do.

The WiMAX case, which will fit over Apple’s iPhone, also acts as a mobile hotspot, supporting up to eight concurrently-connected devices. No change of phone is required as users can connect to the service through Wi-Fi.

Customers will have to place a deposit on the case, likely less than $100, refundable when returned in good condition.

With most people not exceeding 1GB of usage per month, the only cost will be the “bare minimum” data plan customers are required to take with AT&T, Verizon Wireless, or Sprint, which currently runs $15-20 for a few hundred megabytes.

Clearwire’s WiMAX doesn’t deliver coverage to all points in the United States, and its speeds are considerably lower than 4G LTE service. But free is free – a concept NetZero hopes to use to pitch a similar free 4G Clearwire WiMAX service. The primary difference is your granted usage allowance. FreedomPop will provide 1GB — NetZero 200MB.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Wall Street Journal explores the business model of FreedomPop. How can giving away 4G data succeed financially? (4 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

NetZero’s “Free Wireless Internet Access” Comes With Catches

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:45:58 +0000

The days of free Internet access are back… sort of.

United Online, Inc. announced Monday that it will offer free wireless Internet access through its NetZero service, provided as a “loss leader” that depends on users upgrading to paid access to cover the service’s costs.

NetZero became familiar to most Americans in the 1990s when the company handed limited dial-up Internet access, paid for through online advertising that subscribers endured in return for getting the service for free. But broadband costs considerably more, so as the transition away from dial-up turned into a stampede, NetZero faded into memories about as much as AOL signup floppy disks and CD’s.

But now the company is back pitching free access to “4G wireless Internet” with no strings attached, contract commitments, or overage fees. But that does not tell the full story.

While there is no contract commitment, NetZero requires an upfront investment in wireless hardware — $50 for a USB antenna stick suitable for a laptop or $100 for a “mobile hotspot” that can deliver a Wi-Fi connection to other nearby devices. The devices are for sale on NetZero’s website.

The “free wireless” offer is probably better described as dim sum — it comes with a 200MB monthly usage limit, which makes it suitable for basic web browsing and e-mail only. Once your limit is reached, the service is cut off for the remainder of the month, unless you agree to one of several paid usage plans that range from $9.95 for 500MB to $49.95 for 4GB, billed monthly.

After 12 months, NetZero’s free ride is over unless you agree to continue with a paid usage plan. It ends even sooner if you choose to upgrade to a paid plan anytime during the first year. Once you do, you lose the option of switching back to the free plan.

Whether paid or not, NetZero users ride on Clear’s troubled 4G WiMAX network, which Sprint — Clear’s largest customer — is planning to eventually abandon for more advanced LTE. The long term future of Clear, also known as Clearwire, is also up in the air. The company has ceased investing in its WiMAX network and is making preparations of its own to switch to LTE 4G technology — incompatible with the NetZero hardware you will spend $50-100 to acquire.

Clear’s network has also received considerable criticism for its speed and performance. Because it operates on much higher frequencies, Clear’s wireless signal has problems penetrating indoors, and has even more trouble where energy efficient window coatings are used, especially in the south.

While NetZero does, in fact, deliver the service for free, the upfront investment and potential service headaches limit its usefulness. Light users may find free Wi-Fi, increasingly common in a number of businesses, more convenient, affordable, and faster than the NetZero alternative.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Sprint: “50% Chance of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy,” Says Wall Street Analyst

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:15:34 +0000

A Wall Street analyst says Sprint has a 50/50 chance of being forced into bankruptcy, either pulling through a difficult upgrade to LTE 4G and stabilizing its partnership with Clearwire, or sinking under a load of debt incurred by Apple’s iPhone and network upgrade expenses.

Sanford Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett downgraded Sprint this morning from “market perform” to “underperform,” noting Sprint’s complicated five year credit default swap financing deal already prices in a 50/50 chance Sprint will be forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.

Moffett told investors he believes Sprint’s near term future can be described in one of two ways:

“In the first, the company successfully navigates its complicated Network Vision upgrade, stabilizes Clearwire‘s financial position, and delivers a compelling 4G product. In the second, some combination of its gargantuan take-or-pay contract with Apple, a hobbled 4G offering, and a stupendous debt burden bring the company to its knees.”

Moffett says Sprint’s biggest risk may come from Apple’s forthcoming 4G LTE iPhone, which he does not believe will work well on Sprint’s network.

“The problem is 4G. Sprint doesn’t have enough free-and-clear spectrum on which to launch a competitive LTE network, and it doesn’t have the money to clear spectrum that’s already in use,” Moffett said. “We expect Sprint’s competitiveness to begin to backslide when LTE becomes the nation’s de facto standard.”

Sprint continues to rely primarily on its troubled partner Clearwire for 4G service, which uses the aging WiMAX standard other carriers abroad are decommissioning.

With the iPhone 5 due later this year, should it provide access to 4G LTE service, Sprint could be in real trouble. By fall, Sprint’s LTE network is expected to only provide limited coverage in a handful of cities, and on PCS spectrum less suitable for penetrating buildings. Sprint would be forced to compete against Verizon’s nearly-completed LTE network as well as AT&T’s mixture of LTE and HSPA+ 4G services. Verizon and AT&T will operate their 4G networks on 700MHz spectrum which can deliver robust signals indoors and out.

“Unfortunately, at this point we simply don’t believe there is any analytical framework that provides strong conviction as to whether Sprint can or cannot avoid bankruptcy over the next four years or so,” Moffett says. “Instead, one is left with this; are the perceived risks rising, or are they falling? We conclude … that risks of bankruptcy are rising, and that perceived risks will rise still further with the release of the first 4G iPhone.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

CNBC speaks with Craig Moffett about the challenges afflicting Sprint’s effort to build a 4G LTE network and how a bankruptcy might affect customers. (4 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

T-Mobile: Allowing Verizon to Acquire Airwaves from Cable Industry Against the Public Interest

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:15:51 +0000

...some of that juicy 700MHz spectrum Verizon is getting from the nation's biggest cable companies.

In an ironic turnabout, Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA, last year an acquisition target of AT&T, has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission opposing Verizon’s spectrum purchase from the nation’s largest cable companies as “contrary to the public interest.”

Verizon Wireless is seeking to acquire a substantial block of unused AWS spectrum that is unlikely to provide any near-term benefits to Verizon Wireless customers (indeed, the company already holds other AWS spectrum and has not even put it to use yet). Rather, the principal impact of the acquisition would be to foreclose the possibility that this spectrum could be acquired by smaller competitors – such as T-Mobile – who would use it more quickly, more intensively, and more efficiently than Verizon Wireless. The acquisitions will limit the deployment of LTE by competitors of Verizon Wireless and the bandwidth available for such deployments.

If these transactions go forward, the end result will be less LTE capacity available overall and reduced competition in the provision of LTE, which would be contrary to the public interest.

T-Mobile, in particular, is upset because it owns no spectrum in the valuable 700MHz range — frequencies that can travel longer distances and easily penetrate buildings. Verizon Wireless does, and ~~will acquire much more if the FCC approves the deal to transfer spectrum from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox~~. [Correction: As one of our readers pointed out, the spectrum being acquired is in the AWS band, which T-Mobile argues in its filing is still suitable for a 4G network deployment.] T-Mobile argues Verizon does not need the spectrum, and will effectively “warehouse” the frequencies to keep them off the open market. Without prime spectrum, T-Mobile argues, it will be difficult for the company to deliver a 4G experience to its customers.

T-Mobile also has a bone to pick with Verizon Wireless and the cable industry over what it suspects is a non-compete agreement:

At least in effect, this has all the hallmarks of a pure horizontal allocation of markets.

From the limited information available, it appears as though Verizon, the majority owner of Verizon Wireless, has agreed (tacitly if not expressly) to halt its extensive efforts to expand into the cable business and the cable companies have, in turn, traded their control of valuable spectrum in exchange for this protection of their cable markets.

It has been publicly reported that, coincident with acquiring the cable companies’ spectrum, thereby eliminating potential new competition in mobile wireless, Verizon ended its FiOS build out plans and terminated its agreement to resell satellite television. This series of acts appears to limit Verizon’s activity as a potential competitor in the video market and limit the cable companies’ role as potential competitors in the wireless market, while at the same time foreclosing competing providers from one of the only available sources of spectrum.

As a result of this “triple play,” competition in both markets will be substantially reduced. The antitrust laws have long condemned such agreements, even among potential competitors.

Not All Frequencies Are Created Equal

USA Carrier	Voice Frequencies (MHz)	3G	4G	Notes
AT&T	850 / 1900	850 / 1900	700	Will turn over limited frequencies to T-Mobile as per failed merger agreement.
Metro PCS	1900 / AWS	1900 / AWS	AWS	Provides limited service, targeting urban markets.
Sprint	1900	1900	2500	Sprint and its partner Clearwire have some of the least valuable spectrum.
T-Mobile	1900	AWS/(1900(limited))	AWS/(1900(limited))	T-Mobile’s network was built from acquisitions like VoiceStream and Omnipoint.
Verizon	850 / 1900	850 / 1900	700	Has used 700MHz to effectively deploy the largest 4G/LTE network to date.

Will Verizon ultimately warehouse its newest acquired spectrum?

Unless you are well-acquainted with the wireless industry, all most people know about their cell phones is that they turn them on and a signal strength meter indicates what kind of reception quality you are getting. In fact, wireless companies use a range of frequencies across several different frequency bands to handle voice calls and data. As an end user, you never know the difference. But if your wireless company is forced to use higher frequencies, they often have a harder time penetrating buildings or provide only limited distance coverage. That’s why AT&T and Verizon customers have a better chance of making and receiving calls in the middle of a supermarket or office building while others lose reception.

Clearwire has an extensive holding of very high frequencies at its disposal — frequencies the company cannot effectively use because they require considerably more infrastructure (ie. more cell towers) to provide an effective service to customers. Clearwire customers already complain about poor reception inside buildings, a problem exacerbated by the very high frequencies the company has to use for its service. Verizon and AT&T collectively control the majority of the best, more robust spectrum — the 700MHz band. Verizon’s LTE network, for example, relies on spectrum that used to be used by high numbered UHF television channels.

Companies like T-Mobile rely on frequencies in the 1700MHz and 1900MHz bands. While certainly adequate in urban and suburban areas, T-Mobile has to spend more on cell tower deployment and be especially concerned with rural coverage, especially in areas where the terrain makes “line of sight” reception from cell towers more difficult.

While today’s 2G and 3G networks have made due with current spectrum, companies like T-Mobile are having a hard time finding space to launch the next generation — LTE/4G technology — on their current spectrum. Without LTE, T-Mobile (and others) will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The company argues it should have the right to acquire some of the frequencies Verizon intends to capture from the cable industry, especially if Verizon has no immediate plans to use the spectrum.

Some of the wrangling by T-Mobile seems especially ironic because parent company Deutsche Telekom has indicated it wants to sell T-Mobile USA and leave the American wireless market. It has shown little interest so far investing in a LTE/4G network upgrade. Additionally, as part of AT&T’s failed merger bid, T-Mobile is expecting to receive frequencies from AT&T as part of the “failed transaction” clause in the original merger proposal.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

LightSquared Sunk by FCC; Shared Spectrum Interference to GPS Devices Cited

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:09:26 +0000

A billionaire who invested enormous sums to purchase airwaves for a new national wireless broadband network learned Tuesday ruled he cannot use them to launch LightSquared.

The Federal Communications Commission said yesterday Philip Falcone’s vision for competitive wireless service cannot go forward on the frequencies he acquired because tests show they create significant interference to other nearby spectrum users, especially GPS.

Falcone’s hedge fund poured nearly $3 billion into LightSquared, which the company still claims would not create significant problems for GPS users including aircraft, cars, and ships.

Falcone

But when tests were conducted in early 2011, significant interference problems were reported, some that could jeopardize the safety of American air travel. The FCC decided it preferred to be safe instead of sorry.

The announcement by the FCC calls into question the future of the company and the value of its airwave assets, which are now likely worth a fraction of the price paid.

The company’s agreements with at least 30 wholesale customers are also at risk, and one of its largest partners, Sprint-Nextel, has spent the last few months distancing itself from the project, anticipating the decision the FCC announced yesterday.

The rejection has upset the FCC’s plans to increase wireless competition for AT&T and Verizon, which dominate American wireless. The agency hoped the spectrum LightSquared obtained would open the doors to a new national player, but that appears unlikely for now.

LightSquared executives said in October they would sue the FCC in court if the agency blocked their network from operating.

The only new player on the horizon may be Dish Network, which earlier acquired wireless spectrum from two bankrupt companies, and now seeks to use them as mobile phone spectrum. Separately, Clearwire is working with Sprint to construct a new national 4G network, while still operating Clear’s existing WiMAX 4G service.

Click here to view the embedded video.

CNBC discusses LightSquared’s new troubles and where the company can go from here. (3 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

High Technology Companies Warn South Carolina Against Adopting Anti-Broadband Initiative

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:10:57 +0000

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:

January 31, 2012

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.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

The Wall Street Journal’s Revisionist History: AT&T Isn’t the Problem, the Government Is?

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:31:18 +0000

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?

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

Other coverage you may enjoy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who owns what

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

Other coverage you may enjoy:

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

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

Now all prepaid and contract-free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other coverage you may enjoy: