When customers have three or four $600 smartphones on their family plans, purchasing insurance for all of them can prove costly.

Most cell phone companies offer insurance plans that often carry expensive monthly premiums and high deductibles, but many also cover the loss or theft of a phone. With independent insurers including Squaretrade taking a bite out of their business, large carriers have been forced to respond with improved plans of their own.

Last week, AT&T quietly launched a new Multi-Device Protection Pack ($30/month) that covers up to three devices (including phones, tablets, laptops) against loss, theft, damage, or out of warranty defects for as long as customers stay enrolled in the plan. The primary limitation: the device must run Windows Vista, OSX, Android or iOS or newer operating systems. Customers can add their two additional devices at any time the insurance is in effect. Asurion provides the coverage and warranty service.

Squaretrade says it offers better value than traditional cell company insurance plans.

AT&T’s $30 a month price tag will seem high when compared against competing offers from Squaretrade running as low as $5 a month per device for up to three years, but AT&T argues its insurance plan covers loss or theft, while Squaretrade does not.

Squaretrade responds that it doesn’t believe loss/theft protection is a good value for its customers.

“Research has shown that people are 10 times more likely to have their phone break due to malfunctions or accidents like drops and spills (which SquareTrade covers better than anyone else) than lose it or have it stolen,” Squaretrade argues. “And yet, loss & theft coverage can cost twice as much as accident protection. Meanwhile, there are free apps to help find your phone if you ever do misplace it.”

Customers who find themselves needing to file a claim will find significant differences between AT&T’s plan and competitors like Squaretrade.

Both charge deductibles, but AT&T’s drops the longer you don’t file a claim. Squaretrade charges a flat $75 deductible after returning your damaged device in a postage-paid box. Many Squaretrade customers report they typically receive reimbursement — not a repaired phone — for the full retail (no-contract) value of the phone, minus the deductible. Most cell company insurance plans send customers a previously refurbished phone of the same or better model.

AT&T’s declining deductible varies depending on the device. For the first six consecutive months without a claim, AT&T charges these deductibles:

• Devices connected to AT&T’s network (phones, 4G-enabled tablets, etc.): $50/125/199 depending on device model;
• Approved repair of a laptop or tablet: $89;
• Replacement of lost/stolen/non-repairable laptop or tablet: $199

After the first six months but less than one year with no claims, customers get a 25% discount on their deductible. After 12 months, the discount increases to almost 50%. There is a limit of six shared claims between all three devices within any consecutive 12-month period with a maximum replacement value of $1,500 per claim. There is a 30-day waiting period before AT&T starts coverage of non-connected devices (laptops, etc.).

AT&T also provides technical support for customers via phone or online chat to set up and back up devices and deal with basic troubleshooting.

There are some devices AT&T won’t cover:

• Galaxy Camera (EK-GC100A)
• Blackberry Playbook
• Phones on GoPhone® accounts
• Tablets with pre-paid data plans
• PlayStation® Vita
• AT&T 3G MicroCell
• Phone or device models not sold by AT&T (e.g., Dell Streak, Google Nexus One, TerreStar Genus)
• Docks (such as for the Motorola ATRIX 4G)
• Amazon Kindle

A complete list of covered devices is available from AT&T’s website and is subject to change.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Cell Phone Insurance – Multi-Device Insurance Protection from ATT 5-23-14.flv[/flv]

AT&T explains its new Multi-Device Protection Pack, priced at $30 a month, covering up to three devices. (1:35)

Laurence is the ex-CEO of Vodafone.

The new chief executive of one of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies has declared the country can’t support a fourth national wireless competitor because it will simply cost too much to build and maintain.

Guy Laurence has been very vocal about Canadian telecommunications policies since taking over for Nadir Mohamed who retired last year.

This week Laurence announced a reboot of Rogers Communications he dubbed v3.0, designed to face the “hard truth” that most Canadians despise the cable and wireless company.

“Every day I marvel at what an amazing company Ted [Rogers] built, Laurence said, referring to the company’s founder. “The mix of assets, the culture of innovation and depth of employee pride is extraordinary. But we’ve neglected our customers, and we’ve let our legacy of growth and innovation slip. The plan I’ve laid out will significantly improve the experience for our customers and re-establish our growth by better leveraging our assets and consistently executing as One Rogers.”

Most of the changes Laurence plans relate to its poorly-rated customer service. Laurence has insisted that all customer service functions, including call centers, customer service, service technicians and marketing will be combined into a single unit that will report directly to him.

But Laurence said nothing about improving service plans, dropping usage caps, or lowering prices.

Several long time Rogers executives are out the door, either voluntarily or quietly pushed out.

“When you remove overlap and reduce bureaucracy, and you create agility, then it takes less people in management. So there will be job losses at the management level. No doubt of this,” Laurence said. “But because this is not a cost story, I don’t have a dollar value or a number of people. I don’t even have the vaguest idea in my head what that might be.”

Like many American cable companies, Rogers has lost video customers although it is still growing its broadband business by picking up ex-DSL customers. With overall growth flat during 2013, the new CEO wants to maximize shareholder value by limiting the number of costly new projects launched. Instead, Laurence promised “fewer, more impactful initiatives” under Rogers 3.0.

Rogers will continue to depend heavily on its profitable wireless division, which competes against Bell and Telus.

Although Canadian government officials have repeatedly sought a fourth national competitor willing to break with tradition in the wireless market, Laurence says the government is engaged in wishful thinking if it believed a fourth carrier would shake things up in Canada.

“I’m not saying the government is wrong. I’m not saying that they should change their policy. My personal view is that it is difficult to see a scenario where a fourth carrier will be successful,” Laurence said. “What you saw in Europe was a number of different countries who pursued the four-carrier option for a period of five to seven years. It was politically very popularist and they were happy to follow that. What you clearly see now, and I cite Germany and France, is that they’ve started to realize that given the capital complexity involved in these companies, it is very difficult to support a fourth carrier.”

Canadian wireless companies have recently embraced a study by the Montreal Economic Institute that declared the presence of a fourth national carrier would be “wasteful.”

“It may be preferable for financial resources … to be concentrated in the hands of a few strong players willing to invest in new technologies and services rather than scattered among several small and feeble competitors trying to survive by selling at prices barely above marginal costs,” the report said.

The Montreal Economic Institute won’t reveal its donor list of corporations that pay for its research.

The Montreal Economic Institute is “funded by the voluntary donations of individuals, businesses and foundations that support its mission.” The MEI does not disclose the specifics of its donors, however, for fears that “organizations similar to the MEI” would have an opportunity to solicit funds. The foundation of the MEI’s mission statement is couched in basic free market ideology, such as the Randian conception that “people who make money are creating wealth.”

Despite asking repeatedly, MEI will not disclose whether its telecom-related studies were funded by the telecommunications companies named in their reports. But there is little doubt of MEI’s economic philosophy.

Michel Kelly-Gagnon, the president and CEO of MEI, has written a number of opinion pieces that further illuminate the mission of the organization, notes The Telecom Blog. Included among them are articles that suggest “true entrepreneurs… deserve our gratitude” and pieces decrying a “tax the rich” mentality. There’s even a bit about the “dangers” of so-called “Soviet imagery,” citing the “intellectual and moral recklessness” in a pair of teens audacious enough to wear red T-shirts featuring USSR emblems.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, less concerned with Soviet nostalgia, found different results from increased competition – at least $1 billion in savings as competing carriers are forced to increase the wireless penetration rate while working to lower prices.

Laurence said the only way a four-carrier government policy could work in Canada is if the federal government put up taxpayer money to build, update, and run a “modern communications network” across the country. If that happens, Rogers and other companies will only be too happy to use it to offer expanded service and competition, with no commitment it will cost any less.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MEI – The State of Competition in Canada’s Telecommunications Industry – Paul Beaudry IEDM.flv[/flv]

Paul Beaudry, associate researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute offers the amazing conclusion that more wireless competition in Canada is bad for consumers! (4:16)

AT&T U-verse cabinets attract unsightly trash and graffiti in San Francisco.

After a unanimous vote by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors further restricting AT&T’s U-verse above-ground cabinets and extending the public a larger say about their placement, AT&T filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court claiming the company’s rights have been violated.

In 2011, supervisors voted 6-5 in a controversial decision to let AT&T install up to 726 metal cabinets in the city, connecting AT&T’s fiber network to existing copper telephone wiring. Since that vote, AT&T has installed almost 200 boxes that are supposed to avoid blocking pedestrian travel, curbs or fire hydrants and are kept away from street corners. But after the city received hundreds of complaints — mostly about pervasive graffiti — AT&T suspects the city intentionally slowed approval of more boxes.

AT&T’s lawsuit specifies the city has denied permits for 26 of the boxes since November without offering alternate locations. AT&T also accuses San Francisco of taking more than 60 days to approve or reject another 67 permit requests.

The last straw seems to have been the unanimous passage of a bill introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener giving more weight to public comments about the cabinets. The new policy also requires AT&T to propose multiple locations on permit applications, preferably not on main thoroughfares, as well as requiring AT&T to install graffiti-resistant boxes.

San Francisco’s 311 hotline has processed hundreds of complaints showing repeated graffiti attacks on AT&T’s boxes. In many cases, AT&T has not directly responded to the city regarding the complaints, although most have been addressed eventually.

AT&T says any further restrictions on its U-verse expansion, including public input, violate state law.

In most states, so long as AT&T confines its box installations to the public utility easement, it can choose locations for its boxes without consultation.

In some states, particularly North Carolina, this has resulted in large 4-foot tall, unsightly lawn cabinets appearing in the front yards of residential homes. In several instances, multiple cabinets are installed side-by-side and are protected from traffic by nearby bollards that further extend the equipment’s footprint.

“The U-verse boxes are always placed adjacent to or across the street from an existing interconnect box,” notes San Francisco resident Bryce Nesbitt. “AT&T has chosen not to invest in a combined box that would reduce impact on the public realm. One slightly larger interconnect box could take the functions of the dual interconnect/VRAD solution AT&T is pushing everyone to accept.”

AT&T’s solution for rural Americans without access to broadband service arrived this week with the introduction of an $80/month plan bundling a mandatory wireless home landline with a 10GB usage-capped Internet plan.

AT&T Wireless Home Phone and Internet has undergone market testing in selected northeastern areas (largely outside of AT&T’s landline service territory). This week the service became available nationwide and is marketed to customers disconnected (or soon will be if regulators approve) from AT&T’s traditional landline service. AT&T is petitioning to dismantle its rural and outer suburban wired landline network and transfer customers to wireless service. But AT&T’s wireless replacement is both expensive and usage capped with an allowance that is just a fraction of what AT&T DSL offers:

• Customers start with a $20/month wireless landline phone replacement, powered by AT&T’s wireless network. Customers will keep their current phone number and home phones and will be sent a “Home Base” device that will interface between AT&T’s wireless network and up to two telephones. AT&T does not permit its device to be connected to your existing home phone wiring, so it strongly urges customers to buy cordless phones. The device is portable so it can be taken with you when traveling. The standalone service offers unlimited nationwide calling, Voicemail, caller ID and call waiting;
• Those interested in also purchasing broadband can add one of three different data plans: $60 for 10GB, $90 for 20GB and $120 for 30GB. AT&T charges a $10 overlimit fee for each extra gigabyte. You cannot buy broadband service unless you also subscribe to AT&T’s wireless landline product. That means the lowest possible price for rural broadband is $80 a month for up to 10GB of usage. Access may be over AT&T’s 4G LTE network (5-12Mbps maximum speeds) or their much-slower, but more common 3G network. In contrast, AT&T sells DSL for as little as $15 a month with a 150GB usage allowance included.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Wireless Home Phone Internet Intro 5-2014.flv[/flv]

AT&T introduces its new solution for rural America — wireless home phone and Internet service, at a price much higher than what urban customers pay. (1:42)

AT&T’s Home Base

AT&T’s Wireless Home Phone and Internet includes plenty of fine print and disclaimers:

• A two-year service commitment is required to avoid a $199 charge for the Home Base device;
• 911 service is not guaranteed and you will be required to give your physical location to the 911 operator so they can send help to the proper address;
• A backup battery powers the Home Base allowing up to 1.5 hours of talk time and 18 hours of standby time. However, a standard corded phone that does not need electric power to operate is required to place or receive calls (including 911) during a power outage;
• Not compatible with wireless messaging services/text messaging, home security systems, fax machines, medical alert & monitoring systems, credit card machines, IP/PBX Phone systems, or dial-up Internet service. May not be compatible with DVR/Satellite systems;
• Call quality, wireless coverage, and service reliability are not guaranteed;
• Well-qualified credit approval required;
• An activation fee (undisclosed) also applies.

There are many surcharges that also may apply, including a $35 restocking fee, federal, state, and local taxes and the universal service fee. Customers must also pay AT&T-originated fees kept by AT&T, including a $1.25 “cost recovery charge,” a gross receipts surcharge, administrative fees and any government-originated assessments that AT&T passes on to customers in various states.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Wireless Home Phone Internet Setup 5-2014.flv[/flv]

AT&T explains how to set up and configure its Home Base to receive phone and broadband service wirelessly. (3:16)

The New York Times recommends the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission reject Comcast’s $45 billion purchase of Time Warner Cable, if only because the combined company will have an unregulated choke-hold on telecommunications services not seen since the days of the regulated AT&T/Bell monopoly.

In an editorial published Sunday, the newspaper called out many of the “merger benefit”-talking points claimed by the two cable giants as specious at best, hinting some even bordered on misleading:

By buying Time Warner Cable, Comcast would become a gatekeeper over what consumers watch, read and listen to. The company would have more power to compel Internet content companies like Netflix and Google, which owns YouTube, to pay Comcast for better access to its broadband network. Netflix, a dominant player in video streaming, has already signed such an agreement with the company. This could put start-ups and smaller companies without deep pockets at a competitive disadvantage.

There are also worries that a bigger Comcast would have more power to refuse to carry channels that compete with programming owned by NBC Universal, which it owns. Comcast executives say that they would not favor content the company controls at the expense of other media businesses.

The company argues that this deal would not reduce choice because the company does not directly compete with Time Warner Cable anywhere. Comcast would face plenty of competition in high-speed Internet service, they say, from telephone and wireless companies.

The reality is far different. At the end of 2012, according to the FCC, 64 percent of American homes had only one or at most two choices for Internet service that most people would consider broadband. Wireless services can handle streaming video, but many customers of Verizon or AT&T would blow through their monthly wireless data plan by streaming just one two-hour high-definition movie, at which point they would have to fork over extra fees.

Comcast executives argue that companies like Sprint are planning to provide very fast Internet service that will compete with wired broadband. But wireless companies have been working on such services for more than a decade with little success.

Those wireless services that do exist uniformly impose low usage caps and cost considerably more than traditional wired broadband plans, especially when considering the cost compared to the actual speed delivered to consumers.

The Times doesn’t believe imposing a litany of conditions in return for approving the deal, similar to those involving Comcast’s purchase of NBCUniversal, would be sufficient to protect consumers from monopoly abuse.

“This merger would fundamentally change the structure of this important industry and give one company too much control over what information, shows, movies and sports Americans can access on TVs and the Internet,” concluded the newspaper. “Federal regulators should challenge this deal.”