The town of Hollis, N.H., population 7.600, is the first community in New Hampshire to receive gigabit broadband, courtesy of the local telephone company.

TDS Telecom charges less than $100 a month (when bundled with other services) for gigabit broadband speeds on the fiber to the home network TDS introduced after scrapping obsolete copper telephone wiring.

“What can you do with 1Gig? Whatever you want,” says Matt Apps, manager of Internet product management and development at TDS. “This state-of-the art connection is one hundred times faster than the average connection. It’s only available in only a few communities across the country. With 1Gig, you experience the Internet full-throttle.”

The 1,000/400Mbps service is an upgrade for Hollis, which used to receive speeds up to 300Mbps. TDS bundles its Internet package with 260-channel cable television service delivered over its all-digital Mediaroom platform, and telephone service.

TDS’ 1Gig Internet service includes a free subscription to Remote PC Support which provides unlimited access to technical expertise. Remote PC Support technicians help with device setup, Internet troubleshooting, plus computer optimization and safety.

All of these areas in Hollis now have fiber service available.

Customers looking for more budget-priced packages will still find plenty-fast Internet access available for less on the fiber network:

• 1,000/400Mbps: $99.95/mo
• 300/120Mbps: $75.00/mo
• 100/40Mbps: $35.00/mo
• 50/20Mbps: $25.00/mo
• 15/2Mbps: $19.95/mo
• 2-5Mbps/512kbps: $14.95/mo

Customers bundling a TV package with Internet service get a $20 monthly discount off the total price of both packages.

TDS’ Fiberville is already established in Hollis, but will also be forthcoming in Farragut, Tenn., and other New Hampshire communities including: Andover, Boscawen, New London, Salisbury, Springfield, Sutton, and Wilmot.

Click on each community name to learn the current status of the fiber project.

Customers who enroll as fiber service first becomes available get free whole-house installation and special discounts for being early adopters.

And then there were three?

Deutsche Telekom has agreed to sell T-Mobile USA to the Japanese parent company of Sprint in a deal that would combine the third and fourth largest wireless companies in the United States under the Sprint brand.

Japan’s Kyodo News Agency said they learned about the buyout agreement from industry sources, but did not reveal any further details.

SoftBank CEO and Sprint chairman Masayoshi Son and his lobbyists have been promoting such a merger for weeks, so the outlines of a deal between the two companies come as no surprise.

Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son

U.S. regulators have repeatedly signaled their discomfort with any merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, however. Both the heads of the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Justice Department have repeatedly raised concerns about the emergence of just three national wireless competitors in the U.S.

AT&T is largely responsible for that perception after its failed attempt to buy T-Mobile in 2011. The large breakup fee and spectrum T-Mobile received after the deal collapsed helped T-Mobile relaunch as a feisty competitor that has forced competitors to cut prices. To regulators, it demonstrated the importance of having at least four national competitors, if only to check the dominance of leaders AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Both the FCC and Justice Department fear any additional mergers would lead to increased prices for U.S. consumers.

Son has argued that the four-competitor policy has left AT&T and Verizon dominant against their two much-weaker competitors. An enlarged Sprint would force broadband speeds upwards as a combined Sprint and T-Mobile launch a massive network upgrade that would force prices down.

Both Softbank and Deutsche Telekom seem eager to close a deal. Softbank is already arranging financing for the estimated $50 billion Deutsche Telekom is expected to ask for T-Mobile USA and the German owner of T-Mobile has sought to exit the U.S. market for at least two years, with the proceeds of any sale used to improve its operations in Germany and eastern Europe, where the company has been more profitable.

So far, Wall Street has had only a muted reaction to the merger news. Many analysts still expect U.S. regulators to shoot down any deal that proposes merging any of the four current large wireless carriers.

SoftBank CEO and Sprint chairman Masayoshi Son was interviewed at this week’s Code Conference. On the current state of wireless: “Oh my god, how can Americans live like this?” (1:23)

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.”