More than halfway into Glenn Britt’s appearance last week at a Wall Street-sponsored investor event, the head of the nation’s second largest cable company candidly admitted years of price hiking is finally driving a growing segment of America’s hard-pressed middle class out of the market:

“There is a segment of our economy that should be of concern.  We have a bifurcating economy where people who are college educated and like everybody in this room are doing okay.  For that segment, pay TV [pricing] is fine.  There is another group of people who are sort of falling out of the middle class.  For some of those people, pay TV is too expensive.”

That’s a remarkable admission from a cable company that has consistently raised prices for its products well in excess of inflation for at least a decade, and judging from the rest of his comments, there is plenty more of the same on the way.

Britt is nearing his 10th anniversary as CEO of what is now Time Warner Cable, formerly a division of AOL/Time-Warner.  In the past decade, the company he oversees has undergone a transformation in its business model. In 2001, digital cable was all the rage, delivering the 500-channel television universe at the cost of rapidly increasing cable bills.  Cable broadband was just coming back from the dot.com crash, with many Americans still mystified by the concept of “www” and whether a web address had a “/” or a “\” in it.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt tells Wall Street investors at the Sanford Bernstein conference the company is using their customers’ addiction to high speed broadband as leverage for rate increases — three in the last three years. Britt’s world view for Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption billing are reinforced in a room where ordinary customers aren’t invited and the Wall Street types in attendance dream about the enormous profits such pricing would bring. June 1, 2011. (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Today, broadband is threatening to become the cable industry’s most important product — one that Americans will crawl through broken glass to buy.  In larger cities, the competitive war between DSL and cable broadband has been settled and DSL lost.  That has brought Time Warner a steady stream of customers departing their local phone company and bringing their telecommunications business with them.  Even during the economic downturn, Britt notes, one of the last products people will agree to give up is their broadband Internet access.

“Broadband is becoming more and more central to people’s lives,” Britt said. “It is becoming our primary product. People are telling us that if they were down to their last dollar, they’d drop broadband last.”

Britt openly tells investors Time Warner Cable will take that last dollar, and many more.

“We are able to raise prices,” Britt notes. “As broadband becomes a utility, you can charge more.  So after a dozen years of not raising prices for broadband service, for the last three years we have been raising prices.”

Britt notes the company is also enjoying increased average revenue per customer as many upgrade their broadband service to higher speed tiers which deliver higher revenue to the cable operator.

But as the market for broadband matures, the next level of profits could come from so-called “consumption pricing,” which could make yesterday’s rate increases look like a miniscule price adjustment.  In 2009, Time Warner Cable sought to test new broadband pricing that would have tripled the cost of unlimited broadband from $50 a month to an astonishing $150 a month.  A firestorm of protests for this level of Internet Overcharging temporarily killed the prospect of OPEC-like profits, unsettling some Wall Street investors and analysts, many who refuse to let the dream die.

Among the biggest proponents of this kind of metered pricing is, in fact, Sanford Bernstein — the sponsor of the conference.  So it came as no surprise Britt faced additional browbeating in the hour-long interview to reintroduce these pricing schemes.  After all, Britt is told, AT&T has implemented a usage cap and Cable One has (what the interviewer calls) a “quite interesting” pricing model — delivering the smallest usage caps to customers with the highest speed tiers.  So when will Time Warner follow suit?

Once again, Britt said he’s a true believer in consumption billing and thinks the industry will move in that direction, but refused to give an exact timetable.  “Consumption billing” goes beyond traditional usage caps by establishing a combination of a flat monthly service fee, and additional charges for the amount of data you use.  Time Warner’s original proposal limited consumption to 40GB per month at today’s broadband prices, but added an overlimit fee of $1-2 for each additional gigabyte.

The strangest part of the hour was Britt’s defense of usage pricing with an impromptu discussion with his wife the evening before about the pricing models of public transit in European capitals (they’ve no doubt visited), and metropolitan New York City.

Britt shared that in the finest cities of Old Europe, bus and train travelers paid different rates based on how far they traveled within the city.  In New York, his wife noted, one price gets you access to any point in the city on the subway.  

How fair is that?

Aside from the hilariously unlikely scenario either Britt or his wife have stepped foot on a New York City public bus or subway train in the last decade, his rendition of “consumption billing is fairer”-reasoning fell flat because it argues a false equivalence between the cost to move data and the expenses of a public transit system.  Remember, Time Warner is the cable company that pitches unlimited long distance calling on the one platform that most closely resembles broadband — telephone service.

“People want us to invest more to keep up with the traffic,” Britt argued.  “People who use it should pay less — people who want to spend eight hours a day watching video online is fine with me, but they should pay more than somebody who reads e-mail once a week.”

This is the same Glenn Britt who just minutes earlier confessed the cable company has been raising prices on all of its broadband customers for three years in a row because they can.  Earlier attempts at consumption billing saved nobody a penny.  Light users were given a paltry usage allowance that could be largely consumed by downloads of security patches and software updates, after which a very punitive overlimit fee kicked in.  Besides, Time Warner Cable already sells a “lite” usage plan today that has few takers.  Most consumers want, and are willing to pay for a standard, flat rate broadband account.  That’s the account Britt and his Wall Street cheerleaders want to get rid of come hell or high water.

Britt is asked whether pay television is getting too expensive for the hard-pressed middle class. For many consumers, it is, which is why the company is developing its “welfare” tier called TV Essentials — a sampling of cable networks with plenty of holes in the lineup to remind subscribers what they are missing if they make do with this less expensive package. June 1, 2011. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Throughout the hour long interview, Britt’s read of the hard-pressed common American family comes across as more than a little hollow — more like hopelessly out of touch.  One part Marie “Let Them Eat Cake” Antoinette and one-part “we’ll throw a bone to some and raise prices on the rest,” Britt is content lecturing consumers — discouraging them from crazy ideas like “a-la-carte” cable pricing and reasonably priced broadband.

The Wall Street crowd loved every minute, and the friendly echo chamber atmosphere made Britt feel more than welcome at the conference.  While Time Warner Cable’s CEO spent more than a hour talking to Wall Street, he has no time to actually sit down and talk with his customers — the ones that want nothing to do with his Internet pricing schemes.  Indeed, at one point Sanford Bernstein’s host dismisses customers as “people who want everything for free,” a contention Britt partly agreed with.

Have another piece of cake.

If you are still wealthy enough to buy an iPad and are enjoying Time Warner Cable’s free streaming app, watch out. It may not be free for long. As Britt partially admits, Time Warner Cable is using the online video service as a “Trojan Horse” to get subscribers hooked on their online video, before they attach a price tag to the service. June 1, 2011. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

And what about all of this much-ballyhooed “investment” in tomorrow’s broadband networks?

Britt confesses the cable company is spending less than ever on system upgrades and capital construction projects.  Why?  The company forecasts its demand and growth five years out and budgets accordingly.  The current target is to spend just 15 percent of revenue on such projects, and based on budget planning, there is no urgent need to upgrade Time Warner’s broadband networks to keep up with demand.  In fact, it was all smiles when Britt revealed one of the company’s biggest expenses — the costly set top box — may not be a permanent part of America’s cable future after all.  Britt offered there was a good chance capital spending might even decline further in the future.

Britt suggests the next generation of television sets will deliver the same functionality as today’s set top box at a cost paid by the consumer.  Time Warner’s slow march to all digital cable means the need for wholesale upgrades of cable systems is over for perhaps a generation.  And with an IP-based cable delivery platform, software upgrades and improvements can be made without paying the high asking price charged by today’s handful of set top manufacturers.

In fact, outside of programming costs, Britt doesn’t see any long term challenges to years of good times for investors. Even minor competition from the telephone companies, who generally charge prices very similar to what Time Warner Cable charges, pose no big threat.

His biggest nightmare?  A check on the industry’s near-unfettered power by Washington regulators.  Despite Britt’s claims the cable industry is already well-regulated, in fact it is not.  Since 1996, cable companies can charge whatever they choose for standard cable, phone and Internet service.  Consumption billing, which will almost certainly be seen as gouging by consumers, may trigger an unwelcome intrusion by Congress, especially if the industry continues to cause a drag on America’s broadband ranking, already waning.

For investors, the glory days of huge rate hikes for cable television are likely behind us, Britt warns.  But have no fear: for the generally well-heeled and barely-hanging-on there is plenty of room for more rate increases on broadband — and meters, too.

Once again, Britt unintentionally admits the truth: Time Warner Cable does not have a broadband congestion problem that requires an Internet Overcharging scheme to solve. In fact, he admits the cable company is spending less than ever on network upgrades for residential subscribers, and expects that trend to continue. He’s also avoiding overpaying for merger and acquisition opportunities. June 1, 2011. (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Merger Chorus 6-01-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News covers Sprint’s increasingly aggressive pushback against the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  But while Bloomberg points out consumer groups are using websites to help consumers file comments opposing the deal, they ignore the fact deal supporters are engaged in their own dollar-a-holler campaign to win the merger’s approval.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATT Concessions 6-01-11.mp4[/flv]

The opposition to the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile is growing louder and more organized as smaller carriers join Sprint’s opposition efforts. Consumer groups roundly dismiss the proposed merger as anti-competition and anti-consumer.  Michael Nelson, a securities analyst, tells Bloomberg News the vote for the merger’s approval could be close and the company will probably have to agree to more concessions than it thinks.  But considering AT&T’s enormous lobbying power, Nelson still thinks the deal will squeak through.  Nelson, however, warns the merger will bring about a considerable reduction in the disruptive pricing T-Mobile has engaged in — pricing that benefits consumers and forces larger carriers to follow suit.  To Nelson, eliminating an aggressive competitor like T-Mobile will bring about what he calls “a rational competitive environment.”  That means higher prices, no surprises, and a stagnant marketplace.  Wall Street understands the implications of this deal, all while knowingly winking at AT&T’s marketing/lobbying machine that claims reduced competition = better service.  (4 minutes)

Gov. Purdue: I Was for More Competition Before I Was Against It

Democratic Gov. Bev Purdue from North Carolina has managed to twist her logic into quite a pretzel over two statements from her office in the past two weeks.  On the community broadband front, Purdue protested legislation to reduce competitive choices in broadband in her state (all underlining ours):

May 20, 2011:

“My concern with House Bill 129 is that the restrictions the General Assembly has imposed on cities and towns who want to offer broadband services may have the effect of decreasing the number of choices available to their citizens. For these reasons, I will neither sign nor veto this bill. Instead, I call on the General Assembly to revisit this issue and adopt rules that not only promote fairness but also allow for the greatest number of high quality and affordable broadband options for consumers.”

Just 11 days later, Purdue inferred the exact opposite in her letter of support for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, which will reduce most of North Carolina to choosing among AT&T, Verizon, and in some cases Sprint.  One of her reasons?  The city of Raleigh is getting a new area code:

May 31, 2011:

The proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile presents another development in the marketplace which can benefit the people of my state.

The communications market in North Carolina, particularly in the wireless arena, is dynamic. Recently, the NC Utilities Commission announced the Raleigh area will soon implement a new area code, the eighth in the state, due primarily to the tremendous growth in wireless service.

In North Carolina we are committed to stimulating investments in advanced technology, and encourage quality service for the public. We look forward to working closely with AT&T to foster these important goals.

On behalf of the people of North Carolina, I appreciate your strong consideration in favor of the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.

Allow AT&T and T-Mobile to merge because Raleigh needs a new area code, proving wireless growth.  That may account among the most novel of all reasons to support a merger that will further reduce competition in the wireless market.

The $49 "cap" plan isn't your maximum monthly fee, it's the MINIMUM monthly fee. The company selling it was fined for misleading advertising.

Banking on the fact most consumers do not understand what a “gigabyte” represents, much less know how many they use per month on usage-capped broadband plans, large telecommunications companies enjoy a growth industry collecting enormous overlimit fees that bear no relation to their actual costs of delivering the service.

The social implications of “usage cap and tier” pricing are enormous, according to Australia’s Communications & Media Authority.  Australia remains one of the most usage-capped countries in the world, and broadband providers have taken full advantage of the situation to run what the ACMA calls a broadband Confusopoly.

As a growing number of mobile broadband customers in the United States and Canada approach the allowance limits on their mobile data plans, Australia’s long experience with Internet Overcharging foreshadows a North American future of widespread bill shock, $1000+ telecom bills, and families torn apart by finger-pointing and traded recriminations over “excessive use” of the Internet.

Not helping matters are providers themselves, some who distort and occasionally openly lie about their plans.  In Australia, Optus was fined $200,000 for advertising a “Max Cap $49” plan that led many to believe their maximum bill would amount to $49.  But not so fast.  Optus turned the meaning of the word “cap,” typically a usage limit, upside down to mean a capped minimum charge.  Indeed, the lowest bill an Optus customer could receive was $49.  Using data services cost extra.  The company also claimed customers could use accompanying call credits “to call anyone,” another fact not in evidence.

Another common marketing misconception is the “unlimited mobile broadband” plan — the one that actually comes with significant limits. In most cases, providers want “unlimited” to mean there are no overlimit fees — they simply throttle the speed of the service down to a dial-up-like experience once a customer exceeds a certain amount of usage.  Companies like Cricket disclose their usage triggers.  Others, like Clearwire, do not — and they are applied arbitrarily based on customer usage profiles and congestion at the transmission tower.  While annoying, at least these plans do not impose overlimit fees which lead to the growing problem of “bill shock.”

Bill Shock

North Americans getting enormous mobile data bills remains rare enough to warrant attention by the TV news.  Often the result of not understanding the implications of international roaming, customers can quickly run up thousands of dollars in mobile bills while touring Europe, cruising, or even just living along the Canadian-American border, where accidental roaming is a frequent problem.

But as Americans only now become acquainted with usage-capped mobile data plans with overlimit fees, bill shock may become much more common.

In Australia, which has had a head start with usage-capped mobile data, an incredible 58 percent of customers exceeded their usage allowances at least once in a calendar year, and this statistic comes from April 2009.  The bill shock problem has now become so pervasive in Australia, in 2010 the office of the Telecom Ombudsman received more than 167,955 consumer complaints about the practice.

In the United States, one in six have already experienced surprise data charges on their bills — that’s 30 million Americans.  The Federal Communications Commission found 84 percent of those overcharged said their cell phone carrier did not contact them when they were about to exceed their allowed service limits. In about one-in-four cases, the overlimit fee was greater than $100.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) proposed legislation that would require a customer to consent to overlimit fees before extra charges accrue for voice, data, and text usage.

The Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2011 would also require carriers to send free text messages when a customer reaches 80 percent of their plan’s allowance.

“Sending an automatic text or email notification to a person’s phone is a simple, cost-effective solution that should not place a burden on cell phone companies and will go a long way toward reducing the pain of bill shock by customers,” said Udall, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee. “As more and more cell phone companies drop their unlimited data plans, this problem only stands to get worse. I am proud to stand up for cell phone consumers and reintroduce this important legislation.”

In Australia and North America, legislation to warn consumers of impending overlimit fees has been vociferously fought by the telecommunications industry.

Udall

The CTIA-Wireless Association in Washington said such measures were completely unnecessary because consumers can already check their usage by logging into providers’ websites.  Even worse, they claim, bills like Udall’s threaten to destroy innovation and harm the industry by locking a single warning standard into place.  CTIA claims that wouldn’t help consumers.

But Australian regulators, who have years of experience dealing with unregulated carriers’ usage limit schemes say otherwise, noting industry efforts to self-regulate have been spectacular successes for the industry’s bottom line, just as much as they are a failure for consumers who end up footing the bill.

Even worse, unregulated providers taking liberties with marketing claims can have profound social implications when customers find they can’t pay the enormous charges that often result.

The Brotherhood of St. Laurence, a charity, reported one instance of an elderly client who received a $1,200 broadband bill he couldn’t pay outright.  Even as he negotiated a monthly payment plan with the provider, the company shut off his home phone line without warning.

“His telephone service was particularly important because he used a personal alarm call system, which entailed wearing a small electronic device that he could activate in the event of a medical emergency,” noted a report on the incident.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found a long-standing competitive feud by two large mobile providers in Australia — Telecom and Optus — has only brought more instances of marketing excesses that ultimately don’t benefit consumers.  The Commission increasingly finds it lacks the resources to keep up with the slew of questionable advertising.

Some industry critics suspect providers treat ACCC’s fines as simply a cost of doing business, and some like Optus have been rebuked more than once by the regulator for false advertising.

The ACMA says the longer government waits to protect citizens from provider abuses, the more consumers will be financially harmed, especially as data usage grows while usage caps traditionally do not.

Wading through the bulging file of comments at the Federal Communications Commission website reveals some strange and unusual testimonials from groups one would think would have much better things to do with their time and resources than advocate for a multi-billion dollar super merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.  But integrity means little next to a big fat check from AT&T, and many so-called “charities” really do believe it begins at home in their own bank accounts.  So with their hands out, groups like Wisconsin Coalition for Consumer Choice and the Urban League, and politicians like Bobby Jindal become dollar-a-holler advocates for AT&T’s agenda, offering the flimsiest reasons around to push for the merger’s approval.

Among the least savory are groups purporting to represent income-challenged minority communities who advocate for a merger that will promote higher prices for less service.  Such advocacy would taint any group and calls into question whether contributions are really helping those in need or just those who claim to represent them.

As we suspected, after reviewing dozens of submissions favoring the merger, virtually every last supporter either had direct financial ties to AT&T, had AT&T personnel in leadership positions, or were run by Washington, DC lobbying firms that have a past history of doing work on behalf of AT&T.  Ordinary consumers, and there were thousands, submitted comments opposing the merger — citing reduced competition, higher prices, fewer choices, and offering few benefits or improved service.  At least some live in the reality-based community, not AT&T’s field of overpriced dreams and broken promises.

A Sampling:

Klaetsch: The Coalition of One Lobbyist

Wisconsin Coalition for Consumer Choice

Here’s a “group” purporting to represent the interests of consumers, but they’re nowhere to be found.  George Klaetsch, executive director, claims AT&T’s merger will “immediately increase consumer choices and access to quality broadband and mobile services. Thousands of new cell sites will become available, the nation’s broadband footprint will be significantly expanded, and most importantly, more than 46 million more customers will gain instant access to 4G LTE technology – many of them right here in Wisconsin.”

Why if you approve this merger, there will be free candy for everyone, too.

The group’s website offers an unwelcome introduction with a series of technical faults, perhaps a testament to how few consumers ever bother to visit it, and carries an earnest disclaimer:

[…] We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Good to know.

Klaetsch’s letter forgets to mention he’s a registered lobbyist for Public Affairs Strategies, Inc.  When he’s not fronting AT&T’s agenda, he also represents the interests of AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, the Elevator Industry Work Preservation Fund, and the creepy-sounding Funeral Service & Cremation Alliance of Wisconsin, among other groups.

Wellington Area Chamber of Commerce

This well-meaning local chapter of the Chamber, who counts AT&T as a member, has fallen hook, line, and sinker for AT&T’s promise to deliver 4G service to “97 percent of the country,” assuming the merger gets approved.  Of course, AT&T will upgrade to 4G with or without the merger, and this particular Chamber’s executive director apparently does not realize T-Mobile’s contribution to improving service in rural America is less than robust.  When an active member of a civic or business group happens to be AT&T, getting a letter written on behalf of the company’s agenda comes as soon as the talking points can be handed out at the next Chamber meeting.

Unfortunately for the people of Wellington, losing one more competitor guarantees rural America fewer competitive choices, higher prices, and less service, not more.

United Way of Northwest Florida

AT&T Donates $9,000 to the United Way of Northwest Florida, which promptly returns the favor with a nice letter to the FCC supporting the telecom company's agenda.

Some residents in northwest Florida could reconsider their future contributions to “charitable groups” who increasingly spend their time and attention involving themselves in big corporate mergers, meeting the needs of some of their biggest donors.  No better example of this comes from the United Way of Northwest Florida, who accepted a $9,000 contribution from AT&T in one hand, while banging out this letter of support for AT&T’s merger with the other.  It’s classic dollar-a-holler advocacy.

While this chapter believes the interests of cell phone users will be best served by an AT&T – T-Mobile merger, we’re wondering what actual charitable endeavors go unserved while its leadership wastes time and resources filing comments with the FCC on a billion dollar telecom deal.

Urban League of New Orleans

This chapter of the Urban League “firmly believes that the greater New Orleans area we serve would greatly benefit by added broadband connectivity. Studies show that the underserved, urban communities with the greatest access to broadband Internet see the strongest economic growth. With high-speed Internet, residents can more easily access important resources online, from educational resources for schools to job opportunities for those who are out of work or seeking to update their skills. High-speed Internet enables greater connectivity between all stakeholders, more able to respond effectively and efficiently to the needs of our city.”

Somehow, for those noble reasons, they are supporting AT&T’s and T-Mobile’s merger.  AT&T is the company that pitches some of the most expensive and most limited wireless broadband plans in the country.  How this benefits urban New Orleans may escape you.

What didn’t escape us was the fact AT&T Louisiana president Sonia Perez is the group’s 2011 Annual Gala Chairperson.  She’s also a participant on the group’s governing board.

In addition to the big oil, chemical, credit card, and health insurance companies sponsoring Jindal's wife's charity is none other than AT&T.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana

Gov. Jindal is a big supporter of AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile.  The Washington Post notes he is joined by 13 other governors writing the FCC to push for approval.  Jindal is honoring Louisiana’s time-tested notoriety for questionable political dealings.  Perhaps it is just a coincidence his wife runs the Supriya Jindal Foundation, who counts among its key sponsors… you guessed it, AT&T.  Before one assumes Jindal has a legitimate interest promoting AT&T, which invests money in Louisiana, consider this: Jindal has written only one letter to the FCC on a telecommunications issue since the agency’s electronic filing system was inaugurated in 1992. This one.  Maybe he was busy on those other days.  Then again, maybe he wasn’t.

Jindal closes his letter with these words: “I am confident that this merger will benefit the people of Louisiana.”  That’s true, if you define “people” as his immediate family and the corporate executives of AT&T and T-Mobile who work and live in his state.  Everyone else doesn’t matter.

United States Hispanic Leadership Institute

USHLI does AT&T the honor of penning letters supporting the phone company's agenda.

After reviewing dozens of submissions from charities and non-profit groups, the comments from USHLI really stood out above the others.  Dr. Juan Andrade, president of the group is a downright feisty guy, singing paragraphs of praise for AT&T as a “model corporate citizen”:

“Like you, I too have heard that the merger will have a devastating impact on consumers, promote anti-competitive behavior, and result in higher prices; that the merger will be bad for business, bad for innovation and bad for workers. We’ve heard this all before – when SBC was acquiring Ameritech, when AT&T was merging with SBC, and so forth. And what have we seen? We’ve seen just the opposite. The Federal Communications Commission’s own data show that these concerns proved unfounded as consumers benefited from tremendous innovation and competition in the wireless space, all while seeing wireless voice and data prices drop. This “sky is falling” attitude is replaying itself as AT&T seeks approval to merge with T-Mobile. But the facts speak for themselves. The United States Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI) believes the Federal Communications Commission should rise above the skepticism, above the unsubstantiated claims, and above the impractical requisitions.”

What the FCC also needs to rise above is the considerable support Dr. Andrade’s group gets from AT&T.  Undisclosed in Andrade’s spirited defense of one of the worst mergers in telecommunications history is the fact AT&T is the “honorary co-chair” and sponsor of the group’s 2011 fundraising efforts.  It’s the public policy equivalent of “My Dinner With AT&T.”  More wine?

Andrade conveniently ignores the fact AT&T is raising prices on wireless data products with punitive usage caps and overlimit fees.  It’s not the sky falling, Dr. Andrade, it’s your credibility to speak as an independent observer while also enjoying AT&T’s largesse.  When you engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy, American consumers have more than a right to be skeptical.