Verizon Wireless unveiled their new “Share Everything” Plans this morning, claiming consumers wanted “simpler, easier-to-understand” plans that let them share their data plan across multiple devices:

But a closer examination of the plans, to be introduced June 28, shows many Verizon customers will face substantially higher cell phone bills if they choose one of Verizon’s newest plans. Perhaps more importantly, customers upgrading to a new subsidized phone/contract renewal on or after that date will be forced to forfeit any grandfathered unlimited data plans they still have with Verizon.

“It is an effort to move ARPU up,” Walt Piecyk, an analyst with BTIG LLC in New York told Bloomberg News, referring to average revenue per user, a measure of how much each customer spends each month.

Obviously acknowledging that customers are using fewer voice minutes and are increasingly finding ways around text messaging charges, Verizon’s new plans sell customers on the idea they can now talk and text as much as they want, but as far as data is concerned, customers will potentially pay much more for less service.

Those light on talking and texting are most likely to be hit hardest by the new cell phone plans.

Verizon formerly charged $50 a month for a basic Nationwide Talk Share plan that included 700 shared voice minutes. Smartphone users also paid $29.99 a month for unlimited data. Together, that amounts to $80 a month. Under Verizon’s $40 “Share Everything” Plan, customers can talk and text all they want, but their unlimited data plan is gone, replaced with a 1GB basic plan for $50. That costs $10 more than customers used to pay on Verizon’s 700 minute plan with an unlimited use data plan. Need 2GB a month? Add an extra $10, bringing you a Verizon phone bill of at least $100 a month for the first line on your account, before taxes and fees.

Other family member lines may also be hit. Verizon used to charge $9.99 a month for extra lines on a shared account. The new price is $30 for a basic phone, $40 for a smartphone. Those family members with smartphones on an older Verizon account each would also incur $29.99 a month for their own individual data plan, which was also unlimited.

Although the base fee for the additional line with a data plan still remains around $40 a month, family members will be forced to share the primary line’s data bucket. Customers will quickly find a 1GB data plan is not going to last long on an account with two or three smartphones. That means expensive upgrades, which start at $10/GB.

Accounts with a mix of smartphones and basic phones face an even stiffer price hike. The $9.99 a month customers used to pay for a basic phone for grandma will now run $30 a month. She won’t be talking or texting much, so the extra features built into Verizon’s new plan will represent a pointless $20 monthly rate increase and an invitation to set grandma up with her own prepaid cell phone instead.

Verizon’s new “Share Everything” concept clearly builds major profits into Verizon’s future:

• Customers are forced to pay for unlimited voice and texting services, even as those services lose popularity, costing Verizon little to nothing;
• Data customers are encouraged to add additional devices to their account, but as more data gets used, ongoing upgrades to your data plan at an increment of $10/GB or more will be required;
• Customers considering a new Apple iPhone or other smartphone will be forced to forfeit any existing unlimited data plan to upgrade, which guarantees future profits from customers consuming increasing amounts of data.

Broadband Backwater: Don't let AT&T and ALEC keep South Carolina broadband down.

AT&T and the corporate-funded front group American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are making progress banning community broadband in South Carolina with the second reading of H.3508, the AT&T Profit Protection Act.

This bill has been debated in the state legislature since early last year, and despite protestations from local community leaders in broadband-impoverished areas of the state, AT&T’s money and lobbyists can buy a lot of support.  South Carolina cannot afford to have its broadband options limited. It remains among the worst states in the country for broadband adoption, with just a tad over half of all households hooked up to the Internet. The rest either cannot afford the prices incumbent providers charge, or in many cases, nobody is willing to provide the service.

With the passage of H.3508, South Carolina’s broadband future will effectively be left in the hands of Time Warner Cable, which has some presence in larger cities, and the former BellSouth, which is now AT&T. But unless you live in greater Charleston, Columbia, or Greenville, AT&T’s investment in your future has been limited to smatterings of slow speed DSL.

Despite claims that the “private sector” will provide, South Carolina remains a broadband afterthought for telecommunications companies in the state, especially outside of major cities. H.3508 stops communities from electing to drain the broadband backwater they are forced to endure and build better service other companies simply won’t provide.

You can’t discourage investment from providers who won’t invest in South Carolina’s broadband in the first place.

Use this tool to find your state senator and take a few minutes to call their office and let them know you oppose H.3508 and what it represents — broadband stagnation and corporate protectionism. Let them know you want broadband decisions for your community made in your community, not by a lobbyist for AT&T or the cable industry. Ask why any legislator would want to support a measure that would allow an out of state corporation to dictate what South Carolina can do about its own telecommunications future.

Ask them to stand up for you as a constituent and do the right thing.  AT&T, a multi-billion dollar corporation does not need their help. Broadband in South Carolina does!

The arrival of the LTE/4G wireless standard in the United States, and its adoption by the country’s two largest super-carriers AT&T and Verizon was supposed to open the door for true equipment interoperability, allowing customers to take devices purchased from one carrier to another. In the past, incompatible network standards (GSM – AT&T and CDMA – Verizon Wireless) made device portability a practical impossibility. The arrival of LTE could have changed everything, with device manufacturers using chipsets that would allow an iPad owner to switch from Verizon to AT&T without having to purchase a brand new tablet.

A new lawsuit filed by a small regional cell phone company alleges AT&T conspired to create their own wireless fiefdom that would not only discourage their own customers from considering a switch to a new carrier, but also locked out smaller competitors from getting roaming access.

C-Spire, formerly Cellular South, filed suit in U.S. federal court accusing AT&T and two of their biggest equipment vendors — Qualcomm and Motorola, of conspiring to keep the southern U.S. carrier from selling the newest and hottest devices and hampering their planned upgrade to LTE. The company also accuses AT&T of blocking access to roaming service for the benefit of C-Spire customers traveling outside of the company’s limited coverage area.

According to the lawsuit, the interoperability benefits of LTE have been artificially blocked by some of America’s largest carriers that force consumers to only use devices specifically approved for a single company’s network.

Divide Your Frequencies to Conquer and Hold Market Share

The Federal Communications Commission licenses wireless phone companies to use specific frequencies for phone calls and data communications. An industry standard group, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), is largely responsible for defining the standards of operation for wireless technology networks like LTE. In the United States, the group is dominated by the two largest cell phone companies and the technology vendors that make their living selling chipsets and phones to those major carriers.

Smaller carriers specifically bought spectrum near frequencies used by larger companies AT&T and Verizon with the plan to sign roaming agreements with them. But now Verizon is selling off its "Lower A, B and C" spectrum and intends to focus its LTE network on Upper C "Band 13," which it occupies almost exclusively. Meanwhile, AT&T has carved out its own exclusive "Band 17" for its Lower B and C frequencies where it will be able to effectively lock out other carriers. (Cellular South is now known as C-Spire).

It is 3GPP that elected to organize wireless spectrum into a series of frequency “blocks” and “bands” that different companies utilize to reach customers. Verizon Wireless, for example, has its 4G LTE network on a large chunk of the 700MHz band known as the “Upper C-block” or “Band 13.” Verizon earlier won control of some frequencies on the lower “A and B blocks,” which gave smaller companies the confidence to invest in adjacent frequencies, believing they would be able to negotiate roaming deals with Verizon.

Verizon has since elected to mass its 4G LTE operations on its “Upper C block,” and is selling off its lower “A and B block” frequencies. That leaves Verizon with overwhelming control of “Band 13.” The companies manufacturing equipment sold by Verizon are manufacturing phones that only work on Verizon’s frequencies, not those used by Verizon’s competitors. This effectively stops a Verizon customer from taking their device (and their business) to a competitor’s network.

This limitation comes not from the LTE network technology standard, but from the wireless companies themselves and equipment manufacturers who design phones to their specifications.

It would be like buying a television set from your local NBC station and discovering that was the only station the set could receive.

Verizon effectively created its own wireless “gated community” comprised of itself and a single tiny competitor still sharing a small portion of “Band 13.” AT&T was stuck in a considerably more crowded neighborhood, sharing space with more than a dozen smaller players, some who have a clear interest in being there to coordinate roaming agreements with AT&T to extend their coverage.

Regional cell phone companies could not exist without a roaming agreement that lets customers maintain coverage outside of their home service area. Without it, customers would gravitate to larger companies who do provide that coverage.

But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also have a vested interest not selling access to the crown jewels of their network, giving up a competitive advantage.

AT&T noticed its larger competitor Verizon Wireless had effectively segregated its operations onto its own band, and if that worked for them, why can’t AT&T have its own band, too?

Using a controversial argument that AT&T needed protection from potential interference coming from television signals operating on UHF Channel 51, located near the “A Block,” AT&T managed to convince 3GPP to carve out brand new “Band 17” from pieces of “Band 12.” Coincidentally, “Band 17” happens to comprise frequencies controlled by AT&T.

C-Spire alleges AT&T has since asked manufacturers to create devices that only support “Band 17,” not the much larger “Band 12,” effectively locking out small regional phone companies from LTE roaming agreements and the latest phones and devices.

Not surprisingly, Qualcomm and Motorola, who depend on AT&T for a considerable amount of revenue, fully supported the wireless company’s plan to create a new band just for itself. C-Spire’s lawsuit claims the resulting anti-competitive conspiracy has now graduated to foot-dragging by those manufacturers, reluctant to release new phones and devices that support the greater “Band 12” on which C-Spire and other smaller carriers’ 4G LTE networks reside. That is particularly suspicious to C-Spire, which notes companies manufacturing devices supporting all of “Band 12” would have automatically worked with AT&T’s new “Band 17.” Instead, manufacturers chose to create equipment that only worked on AT&T’s frequencies.

C-Spire says both AT&T and Verizon have once again managed to lock customers to their individual networks, have created artificial barriers to block roaming agreements, and have pressured manufacturers to “go slow” on new phones and devices for smaller competitors.

Driving the Competition Out of Business

LTE: Required for future competition.

Smaller carriers have always been disadvantaged by manufacturers’ exclusive marketing agreements with AT&T and Verizon that bring the hottest new devices to one or the other, leaving smaller players with older technology or smartphones with fewer features. Even worse, both AT&T and Verizon have forced manufacturers to enforce proprietary standards that make it difficult for consumers to leave one company for another and take their phones with them. C-Spire and other regional companies have primarily managed to compete because they often sell service at lower prices. They have also survived because roaming agreements allow companies to sell functionally equivalent service to customers who do not always remain within the local coverage area.

But recent developments may soon make smaller competitors less viable than ever:

1. AT&T’s spectrum plans make it difficult for smaller companies to use their valuable 700MHz spectrum, the most robust available, for LTE 4G service. Instead, companies like C-Spire will have to use less advantageous higher frequencies at an added cost to remain competitive in their own local markets.
2. Equipment manufacturers, who answer to the billion-dollar contracts they have with both Verizon and AT&T, remain slow to release devices that work on smaller networks, leaving companies like C-Spire without attractive technology to sell to customers.
3. The ultimate refusal by AT&T and Verizon to allow LTE roaming or make it prohibitively expensive or technologically difficult to access could be the final blow. Why sign up for C-Spire if you can’t get 4G service outside of your home service area? C-Spire admits in its lawsuit it cannot survive if it cannot sign reasonable roaming agreements with AT&T or Verizon.

Cspire complaint filed against AT&T, Qualcomm and Motorola

Consolidation of the wireless industry into two or three mega-carriers is a dream come true… if you are one of those carriers (or Wall Street). But for everyone else, it’s a competition wasteland, where innovation and disruptive marketing wane into comfortable and predictable businesses where participants learn not to rock the boat. If they did, a lot of their accumulated money could fall overboard.

AT&T believes consolidation is already upon us, despite their setback in failing to acquire T-Mobile USA.

John Stephens, AT&T’s chief financial officer, tried to calm Wall Street’s fears that the government has signaled its intent to preserve robust competition.  At yesterday’s Nomura investment conference, Stephens said a reduction in the number of wireless companies in the United States is part of the natural order:

I think it is just logical that the industry is going to consolidate in some form or fashion. I think the marketplace has spoken to that with what it has done to pricing in the valuations on some of the companies. From an economic perspective and a highly CapEx-intensive business, I think it is logical to assume you’re going to have two or three and certainly not six and seven competitors in any marketplace. So I think consolidation is logical.

We’ve heard this argument before. It is commonly trotted out in opposition to community broadband initiatives when existing phone and cable companies fear a third player will ruin the market for everyone. AT&T joins the chorus with the same old excuses: the costs to build and run networks are too high for several players to comfortably compete. Consolidation reduces that pressure as customers are forced to choose among one or two providers, giving each a larger market share and healthier revenue to cover upgrades.

What companies like AT&T always obscure to their customers is the resulting pricing power, where price increases from one often lead to price increases from others. But Stephens has no trouble letting his investors know:

We are going to grow margins year-over-year. Last year’s margins were about 38.5% in wireless and our guidance says we are going to grow. I have said publicly, and some of my peers and coworkers have said publicly we expect we are going to have north of 40% margins this year in our wireless business and still believe that.

Margins = profits. In the absence of aggressive competition which forces companies to invest more in their networks, provide more value in their service offerings, or reduce pricing, increased profits are always the result.

Unfortunately, ZDNet’s editor in chief Larry Dignan seems to buy AT&T’s arguments and talking points, telling readers:

[…] It’s hard to argue against the idea. All industries boil down to two or three players eventually. The big question for wireless consolidation is timing. When will get to two or three carriers? And if so will this consolidation lead to price increases or will the mergers occur after wireless services is commoditized?

Stephens

It is actually very easy to argue against the idea, and the evidence is plainly visible if Dignan would take a look.

First, there is no evidence “all industries boil down to two or three players eventually.” Auto companies, banks, retailers of all kinds — even cell phone manufacturers all compete with more than just one or two other players in the market. A germinating monopoly or duopoly in any market is a signal federal regulators have failed to do the job assigned to them since the days of trust-busting railroads, oil, steel, and the securities business.

The drive to consolidation can be found first on Wall Street, where every industry is under pressure to cut costs, reduce profit-eroding competition, and return higher profits. The drumbeat for consolidation in the wireless industry starts there, is echoed in the executive offices of the cell phone companies themselves, and results in powerhouse deals that have picked off one competitor after another. That is why Cingular, Alltel, Cellular One, and Centennial Communications are no longer familiar names in wireless. They have all been swallowed nearly whole by AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

AT&T would argue that consolidation is a good thing, because through their willingness to sell, those companies indicated they wanted to exit the business. AT&T’s buyout of T-Mobile would have done everyone a favor because the company had lost interest in competing in the United States and wanted out.

The industry has held all of the cards of wireless consolidation until recently, primarily because supine regulators refused to provide a critical “check and balance” on industry pressure, accepting just about any premise to approve whatever wireless carriers wanted. Sure, a few companies had to divest certain assets, as Verizon Wireless did in certain Alltel markets. But AT&T ended up acquiring the majority of those divested territories. When AT&T bought Centennial Wireless, it had to divest a few markets in the southern United States. Verizon Wireless bought most of them. Customers were left in the middle, as always.

A remarkable thing happened when the federal government said no to AT&T over T-Mobile. Predictions of the smaller carrier’s imminent demise and its slow bleed to irrelevance has not happened. In fact, Deutsche Telekom picked its American asset up, shook the dust off, and is now investing in upgrades to keep the competition coming. At least $4 billion in improvements and some major network upgrades are on the way, and the company has even refreshed its marketing in a new, get-tough campaign against AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint. Now all three of those companies are watching to see what T-Mobile pulls next.

That is exactly the point.

The wireless world and Wall Street wants you to believe that consolidation is the only way the mobile phone marketplace of 2012 can work. Dignan has thrown in the towel, conceding they are likely right. But T-Mobile is proving they are exactly wrong. Instead of abandoning its asset, which DT still sees as valuable, it is investing in it to compete. Had the merger been approved, AT&T would never answer T-Mobile’s disruptive competition again. Rural America would still be waiting for better service. AT&T would have less pressure to keep prices down and upgrades up, and Wall Street would have turned its attention to the next targeted carrier ripe for the picking by AT&T or Verizon Wireless’ emerging duopoly.