Phillip "Not Paid by AT&T" Dampier

When asked if the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile will limit customer choice, NAACP’s local executive director Stanley Miller told a Cleveland, Ohio television station, “I don’t think that’s an issue in today’s environment; I think the companies are smarter today and they will make people understand and give them the beneficial services that they’ll need.”

The civil rights group had nothing to say about how much AT&T will charge for these “beneficial services.”

At least WEWS-TV in Cleveland is bothering to ask the question.  Most of America’s television news has either ignored the enormous merger on offer from AT&T and T-Mobile, or didn’t wade much further beyond AT&T’s press release about the “benefits” the merger will bring.  Unfortunately, the television station never bothered to alert viewers to the fact the civil rights group receives substantial financial support from AT&T.

Miller’s performance trying to tout his parent organization’s unqualified support for the merger sent a very clear message to anyone watching NewsChannel 5 — he doesn’t really understand what he is talking about.

On the issue of expanding wireless service into rural Ohio, Miller was left tongue-twisting his way into advocating a monopoly because they’ll be best equipped to get service to those who need it.  That’s a fascinating prospect — a monopoly spending money expanding service where it is unprofitable to provide.  That’s the reason companies like AT&T have ignored rural America, and will continue to do so — merger or not.

Miller (WEWS-TV)

In fact, AT&T’s claim that it needs the network of T-Mobile to stop the persistent problems of dropped calls and slow data service doesn’t make much sense either.  Verizon, AT&T’s closest competitor, doesn’t seem to be suffering those problems, perhaps because it has made investments in upgrades AT&T has avoided.

In California, consumer advocate Jon Fox was taking an equally skeptical look at AT&T’s claims on behalf of CalPIRG, the California Public Interest Research Group.  Fox noted AT&T’s promotion of the merger in his state came at invitation-only cheerleading sessions run by company officials:

Earlier this month, AT&T California President Ken McNeely explained to an invitation-only audience that the proposed merger with T-Mobile will create new jobs, help communities and improve wireless phone service. AT&T preferred not to take questions from the general public on how that vision fits with AT&T’s history of consolidation, layoffs and aggressive market behavior.

Nearly 30 years after regulators broke up AT&T’s unprecedented control over the U.S. wired phone market, consumers are asked to believe that this time things will be different. This notion defies both experience and common sense. Unless significant market regulation is put into place that encourages a competitive wireless arena to flourish, this proposed merger will be bad for consumers, innovation and economic growth.

Fox notes the wireless marketplace in the United States is hardly a paragon of competitiveness today.  If the merger were approved, 76 percent of Americans would receive wireless service from two providers — AT&T and Verizon.  Fox observed America’s next-most-hated conglomerate — the oil and gas industry — wishes it could have that sort of market power.  The top two oil companies in the U.S. have a combined market share of only 24 percent.  America, he notes, wouldn’t tolerate that kind of consolidation in the gasoline market, so why should we tolerate it in the mobile market?

The California Public Interest Research Group

Fox advocates more competition, not less.  He suggests the government force AT&T and Verizon to open their cellular networks to independent third party competitors at fair prices, and let everyone compete.  That could germinate competition that would end the chorus of rate increases from the largest players and allow for innovative pricing plans that don’t force customers into the nearly identical service plans AT&T and Verizon want to force you to accept.  T-Mobile already provides the most innovative pricing in the wireless marketplace, and AT&T is about to swallow that innovation whole.

What ultimately happens to a well-dwarfed Sprint remains an open question, but one many on Wall Street have already answered, suspecting America’s third largest carrier simply won’t be in a position to compete.  Fox thinks the situation is dire when two companies will have a virtual lock on wireless data services Americans increasingly depend on.

That’s not the view of the NAACP, of course.  But then the NAACP is hardly an independent observer, being the recipient of a considerable amount of money and executive talent from AT&T.  That counts for a whole lot more than the rank and file members of the organization, who will be paying the increased prices AT&T has in store for everyone.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEWS Cleveland ATT T-Mobile Merger 7-14-11.mp4[/flv]

WEWS-TV in Cleveland investigates the ramifications of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.  More than 94% of all Ohioans filing comments with FCC oppose the merger, but groups like the NAACP support it.  NewsCenter 5 wanted to find out why.  (3 minutes)

In the wake of a scandal that forced the resignation of the president and a board member of one of America’s largest gay civil rights organizations, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has withdrawn its prior support for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile and reaffirmed its support of strong Net Neutrality policies.

In a letter filed with the Federal Communications Commission earlier today, GLAAD did an about-face on its earlier support for the merger, telling the federal agency it now has a “neutral position” with respect to the deal.

Mike Thompson, GLAAD acting president, used the communication to also express the group’s strong support of Net Neutrality, which guarantees a free and open Internet.

“A rigorous review process considered GLAAD’s unique mission and concluded that while AT&T has a strong record of support for the LGBT community, the explanation used to support this particular merger was not sufficiently consistent with GLAAD’s work to advocate for positive and culture-changing LGBT stories and images in the media,” Thompson said in a statement.

Thompson’s belief that AT&T has a strong record of support for gay and lesbian issues remains controversial in many segments of the gay community. John Aravosis of Americablog would take issue with Thompson, accusing AT&T of “screwing” the gay community in the state of Tennessee:

AT&T was one of the companies whose local representatives sits on the board of directors of the Tennessee chamber of commerce.  You remember them, the group that endorsed and actively lobbied for the measure repealing gay and trans rights ordinances in the state, mandating it so that no trans person can ever change their birth certificate gender in the future, and banning any future civil rights ordinances for anyone in the future.  That AT&T.  The AT&T that weighed in early with a statement, when we asked the 13 companies to disavow the legislation and call on the governor to veto, but then whose statement pretty much didn’t say anything.  The AT&T then that emailed me multiple additional statements AFTER the governor signed the hateful bill into law.

Aravosis

GLAAD has taken its first steps to move as far away from dollar-a-holler advocacy as possible as a result of the hostile reception GLAAD’s original position got from rank and file members of the civil rights group.  After AT&T’s financial contributions to the group were exposed, along with the interests of one of their board members with direct ties to the telecommunications company, GLAAD accepted the resignation of group president Jarrett Barrios and board member Troup Coronado.

Remaining board members want the controversy to be over and done with.

“I am confident that Mike made the right decision both in withdrawing GLAAD’s endorsement of the AT&T merger application and in affirming our support of general net neutrality principles,” said GLAAD board member Tony Varona.

Politico obtained a statement in response to these events from AT&T:

“As we’ve previously said, we recognize, and fully respect that these organizations, which do important work, will make up their own minds about whether to support the merger or remain neutral. And, though it should go without saying, the decisions made by these organizations will not in any way impact our desire to work with, partner with or support those organizations in the future.”

The state of California is in receipt of a letter from AT&T objecting to a state workshop on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger that included 70 minutes for a panel of academic experts to share their views of one of the state’s largest wireless mergers in years.

J. David Tate, AT&T’s general attorney and associate general counsel, sent the letter in response to news California regulators would open the workshop to a presentation from academics about the impact the merger would have on California consumers, ranging from competition to roaming access to spectrum issues.

Tate called that inappropriate and asked the California Public Utilities Commission to ban their testimony:

“AT&T is raising objections to the panel because having a panel of ‘academic experts’ present at this workshop will pose significant risk of tainting the record with potentially uninformed and biased opinions. These opinions do not constitute the facts upon which the transaction should be reviewed.

“[…] Allowing academicians with unknown expertise in the wireless telecom industry the opportunity to place on the record their personal opinions regarding AT&T’s planned purchase of T-Mobile USA is procedurally improper, unfairly prejudicial to the parties, and contrary to due process principles.”

Instead of allowing those outside of the industry to present their views on the merger, AT&T suggested the best solution would be to allot the 70 minutes originally given to the academics to AT&T (and the three remaining panels AT&T does not object to) instead.

The impact of the last minute stampede by Verizon Wireless customers (new or otherwise) to lock in the company’s unlimited data plans before they were retired last week has reached Wall Street, but the ripples extend far beyond Verizon Wireless itself.

Macquarie USA analyst Kevin Smithen this morning downgraded AT&T stock to “neutral,” expressing concern about AT&T’s slowed growth in wireless revenues.

“We see increased headwinds to wireless revenue growth, limited improvement in enterprise and a lack of clarity on the status of the [pending acquisition of T-Mobile],” he writes. “We view projected organic revenue growth of 0.5% in 2012 as uninspiring. At current levels, we believe absolute and relative risk-reward to roughly balanced given these issues.”

Customers concerned about Internet Overcharging schemes being implemented by Verizon Wireless began fleeing other providers to “lock in” unlimited data service with Verizon before it was nigh.  One big victim of that was AT&T.

“We were waiting for the next iPhone to finally jump to Verizon, even if it meant paying a termination fee to AT&T, just to escape the dreadful service,” says Shai Lee, who was among several dozen readers contacting Stop the Cap! for assistance securing unlimited data plans with Big Red.  “When Verizon announced $30 for 2GB, there was no way we were going to be locked into paying that, so we jumped early.”

Many followed.

Smithen believes customers are also fleeing other carriers, especially T-Mobile, which he believes will lose two million customers before AT&T closes the deal or faces ultimate rejection for its merger by Washington regulators.

Some analysts believe T-Mobile customers are leaving over a combination of the company’s inherent weakness as a provider-now-in-limbo while others dread the reality of being ultimately stuck with AT&T.

“It’s like fleeing a country before the invading army reaches your town,” shares Samuel, a T-Mobile customer leaving for Verizon. “I won’t live under AT&T’s regime.”

Smithen sees even greater challenges for AT&T with the arrival of iPhone 5, which will either cost the company to subsidize or start another wave of AT&T emigration.

Verizon has already managed to secure 32 percent of the U.S. iPhone 4 market, according to a study by the mobile analytics company Localytics.  Since rumors about Verizon imminently ending unlimited data plans began in May of this year, Localytics has tracked a spike in Verizon iPhone purchases, one explained by existing customers upgrading to smartphones, and new customers arriving from other carriers.

For AT&T, customers on contract with smartphones are not adding additional services and those with data plans are trying to stay within plan limits, robbing AT&T of extra revenue.

Smithen says with this track record, average revenue per customer is “stalling.”

Is this a T-Mobile priority coverage zone?

One of the “benefits” AT&T’s lobbying team claims will come with a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is improved wireless service for rural America.

But an investigation into T-Mobile’s urban-focused coverage, and AT&T’s own recent rural past prove those claimed benefits simply don’t make any sense.

Although rural and small town America is increasingly aware of AT&T, that comes mostly from the company’s recent acquisitions, not from mass expansion projects to blanket rural America with AT&T iPhones.  AT&T has been on a shopping spree for smaller regional wireless carriers for the last five years, picking up resources through acquisition, not from independent investment.  But a buyout of T-Mobile will bring no new assets for AT&T’s presence in rural America.  It will simply reduce competition in larger communities the same way AT&T cut out competitors in rural markets.

Just ask customers of Dobson Cellular.  In 2007, AT&T bought the rural provider, doing business as Cellular One, for $2.8 billion dollars and converted customers to AT&T.  Dobson was the largest cell phone company around in Alaska and rural Michigan.  In fact, the company provided roaming capability to customers of AT&T and T-Mobile who ventured into the rural areas Dobson specialized in serving.

After the conversion, did service improve for the newly acquired AT&T customers?

“No way,” says ex-Cellular One customer Jim Duncan who lives in a former Dobson service area in Michigan. “AT&T ruined cell phone service when they got here with dropped calls and phantom busy signals, turning a friendly local-focused company into one where you are just an account number reaching some national call center.”

Acquired by AT&T in 2007

Duncan says AT&T never cared one bit about rural Michigan before buying Dobson, and in his view, still doesn’t.

“Smaller markets are an afterthought for AT&T and T-Mobile has zero impact (and customers) in my area, so I have no idea what great improvements a merger will bring to our part of Michigan that neither company paid much attention to,” Duncan says.

That same year, AT&T also grabbed spectrum worth $2.5 billion with its acquisition of Aloha Partners, which spent time at FCC auctions buying up 700Mhz spectrum and then eventually reselling it at a profit to wireless carriers.  AT&T didn’t just buy some of Aloha’s spectrum, it acquired the whole partnership.

Acquired by AT&T in 2008.

In April 2008, Edge Wireless customers in southern Oregon, northern California, southeastern Idaho and Jackson, Wyoming discovered they were well on their way to becoming AT&T customers, too.  AT&T acquired Edge and rebranded it AT&T. That hardly represents investment and dedicated expansion into rural Rocky Mountain states — AT&T simply bought up another company that did.

Also in 2008, AT&T snapped up Centennial Communications, a considerable-sized regional player in the central United States.  Centennial delivered service in less urban areas in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan in the north, and Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi in the south.  One million customers, Centennial’s spectrum and name all became part of AT&T.  Did service improve for Centennial customers with that merger?

“Overall, it stayed the same when it was Centennial and switched to AT&T,” says our reader Kevin, who now lives in Ft. Wayne, Ind.  “We did get access to the iPhone, but along with it came AT&T’s infamous dropped calls and lousy customer service.”

Acquired by AT&T in late 2008.

Kevin switched to Verizon Wireless earlier this year.

“If I was the FCC, I wouldn’t approve this merger because it promises nothing for rural America or anyone else,” says Kevin. “AT&T had a presence in Indiana before they bought Centennial, so all the deal did was reduce competition in this state.”

Centennial’s service areas were not exactly among T-Mobile’s priority coverage areas, either.

Acquired by AT&T in 2011?

“T-Who?,” Kevin asks.  “We’re aware of them now, but I don’t know anyone who has service with them.”

The real unanswered question is what AT&T is doing with all of the rural spectrum it already owns, controls, or has acquired.  How will an acquisition of an urban-focused carrier help deliver improved service in the rural markets both companies have traditionally ignored?

Answer: It won’t.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Centennial Joins ATT 10-09 and 02-10.flv[/flv]

WANE-TV in Ft. Wayne, Ind., covered the merger of Centennial and AT&T back in 2009 and early 2010.  Fort Wayne was the home of a major regional office for Centennial.  (4 minutes)