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.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee)

House Republicans pulled out all the stops on Capitol Hill today criticizing the Lifeline subsidy program that provides low-cost phone service to the poor, including one congresswoman questioning whether Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev received a free cell phone after newspaper accounts suggested he had previously received welfare benefits.

“I even had one constituent [ask] after it came out that the…terrorists that committed the bombings in Boston were receiving welfare benefits, were they in this program? I think those are the kind of questions that our constituents are asking,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) asked at a House hearing on the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Lifeline program.

Several Republicans criticized the program for handing out free or low-cost cell phones some conservative critics have dubbed “Obamaphones” without much eligibility verification.

Blackburn complained the cost of the program has ballooned in cost over the last 29 years.

“When the Lifeline program was introduced in 1984, it only cost the government $380 million a year. Now that has increased to $2.2 billion,” Blackburn said. “This is the kind of explosive growth this program has seen.”

The House Republican-led investigation is unlikely to net any real changes to the program, but Democratic critics have charged Republicans with playing politics with the poor.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) added some critics have made up myths about the program to score political points.

“Here are the facts: President Obama did not create Lifeline, the government does not give away free cellphones or iPads, nowhere in America except in Tennessee do they call it an ‘Obama phone,’ and eliminating the Lifeline program — or disqualifying wireless services — would not reduce our nation’s budget deficit by a single penny,” Waxman said.

Comcast says gun stores need no longer apply to purchase ad time on their cable systems.

The Lake County (Fla.) Commission is calling Comcast’s decision to no longer accept advertising from businesses that promote gun sales “discrimination,” and they are calling on the Florida legislature to pressure the cable operator to change its mind.

Local gun shops in central Florida are angry Comcast has stopped accepting their advertising and say the operator has an advertising monopoly that guarantees their ads will not be seen.

“I’ve advertised over 20 years with Comcast,” Carey Baker of Peterson’s Gun Shop told WFTV. “My business has no other choice. I can’t advertise on any other cable company.”

Both Time Warner Cable and Comcast have ceased running advertising from gun shops after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Connecticut. Comcast said they simply adopted a pre-existing policy already in place at NBC after buying the network.

Many broadcast stations and networks also maintain restrictions on gun or ammunition-related advertising, some banning those commercials outright, others approving them on a case-by-case basis.

Some commissioners said the cable operator’s decision was just as unacceptable as not allowing a gun shop owner to eat in a local restaurant. But another commissioner dissented, claiming Comcast has the right to run its business as it pleases.

The matter of cable advertising is completely unregulated, and attempts by state or local governments to enforce ad content policies would likely be challenged in the courts by affected cable operators.

But Baker says local municipalities do retain some leverage, as they can deny the renewal of a cable franchise to those no longer seen serving the best interests of the community.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFTV Orlando Lake Co gun shop owner upset Comcast no longer allowing gun ads 4-24-13.flv[/flv]

WFTV in Orlando talks with Carey Baker, owner of a local gun shop that can no longer advertise on Comcast Cable.  (2 minutes)

After more than a year of aggressive promotions for new customers and those threatening to switch to a competitor, Time Warner Cable has pulled back to boost revenue and make greater profits.

CEO Glenn Britt told Wall Street investors on this morning’s quarterly results conference call that the cable operator is moving in a different direction.

“It’s based on a simple premise: sell people what they want and what they can afford in the first place,” Britt said.

In February, Stop the Cap! noted that Time Warner Cable’s new customer promotions had dramatically changed for the worse. The package prices remained the same — around $80 for a double-play or $89-99 for a triple-play package of cable, broadband, and/or phone service, but customers received a lot less for their money. For example, last year’s promotions bundled Standard/Turbo Service broadband (10-15Mbps) with most offers. Starting this year, only 3Mbps Internet is included. Equipment fees are still extra, but more costly than ever – $8.99 a month for a traditional set-top box, $21.94 a month for a DVR-equipped box and service.

Robert Marcus, Time Warner Cable’s chief operating officer now admits it was all part of the plan, and the company now earns 15-20% more from customers subscribing to the less-aggressive new customer promotions.

“In January we implemented a new pricing and packaging architecture that’s designed to drive greater [new customer revenue] and profit,” Marcus told investors. “We still advertise the same beacon prices, but the product packages are leaner, with lower speeds and fewer channels and features. Once our beacon offers get the phone to ring, our inbound sales reps are trained to help customers select options that are important to them, like faster broadband or a DVR. As a result, customers are up-sold into packages that better meet their needs.”

This year’s promotions largely only bundle 3Mbps broadband instead of the standard 10-15Mbps bundled last year.

Marcus admitted the trade-off is customers shopping around for the best deal who read the fine print are likely to consider an offer from a competitor more closely. Others are disconnecting service when their promotion expires.

Marcus

“By and large, when were talking about triple play disconnects, they are going to our telco competitors,” Marcus said. “When we’re talking about single-play video disconnects, they, by and large, leave us for satellite. We’re increasingly finding that phone customers are dropping landline phone for wireless-only, and there are video customers who are leaving — and broadband customers for that matter, who are leaving the category, and that’s probably more of an affordability issue than anything else.”

Verizon FiOS is Time Warner’s most dangerous competitor because it beats the cable operator on broadband speed and promotional pricing. Time Warner faces some of the highest disconnect numbers in FiOS areas. AT&T U-verse is also having a greater impact because AT&T recently decreased the price of both their triple and double-play promotions and has increased broadband speeds in some areas, Marcus reported.

Marcus said Time Warner is handling the subscriber churn fine, and the cable company now cares more about higher revenue and profits than attracting deal-hunters who shop on price.

“Last year’s aggressive triple play offers drove significant connect volume, which led to the highest quarterly subscriber net adds we’ve had over the last several years,” Marcus said. “But in large part, we were attracting discount seekers who are more likely to [switch after the promotion ended]. In many cases, we caused customers who didn’t need or want phone to take a triple play offer just to get the low triple play rates.”

What new customers Time Warner did attract largely took one or two products from the cable company, usually cable television and broadband. New phone service customers have declined year-over-year as a result of less attractive pricing. Instead, Marcus noted customers are spending on incremental broadband speed upgrades, which cost Time Warner much less than delivering phone service.

Nobody needs 1Gbps, argues Britt.

With the looming threat of Google Fiber in both Kansas City and Austin, Britt seemed generally unconcerned about the impact the gigabit broadband provider would have.

“At the end of the day, what we’re doing is not any different than an overbuilder, and we’ve had overbuilders for the last several decades in this business so that’s what they appear to be doing,” Britt said. “They appear to be very aggressive on price. They’re even giving some tiers away essentially for free, and we’ll see where that goes. Despite the glow and all of that, the products are essentially the same others are offering today in a practical sense.”

Britt said gigabit speeds probably won’t have the impact many customers think they should because most websites are not built to deliver content at those speeds.

Marcus noted that in Kansas City, Google has only passed 4,000 homes so far, about 2,000 of which are Time Warner Cable customers.

“The number of defections we’ve seen is de minimis at this point,” Marcus said.

Both Britt and Marcus responded to a question about consumption billing saying nothing had changed in the company’s thinking about usage caps or charging for what customers consumed.

“We have in place in almost all of our footprint the option for people to pay less money if they wish to really consume less,” Britt said. “People who want to keep getting unlimited and pay for that, can do that. So we really don’t have anything new. It is in place in our whole footprint, I think, except one location.”

“The take rate on that offering has still been fairly modest, but we think it’s a very important principle that there’s a relationship between usage and the price that customers pay,” Marcus added.

Some other highlights:

• Time Warner Cable’s cloud-based set-top box guide is now testing in employee homes with plans to roll the new boxes out to subscribers later this year. Britt said these were the first of a new generation of all-IP boxes, which means if you have a device in your house that knows how to receive IP, you’ll get access directly via WiFi or through a cable technology called MoCA;
• Time Warner Cable will digitally encrypt its entire television lineup in New York City;
• Time Warner Cable’s recent restructuring cost 500 employees their jobs, mostly in finance, marketing and human resources.

Cable One has announced it will invest $60 million in network upgrades across 42 cable systems in its mostly rural footprint to enhance reliability and deliver faster Internet service.

The cable operator, owned by the Washington Post, has been criticized for outdated infrastructure and poor service, particularly in Mississippi.

”We’re committed to delivering the best possible experience to our customers,” said Cable One CEO Tom Might. “We’re confident that this investment will ensure that our customers will receive superior service in the speed, reliability, and the overall performance of our services.”

The two-year upgrade project aims to replace amplifiers, split broadband customers who share a backbone connection into smaller groups, replace aging coaxial cable and improve the cable company’s fiber optic backbone.

The upgrade might allow the company to consider relaxing its draconian usage cap and speed throttle policies, which force customers to choose between an uncapped 5Mbps connection (with a speed throttle for those using more than 3GB per day) or a 50/2Mbps connection with caps as low as 50GB per month (overlimit fees: $0.50-1.00/each extra gigabyte.)

Cable One now offers two levels of Internet service: an uncapped 5Mbps plan for $50 a month and a 50/2Mbps plan for $50 a month with a 50-100GB monthly usage cap, depending on the package bundle. Usage is measured between 8am-12 midnight. Users on the uncapped 5Mbps plan are subject to speed throttling if they exceed 3GB of usage per day.