AT&T’s latest effort to rid itself of universal service obligations and a commitment to offer discounted phone service to more than one million low-income Californians has been temporarily stopped in the state legislature after advocates for the poor objected to the bill.

AB 1407 would have made major changes to the state’s regulations governing LifeLine, the low-cost phone service for the poor. In its place, both AT&T and Verizon advocated a voucher program that would effectively raise rates for everyone, gut regulatory authority to limit future rate hikes, and open a loophole that could allow phone companies to unilaterally abandon landline service in favor of wireless.

The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), would drop the current LifeLine program offering landline service at rates not to exceed $6.84 a month and replace it with a fixed amount voucher worth $11.85 a month that could be applied to reduce a wireless or landline provider bill. AT&T says the proposal will make it easier for consumers to adopt wireless LifeLine phone service and cut burdensome oversight and rate regulations.

Consumer groups argue the legislation delivers all of its benefits to phone companies like AT&T while eliminating consumer protection regulations. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) also complained the bill could end guaranteed quality landline service, potentially permitting AT&T and other companies to stop providing wired phone service and force customers to wireless services instead.

The little-known and less understood bill moved quickly through the Democratic-controlled legislature over the summer and on July 9, AB 1407 passed a key Senate committee in a 6-1 vote, well on the way to passage in the state Senate. Consumer groups and low-income advocates learned of the bill and launched a broad-based opposition campaign including the Coalition for Economic Survival, AARP, the California Labor Federation and The Utility Reform Network. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a tea party group that vigilantly monitors the state legislature for attempts to circumvent Proposition 13 limits on tax hikes, also opposed the measure because it adds a 3.3% state-mandated surcharge on all intrastate telephone services, also applicable to Voice over IP providers.

AT&T found a good friend in Bradford, who has advocated for the company’s interests since AT&T became his biggest campaign contributor by far, donating more than $40,000 to his re-election coffers.

Bradford

Larry Gross of the Los Angeles-based Coalition for Economic Survival described Bradford as a “front person for AT&T.”

Bradford and AT&T’s lobbyists, dominating earlier discussions on AB 1407, were overrun at an Aug. 19 hearing when a group of tenants from San Francisco’s Central City SRO Collaborative (CCSRO) appeared and opposed the bill and its impact on the poor.

BeyondChron noted Bradford was so confident about the momentum his AT&T-ghost-written bill had received, he waived his testimony. Minutes later, he discovered the growing number of speakers lined up to oppose the bill. Bradford then attempted to rebut the surprising opposition, but it was too late. The tenants persuaded the majority on the Senate Appropriations Committee to suspend further consideration of the bill for now.

The proposed legislation had support from a number of elected officials, almost all recipients of AT&T campaign contributions.

Nearly all the non-profit groups supporting AB 1407 also received direct financial support from AT&T and/or Verizon. Among the first 20 supporters investigated by Stop the Cap!, all but a few turned out to have direct financial ties to either AT&T, Verizon, or both:

Verizon is linked from COFEM’s home page.

• Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association: AT&T is a “major sponsor.”
• Bakersfield Homeless Center: AT&T is a funding partner.
• Brotherhood Crusade: AT&T is a “silver partner.” Verizon, which also supports the measure, is a “platinum” donor.
• California Black Chamber of Commerce: Verizon is a “corporate member.”
• California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: AT&T is a corporate member.
• California Partnership to End Domestic Violence: Verizon cut them a check for $130,000 to become a partner.
• Center for Fathers and Families: AT&T is a sponsor.
• COFEM: Verizon is so important to their mission, the company’s logo is on the group’s home page.
• Community Youth Center of San Francisco: AT&T is a “diamond sponsor.”
• Congress of California Seniors: Verizon is one of their “key sponsors.”
• Eskaton Foundation: AT&T is a “level 3” donor.
• Florence Douglas Senior Center: AT&T is a “primary sponsor.”

We stopped looking after researching the first 20 groups, but it is highly likely the others will also have similar ties.

Although Assemblyman Bradford repeatedly has claimed there is no intent to eliminate or diminish universal service “Carrier of Last Resort (COLR)” obligations that require basic phone service be provided to any California resident requesting it, the CPUC found ambiguous language in the bill that muddies the author’s intent. One section of AB 1407 states that “any lifeline provider, including a local exchange carrier, may use any technology, or multiple technologies, within the provider’s service territory.” This could be interpreted to allow a provider to meet its basic service obligation with wireless technology that may not meet the CPUC’s definition of basic landline service.

The legislation repeatedly states LifeLine providers should only be obligated to offer the minimum service elements as required by the FCC. Those provisions ignore the CPUC’s own rules and AT&T could theoretically prevent a wireless LifeLine customer from switching back to landline service because the wireless alternative is considered good enough.

Other provisions in the bill are tailored primarily for the benefit of wireless providers, including AT&T, and introduce new fees and charges for services that many customers would assume are included in the price of basic service:

• Flat rate local calling is eliminated;
• Providers can charge customers extra or deduct wireless minutes for 911 calls, calls to toll-free 800-type numbers, and incoming calls of all kinds;
• Providers can require a deposit for LifeLine customers and all former exemptions from taxes, surcharges and fees are canceled;
• The requirement to provide a toll-free method to reach customer service is eliminated;
• Providers can charge extra or deduct minutes for use of the California 711 Relay Service;
• Provisions requiring providers to offer surcharge-free outgoing calling service, touch-tone dialing, directory assistance (for LifeLine customers), access to an operator, a listing in the telephone directory, and a copy of the White Pages are eliminated.

The bill is probably shelved for the rest of this year but will likely return for consideration in 2014.

With total ownership of Verizon Wireless now assured, Verizon Communications plans to begin “tree trimming” assets in its portfolio that cannot match the profitability of its wireless business.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam told CNBC he has already communicated with Verizon’s executive team about the direction Verizon will take after it buys out Vodafone’s ownership interest in Verizon Wireless. One potential target for sale: millions of Verizon’s rural landlines that cannot hope to match the revenue an average cell phone customer delivers the company.

Verizon’s wireless assets now represent the company’s biggest generator of sales and profit, accounting for two-thirds of 2012 revenue and almost all of its operating income.

Where Verizon chooses to invest is largely dependent on what kind of return the company can expect. So far, the best returns have come from Verizon Wireless.

“I think there is no better way to deploy our capital then to invest in a [wireless] asset that today generates more than $80 billion in annual revenue, provides a 50% margin, generates significant cash flows and is uniquely positioned for future growth and profitability,” McAdam told investors Tuesday on a conference call announcing the purchase of Vodafone’s stake in Verizon Wireless. “Beyond the financial benefits, there is simply no better asset that fit seamlessly into our portfolio and our strategic beliefs. Our growth strategy has three basic elements: connectivity, platforms and solutions. We are very bullish on the growth outlook for the U.S. wireless marketplace.”

McAdam made it clear to CNBC’s Jim Cramer the company is not so bullish on its declining wireline business, which includes landlines, DSL, and even FiOS — the company’s fiber optic network:

Jim Cramer, CNBC: “[Under former Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon] took areas that really weren’t growth areas and sold them to Frontier and other players. Would you be able to get rid of some of your underperforming landline businesses to be able to increase [Verizon’s] growth even further?”

Lowell McAdam, Verizon: “That is a possibility. […] If you talk about opportunities here, now that we have One Verizon, […] we are going to trim some limbs around the tree here. Things that aren’t performing will not be a part of our portfolio so we can invest in things that will drive the kind of growth we are excited to be able to tap here.”

McAdam

The trimming has already started in New York and New Jersey, where Verizon is moving forward with the introduction of a less expensive wireless landline replacement called Voice Link, now optional for some customers but could eventually be Verizon’s sole landline service offering in certain areas if state regulators approve.

Verizon calls the service an improvement for customers dealing with repeated service calls to fix troublesome landlines. Upkeep of Verizon’s copper networks has proved costly to the company, especially as it continues to count landline customer losses. The company argues providing wireless phone service is pro-consumer, providing a bundle of calling features and unlimited local and long distance calling at the same price Verizon charges for basic, no frills landline service. Local officials and residents using the service complain it is inadequate and unreliable.

“Voice Link is an innovative solution for a specific segment of Verizon’s voice-only customers that delivers reliable voice service using our trusted and reliable wireless network,” said Verizon spokesman John Bonomo. “Unlike copper-based service, it is less likely to fail during an adverse weather event because of our wireless networks’ resiliency.”

Analyzing the market value of Verizon’s buyout of Vodafone’s part ownership in Verizon Wireless and accounting for net debt reveals Verizon’s wireless operations are worth $289 billion, with  Verizon’s current 55 percent share worth about $159 billion. In contrast, Verizon’s wireline operations including landlines, business broadband, and FiOS are worth just a fraction of that — $24 billion, according to Bloomberg News.

Kevin Roe, an analyst at Roe Equity Research LLC in Dorset, Vt. values the wireline business at about $21 billion based on his estimates, while Spencer Kurn of New Street Research LLC puts the implied value of the unit at about $26 billion.

Verizon’s top rated fiber service FiOS has brought the company higher earnings and is deemed a success, but its total revenue remains insufficient to offset Verizon’s continued landline losses as customers drop home phone service and DSL. From a business perspective, that explains why Verizon is eager to invest billions in its high return wireless business while leaving further expansion of its fiber optic network on hold.

Revenue from the wireline unit totaled $39.8 billion last year, down from $50.3 billion in 2007, data compiled by Bloomberg show. During the same period, Verizon’s wireless revenue surged 73 percent to $75.9 billion.

“Clearly, wireless is going to be worth a lot more” than Verizon’s other businesses, Chris King, a Baltimore-based analyst at Stifel Financial Corp., told Bloomberg in a phone interview. Wireless is “where the growth is going to be coming from. There’s a bigger market opportunity going forward.”

McAdam has brought his enthusiasm for the wireless business to his role as Verizon CEO and its priority shows as he predicts even larger earnings in the future. McAdam told investors only 64 percent of Verizon Wireless customers use smartphones. Verizon wants to convert the remaining 30 million basic phone customers to higher-priced smartphone service as quickly as possible. Getting customers to switch to 4G-capable devices is also lucrative for Verizon, because its LTE network can more efficiently handle data at a lower cost. Only one-third of Verizon customers now use 4G LTE devices.

Embracing consumption based billing for wireless data is perhaps the biggest potential revenue generator of all as customers consume more data and begin connecting more devices to Verizon’s network.

Platforms including machine to machine and in-car connectivity “create even greater opportunities to drive increased usage,” McAdam said. “We also see many opportunities with Internet and cloud-based services. The digital economy is moving to mobile first on everything, which means there are many growth opportunities to pursue.”

Executives at Canada’s largest telecom companies are sighing relief after Verizon announced it was not interested in competing in Canada.

“Verizon is not going to Canada,” Lowell McAdam, chief executive officer of New York-based Verizon, said yesterday in a phone interview with Bloomberg News. “It has nothing to do with the Vodafone deal, it has to do with our view of what kind of value we could get for shareholders. If we thought it had great value creation we would do it.”

McAdam added he thought speculation about Verizon’s plans in Canada was “way overblown.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Big 3 Canada telecom stocks surge as Verizon threat fades 9-3-13.flv[/flv]

The CBC reports three of the largest telecom companies in Canada are seeing their stock prices soar on news Verizon won’t enter Canada. Kevin O’Leary takes a position shared by Bell, Telus and Rogers that no spectrum should be set aside for new competitors. Instead, he seeks a “winner takes all” auction, even if it means dominant incumbent carriers monopolize every available frequency. (3 minutes)

McAdam

Verizon’s possible entry into Canada was among the hottest stories of the summer, even reported on the CBC’s national nightly news. The potential new competition provoked Bell, Rogers, and Telus — three of Canada’s largest phone and cable companies — to join forces in a multimillion dollar lobbying effort to slow Verizon down and make the wireless business in Canada less attractive. The Harper government used news of Verizon’s potential entry to promote its policies favoring competition over regulation.

Verizon Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo said the company was considering a wireless venture in Canada at a June Wall Street investor conference.

“We’re looking at the opportunity,” Shammo said at the time. “This is just us dipping our toe in the water.”

Verizon took its toe out yesterday, despite the potential profits available in a country criticized for its extremely expensive cell phone service.

“I’m surprised that Verizon isn’t interested in Canada,” tweeted Adam Shore. “There are over 33 million suckers up here that will pay ridiculous cell phone rates.”

Bell joined Telus and Rogers in launching a multi-million dollar lobbying effort to make Verizon’s entry into Canada difficult.

The three companies most Canadians now buy wireless service from denied they wanted to keep Verizon out, arguing they simply wanted a “level playing field.”

Industry Minister James Moore suggested a fourth large player could provoke a price war in a way much smaller wireless providers like Wind Mobile or Mobilicity never could. The government was willing to set aside coveted 700MHz wireless spectrum at a forthcoming auction to help a new entrant — any new entrant — get started.

Verizon’s decision to stay out might have delivered a damaging blow to the Conservative government’s “pro-competition” solution to the problem of high cell phone bills. After the announcement, Moore was left promising only that spectrum auctions would carry on regardless of Verizon’s decision.

For now, the best chance of increased competition comes from Quebecor, which is gradually expanding its wireless network. Spectrum set asides almost guarantee the owner of Quebec’s cable giant Vidéotron will be able to bid for and win significant spectrum at the upcoming auction, some at a discount.

“If Verizon doesn’t show up, they’re actually in a very strong position to buy a block of spectrum that will not be very expensive,” Maher Yaghi, an analyst at Desjardins Securities Inc., told Bloomberg News. “Wireless is currently providing them with a nice growth platform.”

Without a surprise late entrant suddenly announcing interest by the auction filing deadline of Sept. 17, many analysts predict the outcome will likely not deliver Canadians any significant changes in cell phone service and pricing. The government may also be disappointed with the auction proceeds. Canada’s big three will likely avoid overbidding and still end up dividing most of the available airwaves between them. Quebecor may end up with most of the rest at comparatively “fire sale” prices. The Montreal-based company must then decide how much it will spend to expand its home coverage areas outside of Quebec, Toronto, and southeastern Ontario.

[flv width=”640″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BNN Verizon Wont Enter Canada 9-3-13.flv[/flv]

BNN reports Verizon’s decision not to enter Canada leaves the Conservative government without an effective means to moderate cell phone pricing in the country. Mary Anne de Monte-Whelan, president of The Delan Group, observed the government may be forced to take a more regulatory approach to control expensive cell service, possibly starting with roaming rates.  (7 minutes)

Verizon Communications spent Labor Day weekend putting the final touches on a carefully crafted deal to attain full ownership of its wireless unit, buying out its British partner’s 45 percent share in a deal valued at $130 billion.

The long talked-about buyout of Vodafone has been on the table for years, but became a priority for Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, who spent much of his career overseeing Verizon Wireless. Since McAdam took over from predecessor Ivan Seidenberg in 2011, he has refocused priority on Verizon’s wireless business, at the cost of landlines and Verizon’s fiber optic network FiOS.

The transaction dwarfs (by nearly four times) the $33 billion annual budget of the entire state of New Jersey. Verizon has agreed to pay Vodafone $58.9 billion in cash and $60.2 billion in Verizon shares, and finance another $5 billion of the deal in loan notes. Verizon has also agreed to sell its 23 percent ownership in Vodafone Italy worth around $3.5 billion and take on $2.5 billion of Vodafone’s debt.

A deal this large would normally generate tens of billions in tax revenue payable to HM Revenue & Customs in England and the Internal Revenue Service in the United States, but creative accounting at both companies makes it all but certain Vodafone will pay nothing in British taxes and only $5 billion to the IRS, despite its $130 billion windfall.

Vodafone is structuring the deal through a Dutch holding company, transferring assets to Verizon in a way that minimizes the tax bite. As proposed, the deal is exempt from taxes in both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Verizon Wireless Vodafone McAdam Merger 9-3-13.mp4[/flv]

CNBC had this exclusive interview with Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam discussing why Verizon is willing to spend $130 billion to end its partnership with Vodafone and how Verizon Wireless will change as a result. (12 minutes)

Wall Street investment banks will do better than American and British tax authorities, dividing at least $1.3 billion in financing, merger, and legal fees surrounding the Verizon deal. Many of New York’s largest investment banks are taking part in the transaction.

Vodafone is depending heavily on guidance from Swiss-based UBS and Goldman Sachs. The latter has earned $438 million so far this year advising companies on mergers and acquisitions.

Verizon is relying on advice from J.P. Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley. Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Barclays have joined to offer their help with the enormous debt-funding package required for the deal.

Verizon customers will notice little to nothing different about their wireless service after the deal is complete in the first quarter of 2014. Many customers had no idea Vodafone was part owner of the largest wireless company in the United States. Verizon always maintained effective control of the U.S. operation and plans no immediate changes as a result of assuming outright control of the company.

Little controversy is expected in getting the deal approved by regulators for the same reason.

Shareholders are likely to reap most of the rewards. Vodafone stockholders are expecting the bulk of the proceeds from the sale will be returned to them in the form of dividends. Verizon shareholders also expect better returns in the future now that Verizon’s profitable wireless unit will no longer have to set aside costly dividend payments intended for Vodafone and its shareholders.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC Vodafone will not pay tax on 84bn sale to Verizon 9-2-13.flv[/flv]

The BBC reports the sale of Vodafone’s 45% share of Verizon Wireless has been structured so that both companies can entirely avoid British and Dutch capital gains taxes and limit the American tax bite to less than $5 billion.  (1 minute)

Verizon hopes being the master of its own destiny will allow the company to innovate its wireless network towards future revenue opportunities, especially in the machine to machine connectivity business. Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless are racing to enable medical devices, home appliances, electric meters, and automobiles to communicate over their respective wireless networks. Both companies are concerned that the cell phone marketplace has become saturated in the United States, with most people desiring cell phone service already having it. With Wall Street demanding ongoing growth quarter after quarter, new revenue sources are more important than ever.

“Even in the saturated market, (Verizon Wireless) continues to post growth figures,” Bill Menezes, an industry analyst at research firm Gartner told USA Today. “They’re looking at a world where growth is coming from these ancillary devices.”

Many Verizon shareholders expected a deal this year, but some are concerned Verizon has offered too much to buy out Vodafone. Many Wall Street analysts had expected Vodafone would part with its 45 percent ownership of Verizon Wireless for around $100 billion, but Vodafone clearly held out for more.

The corporate deal is the world’s third largest after Vodafone’s $203 billion takeover of Germany’s Mannesmann in 1999 and AOL’s 2000 $181 billion acquisition of Time Warner.

Vodafone is planning to use some of the proceeds not returned to shareholders to bolster its European business, which has suffered from the economic downturn and robust wireless competition that have kept prices low. Wall Street analysts predict the European market is ripe for a wave of consolidation similar to what happened in the United States over the last decade. Vodafone may need more financial resources to protect its market position or have the flexibility to buy out competitors.

The European wireless giant has been a quiet partner of Verizon Wireless for almost 14 years. Verizon Wireless was launched in 2000 as a joint venture of Bell Atlantic and Vodafone. As the venture was being launched, Bell Atlantic merged with GTE, forming Verizon Communications.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Discussing the media deals 9-3-13.mp4[/flv]

CNBC reports historically low interest rates and cheap credit for corporations made it an ideal time to structure a deal so important to J.P. Morgan Chase, the bank sent CEO Jamie Dimond to persuade Verizon board members to approve it. Investment banks will split more than one billion dollars in deal fees.  (7 minutes)