Phillip “At Least They Are Transparent About Robbing You” Dampier

The unassailable truth is that if there is a right way for a company to treat its customers and a wrong way, AT&T will always choose the wrong way. It’s the primary reason I refuse to do business with them.

The company’s recent decision to block Apple FaceTime for customers who refuse to be herded to one of AT&T’s new Mobile Share plans is another shot across the bow of Net Neutrality, which declares customers should be able to use the applications and services of their choosing — particularly on networks where they pay for those choices.

Principal #1 of Net Neutrality: Companies should not be playing favorites with applications or services by blocking or restricting those a provider does not favor.

AT&T’s response: ‘Whatever.’

The predictable outrage of customers should have come as no surprise to AT&T, but somehow it did.

The company picked testy senior vice president for regulatory affairs Bob Quinn to mount a rapid defense against the pitchfork-and-torch-yielding throngs on AT&T’s Public Policy Blog. That was their second mistake.

Quinn, who spent last December valiantly defending AT&T against its too-precious CupcakeGate mini-scandal, conjured up this pretzel-twisted logic tap dance to explain away its latest boorish behavior:

Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.

AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement.  Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary.  There is no transparency issue here.

Nor is there a blocking issue.  The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones.  Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps.  Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps.  But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”)  Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

A company lecturing its customers for daring to question its decisions is always a good way to enhance those warm and fuzzy feelings people have about America’s least-liked wireless phone company. Quinn first scolds customers and consumer groups about their “knee jerk reaction,” for being upset about the issue. Then he declares they have “rushed to judgment,” using a turn of phrase not heard since O.J. Simpson’s defense team pounded it to death, and look where that ultimately got us.

The crux of AT&T’s argument is they get a free pass to “block and herd” because Apple FaceTime was pre-installed on customer phones. Therefore, since AT&T didn’t block you from downloading an app you already had, it cannot possibly be a Net Neutrality violation. Because as we all know, Net Neutrality is only about download blocking.

At least AT&T is keeping their promise to be transparent. They have, indeed, fully informed you they are mugging you while in the process of mugging you. Full disclosure… matters.

Somehow, I missed the “preinstalled does not count” section in the Federal Communications Commission’s December 2010 order to providers telling them to preserve the free and open Internet. So I spent last night with this legalese page-turner (194 pages to be exact) to refresh my memory.

Nope, it isn’t in there. You can read it for yourself from the link above.

So it isn’t me. It is them, making up the rules as they go, again.

Quinn graciously offers customers one concession: AT&T will allow you to use Apple FaceTime over your own home Wi-Fi network. Gosh thanks!

For customers addicted to FaceTime, AT&T’s solution is an expensive plan change. An average customer currently paying $70 for 450-barely used voice minutes and 3GB of data will find FaceTime off-limits on AT&T’s network unless they “upgrade” to AT&T’s $95 Mobile Share plan, which gets you only 1GB of data, but endless voice minutes you don’t want and unlimited texting you don’t need.

Result: Pay $25 more a month and get your data allowance slashed by 2/3rds. That’s a deal — AT&T-style.

But it is one some customers are through taking. Nalin Kuachusri:

The new FaceTime restrictions will usher in the end of my 12+ year relationship with AT&T. I’m tired of the consistent manipulation of plans and features to extract more and more money for services I don’t need. For example: there used to be several text-message options (200, 1000, 1500, unlimited) so I could choose and pay for the one that fit my usage best. Then there was the option to move from unlimited data to 2GB/month to save $5. That was great for me and fit my usage. Then I was forced to move back to $30/month if I wanted to add tethering where I’ll get an extra GB that I’ll never use. Finally, after 12 years as a customer with an account in good standing, I was not allowed to unlock my phone for my 10-day trip to Europe so I could get a local SIM. I couldn’t be happier to give you one final $200 payment as an early-termination fee so I can move to Verizon.

Unfortunately for Kuachusri, the bosses at Verizon Wireless are likely slapping themselves silly because they did not come up with the idea first.

AT&T is being fingered as the party responsible for rendering Oakland’s $18 million dollar P25 digital public safety radio communications system unreliable, because police and fire radios are often inoperable near the company’s cell towers.

After more than a year of repeated failures and complaints from Oakland police over garbled communications, dead spots, and reception problems, investigators dispatched from the Federal Communications Commission finally identified the source of most of the problems: AT&T.

“If the officer is in an area close to one of their cell sites, essentially the cell site overpowers their radios,” said David Cruise, Oakland’s public safety systems adviser.

The system, built by Harris Corporation of Melbourne, Fla. is suspected of being intolerant of strong cell signals operating on nearby frequencies. The digital nature of the system means degraded communications often go unheard, and firefighters and police officers have complained loudly and repeatedly they have been unable to summon dispatchers while experiencing interference problems. The investigation found the problems are worst within a quarter to a half-mile from one of AT&T’s many cell sites.

The source of the interference is AT&T’s 2G network, operated on 850MHz. Oakland’s public safety P25 system operates on multiple frequencies nearby from 851-854MHz.

Under federal law, public safety communications have priority over cell phone service, and AT&T has cooperated by shutting down 2G service on 850MHz on at least 16 cell towers, immediately reducing complaints from police officers and firefighters.

“AT&T would never do anything to jeopardize law enforcement,” AT&T spokesman John Britton told the San Francisco Chronicle. “This spectrum has been out there since the 1990s. Thursday or Friday was the first time we were notified by Oakland. We reacted quickly.”

AT&T won’t say exactly how many cell sites are located in Oakland, but there are more than 1,000 AT&T-owned towers across the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Oakland officials plan to press AT&T to shut down more 2G data service on 850MHz until a solution can be found.

AT&T says only customers with the oldest phones are likely to notice the network shutdowns, because most current customers use 3G or 4G data service, which has not posed an interference problem. AT&T says it still maintains 2G service in San Francisco on 1900MHz, which should be accessible to customers with older phones, although the service may not operate as well on the higher frequency band when obstructions are present between a cell phone user and the nearest cell tower.

Representatives for law enforcement personnel hope the city is on the right track, but point out the Harris-built digital radio system has been nothing but trouble since it was first activated. The system has suffered repeated glitches, does not work inside hundreds of area buildings, and failed the night President Obama visited Oakland in July. Some critics note the Harris system does not even provide reception in the basement of Oakland’s police headquarters.

City officials are also investigating other contributing potential sources of interference, including T-Mobile, which also operates on similar frequencies in the area.

Ironically, the interference problem may have begun after Sprint Nextel committed to spending over a billion dollars to cover the costs of relocating public safety communications further away from its own cellular frequencies. Sprint Nextel paid $10.5 million to move Oakland’s radio system to a frequency further from its own network, but as it turns out, closer to AT&T’s.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCBS San Francisco Oakland Police Radios Failed During Presidents Visit 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KCBS in San Francisco has been pursuing the dilemma of Oakland’s public safety communications system for months. Back in July, police were alarmed when the radio system failed the night President Obama arrived in town.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCBS San Francisco Closer Look Oakland Police Fed Up With Flawed Radio System 8-14-12.mp4[/flv]

Oakland police are fed up with the year-old $18 million dollar emergency radio system that they say simply does not work. KCBS investigates in this mid-August report.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCBS San Francisco ATT Cellphone Towers Blamed For Oakland Police Radio Failures 8-21-12.mp4[/flv]

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission finally identified a major source of Oakland’s radio problems: AT&T cell sites.  (2 minutes)

AT&T and Verizon: The Doublemint Twins of Wireless

In an unsurprising move, AT&T has followed Verizon Wireless and announced it has discontinued subsidies for wireless tablet devices.

Engadget received word from an AT&T insider the company has withdrawn subsidies often amounting to $150 off the devices in return for a two-year contract. The subsidies helped defray the more costly ($400+) 3G/4G-capable units most consumers bypass in favor of less expensive Wi-Fi-only tablets. Verizon Wireless stopped subsidizing tablets in June.

Consumers can still buy the devices at full price from AT&T, and in another move, AT&T slightly reduced its DataConnect pricing by $5:

• 250MB for $14.99
• 3GB for $30
• 5GB for $50
• Tethering to an existing shared data plan is available for an extra $10

AT&T also announced it was planning to limit the use of Apple’s FaceTime exclusively to those who agree to switch to the company’s new “Mobile Share” plans. AT&T will not allow customers with older individual or family use plans to use the popular video conferencing service over its mobile broadband network at any price.

The official statement, first reported by 9 to 5 Mac:

AT&T will offer FaceTime over Cellular as an added benefit of our new Mobile Share data plans, which were created to meet customers’ growing data needs at a great value. With Mobile Share, the more data you use, the more you save. FaceTime will continue to be available over Wi-Fi for all our customers.

AT&T is able to introduce these types of restrictions because of the failure of the Federal Communications Commission to enforce Net Neutrality protection on wireless networks. Net Neutrality would require carriers to treat online content, applications, and services equally, allowing customers to use and pay for the services of their choice.

Wireless carriers fought Net Neutrality claiming it would harm efforts to technically manage their networks and would ultimately discourage investment. But AT&T’s arbitrary, non-technical restriction of FaceTime suggests the company is actually pushing customers to the more-profitable service plans AT&T favors.

Wood

Consumer group Free Press policy director Matt Wood:

“These tactics are designed with one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money each month by handicapping alternatives to AT&T’s own products.  If customers want to use FaceTime on AT&T’s mobile network, then they have buy a more expensive monthly data plan with extra voice minutes and texts they’ll never use thrown in. Blocking mobile FaceTime access for much of its user base may be a win for AT&T but it’s a losing proposition for the rest of us.

“It’s not supposed to be this way. The Net Neutrality protections in place today for wireless are too weak, but at least prevent carriers from blocking these types of apps. The FCC’s rules prohibit such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by wireless companies. Such behavior would be a problem no matter what Internet platform you choose. It would be unimaginable on your home broadband connection. Apple’s FaceTime comes pre-installed on a Macbook Pro, too, but no home broadband provider would dream of blocking the app there unless you’d signed up for a more expensive data plan.

“The FCC’s Open Internet order aside, AT&T’s latest scheme to make you pay more for less would never fly if we had real competition in the wireless marketplace. Instead, we have Ma Bell’s twin offspring running amok and forcing consumers onto ridiculous plans that make them pay for the same data twice. It’s only going to get worse until lawmakers recognize the problem and act to solve this competition crisis.”

While AT&T will block many customers from using FaceTime, a competing service from Skype remains unaffected.

In an example of corporate welfare at its finest, AT&T effectively paid no federal taxes in 2011. In fact, thanks to lucrative incentives and corporate subsidies, the telecommunications company walked away with a giant taxpayer-subsidized $420 million refund.

CEO Randall Stephenson was paid a higher salary — $18.7 million — than AT&T paid in taxes last year, and thanks to the Bush era tax cuts, Stephenson kept $1,137,456 more of that money for himself in 2011, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies.

How did AT&T actually get paid by the Internal Revenue Service when it effectively owed nothing in taxes? The company used new “accelerated depreciation” rules corporate America lobbied hard for over the past five years. While AT&T was slapping usage caps and overlimit fees on its customers ostensibly to help pay for network upgrades, AT&T wrote off the value of those upgrades on its federal taxes, winning turbo-charged tax deductions for every new cell tower, 4G upgrade, and just about everything else AT&T used to enhance its network.

Under the current accelerated depreciation rules, AT&T gets to write off a higher amount during the first few years an asset is acquired. That saved the company $5.2 billion on their 2011 taxes alone.

But for companies like AT&T, considered “capital-intensive” businesses, it is only the beginning. The Institute reports even greater savings will likely show up in AT&T’s future annual reports. In 2011, Congress expanded depreciation rules and allowed businesses to deduct the entire cost of new long-term investment purchases. Although billed as an anti-recession move, such tax breaks often result in taxpayers bearing a substantial portion of the cost of investments firms would have made anyway.

AT&T was also not hurt too badly by its aborted attempt to acquire Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA. The phone giant ultimately had to pay a deal breakup fee worth $3 billion in cash and $1 billion worth of wireless spectrum to the German phone company. AT&T wrote off those on their taxes, too, helping the company not only get their tax liability down to zero, it helped win them a taxpayer-subsidized refund.

Stephenson’s disastrous failed deal to acquire AT&T’s smaller rival did not hurt him too much either, although some under him quickly took early retirement after the deal fell apart. Ultimately, AT&T’s Board of Directors sent him a message he could afford to ignore — a salary cut of just $2 million — less than 10 percent of Stephenson’s pay package. But with the Bush era tax cuts softening the blow, that slap on his salary really only cost him $862,544.

The Institute’s larger point is that tax cuts and general corporate tax policy has now moved well beyond “lower taxes” and has now increasingly shifted to providing taxpayer-financed subsidies and corporate welfare to corporations earning record profits while the United States continues to rack up enormous deficits. CEO pay also continues to flourish, only enhanced further with the added financial benefits of a temporary Bush Administration tax cut that is long beyond its intended expiration date.