Phillip Dampier

In a remarkable statement to the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, AT&T has joined Verizon in predicting the imminent demise of Ma Bell’s classic telephone network.

AT&T writes in its 30 page comment, “That transition is underway already: with each passing day, more and more communications services migrate to broadband and Internet Protocol (IP)-based services, leaving the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”) and plain-old telephone service (“POTS”) as relics of a by-gone era.”

AT&T claims abandoning the old legacy phone network would help the company devote its full resources into staying relevant by constructing a broadband, IP-based network that would deliver voice, data, and video to consumers, presumably over its U-verse platform.  That, according to AT&T, could help the company achieve universal broadband coverage in its service areas, but only if investment-friendly regulations are supported by Washington policymakers.

The Commission has been charged by Congress with formulating a National Broadband Plan that will result in broadband availability for 100% of the United States. That auspicious goal is within reach, but […] will not be met in a timely or efficient manner if providers are forced to continue to invest in and to maintain two networks. Broadband is dramatically changing the way Americans live, work, obtain health care, and interact with the government. Congress and the Commission have rightly made universal broadband access a core national priority. But achieving this goal will take an enormous investment of capital. Private investment from network operators has brought broadband access to over 90% of Americans, and these operators will continue to play a pivotal role in bringing broadband to the remaining 8-10% of citizens who do not currently have broadband access. It is accordingly crucial that the Commission pursue forward-looking regulatory policies that remove disincentives to private investment and encourage operators to extend broadband to unserved areas.

While broadband usage – and the importance of broadband to Americans’ lives – is growing every day, the business model for legacy phone services is in a death spiral. Revenues from POTS are plummeting as customers cut their landlines in favor of the convenience and advanced features of wireless and VoIP services. At the same time, due to the high fixed costs of providing POTS, every customer who abandons this service raises the average cost-per-line to serve the remaining customers. With an outdated product, falling revenues, and rising costs, the POTS business is unsustainable for the long run.

AT&T cites a growing number of Americans cutting their wired phone line service — 22% according to the National Center for Health Statistics.  Craig Moffett from Bernstein Research pegs it closer to 25%, with an additional 700,000 phone lines being disconnected every month.  With a shrinking customer base, the viability of companies providing only wired phone service has come into question.  Verizon and AT&T, the nation’s largest phone companies, have made the judgment it’s a dying business.  Conversely, Frontier Communications and a few other independent phone companies remain believers in rural copper wire phone networks, and are willing to buy the discarded, mostly rural regions their bigger counterparts can’t wait to exit.

But AT&T’s advocacy for an end to “plain old telephone service” is just a tad self-serving when one explores their “To-Do” list for Washington regulatory agencies and lawmakers.  AT&T suggests their future plan benefits all Americans.  Critics would contend it mostly benefits AT&T and its shareholders, especially in light of AT&T’s future revenues being directly impacted by customers disconnecting their AT&T phone lines.  AT&T themselves note collective industry revenue for basic phone service fell from $178.6 billion in 2000 to $130.8 billion in 2007, a 27% decrease.

AT&T’s Action Plan to Avoid Obsolescence Explored

At the heart of AT&T’s proposal for 21st century telephone service is an end to analog telephone service, designed more than 100 years ago to carry voice calls, and the launch of broadband-based service to every home in their service area.  From this new platform, AT&T can deliver telephone, television, and Internet service over a single network.  In fact, they already do in several cities where AT&T’s U-verse has launched. Instead of getting one revenue stream from basic phone service, AT&T can now earn from any number of services a broadband platform can support.

AT&T compares their plan with the transition from analog to digital television, except you won’t have to trade in your existing phones or attach converter boxes to every telephone in the house.  Just like the switch to digital television, AT&T wants a date certain to pull the plug on Ma Bell’s old phone network, the sooner the better.

But AT&T’s plan has plenty of strings attached.

First, the company believes the only path to private investment and a successful transition is a near-complete deregulation of the telephone industry.  It wants the federal government, specifically the FCC, to take control of oversight of phone companies across America, if only to end a patchwork of state regulations and service requirements.  Remember, the Ma Bell most Americans grew up with was a regulated monopoly.  In return for guaranteed profits, phone companies agreed to meet service obligations, provide service to any home or business that wanted it, serve the disabled, and provide discounted phone service to the economically disadvantaged.  Rural customers were assured they would have access to phone service and at reasonable prices, and if something stopped working, government oversight ensured problems would be repaired to the customer’s satisfaction.

In AT&T’s view, such requirements are quaint and outdated, and it wants to bear few of those burdens going forward.  Indeed, in a too-cute-by-half aside, the company argues that since it will design the network to operate under the same protocol the unregulated Internet uses, it should be unregulated as well.

Such deregulation could impact a myriad of policies governing phone service that most Americans take for granted — minimum service standards, requirements that telephone companies complete calls between one another – even if competitors, and reasonably priced basic phone service even in the most remote locations.  But AT&T is asking for even more – a comprehensive review and possible elimination of any regulation that could be interpreted as interfering with the transition to an all-broadband telephone network.  AT&T includes everything but the kitchen sink in this category, ranging from service quality requirements, reporting, recordkeeping, data collection, accounting, and depreciation and amortization rules governing how quickly the company can write off obsolete equipment.

Ma Bell's network is due for a retirement, advocates AT&T

Ironically, AT&T wants deregulation -and- access to public taxpayer dollars to construct their new network.  The company advocates government-funded award programs to promote universal broadband access.  One would provide money for wired broadband service, perfect for companies like AT&T that want to build those networks, and another for wireless mobile projects to expand service into unserved or underserved areas, also perfect for AT&T Mobility — the same wireless carrier slammed by Verizon Wireless for largely ignoring rural America with 3G wireless data upgrades.

While there is some justification for a review of federal and state rules that may no longer realistically apply to today’s telecommunications marketplace, AT&T goes out of its way to be self-serving in its recommendations.  It dangles the bright and shiny object of a 21st century broadband-based telephone network, but only if they get to run it essentially “no questions asked,” with little oversight and an infusion of public taxpayer dollars to compliment private investment.

AT&T may be correct that the days for Ma Bell’s “plain old telephone service” are indeed numbered.  But for a company that earns billions in profits and answers to shareholders demanding maximum return, shouldn’t their long term well-being first be a question between AT&T management and shareholders?  Are they incapable of a private course correction that makes their future relevance more secure?  AT&T’s U-verse did not require public tax dollars to be successful, and the company spent generously on lobbyists and astroturf campaigns to smooth the way forward with “statewide franchising,” bypassing local government oversight.

The real question on the table is how far does the Obama Administration and the FCC want to go to achieve universal broadband?  AT&T suggests that only massive deregulation will entice private investors to step up and make the investments required to help achieve whatever definition of “universal broadband” the Commission comes up with.  But that price is way too high to pay.  AT&T answers first and always to its shareholders.  If they want public tax dollars funding, even in part, their transition to an all-broadband future, they must also answer to the other “stockholders,” namely the American people helping to foot the bill.

Nothing beats an overcharging scheme like cell phone text messaging.  What originally was envisioned as a small text paging add-on has become a massively lucrative service from America’s cell phone companies who rake in millions from one line messages.  In 2008, 2.5 trillion messages were sent from cell phones worldwide, up 32 percent from the year before, according to the Gartner Group.

Woe to those who send or receive text messages without a special texting plan.  Although the actual cost to send and deliver dozens of text messages is literally a fraction of a penny, almost every carrier charges a uniform 20 cents per message sent or received.  A text-happy teen can rapidly skyrocket your cell phone bill, as one Massachusetts father discovered.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WWLP Springfield Cell Phone Bill Shocker 12-26-09.flv[/flv]

WWLP-TV in Springfield reports on a Massachusetts dad confronted with a $500 text message cell phone bill last year.  (1 minute)

Texting plans typically add a few dollars to your cell phone bill, although unlimited texting can cost you a ten spot every month per phone from some providers.  For those customers receiving unwanted text message spam, most simply pay the bill, which only adds to provider profits.  Carriers promise they will credit customers receiving unwanted text messages, and several will block them altogether for no additional charge.  Carriers claim the popular text messaging service adds value to subscribers, and frankly utilizes less of their network resources than customers making quick voice calls back and forth.

Yet prices for cell phone text messaging keep increasing.  Some carriers originally charged just five cents per message.  Yet since the number of wireless phone companies have shrunk from six to just four today, prices have increased: first to 10 cents per message, then 15 cents, and today a near-uniform 20 cents per message. That generates profits credit card companies can only drool over.  In fact, doing the math, sending 140 bytes of data in a typical text message costs you one cent for every seven bytes of data.  That’s $1,497.97 per megabyte.

Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin) has had his share of constituent complaints from those who’ve received surprise enormous bills.  Kohl is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights.  He began investigating why text messaging costs so much.

“Text messaging files are very small,” Kohl says, “as the size of text messages are generally limited to 160 characters per message, and therefore cost carriers very little to transmit.”

Perhaps even less than Kohl suspects.  Text messages are limited to 160 characters because they ride across barely-utilized control data circuits cell phone companies use to manage calls.  Because these circuits are idle or underutilized, yet still occupy part of the spectrum, riding text messages across these channels costs carriers next to nothing, and don’t bog down wireless networks.  But that staggering bill can sure bog down your budget.

CableMax's "channel lineup" isn't exactly a piece of art

A few warning signs that your “cable company” may not be completely up front about their service:

• They don’t have a website.
• The programmers they carry never heard of them.
• No readily apparent cable franchise agreements seem to be available for inspection.
• The number of customers seem to range between 50 and “several thousand.”
• The channel lineup guide looks like it was done up with Microsoft Word and printed on a laser printer.
• Channels in your service package suddenly start to become “deauthorized” and then the entire lineup goes dark.
• Company officials either left town, won’t appear on camera to answer questions, or issue vague statements about refunds.

CableMax Communications, which claims to “maximize your cable experience,” instead maximized collection of subscriber fees and minimized their cable package down to nothing.  When it all fell apart a few days before Christmas, subscribers were out an installation fee and any payments they made for a full month of service.  Subscribers were charged $65 for installation and paid $24.95 for a package of 41 channels.

WNEM-TV in Saginaw, Michigan suggested the entire affair could have been a “scam,” interviewing one CableMax installer who claimed the service was quietly sending signals received from DISH Network, a satellite dish service, down the cable to paying subscribers.  If true, either the money to pay for multiple subscriptions to the satellite provider ran out, or DISH Network discovered the unauthorized distribution and cut off service.

If CableMax was reselling DISH Network programming, it would not be unprecedented.  In the 1980s and early 1990s, informal cable systems in the Caribbean maintained multiple subscriptions or hacked the satellite signals of satellite-delivered programming and resold it to subscribers, without bothering to pay the programmers involved.

One of the owners finally reached by phone by WNEM denied he was obtaining programming from DISH Network and promised refunds, claiming the system had approximately 50 subscribers, many who were late on their bills, and the entire enterprise ran out of money.

The village of Unionville, Michigan got itself caught in the middle when local residents approached the town hall to inquire about what happened to the village’s cable system.  A message on the village website states:

THE VILLAGE IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH CABLE MAX AND ARE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS AT THIS TIME. THE VILLAGE OFFICE WILL TRY TO KEEP YOU INFORMED AS INFORMATION IS RECEIVED. WE ARE VERY SORRY FOR YOUR INCONVENIENCE.

CABLE-MAX
103 SOUTH WESTLAWN DR.
MIDLAND, MI. 48640

IF YOU NEED SERVICE CALL: 1-888-308-8782 (THIS NUMBER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED)

That South Westlawn address appears to be in a residential area to the west of Midland, and is likely a residence.  We couldn’t find a cable programmer on their lineup that heard of the company or was authorized to cablecast its programming.  Although the state of Michigan does include the company on a generic cable complaint form, we could not locate any formal cable franchise agreements for CableMax Communications.  Further, the state government only had one contact e-mail address for the company – a Gmail account.

Although WNEM notes the Better Business Bureau has rated the company “F,” that rating appears to be based on a single complaint.

Very little additional information is known about CableMax Communications, and no active investigation was currently underway by Michigan authorities.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNEM Saginaw Cable Provider Accused Of Defrauding Customers 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

WNEM-TV in Saginaw opened its 6pm newscast last night with this exclusive story about CableMax Communications. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNEM Flint Cable Company Ripoff 12-31-09.flv[/flv]

Today, the station aired a follow-up report about the latest developments with the cable company that closed down operations, leaving cable customers without service. (1 minute)

Several staff members working for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), the regulatory agency reviewing the proposed Frontier purchase of Verizon territories in Washington state, have reversed their opposition to the Frontier-Verizon deal because of concessions they believe will better serve consumers impacted by the deal.  But the provisions don’t come close to protecting consumer rights and do not sufficiently protect local telephone and broadband service.

The WUTC must be told that broadband expansion from a service provider that insists on a 5 gigabyte usage limit in its Acceptable Use Policy makes such expansion barely worth the effort.  The WUTC must insist on a permanent exemption from any usage limits for Washington state consumers, especially because many may find Frontier DSL to be their only broadband option for years to come.  To allow a company with such a paltry limit to be the monopoly provider of broadband puts Washington residents and small businesses at a serious economic disadvantage in the digital economy.

Would you choose to reside or locate your business in a community with one broadband provider offering a limit so low, your broadband usage will be limited to web page browsing and e-mail?

High Speed Internet Access Service

Customers may not resell High Speed Internet Access Service (“Service”) without a legal and written agency agreement with Frontier. Customers may not retransmit the Service or make the Service available to anyone outside the premises (i.e., wi-fi or other methods of networking). Customers may not use the Service to host any type of commercial server. Customers must comply with all Frontier network, bandwidth, data storage and usage limitations. Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier will be a part of the lives of almost 500,000 state residents, including those in Wenatchee and other parts of North Central Washington.  That covers a lot of rural residents with no hope of cable competition or other broadband options.  Verizon is the second-largest local telephone service provider in Washington, serving cities such as Redmond, Kirkland, Everett, Bothell, Woodinville, Kennewick, Pullman, Chelan, Richland, Naches, Westport, Lynden, Anacortes, Mount Vernon, Newport, Oakesdale, Republic and Camas-Washougal.  Currently, Verizon has approximately 1,300 employees in Washington, who would be transferred to Frontier once the deal is complete.

Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to assuring residents they can get the kind of broadband service they need in the 21st century, especially from a company that could easily find itself swamped in debt.  Let’s look at what Frontier has offered:

• Invest $40 million to expand high-speed Internet access in Washington.
• Submit quarterly financial reports to identify merger savings.
• Branding and transition costs to be paid by stockholders, not ratepayers.
• Increase financial incentives to prevent a decline in service quality.
• Adopt Verizon’s existing rates and contracts for at least three years.

Frontier would also be required to pay residential customers $35 for missed service repairs or installation appointments. That’s $10 more than Verizon now pays. Current Verizon customers would also have 90 days after the transition to choose another provider without incurring a $5 switching fee. Low-income customers who qualify through the Washington Telephone Assistance Program will also receive a one-time $75 credit if the company fails to offer appropriate discounts or deposit waivers.

Our take:

• Investing $40 million in low speed DSL service with a 5GB usage allowance saddles residents with yesterday’s technology with a usage allowance that rations the Internet.
• Customers don’t care about merger cost reductions because they’ll never enjoy those savings, but they’ll feel their impact if they include layoffs and reduction in investment.
• Consumers will be more concerned about what happens to their phone and broadband service when the “transition” results in service and billing problems.  Will stockholders pay inconvenienced customers?
• Vague promises of increased financial incentives for a company to do… its job, without declines in service quality, exposes just how unnecessary this deal is.  Why not offer incentives for Verizon to stay?
• Freezing rates for three years doesn’t prevent massive increases to make up the difference in year four and beyond.

The WUTC staff had it right the first time when it opposed the deal.  A healthy, financially secure Verizon is still a better deal than a smaller independent company saddled with debt.  Frontier seals the fate of Washington state residents from the benefits of fiber optics wired to the home, delivering high speed broadband for the future because Frontier doesn’t do fiber to the home on its own.  With a tiny usage allowance, just waiting for the company to decide to enforce it means you won’t be using your broadband account too much anyway.

The WUTC is accepting comments and you need to start calling and writing.  Make sure to tell the Commission it must secure a permanent exemption for Washington from any Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption/usage-based Internet billing and any usage limits Frontier defines in its Acceptable Use Policy.  Better yet, tell them Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to making you feel good about Verizon turning over your phone service to a company that is traveling the same road three other companies took all the way to bankruptcy.

Customers who would like to comment on the provisions can call toll-free: (888) 333-9882 or send e-mail to [email protected]. The deadline for comments is January 10th.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn

At least one FCC commissioner remains unconvinced that Verizon Wireless’ recent decision to double the fee consumers pay for service cancellation is justified.  Virtually every carrier offering discounts on handsets and other equipment tie those savings to a two year service contract, with a stinging early termination fee (ETF) if one decides to leave before the contract is up.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn released a public statement Wednesday questioning Verizon’s logic in their explanation that doubling the cancel fee from $175 to $350 helped defray costs ranging from network expansion and marketing to paying to keep the lights on in Verizon Wireless retail stores.  Clyburn called Verizon’s answers unsatisfying at best, alarming at worst.

“I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business. So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served,” Clyburn wrote in a public statement.

Verizon also continues to get heat over mysterious fees appearing on some Verizon Wireless customer bills.  As Stop the Cap! reported back in September, consumers with basic service plans occasionally find $1.99 “data charges” on their monthly bills, and several have obtained refunds from the carrier after pointing out they do not use data features on their phones.

The mystery was suggested solved when a purported, unnamed Verizon Wireless employee engaged in some whistleblowing at The New York Times:

“The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charge on the bill. Around the OK button on a typical flip phone are the up, down, left, right arrows. If you open the flip and accidentally press the up arrow key, you see that the phone starts to connect to the web. So you hit END right away. Well, too late. You will be charged $1.99 for that 0.02 kilobytes of data. NOT COOL. I’ve had phones for years, and I sometimes do that mistake to this day, as I’m sure you have. Legal, yes; ethical, NO.

“Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month! That’s over $300 million per month in data revenue off a simple mistake!

“Our marketing, billing, and technical departments are all aware of this. But they have failed to do anything about it—and why? Because if you get 87 million customers to pay $1.99, why stop this revenue? Customer Service might credit you if you call and complain, but this practice is just not right.

“Now, you can ask to have this feature blocked. But even then, if you one of those buttons by accident, your phone transmits data; you get a message that you cannot use the service because it’s blocked–BUT you just used 0.06 kilobytes of data to get that message, so you are now charged $1.99 again!

“They have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they’re actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40% of Verizon’s revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don’t even notice this $1.99 on the bill.”

Verizon's new termination fee appears random and capricious, some company critics charge.

Verizon Wireless denies it charges consumers for accidental web usage that lands on their mobile phone home page, which they claim is exempt from charges.  But Clyburn isn’t buying that explanation either.

“I am also alarmed by the fact that many consumers have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones thereby launching Verizon Wireless’s mobile Internet service. The company asserted in its response to the Bureau that it ‘does not charge users when the browser is launched,’ but recent press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise,” Clyburn writes.

“These issues cannot be ignored. Wireless communications are an essential part of our lives, linking us to our places of business, our communities, and our loved ones. The bottom line is that wireless companies can truly earn their desired long-term commitments from consumers by focusing primarily on developing innovative products, maintaining affordable prices, and providing excellent customer service. I look forward to exploring this issue in greater depth with my colleagues in the New Year,” she adds.

Verizon Wireless is also the only carrier that has not responded to a campaign by a Times columnist to let customers get rid of the airtime-wasting 15 seconds of voicemail instructions people wait through when trying to leave messages, something the wireless industry admits is there precisely to use up airtime and maximize revenue.

Clyburn joined the Commission this year, appointed by incoming President Barack Obama.  Her father James is the third-ranking Democrat in the House behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIVB Buffalo Best and Worst Cell Providers 12-7-09.flv[/flv]

WIVB-TV Buffalo reviewed Consumer Reports’ findings regarding the nation’s best and worst cell phone providers.  Despite Verizon’s controversial fees, it remains top-rated by the magazine’s readers. (12/7/09 – 2 minutes)