Phillip “Do you want to depend on AT&T for phone service that could be gone with the wind for weeks?” Dampier

Superstorm Sandy is getting credit for exposing the thin veneer of the “wireless future” some phone companies want to give their most rural customers after disconnecting their home phone lines in favor of wireless service.

Unfortunately for the providers selling you on the wireless revolution, reality intruded last month when Category 1 Hurricane Sandy arrived. In its wake, the storm obliterated a significant amount of wireless phone service for weeks in some of the most urbanized sections of the country, while leaving underground, traditional wired phone service largely untouched.

The storm that blew into the northeastern U.S. Oct. 29 left a legacy of interrupted or inadequate cell service that lasted more than two weeks. AT&T and Verizon Wireless reported their networks were not fully restored until Nov. 15. Sprint and T-Mobile are still addressing some issues with their networks as of today.

Although the storm was enormous in scope, it was only a Category 1 hurricane. It could have been much worse.

So where did things go wrong?

Although some sites lost their wired backhaul connection which connects the tower to the provider, the biggest problem was commercial power interruption. Without power, many providers were caught flat-footed with inadequate on-site backup plans to keep cell towers up and running until regular power could be restored.

The wireless industry fought tooth and nail against common sense regulations proposed by the Federal Communications Commission after Hurricane Katrina devastated infrastructure and power facilities in southern Louisiana and Mississippi.

The FCC proposed that every cell tower be equipped with on site battery backup equipment that could sustain service for a minimum of eight hours — sufficient time for power to be restored or company engineers to arrive with more robust generators.

Providers howled about the cost of outfitting the nation’s 200,000 cell sites with even a conservative amount of backup power. The cellular industry lobbying group and Sprint sued, calling it a wasteful and unnecessary mandate. The Bush Administration eventually dropped the whole matter in November 2008 as part of its war on “burdensome” regulation.

Since then, providers have been free to design their own emergency backup plans, or have none at all. Few have made those detailed plans public, giving customers information about how likely their cell phone will work in the event of a disaster.

Verizon Wireless has been the most aggressive, voluntarily adopting the proposed FCC standards and outfitting all of their cell sites with a minimum of eight hours of battery backup power. Other providers have backup facilities at some sites, often with lower capacity batteries that won’t last as long.

Sandy illustrated that even eight hours might be inadequate. Many cell sites were on generator power for more than a week, assuming engineers could regularly reach each tower with equipment and fuel.

Other cell sites could not be returned to service immediately because of major wind damage or flooding. Those that were in service were often overburdened by enormous call volumes.

Meanwhile, unless your landline provider’s central office was flooded, your phone line kept working during and after the storm, especially if your neighborhood wiring is buried underground.

In many cases, it was the only thing working, because traditional phone lines are independently powered and not dependent on electric service in your home to operate. That is what kept your dial tone humming even as your smartphone’s battery ran out.

Ironically, the network that performed the best through the storm is the same one AT&T and Verizon would like to phase out, starting in rural areas. AT&T wants to completely abandon wired service in its most rural service areas, where calling and waiting for emergency assistance is already a hindrance. AT&T plans to spend billions to bolster its rural cell tower network to cover the landline areas it wants to abandon, but those communities would be entirely dependent on the reliability of that network, because AT&T’s competitors are unlikely to build additional infrastructure to compete.

As Sandy just demonstrated, if high-profit Manhattan customers could not be assured of reliable cell phone service from any company that provide service there, how likely is it that a customer in rural Kansas will be in real trouble summoning help over AT&T’s wireless infrastructure in the event of a cell tower failure, wiping out the only telecommunications service available in nearby towns?

The United States once led the world in Internet speed and infrastructure. Now, according to one estimate, it ranks at about 29. Brooke talks to David Cay Johnston, journalist and author of “The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use Plain English to Rob You Blind,” who says that companies continue to raise prices and engage in lobbying efforts to rewrite regulation, while avoiding necessary upgrades to infrastructure that would speed up America’s Internet.  Companies promised major fiber broadband upgrades, but diverted that money to building a wireless conglomerate instead. (6 minutes)

Major cable and phone companies are rolling out new bundled packages and promotions designed to protect their cable television packages from cord cutting.

Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have all run promotions that carry a clear message: cancel your cable television and your wallet gets it.

The Wall Street Journal shared the story of Comcast subscriber Cathy Vu, who decided she no longer wanted cable TV and tried to downgrade to a broadband-only account.

Comcast gave her an offer she could not afford to refuse when the representative explained canceling cable television would increase her monthly bill $20. As a result, Vu decided she would save more money keeping her cable television turned on.

Welcome to the new world of double and triple play bundled pricing promotions that bring downgrade penalties customers cannot ignore.

The idea of repricing cable service to protect vulnerable cable television and phone service began in earnest after analysts like Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett began noticing customers were no longer addicted to keeping cable television, no matter the cost. He proposed a solution: price broadband service higher and cut the cost of cable television.

The result: carefully constructed promotional and bundled package offers that entice customers to purchase services they might not even want, to get the best (and sometimes lowest) price. Gone were promotions that offered phone, broadband, and television service for $33 each. In their place, new pricing that charges $60-70 for the first service, and heavily discounted prices for each additional service.

You know the pitch:

“Yes, I am calling to sign up for broadband service,” you say.

“Certainly, I would be glad to help you with that. But did you know that for just $20 more a month, you can also get cable television?”

“Really, it’s only $20 more? Sure.”

“I am thrilled to hear you say that. But I hope you are sitting down because I have more good news. For just $10 more, we can give you a phone line with unlimited local and long distance calling. How much do you pay the phone company now?”

“Too much, that sounds like an amazing deal, so I get everything together for $99 a month?”

“You sure do, for the first 12 months anyway.”

One year later when the promotion ends, you call to begin downgrading service to lower your bill. But cable and phone companies are increasingly ready for you.

First they will offer you a slightly less attractive promotional retention offer to keep your business. If you accept, the company gets to book the extra revenue and probably locked you into an annual service agreement.

If you don’t bite and insist on a downgrade, they have some bad news for you — that broadband service you still want will now cost you $60-70 a month, including the modem fee.

If you bail early on a promotional discount offer, the bite on your wallet can be significant.

The Journal found unbundling just does not pay:

• Comcast: TV + Internet for about $50/month for the first 6 months vs. standalone same speed Internet for about $70/month.
• Verizon FiOS: TV + Internet for about $85/month (two-year contract) vs. standalone Internet for about $80/month.
• Time Warner Cable: TV + Internet for about $50/month for 12 months vs. standalone Internet for about $45/month for 12 months, then up to $60 after that.

At the end of the day, Moffett and the rest of Wall Street get their wish — preservation of the all-important growing average revenue (ARPU) collected from each customer. Downgrades lower ARPU, so they must be discouraged at all costs.

Cable operators “recognize that their most advantaged product is broadband,” said Moffett. “They don’t want to sacrifice that advantage by giving the opportunity for customers to cherry pick their best product at a low price and take the rest of your services from somebody else. In effect, they are pricing the broadband at a price that discourages you from taking broadband only.”

Customers primed for cord cutting (or who have never bought cable TV) are likely to receive targeted mailings from Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable encouraging subscriptions to cable TV and prices that nearly give the service away.

Comcast’s Blast Plus promotion in selected markets delivers 30Mbps broadband with Digital Economy television service, both for $50 a month for six months. Internet-only customers would pay $70 per month for the same speeds without television.

Time Warner Cable in New York City wants to be your cable TV supplier so much, it offers a package of broadband and throws in Broadcast Basic service for just $5 more per month. Combined, Turbo Internet and television will cost $49.99 a month for a year. Standalone Internet on a promotion runs $45 a month for 12 months.

On a strict cost basis, charging more for Internet does not make sense. The Journal reports that about 90% of your monthly broadband bill is pure profit for cable operators, because the cost of delivering the service has continued to plummet to all-time lows. Cable television is no longer the cash cow it used to be for cable operators because programmers increasingly demand a piece of the profit pie. Today, cable operators only get to book about 35% of your monthly cable television payment as profit.

[flv width=”640″ height=”369″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Cable Cord Cutting Less Attractive 11-13-12.mp4[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal examines the trend towards repricing broadband service so that customers feel compelled to keep their cable television package or face even higher bills.  (5 minutes)

With Verizon Wireless poised to launch 4G LTE service in Alaska for the first time, Alaska Communications (ACS) and AT&T are hurrying wireless broadband expansions to protect their market turf. But Wall Street investors are unhappy, especially with ACS’ investments in its landline network and the recently announced suspension of its dividend payout. Some are now asking whether ACS’ lucrative wireless business should be up for sale, primed for a buyout by AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

Alaska Communications has soft launched its LTE 4G service in 10 cities: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Homer, Juneau, Kenai, Palmer, Seward, Soldotna, Wasilla and Whittier.

AT&T operates a mix of LTE and slower HSPA+ networks in Alaska and is expanding 4G service to Prudhoe Bay and Deadhorse for the benefit of short-term oil company employees working on the North Slope. But the company is also still expanding its existing 3G network along more remote Alaskan highways.

They are coming.

The investment frenzy is seen by many as a defensive maneuver to keep existing customers happy before Verizon Wireless arrives in Alaska sometime next year.

ACS and GCI, Alaska’s homegrown phone and cable companies now jointly operate their wireless operation together. AT&T is their principle competitor. But Verizon Wireless’ impending arrival in Alaska has shown it is no shrinking violet. There are persistent rumors Verizon is trying to acquire ACS’ wireless operations. Verizon has also announced partnerships with Copper Valley Telecom and Matanuska Telephone Association to potentially expand LTE service in those communities as well.

Investors hope ACS considers any Verizon offer carefully. Wireless is a revenue center for the landline phone company, which continues to see declines in home phone and business customers.

Since June, ACS lost just shy of 2,000 residential landlines and 753 business lines. The company still has 57,000 residential customers and 81,000 business customers.

ACS faces the same problems other phone companies do: network upgrades require significant investments, and investors question whether it will ultimately pay off. Many are also unhappy ACS suspended its dividend payout, refocusing $8 million on debt payments.

Verizon Wireless announced Monday it will pay a dividend of $8.5 billion to owners Verizon Communications and Britain’s Vodafone Group PLC, by the end of the year.

Together with an earlier dividend paid in January, an extremely profitable Verizon Wireless will return a combined $18.5 billion to investors in 2012.

Verizon Communications, owner of Verizon landlines and fiber optic network FiOS, owns 55 percent of the wireless operation. Britain-based Vodafone Group owns a 45 percent minority interest. Verizon Wireless, like many U.S. corporations, has used excess cash to pay down or refinance debt at historically low interest rates, reacquire stock, or pay dividends to shareholders in lieu of major infrastructure and hiring expansion.

Verizon Communications needs its share of the wireless dividend to help cover dividend payouts to its own wired shareholders. Verizon Communications has been unable to command the kind of high profit margins its wireless counterpart has succeeded in delivering to investors.