After astroturfing their way to a statewide video franchising bill in 2007 that made AT&T millions and saved consumers nothing, the company is back again looking for more legislative goodies from the Wisconsin legislature.

This time, they want near-total deregulation of their landline telephone business.  The reason?  Their overpriced, uninspired service has caused 50 percent of their customers to disconnect, preferring to rely on cable “digital phone” products, cell phones, or Voice Over IP services like MagicJack or Vonage.  AT&T has succeeded in driving away so many of their customers, the company is left with just 675,000 landlines in the entire state.

The answer?  Deregulation!

Of course, no regulation prevents AT&T from investing in Wisconsin to win back their former customers with better service at lower prices.

AT&T apparently feels it can’t compete tied down with state consumer protection rules and those ‘oversight pests’ that make sure the company lives up to appropriate service standards.

This time, like last time, your legislative cruise director is Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), a chief sponsor of Senate Bill 469, along with most of the Republican party in the state legislature.  Plale’s a special case in point — a very grateful recipient of AT&T campaign cash, and he’s no stranger to the phone giant.  In 2007, Plale accepted $1,000, the maximum allowed, from AT&T just a week before introducing the aforementioned statewide video franchising bill.  But the check from AT&T’s PAC is always just the start of the Money Party, because AT&T executives and their spouses also joined the conga line of campaign contributions on their own, spreading around money to Republican and Democratic legislators and the governor.

“It [was] impossible [in 2007] to not see the connection” between AT&T’s campaign cash and its push for the deregulation bill, Mike McCabe, executive director of the non-profit Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which monitors campaign donations, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

AT&T’s campaign gifts starting in 2007 were also unusual because company officials had not been “particularly active” givers prior to the video franchising bill, McCabe said. “The giving is targeted.”

It still is.

The Big Money Blog, covering the atrocities committed by Wisconsin legislators hungry for campaign cash, reports that those who played along with AT&T got rewarded handsomely with contributions.  Those who voted no had their contribution checks reduced or cut out altogether.

Of course Plale can’t see the connection, probably because all that money is blocking his view.  He told the newspaper he had no idea why AT&T would max out their contribution to his campaign, despite only getting a fraction of that amount prior to the introduction of the video franchise bill.

Who does he think he’s kidding?

He’s got plenty of nerve to be back asking for more “legislative relief” just a few weeks after the verdict is in for the video franchising “competition” bill that was supposed to save Wisconsin consumers money.  It didn’t.  In fact, the rate increases just kept on coming.  While I’m sure that provided financial relief to AT&T, consumers gained little, if anything.

The reaction among the elected officials who promised all those savings?  Mild surprise and disappointment — a veritable ‘shucky darn’ and shrug of the shoulders.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports consumer groups are outraged.

They worried that less regulation could lead to less investment in the companies’ infrastructure.

That’s critical, said Charlie Higley, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, because competitors of AT&T and other local phone companies often rent portions of the network and sell their own services over it.

He said freer oversight would allow local phone companies to hide financial information and “evade appropriate regulation.”

Union representatives also were critical of the legislation, saying that deregulation steadily has driven down employment in the industry.

Despite that, Plale and most of the Republicans are in for a penny, in for a pound with AT&T.

Professor of telecommunications at the University of Wisconsin Barry Orton looked through the notes on how the bill was drafted and discovered all of the requests and language came from telecommunications industries.  There was absolutely zero consumer input in the bill.

Color me surprised.  We’ve watched telecommunications companies in North Carolina custom-write legislation and find elected officials more than happy to get such legislation introduced, especially when campaign contributions smooth the way.  In Kansas, negotiations between legislators and company officials appear to have been conducted in secret, with charges from consumer groups that legislators withheld meeting notes.

Despite the evidence these AT&T-sponsored bills don’t help consumers, Plale carries on.  He argues the bill is needed because telecommunications services are evolving too fast to ‘shackle companies with outdated regulations.’

“The 1930s models have outlived its usefulness,” he said.

Perhaps his constituents will think the same about him after their phone bills go up as quickly as their cable bills.

If the legislation doesn’t work out for you, Plale suggests you simply “switch providers.”  “[Customers] can switch to Verizon, or Sprint or Time Warner,” he said after a recent hearing on the measure. “It’s really not an issue anymore.”

Really?  What about the tens of thousands of rural Wisconsin residents that depend on AT&T for telephone and broadband service?  They don’t enjoy good reception from cell phone providers and cable television is an idea that will never come to their rural neighborhoods.  Plale can afford to pay the premium prices cell phone companies charge (AT&T should just give him a free phone).  Many cash-strapped consumers in his state cannot.

Unfortunately for rural Wisconsin, their only choice will likely be AT&T for some time to come.  For those consumers stuck with one choice, it’s not comforting to know Plale’s bill makes sure the state government can’t intervene when your phone line goes out, your bill is wrong, or you can’t get service installed.

Orton warns passing AT&T’s deregulation bill will leave the phone company essentially unregulated.  He told the Badger Herald phone companies would be less accountable under the bill, leaving the state ill-equipped to be sure all rural areas of the state were provided with adequate service.

“The phone companies argue that because of competition, they shouldn’t have regulation anymore,” Orton told the newspaper. “[They also argue] if consumers don’t like their service, they can go to another provider. But the problem is that in some places there aren’t any more providers.”

You really couldn’t do worse as a legislator than to openly admit your hand is wide open to receive AT&T campaign contributions while you advocate against the best interests of your own constituents.  It doesn’t get more shameful than that.

If you live in Wisconsin, get on the phone with your representatives in the State Assembly and Senate and tell them in no uncertain terms you oppose the giveaway deregulation bill for AT&T.  Let them know you’re watching their vote closely, particularly after the 2007 statewide video franchise bill debacle made sure you were left with less money in your wallet than before they passed it.

A Kansas utility board overseeing telecommunications regulation in the state is embroiled in scandal after accusations surfaced that AT&T and the Kansas Corporation Commission, the state’s utility board, met secretly to negotiate a custom-written deregulation bill favoring the telephone company.  Senate Bill 384 would deregulate rural telephone exchanges, increase telephone rates for low income families and seniors, allow AT&T to discontinue printing phone directories, and eliminate price caps on basic residential phone service.

Hearings over the proposed legislation exploded when Steve Rarrick, an attorney with the consumer protection Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB), told committee members documents requested by the Board were withheld.  Rarrick also revealed extensive private discussions between AT&T and the KCC to work out the deregulation regulation — negotiations that were kept secret.

“It is disturbing that the KCC believes it is appropriate to meet and communicate in secret with a regulated utility about deregulation legislation the regulated utility is sponsoring,” Rarrick told the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Last week, a KCC board member with direct ties to AT&T resigned from the Commission “for personal reasons.”  In addition to his involvement in AT&T’s regulatory reform agenda, KCC commissioner Michael Moffet of Lawrence had the ultimate conflict of interest — an ongoing personal relationship with a female staff member at the Commission.  Staff members prepare recommendations for the Commission regarding matters coming before it.

Moffet worked for politically-connected Public Strategies, a notorious Texas-based astroturfer and corporate lobbying group hired by SBC Communications (now AT&T) back in 2004 when he was appointed to the Commission by then-governor Kathleen Sebelius.  He was reappointed for a second term by current governor Mark Parkinson, but a hold was placed on his Senate confirmation of a second term.  His biography (since deleted from the Kansas government website – linked to Google cached version) softens his former employer considerably, calling Public Strategies “a Texas public affairs consulting company.”

Senate Bill 384 is just the latest in a series of AT&T-sponsored initiatives towards deregulating its operations.  The bill’s provisions would gut decades of regulations covering everything from rates to mandates for Internet access.

AT&T Kansas president Dan Jacobsen defended the 15-page bill, claiming it comes in response to increased competition and a 35 percent loss in landlines.  Jacobsen said AT&T cannot competitively respond tied down with years of “obsolete” regulations.  Jacobsen also proposed expanding what constitutes “effective competition,” a provision that can reduce regulatory oversight once achieved.

Jacobsen claims rural residents will receive the same prices that competition generates in urban areas. Unfortunately for rural residents, urban customers traditionally pay higher phone bills because of extended local calling areas.  Most rural residents pay considerably less because their local calling area is generally much smaller, sometimes only covering a handful of nearby communities.

Jacobsen also said customers will not be forced into bundled service packages, promising that customers seeking a traditional voice landline will always be able to obtain one from AT&T.

The disposition of Senate Bill 384 is itself creating a number of questions.  Despite clear recommendations in an internal KCC staff report recommending new price caps on the state’s phone companies, the Commission took the direct opposite position, seeming to advocate AT&T’s legislation which would dramatically deregulate providers.  The KCC staff found that competition was more rhetoric than reality, and the lack of it has kept Kansans paying higher phone bills in areas that were previously deemed “competitive” and subject to fewer regulations.

Rarrick warned that supporting AT&T’s custom-written bill would result in much higher bills for state residents.  Rarrick pointed to a similar experience in California, where AT&T pushed through a regulatory scheme that tied prices to an inflation index.  The result was massive rate hikes for residential customers — 23 percent last year and another 22 percent this year.  Since 2006, deregulation has cost Californians plenty — a 226 percent increase in the price of directory assistance calls, 85 percent for call waiting and 345 percent to keep your number unlisted in the phone directory.

“Do we want to move with complete price deregulation when you’re seeing some red flags?” he said.

The Capital-Journal reports consumer groups are also opposed to AT&T’s proposal.

“AARP opposes Senate Bill 384 because it will allow telephone companies to raise rates for service for which there is little competition and eliminate necessary consumer protections and fail to provide a positive benefit for consumers,” said Dave Wilson, state president of AARP Kansas.

This isn’t the first time Moffet has openly supported AT&T’s agenda.

At a 2007 hearing about increasing consumer protections and lowering rates for consumers, Moffet turned the hearing upside down when he asked witnesses to testify about the implications of eliminating state regulatory powers over AT&T.  That’s an AT&T legislative favorite – the elimination of state telecommunications regulations in favor of federal regulations and guidelines widely seen as lacking consumer protections and oversight powers.

The proposal would have made it easier for AT&T to cut off past due customers and raise customer rates.

Back then, Rarrick told the Joplin Globe, “If they go through with that, consumers are going to lose protection they’ve had for 24 years. If I were a telephone company and didn’t want to comply with state rules, I’d be thrilled.”

Our Take — An Editorial

This latest in a series of controversies continues to shine a spotlight on the perennial problem of the legislative-private sector revolving door.  It should come as little surprise that a paid lobbyist representing the interests of AT&T/SBC would appear amenable to his former employer’s positions on legislative matters coming up for Commission review.  That then-governor Sibelius would appoint such a industry-connected person to the KCC is political malpractice against her fellow Kansans.  It will also come as no surprise if Moffet finds future employment at AT&T or another telecommunications provider or affiliated consultants group.

Consumers must insist those appointed to oversee the state’s regulated businesses not come from those businesses (or their lobbyists or consultants), or at the very least must be required to recuse themselves from anything involving their former employer.  Also demanding rules that forbid an exiting Commissioner from simply flipping hats to become a lobbyist or paid employee at a business he or she formerly oversaw would dramatically slow the spinning of that revolving door.

An intimate relationship with a staff member and Commissioner is extremely serious, and represents more bad judgment.

As for AT&T’s proposed legislation, it belongs in the shredder.  Even disregarding the controversy coming from the upheaval on the Commission, and the accusations of secret negotiations and withheld documents, ordinary consumers can readily identify sections of the bill that will harm their interests and finances.  Here is just a sampling:

• A provision to strip price caps from any telephone company exchange serving 75,000 or more customers;
• A provision that deregulates phone companies exposed to at least two “competitors,” which in this case are defined as one mobile phone company and one unaffiliated telecommunications provider, regardless of whether it offers equivalent levels of service or even reaches your home, such as the case with cable operators who refuse to wire outlying areas, or cell phone companies that deliver no bars to your neighborhood.
• Permission to jack rural customer rates up $1 a month each year starting back in 1997 (an illustration of how long AT&T has been trying to get away with this) until such time as rates are equalized with the average price charged rural customers across Kansas.  If you’re in a high priced service area, there is no provision to roll back your rates, however.  But if your phone company charges considerably less, it can now charge considerably more until it achieves parity with a statewide average cost for rural phone service.
• AT&T’s idea of a give-back to consumers is a provision requiring free touch tone service for residential customers, like you didn’t have that already in nearly every area.
• Any bundled service packages are automatically price-deregulated;
• The California Trick: “On and after July 1, 2008, the local exchange carrier shall be authorized to adjust such rates without commission approval by not more than the percentage increase in the consumer price index for all urban consumers, as officially reported by the bureau of labor statistics of the United States Department of Labor, or its successor index.”
• The definition of what constitutes a “broadband network” in the eyes of AT&T is any connection that exceeds 200kbps.
• No audit is permitted of the company’s requested initial rates, to determine whether that initial pricing is fair and reasonable.
• Starting in 2012, phone companies no longer have to submit pricing and service information (a tariff) to the KCC for services it sells to residential or business customers.  The KCC would no longer be able to easily red flag problematic pricing.
• Beginning July 1st, phone companies can opt out of state regulations as a “local exchange carrier” and instead receive far easier regulatory treatment under “telecommunications carrier” provisions.
• AT&T is relieved of being the “carrier of last resort,” a provision that guarantees every American access to basic telephone service.  When delivered unprofitably, the Universal Service Fund kicks in a payment to ensure phone companies don’t lose money on very rural, difficult-to-reach customers.  Although AT&T claims it will continue to offer voice service to every customer in “its service area,” what defines a service area could eventually exclude exceptionally rural customers.  AT&T also reserves the right to provide voice service “using any technology” which could convert unprofitable wired customers into being served by a basic wireless radio-based system, which could indefinitely keep those customers from receiving high quality phone service, much less obtaining any broadband service.
• Relieve AT&T of the state requirement to provide at least basic, reasonably-priced “dial-up” Internet access.
• AT&T can quit publishing phone directories any time it chooses.

AT&T couldn’t have done better writing Senate Bill 384 themselves.  Oh wait… they did!

Since utility boards in some states seem to have an inherent inability to read and measure the impact of these company-friendly proposals that do absolutely nothing for consumers but enrich providers and free them from pesky oversight and regulatory requirements, consumers must remain forever vigilant and suspicious of these industry-sponsored giveaways, letting their elected state representatives know they recognize funny business when they see it.  If an ordinary consumer can bullet point more than a dozen bad ideas after less than an hour skimming the bill, why can’t those who purport to serve our interests do likewise?

Early reaction and declarations of a price war notwithstanding, yesterday’s “price cuts” from Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility on their unlimited calling plans may bring price increases for many customers who don’t need all of the components of the wireless industry’s Cadillac plans.

First, an explanation of what has changed.

Verizon started the ball rolling announcing a $30 price cut on their Nationwide Unlimited Talk plan.  Formerly $99.99, customers now pay $69.99.  For those with multiple phones on a single account, Verizon’s Nationwide Unlimited Talk Family SharePlan, which includes two lines, now drops to $119.99.  AT&T immediately matched Verizon’s new pricing.  AT&T’s Nation Unlimited plan is now also $69.99 and their shared line plan, FamilyTalk Nation Unlimited is $119.99 and also includes two lines.

Customers currently paying more for a wireless plan with either carrier have to call customer service at either carrier to switch to these plans.  You won’t incur a service charge or extend your existing contract.

Verizon’s plans with unlimited calling and texting features have also dropped in price.  Verizon’s Talk and Text plan costs $89.99 per month, down from $119.99. The Nationwide Unlimited Talk & Text Family SharePlan is now $149.99 per month.  AT&T customers can add unlimited texting to an existing plan, and the rates for doing so remain unchanged — $20 for single phone accounts, $30 for family plan accounts.

However… Here comes the tricks, traps, and gotchas.

For big families with multiple phones, these unlimited plans bring a nasty surprise  — the additional charge for each third, fourth, and fifth line is $49.99 per month for each phone, not the traditional $9.99 each for those on plans with minute allowances.

Those who receive employer-related discounts from the wireless carriers may find those discounts do not apply to the Unlimited talk plans.  Verizon declares all of their unlimited plans are not eligible for any monthly access discounts, period.

AT&T goes out of its way to define what they believe a “voice call” means:

Unlimited voice services are provided primarily for live dialogue between two individuals. If your use of unlimited voice services for conference calling or call forwarding exceeds 750 minutes per month, AT&T may, at its option, terminate your service or change your plan to one with no unlimited usage components. Unlimited voice services may not be used for monitoring services, data transmissions, transmission of broadcasts, transmission of recorded material, or other connections which do not consist of uninterrupted live dialogue between two individuals.

Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless may try and up-sell you on the new data plans when you call to change your plan.  Customers calling both carriers have reported customer service representatives only too willing to provide steep discounts for new handsets or try and convince you to add one of the company’s new data plans.  Take advantage of their offer to upgrade your phone and you’ll likely discover yourself forced to also take a mandatory data plan with it anyway.  The list of phones falling under this trap keeps expanding.

Last year, Verizon started requiring customers choose data plans for the LG EnV Touch and the Samsung Rogue.  With this week’s changes, customers activating LG Chocolate Touch, LG EnV, LG VX8360, Motorola Entice W766, Nokia 7705 Twist, and Samsung Alias2 are now also subject to required data plans.  Don’t expect Verizon Wireless representatives to sell you on their cheapest pay-per-use option, which is priced at $1.99 per megabyte.  I’ve witnessed Verizon Wireless’ store employees pushing Verizon’s new unlimited $29.99 data plan.  If customers complain that’s too much, the $9.99 data plan for a piddly 25MB of access is offered next.  If it looks like a balking customer might cost a sale, the representative will grudgingly sell you pay per use plans.

AT&T customers buying many midrange and “quick-messaging” phones are also going to be required to spend at least $20 a month on a combination of texting and/or data plans. Customers using phones like the LG Neon or the Samsung Propel are affected, and weren’t required to buy data plans before.  Unlimited data for quick-messaging devices is priced at $15 a month.

If you already own a top of the line phone, your data plan charges remain the same.  Verizon customers using Windows Mobile, BlackBerry or Android phones will still pay $29.99 a month for unlimited data.  AT&T customers using the iPhone, BlackBerry, Nokia smartphone or Windows Mobile phones will also pay $29.99 a month for unlimited data.

Customers using wireless broadband with a USB dongle are also unaffected by these changes.  Whether you tether or use the dongle, your usage is limited to 5GB per month.

Existing customers will not be forced to add a data plan until their contract is up for renewal or they upgrade their phones.

Do These Changes Save Customers Money?

For most, the answers is no.  In fact, these pricing changes guarantee higher bills for most customers down the road.

Only a tiny percentage of customers pay for unlimited calling plans because most calling-allowance plans provide generous usage ranges, free night/weekend calling, and often free calling for the most frequently called, or those who are also customers of your wireless carrier.  AT&T even rolls-over unused minutes from month-to-month.  Paying considerably more for an “unlimited” calling option makes little sense for customers not exceeding existing calling allowances.

Changes to calling plans and the features associated with them occur year to year, but many customers prefer to remain on legacy plans that may offer fewer minutes, but have far fewer revenue-enhancing tricks and traps.  Verizon customers hanging on to their America’s Choice II FamilyShare plan offered four years ago maintain 700 minutes of calling time between multiple phones, get free night and weekend calling, and can access data features on their phones that deduct from their airtime allowance instead of billing for data usage charges.  The price?  $60 a month for two lines.  The equivalent plan today is priced at $69.99 for the voice calling plan, plus a mandatory data plan for the increasing number of phone that require one.  Even for phones on a pay-per-use plan, any data access will incur a minimum charge of $1.99 per month.

Where the real money will be made is from overpriced data plans forced on customers whether they want them or not, especially for midrange phones.

Wireless consultant Chetan Sharma estimates fewer than 10 percent of these customers buy data plans.

“There’s a significant number of consumers out there who like the idea of a cutting-edge handset but not of paying for services,” Michael Nelson, founder at Nelson Alpha Research told Business Week.

Wall Street analysts know mandatory data plans will bring exceptional new revenue to both major providers, especially at current prices.

“We could see a move upwards rather than downwards [in revenue/earnings],” says Jennifer Fritzsche, an analyst at Wells Fargo Securities in Chicago, who recommends buying shares of AT&T and Verizon Communications.  “Any kind of voice pricing is very much a commodity,” Fritzsche tells Bloomberg News. “Data is the future.”

JPMorgan is celebrating the potential windfall for both companies and their stocks, estimating just two percent of customers will realize any savings from these pricing changes, while many more will see prices increase.

For Verizon Wireless, it’s party time.  Even though Credit Suisse analyst Jonathan Chaplin estimates the carrier will sacrifice $540 million in voice revenue, they’re likely to gain $630 million in data plan sales. The costs of providing the service are likely to be minimal, considering most of the customers now forced to choose a plan are unlikely to use it much.

“Price War” or “War on Customers”

Still, some on Wall Street are unhappy with the prospects of any pricing changes that head downwards, especially if it sparks a price war.  Some have dumped their wireless stocks as a result of industry trends this year.  But what they may need to worry more about is the prospect of middle class customers switching from traditional postpaid two-year contract plans to prepaid services that offer light and medium mobile users better value with fewer tricks and traps.

As families face the prospect for $100+ monthly bills just for cell phone service, with mandatory data charges likely to add another $20-30 on top of that, will non-power-users stick with AT&T and Verizon for service?  Sprint and T Mobile argue they already offer better value for the hard-hit middle class, but prepaid mobile has garnered new respect for its simpler plans and easy-to-understand billing (and taxes and fees are typically included in the prepaid plan price.)

Formerly the domain of those willing to pay a steep per minute fee and buy top-up cards at convenience stores, today’s prepaid wireless plans often offer month-to-month service with familiar “minute bucket”-allowances or unlimited calling, and operate on Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile’s nationwide networks.

A real price war has broken out in the prepaid wireless sector, with competitors offering unlimited calling plans as low as $40 a month.  Straight Talk, using Verizon Wireless’ network, goes even lower for a simple 1,000 minute/1,000 text/30MB web access plan for $30 a month.  The only downside is a very limited selection of phones.  Regional players like MetroPCS and Cricket offer comparable pricing for their unlimited plans, but their network coverage is a shadow of the larger players, roaming agreements notwithstanding.

As major carriers pile on extra fees for services many customers don’t want, many will find far better values in the prepaid phone marketplace.  Without the two-year contract common on major carriers, customers can switch providers at will, taking their phone number with them in most cases, if one provider doesn’t provide good service.  Best of all, they don’t have to pay for a cancellation fee or take services they don’t want or need just to satisfy AT&T and Verizon’s quest for cash.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIVB Buffalo Price War Between Cell Phone Providers 1-19-10.flv[/flv]

WIVB-TV in Buffalo appeared to be drinking the industry’s Kool-Aid about the benefits of new, ‘lower pricing,’ but towards the end even they admitted there are tricks and traps involved. (3 minutes)

Cable television customers have finally reached their limit.  For years, annual rate increases well in excess of inflation have annoyed customers, but beyond complaining, few actually dropped service.  That has begun to change as the economy, consumer debt, job fears, and other expenses have finally provoked customers to begin paring back on their cable package.

According to research from Centris, a consumer research organization, a virtual ceiling of tolerance for cable rate increases appears to have been reached for many subscribers.  Although consumers are not dropping cable en masse, they are not simply accepting a higher bill either.  They are dropping services from their cable package.  In 2008 and 2009, premium movie channels and pay per view suffered most from customer downgrades.  Consumers with multiple premium movie channels started by dropping one or two of them, and their use of pay per view service also dropped.  As the financial impact of the recession wore on, the next round of rate increases caused additional erosion — by late 2009 many consumers discontinued all of their premium services.

The goal?  To reduce or at least maintain a consistent monthly bill.  The average amount consumers are paying for digital cable dropped from $79 a month in the third quarter of 2008 to $70 in the third quarter of 2009.  That decline didn’t come from discounts from the industry — it came from dropping channels and services. In 2010, consumers are still pruning away, now impacting digital basic cable and smaller add-ons like sports and movie tiers.  They are also phoning their provider threatening to cancel service altogether if additional discounts cannot be found.  Cable operators, not surprisingly, have managed to find plenty of savings for consumers who ask and stand their ground, ready to walk away from cable.

The cable industry has sought to promote bundled services as an anti-erosion measure.  It’s much harder to walk away from a provider supplying your television, Internet, and phone service, especially if they lock you into a multi-year service agreement with a cancellation fee.  The savings promoted from bundled services come largely as a result of steeper price increases on standalone products and services, manufacturing “added value” for so-called “triple play” packages.

Some customers have divorced from pay television service altogether, deciding relentless price increases and the 500 channel universe shoveled in their direction just isn’t worth the price.  For many American families, however, such drastic cord cutting would border on traumatic, and they haven’t managed such a drastic step.

Luckily, a growing number of consumers have discovered taking the Luddite approach to television entertainment isn’t a requirement any longer.

Cutting the Cord With Online Viewing

With the growing penetration of fast broadband service in homes across the country, online video has rapidly become one of the most popular online services, particularly when it’s available for free.  The benefits don’t stop at the cost — programming catalogs are becoming increasingly deep and diverse allowing fans to watch entire seasons of shows on-demand, with a limited commercial load.  A consumer looking for something to watch might easily find more entertainment online than wading through hundreds of cable channels of niche and re-purposed programming (and program length commercials).

Cable companies are well aware of the trend towards online video.  First considered part-curiosity, part-piracy, today online video is provided by the major American networks, cable programmers, independent filmmakers, YouTube, and of course, Hulu.  It isn’t just for those torrent sites anymore.  And there is plenty of room for online video to grow.

The industry uses research companies like Centris to carefully track subscriber trends.  They want to be out in front of any sea change in viewing practices that could impact their business model and their revenue, and avoid repeating the mistakes others made in ignoring a potential threat for too long.

Wall Street is well aware of the potential threat as well.

Craig Moffett, a cable industry analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein is among the most prominent trend-watchers for the cable industry.  He sees some warning signs for the future.

“Still no evidence of cord-cutting, but as prices spiral higher, the stresses on the system are unquestionably growing,” Moffett said.

So far, the cable industry has decided the best way to fight potential losses is to get into the game themselves on their terms.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nation’s largest cable operators, are launching their TV Everywhere concepts, which provide their broadband customers with online access to a myriad of cable programming, on demand, and currently for free.  The catch?  You must be a verified, current pay television customer.  If you want to watch a basic cable show, you need a basic cable subscription.  Want to watch Bill Maher online?  You can, assuming you are a verified HBO premium television subscriber.

Comcast’s system is already up and running.  Time Warner Cable is expected to roll out their system sometime this year.

The industry is even selling the public they applaud the online video experience as a win for customers.  Time Warner Cable president and CEO Glenn Britt said, “TV Everywhere is an all-around win for those of us who love television. It will give our customers more control over content and allow them greater access to programs they are already paying for, while enhancing the distributors’ and networks’ robust business model that encourages the creation of great content.”

He didn’t say it also protects Time Warner Cable’s flank from cord-cutting.  Lose the cable subscription and your access to online cable programming goes with it.

But the question remains, is that enough to protect cable television revenue?

The answer might be no.

[flv width=”400″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Invasion of the Cable Killers 9-15-09.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reported on ‘The Invasion of the Cable Killers’ — new hardware that lets you bypass cable, back on September 15, 2009.  (2 minutes)

The Coming Online Viewing War: The Players Assemble

Who owns and controls programming ultimately controls the distribution of it.  Time Warner Cable took several shots at Fox a few weeks ago when threatened with the loss of Fox programming over a contract dispute.  Alex Dudley, spokesman for Time Warner Cable, told NY1 viewers much of Fox’s programming is available online for the taking, so even if the network was thrown off the cable company’s lineup, viewers could simply bypass the dispute and watch online… for free.  His message – the dollar value Fox places on its programming is diminished when it gives it away for free online.

The fact so much of network programming is available online for free is part of the dispute over how much cable operators should pay to carry networks on their cable systems.  When the industry passes along those carriage fees to consumers, will that be the last straw for some who will drop their cable subscription and simply watch everything online?

“They’re the ones who are going to resist these price increases that the programmers are trying to push,” said Dudley. “One need look no further than the music industry for an example of what happens when consumers feel taken advantage of by an entire industry.”

Dudley’s remark is more telling than he realizes.  The cable industry is well aware of what happened when the music and newspaper industry ignored nascent challenges to their business models like piracy or free access to their content.  To cable operators, the music and newspaper industries’ online experiences are lessons to be learned and not repeated.  The music industry waited too long to crack down on piracy and lost pricing power as consumers simply stole what they rationalized was overpriced.  The newspaper industry failed to erect pay walls to control access to their content, and newspaper subscribers dropped print subscriptions to read everything online for free.  Cable industry control of content and distribution is key to protecting their business model for pay television.  More on that in a moment.

Now two other parties want to be heard on this matter — consumer electronics manufacturers and advertisers.

This week, Advertising Age is running a story on the implications of cord-cutting.

The magazine takes note that online viewing doesn’t require a computer any longer.  Samsung, Boxee, Apple TV, and even Microsoft, manufacturer of the XBox, are now selling devices that bypass cable television and grab online video for users, often for free.

Netflix has already managed that for a monthly fee, and is rolling out service on all sorts of devices, from a set top box that streams content from the web to your television to video game consoles, and now even builds-in the service to some televisions and Blu-Ray DVD players.  Microsoft’s XBox Live service could be germinating a cable television service of its own, as it seeks to license content from programmers starting with Disney’s ESPN.

All of these services, along with traditional laptop or home computer viewing, could evolve into formidable challengers for the pay television industry.  Oh, and some new televisions on offer at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show build in support for Skype, a Voice Over IP telephone service, so phone revenue could be at risk as well.

Advertising Age believes this could be one of the entertainment industry’s biggest business battles of the next few years as millions, if not billions of dollars are at stake.

For the moment, the public face of the debate is a combination of downplaying its potential impact while the players quietly position themselves and their assets for the fight certain to come.

Both Dudley and Britt at Time Warner Cable call the potential trend towards online viewing interesting, but not much of a threat at the moment.

“We see some interesting stuff out there, but right now people are watching more TV than ever; cable-cutting is largely on the fringe,” said Dudley.

“A lot of manufacturers have come out and made announcements, but I don’t think they really are in a position to erode the pay-TV subscriptions that the cable industry has today,” said Park Associates research analyst Jayant Dafari.

“For many people, cable works just fine; the quality is great; the DVR functionality is great; the only gripe they have is that they’re paying for it,” Boxee’s founder and CEO Avner Ronen told Advertising Age. But “there is a growing generation out there where the whole definition of entertainment is changing, and their main source of entertainment is the internet.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Wii At the Movies 1-13-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC covered last week’s announcement of a partnership between Nintendo and Netflix to provide Netflix on the popular Nintendo Wii, in this exclusive interview with Reed Hastings, chairman and CEO of Netflix and Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America president & COO (January 13, 2010 – 5 minutes)

‘If It Becomes A Problem, We’ll Just Cut Them Off‘

The cable industry is in a comfortable position to leverage its control over programming and distribution to ultimately limit any competitive threat from online viewing.  In addition to mega-deals like Comcast’s acquisition of content-rich NBC-Universal (a partner in Hulu), the cable industry owns, controls, or can leverage carriage of its cable lineup contingent on programmers not giving away too much for free.  Advertising Age:

One tech exec, who asked not to be named, predicted that the minute cable operators start to feel the disruption, they will clamp down and use their market power to keep TV and films from seeping into next-generation devices. They’re already putting the squeeze on networks; any free distribution is an argument for lower cable distribution fees.

Stop the Cap! is also a player in this struggle, because a key component of the cable industry’s control of programming is the means it is distributed to consumers, and cable modem service representss one half of the duopoly most Americans find when shopping for broadband.  One potential strategy to eliminating the cord-cutting option is to enact Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and consumption billing that effectively makes it impractical for a consumer to “switch” to broadband for all of their online viewing.  Switching to the other half of the duopoly may not be an alternative. As online video projects like TV Everywhere will also be available to telco TV partners who wish to participate, there is every incentive to also limit video consumption on Verizon’s FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse systems.

Effective competition against entrenched players in the marketplace is impossible if those players control the content, the means of its distribution, and the ability to cut you off if you watch too much or switch to an independent competitor.

But this is history repeating itself.  Many of the same players and interests followed the same protectionist path against another competitor – satellite television.  It took strong regulatory policy from Washington to force a fair and level playing ground for an industry that didn’t want to sell content to its competitors, overcharged for access, and kept effective competition at bay for years, all while happily increasing rates for beleaguered consumers.

Here we go again.

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.

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.