AT&T lost 649,000 DSL customers in three months.

AT&T’s broadband customers are taking their business elsewhere as second quarter results show the phone company lost 649,000 DSL customers in the last three months, while only picking up 553,000 new U-verse Internet users to replace those leaving. The result was a net loss of nearly 100,000 broadband customers in a single quarter. The company also only managed to attract 155,000 new U-verse television customers away from satellite or cable operators during the quarter.

AT&T blames the losses on “seasonality” — code language for part-time residents, college students, and other fluctuations that occur as customers come and go. Total broadband connections dropped 0.2% for AT&T, with 16.43 million remaining customers.

Landline customers also continue to depart AT&T in droves. More than one million home phone customers pulled the plug on AT&T this quarter. AT&T has lost nearly 11 percent of their landline customers over the past year.

For those remaining, a combination of rate increases, cost cutting and fierce marketing of bundled packages of services are keeping revenue growing on both the residential and business side.

AT&T is getting closer to announcing a “rural landline solution,” which some analysts predict will be the company’s exit from the rural landline business.

Executives continue to hint the company is reviewing its future in the rural landline business. AT&T lobbyists have shepherded new laws in several states that would allow them to abandon rural landline customers where the company is no longer required to be “the carrier of last resort.”

AT&T U-verse is turning out to be not much of a threat to cable and satellite operators, only achieving a 17.3% penetration rate in areas where the service is available.

The real money for AT&T is being made in the wireless sector, where increasing prices, changes to service packages, and data usage-based billing are all paying off  — revenue for wireless data alone is up 18.8% to $1 billion during the second quarter. AT&T earned $14.3 billion from its wireless business in just the second quarter alone.

At the same time, the company is slashing investments in parts of its network and cutting employees.

Capital expenditures in the second quarter amounted to $4.48 billion, down 15% from the $5.27 billion AT&T spent a year ago. AT&T also cut its workforce by 6.4% since June 2011, with a reported 242,380 total remaining employees.

Despite the company’s talking points, AT&T’s upgrade fee is designed to slow down customers considering upgrading their smartphones.

In other highlights:

• Wall Street analysts are praising AT&T’s stricter upgrade policies and device upgrade fees. In fact, at least one analyst wants to see AT&T raise the fee to $50 for every phone upgrade. The fees discourage customers from upgrading their phones, which dramatically reduces AT&T’s costs. AT&T subsidizes phones for customers. The longer customers hold off from upgrading, the more revenue AT&T keeps for themselves and shareholders. AT&T has made it clear it will continue to “introduce discipline”  in the handset market to enforce “rational pricing,” which means customers will continue to see further reductions in device subsidies and face higher prices when upgrading phones.
• Much of AT&T’s investment will be in its LTE 4G network. AT&T’s spending on wireline services including U-verse is on the decline.
• AT&T admitted its policy of monetizing data usage for profit is well underway: “[We are getting] ourselves set up for revenues that are going to be tied to usage, which will then be tied to our capital requirements and a really profitable situation.”
• AT&T is aggressively pushing customers to upgrade to smartphones so they can earn additional revenue. “Smartphone subscribers now number 43 million and make [up] 62% of our total postpaid base. But smartphones accounted for 77% of postpaid sales during the quarter, showing continuing opportunity for growth. And when you look at our total smartphone base, we’ve added 9 million high-value smartphone customers in just the last 12 months.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT 2Q2012 Results.flv[/flv]

AT&T spins its 2nd Quarter results for shareholders in the best possible light. Although revenues are up, the number of customers leaving AT&T for other providers may challenge future growth and earnings. (4 minutes)

The wireless industry is in transition. Increasing capacity also means decreasing the number of customers trying to share a traditional cell tower. The future will bring a combination of shorter-range cellular and Wi-Fi antennas that can sustain traffic loads much easier than overburdened traditional cell towers.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Policy and Technology’s recommendation that the growing demand for wireless spectrum be met by sharing frequencies with the federal government is getting a cold reception from the wireless industry.

AT&T, other wireless operators, and their lobbying trade association have been embarked on a fierce campaign in Washington to free up additional spectrum they can use to meet growing demands for wireless data. Unfortunately, clearing spectrum that can be re-purposed for wireless phone companies requires complicated, and often expensive frequency reassignments as existing users relocate elsewhere. With the federal government holding a large swath of spectrum for the use of a range of public safety, research, and military applications, the best source for new frequencies comes from Washington.

PCAST’s final 200-page report urges the Commerce Department prioritize locating 1000MHz of frequencies that could be re-purposed for private wireless communications. But the council also recommended that frequencies could be more quickly made available by asking wireless telecom companies to share them with existing users.

Today’s “exclusive use” licenses all too often are being underutilized and, in fact, are sometimes used as a valuable investment tool to buy, trade, or sell. Issuing exclusive licenses guarantees that no other players can use those frequencies. That is a valuable tool for wireless companies protecting their market share from potential competitors.

PCAST declared the concept of a “spectrum shortage” to be largely a myth:

Although there is a general perception of spectrum scarcity, most spectrum capacity is not used. An assigned primary user may occupy a band, preventing any other user from gaining access, yet consume only a fraction of the potential spectrum capacity. Unique among natural resources owned by the public, spectrum capacity is infinitely renewable from second to second—that is, any spectrum vacated by one user is immediately available for any other user.

Measurements of actual spectrum use show that less than 20 percent of the capacity of the prime spec­trum bands (below 3.7 GHz) is in use even in the most congested urban areas.

This spectrum inefficiency is not just a problem for the wireless industry, it also afflicts government use as well. But it is a problem that can be solved by modernizing spectrum allocation policy in the United States.

“Exclusive frequency assign­ments should not be interpreted as a reason to preclude other productive uses of spectrum capacity in areas or at times where the primary use is dormant or where underutilized capacity can be shared,” the report concludes.

If implemented, the wireless industry could begin accessing hundreds of megahertz of new spectrum, with the understanding there may be other users sharing certain frequencies in different areas at different times. For example, AT&T could use spectrum assigned to forest rangers in federal parks for wireless data in Manhattan or other urban areas, where neither user will create interference for the other. Verizon could use spectrum allocated for naval communications at seaside ports in land-locked Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, or West Virginia.

The proposal identifies these frequency bands as ideal for shared use between private and government users.

As technology progresses, shared spectrum users will easily afford equipment that dynamically locates open frequencies for communications with little or no interference even if two users are located right next door to each other.

The benefits to taxpayers, governmental users, and private industry are notable:

1. The cost to relocate existing government users to other bands is prohibitively time-consuming, complicated, and expensive. Taxpayers often foot the bill for the frequency changes;
2. Government use of spectrum is not particularly efficient either. Identifying under-utilized spectrum for shared-use can bring pressure to government users to consolidate operations and increase operating efficiency;
3. Private industry gets much faster access to new spectrum, which suddenly becomes plentiful and potentially affordable for new entrants in the wireless marketplace.

Despite the benefits, the wireless industry had a frosty reception to the new report:

Joan Marsh, AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory:

“While we are still reviewing the PCAST report, we are encouraged by the sustained interest in exploring ways to free up underutilized government spectrum for mobile Internet use.  However, we are concerned with the report’s primary conclusion that ‘the norm for spectrum use should be sharing, not exclusivity.’  The report fails to recognize the benefits of exclusive use licenses, which are well known.  Those licenses enabled the creation of the mobile Internet and all of the ensuing innovation, investment and job creation that followed.

“While we should be considering all options to meet the country’s spectrum goals, including the sharing of federal spectrum with government users, it is imperative that we clear and reallocate government spectrum where practical.  We fully support the NTIA effort of determining which government bands can be cleared for commercial use, and we look forward to continuing to work with NTIA and other stakeholders to make more spectrum available for American consumers and businesses.”

CTIA – The Wireless Association:

The CTIA is the wireless industry’s lobbying group

“We thank the Administration and PCAST for focusing on the need to make more efficient use of spectrum currently assigned to federal government users. As the PCAST report notes, it is sensible to investigate creative approaches for making federal government spectrum commercially available, including the development of certain sharing capabilities. At the same time, and as Congress recognized in the recently-passed spectrum legislation, the gold standard for deployment of ubiquitous mobile broadband networks remains cleared spectrum.

“Cleared spectrum and an exclusive-use approach has enabled the U.S. wireless industry to invest hundreds of billions of dollars, deploying world-leading mobile broadband networks and resulting in tremendous economic benefits for U.S. consumers and businesses. Not surprisingly, that is the very same approach that has been used by the countries that we compete with in the global marketplace, who have brought hundreds of megahertz of cleared spectrum to market in recent years.

“Policymakers on a bipartisan basis have grasped the importance of making more spectrum available to meet the growing demand for mobile Internet services, and this report highlights a range of forward-looking options, some of which are not yet commercially available, that may be considered to meet this important national goal. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, the FCC, NTIA, Congress and other interested parties to increase access to federal government spectrum and to continue to assist our nation in its economic recovery.”

Wireless carriers will continue to lobby Washington lawmakers to leave the current “exclusive use” spectrum policies in place, even if it delays opening up “badly-needed” spectrum for years.

In short, the major players in the wireless industry are hostile to the idea of losing exclusive-use spectrum. That comes as little surprise because shared spectrum cannot be controlled by the wireless industry. Spectrum squatting, where large phone companies or investment groups hang on to unused spectrum either to keep competitors out or as an investment tool until it eventually can be resold at a major profit, is a significant problem in the industry. Wall Street analysts routinely assign value to the spectrum holdings of wireless carriers, whether they are used or not. Since most spectrum is now sold to the industry at “highest bidder wins” auctions, only the largest players are frequently serious contenders. Auctioning off shared spectrum, if practical, will bring lower bids — but could potentially bring new bidders like start-up ventures that have some new ideas on how to use wireless frequencies to compete.

Therefore, it has been in the wireless industry’s best interests to keep the idea of sharing frequencies with other players out of the minds of Washington regulators and legislators. Their technical objections and claims that shared spectrum would somehow destroy innovation and investment ring hollow, and are weak deflections from the more obvious agenda: to maintain their status quo control of wireless frequencies, well-utilized or not.

AT&T and other wireless players will no doubt lobby their case to Washington politicians, many who will rush to the industry’s defense. The shadow argument most likely to be used to defend the current “exclusive use” auction system is the auction proceeds collected by the federal government. Billions have been raised from past auctions, and shared use frequencies would never net that level of return. But PCAST’s report exposes the rest of the story. The cost to reallocate existing users to other frequencies, hand out new radios, raise new antennas and purchase new transmitters is often so costly, the government’s net gain, post-auction, is likely to be minimal.

Abroad, many governments have already adopted shared use, discarding the focus on spectrum earnings and refocusing spectrum allocation on delivering the best bang for the buck — whether that dollar belongs to the consumer, the wireless industry, or the government.

Attempts by AT&T and others to kill PCAST’s recommendations should also be considered proof the industry’s dire claim of a spectrum shortage emergency is vastly overblown. In a true crisis, everyone makes compromises.  That does not appear to be the case here. Congress and regulators should receive that message loud and clear.

Nearly 100 Frontier employees may be visiting Idaho’s unemployment offices by September.

On the second anniversary of Frontier Communications assuming control of landline operations in Idaho formerly owned by Verizon Communications, Frontier has announced plans to close its Coeur d’Alene call center this summer, putting nearly half of Frontier’s workers in Idaho out of work.

“There’s nothing wrong with the employees or the work they’re doing. It’s more about efficiencies,” Frontier’s senior vice president Steve Crosby told CDA Press. “What we’re trying to do is work through efficiencies, consolidations, really moving people around, having work groups working closer together.”

Those hoping to remain with Frontier will need to move to another state and accept a large pay cut if they want to keep their jobs. Other Frontier call centers around the country will assume the responsibilities of the 100 Idaho-based employees who face termination by Sept. 18, including one opening near Myrtle Beach, S.C., that will pay substantially lower salaries.

The closure will reduce Frontier’s workforce in Idaho almost in half. Crosby said Frontier had roughly 260 employees in the state as of last week.

Two years ago, Frontier was telling Idaho a very different story about its takeover of Verizon landlines.

“I think we’ll have better service for customers,” David Haggerty, then a Verizon manager staying with Frontier, told the Bonner County Daily Bee. “Frontier brings with it a small-town mentality. It used to be you were able to pay bills in town and make human contact. That was taken away by Verizon.”

In 2010, Haggerty promised the transition would have no impact on former Verizon workers now heading to work at Frontier.

“We focus on putting the customer first,” said Frontier’s regional manager Vickie Bullard said. “That’s one of the 11 value statements we have at Frontier.”

Some of Frontier’s customers in Idaho wonder if Frontier’s “value statements” are also being downsized.

“I just switched from Frontier to Time Warner Cable for my Internet,” says Scott Mead. “Frontier started out great in the beginning, but shortly after went downhill as issue after issue started.”

Mead reports his calls to Frontier’s national 800 customer support number, which promises 100 percent of the company’s workers are American-based, often left him flummoxed dealing with foreign-accented employees with poor English language skills.

The last one out can turn off the lights.

Another Coeur d’Alene customer endured bad service from Frontier before finally leaving, with the phone company’s collection agency chasing him not far behind:

“As far as I’m concerned Frontier can take a long walk off a short pier. When they first took over from Verizon, from whom we had good service, they sent out a service guy to get us back online. He installed the wrong equipment so another serviceman came out and replaced the wrong one with a bigger, better, and faster wrong one. Over the next 6 weeks we were down all but 12 days and we heard one excuse after another with nothing getting resolved.

So a month later, after switching companies, not only did we get a bill from Frontier for the entire 6 weeks but they charged us for several wrong pieces of equipment. When we tried to resolve the issues they simply sent us to collection and refused to talk. Se we ended up paying for over 4 weeks of service they did not provide and for 4 Internet boxes that the servicemen could not get to work.

I can only hope that Frontier has an office at the bottom of a honey bucket at a chili feed. Flippin crooks.”

One former Verizon/Frontier employee suggests the “efficiencies” Crosby is concerned with is paying call center workers less, and offering fewer benefits:

“Frontier closed a center in Elk Grove, Calif. back in June leaving 50+ people unemployed there,” he writes. “When Verizon sold their landlines and DSL to Frontier back in 2009 they only guaranteed the acquired employees jobs for two years. July 1, 2012 was the second anniversary of that acquisition. This does not surprise me at all. The leadership of both Verizon and Frontier is like any other large corporation. Bottom line is the new call center in South Carolina is cheaper to operate. Why pay people over 50K (this is including 401k, stock & medical benefits) when you can pay half that in a center that has no union.”

Another Idaho employee is bitter about the extra work Frontier employees managed for the company during its great billing and systems transition away from Verizon.

“We will be out of a job, after working massive amounts of overtime to transition this company to get them through the largest conversion in telecommunications history,” the worker shared. “They needed us to get them through it and now they don’t.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMBF Myrtle Beach New Frontier Call Center 5-11-12.mp4[/flv]

Race to the bottom. Frontier Communications closes an “unneeded” 100-worker call center in Idaho that reportedly paid workers over $50,000 a year in salary and benefits while announcing a new, “much-needed” call center with 110 workers near Myrtle Beach, S.C. that will pay workers only $30,000 a year. WMBF in Myrtle Beach calls the new South Carolina call center a “success” for Horry County’s efforts to recruit new business to the area. Frontier applauded South Carolina’s “excellent business environment.” But that success comes at a cost to other workers in other states.  (2 minutes)

If you are a Cablevision customer in New Jersey, your cable company wants you to use a set top box on all of your televisions, and eventually pay $6.95 a month for each of them.

Cablevision is beginning a conversion of its cable lineup to digital in a transition that is expected to last until October. After that, customers will need to use a box or CableCARD for each of their televisions hooked to cable.

The change is upsetting customers who do not want the hassle and expense of a converter box, especially those using third party equipment to record and watch favorite shows.

Cablevision does not yet offer a cheaper alternative – a digital transport adapter (DTA), which can turn digital signals into analog ones and allow customers rudimentary access to certain digital services on older sets. Instead, the company will offer customers several extra traditional set top boxes or CableCARDs for between one and two years before charging the usual monthly rental fee.

The cable operator says the majority of its customers already watch with a set top box as the company has gradually reduced its lineup of analog signals. Cablevision customers in New York and Connecticut have already made the transition to the digital lineup.

But some customers are upset enough about the change that they are threatening to switch to Verizon FiOS, although that service also requires customers to use set top boxes.

Comcast subscribers in other parts of the state have also been experiencing a transition to all-digital lineups.

Cable operators are moving video services to digital to make room for additional offerings, including more HD channels, faster Internet speeds, and new product lines like home security and automation. Many inside the industry also predict it is part of a greater transition towards an IP-based delivery system that will provide one large digital pipe through which television, phone, broadband and other services will all travel together.

Cablevision Digital Conversion Details:

• Those currently paying for set top box(es) will continue to do so. But customers can request additional boxes or CableCARDs for every remaining television in the home and receive them free for one year;
• Those who have no digital set top boxes in their homes now can receive a free box or CableCARD for every set for two years. In all instances, after the free promotion ends, customers will pay $6.95/mo for each device;
• Newer televisions equipped with a QAM tuner can watch Cablevision’s broadcast basic tier, consisting primarily of local over the air stations, without any extra equipment. Basic cable networks and premium channels will require a box or CableCARD;
• Broadband customers can use Cablevision’s app for iOS or a personal computer to watch the company’s cable lineup within the home;
• DTA boxes will be available from Cablevision within a year;
• Equipment installation is free. Do-it-yourself customers can have the necessary equipment mailed to them for free or can pick equipment up at any Optimum Store location.

Suddenly Bought

Well-compensated management at Suddenlink are teaming up with private equity firm BC Partners and the Canada Pension Plan’s CPP Investment Board to buy out Suddenlink Communications in a deal for the $6.6 billion company.

The transaction will leave Suddenlink’s founder and current CEO Jerry Kent in charge and part-owner of the company. Some other members of top management are also participating in the buyout deal.

Suddenlink is currently owned by investment bank Goldman Sachs through its private equity arm, Quadrangle Group LLC and Oaktree Capital Management LP.

The buyers will assume $4 billion of Suddenlink’s outstanding debt and BC Partners and CPP Investment Board are taking on $500 million of additional debt to fund the purchase.

Kent

Kent says the deal is designed to infuse additional capital into Suddenlink’s operations, which primarily serve smaller communities in Texas, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas. Suddenlink launched in 2003 with the acquisition of discarded cable systems originally owned by Cox and Charter Communications. Today the company serves 1.4 million residential customers, making it the seventh largest cable operator in the country.

With Kent remaining in charge, few changes are expected. In 2011, Suddenlink adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme including usage caps and overlimit fees that it is gradually rolling out to all of its customers.

Investors see revenue growth opportunities from Suddenlink, particularly as it further monetizes broadband.

“This represents a unique opportunity to acquire a leading cable operator that has consistently generated industry-leading results,” said André Bourbonnais, who heads private investments for CPPIB.

Kent had been reportedly shopping the cable system around to private-equity firms over the past several months, on the condition he got to remain in charge and early investors could cash out.