[Image: The Verge]

Details remain sketchy, but The Verge and TMONews report the new plan will continue T-Mobile’s efforts to break free from the traditional 24-month upgrade cycle for phones offered by other carriers.

Although new by North American standards, providing an “equipment plan” is not unprecedented in Europe. O2 offers a “Refresh” plan specifically targeting likely early upgraders who want the latest devices and do not want to wait through a two-year upgrade cycle.

In North America, customers buy the phone at a subsidized price and then pay back that discount subsidy over the life of the traditional two-year contract (through artificially higher cell phone plan rates).

When one buys a phone on the O2 Refresh plan in Europe, the customer signs up for a 24-month equipment plan which covers both the cost of the phone, the Refresh feature and an airtime plan which covers everything else.

Customers who want to upgrade early simply pay off the remaining balance on their equipment plan (at a rate lower than the usual penalty fee) and upgrade the device at a discounted, new customer price.

T-Mobile has done away with the two-year contract most North Americans are familiar with, so the Jump plan will be different from O2’s Refresh Plan.

The Verge suggests T-Mobile will introduce a type of lease-to-own financing with Jump.

Customers will presumably pay a monthly fee to join the Jump “club” offering early upgrades. When a customer wants a newer phone, they might pay the same upfront fee a new customer would, but instead of being forced to pay off the full remaining balance due on their old phone, they would return it to T-Mobile and start a new financing arrangement for their next phone. If a customer keeps the phone until it is paid off, the customer would presumably own it.

CNET reports customers will also be provided with handset insurance, important if T-Mobile intends to keep an ownership interest in the phone until it is returned or paid off.

The details are forthcoming, but such a “lease-to-own” arrangement would still leave plenty of room for T-Mobile to recoup their costs, depending on how much they charge for the “upgrade anytime” feature.

The downside is that some customers may decide it is easier to pay off the remaining owed balance on a traditional T-Mobile financing contract and sell the phone to a third-party instead of sending it back to T-Mobile.

Verizon Wireless customers and public safety personnel are upset that the cell phone company was caught unprepared after a rural roaming agreement with AT&T expired at the end of June, leaving police officers without communications and others with no way to reach 911.

AT&T no longer permits Verizon Wireless customers to roam on its acquired former Alltel network, which has dramatically reduced service in Geraldine, Absarokee, Ft. Benton, Browning, Harlem, Evaro, Cascade, Stanford, Lincoln, Ennis, Virginia City, and Great Falls.

Lincoln resident Gayle Steinch is living with the result of that business decision. She has a single bar of service on her Verizon Wireless cellphone at her house. It is her only phone — she dropped landline service in 2007.

“And I live a half a block off the main street,” she told the Great Falls Tribune.

Verizon’s road to no bars in rural Montana.

Capt. Gary Becker of the Montana Highway Patrol told The Montana Standard troopers in the area haven’t been able to communicate on their cell phones or their computers installed in their cruisers since the roaming agreement expired. Becker said police have to travel at least 30 miles to get any usable reception from Verizon.

Jessica Constantine, manager of the AT&T Elite Wireless store in Butte, said AT&T “had a roaming agreement with Verizon and we allowed them to use our towers for three years. The contract is over.”

And with it, Verizon Wireless network reception.

The agreement was part of a deal between AT&T and Verizon over Verizon’s 2010 purchase of Alltel. Federal regulators required Verizon to divest itself of certain Alltel territories for competitive reasons, transferring those customers to AT&T. As a result, territories that used to be well-served by Alltel’s CDMA network are now being converted by AT&T to GSM and data service, exposing Verizon’s sparse home cellular coverage in several parts of the state.

“They had years to prepare for AT&T switching off Alltel’s old CDMA service Verizon was dependent on, and Verizon did little to nothing,” said Jim Brown. “The Verizon person I spoke with told me it did not make sense to build a network out here because the only thing it would serve are crows. But they promised they would at least try to equal the coverage Alltel used to give us. That never happened and still isn’t.”

Verizon denied there was a major service loss in rural Montana. Bob Kelley, corporate spokesperson for Verizon, said that the change in service was planned and its impact would be limited to “less than optimal” service. He confirmed there were no unexpected outages.

After negative media coverage reported Verizon’s inability to provide quality cell service in rural Montana, the company agreed to temporarily deploy portable cell towers to improve coverage.

The “COWs”— cellphone towers on wheels — are stationed in Lincoln, Virginia City, Lima, Broadview, between Absarokee-Fishtail, as well as in Jackson, mostly meeting the needs of law enforcement monitoring the Rainbow Family Gathering last week. Verizon is also deploying repeaters that can re-broadcast signals and enhance range, as well as add coverage to existing permanent facilities. The company is planning on adding permanent towers this week in Marion and Tarkio. Additional permanent towers are also planned for Lincoln and Columbus by the end of August.

That cannot come soon enough for some customers.

Cell tower on wheels

“Verizon brought up this 40-foot [temporary] antenna, but you really can only get service on it on Main Street,” said Steinch, the manager of The Bootlegger, a Lincoln bar and restaurant. “We had a guy in here this morning who has a towing company who missed out on an $1,800 job because his cellphone didn’t get the call.”

Service has deteriorated so badly in rural Montana, some AT&T stores had lines of soon-to-be-ex-Verizon customers snaking out the door, and at least one reported it was completely sold out of cell phones and wireless broadband devices.

“Dillon sold out of cell phones yesterday,” said Constantine, “because everybody in Lima who was using Verizon just flooded the Dillon store.”

Verizon subscriber John Ulias found his cellphone useless at his cabin in the Little Belt, as did many of his neighbors in that area.

Although Verizon told Ulias and the Tribune subscribers should still be getting service in the Little Belts area from a Verizon antenna in Stanford, Ulias said that isn’t the case.

“I gave the Verizon representative the cell numbers of two of my Little Belt neighbors after he told me we should be getting service up there,” Ulias told the newspaper. “The guy called me back and said his calls went straight to their voicemail.”

Montana residents affected by the disruption of Verizon Wireless service seeking to file a complaint should contact the Office of Consumer Protection at the Montana Department of Justice by emailing: [email protected], faxing 406-444-9680 or calling 800-481-6896 or 406-444-4500.

For customers planning to switch carriers because of reception issues in Montana, Verizon is waiving early termination fees. For those customers the company can convince to stay, discounted service will be available along with discounts on a Verizon Network Extender, a portable in-home mini-cell tower that interfaces with a home broadband connection. To pursue either option, prepaid consumers should call Verizon Customer Service at 1-888-294-6804; all others should call 1-800-922-0204.

In New York and New Jersey, Verizon is attempting to convince some rural residents to abandon their landline service in favor of Voice Link, which relies entirely on Verizon Wireless reception.

“I have one word for my friends back east: don’t,” said Brown.

Google Fiber may not be coming to a Kansas City apartment complex near you.

The coveted gigabit fiber to the home service is drawing criticism from owners of multi-dwelling units, condos, and apartment buildings because of its installation fee.

Google requires property owners to either go all-in or forget about getting the service. That means $300 for each apartment or condo, regardless of whether it is occupied or if an existing tenant wants the service or not. West Virginia background check can check renter’s credit score to see if they can afford the rent in the area.

Landlords tell the Kansas City Star the installation fee is just too much, especially when considering the phone and cable company wired their buildings for free. The newspaper notes that a 350-unit apartment complex opting in to Google Fiber will have to pay more than $100,000 upfront just to get the service.

Those living in one of nine CRES Management apartment complexes suspect they won’t be getting Google Fiber now or in the future — the property owners balked at an installation fee for their properties well into the six figures.

“I don’t know many apartment complexes that have $100,000 in the bank just waiting to be spent,” said Jon Gambill, CRES Management information technology director.

Google doesn’t offer volume discounts for multi-dwelling unit owners, but is willing to accept installment payments over 12 months. Google has also promised to refund the installation fees in $25 monthly increments for each paying customer until the $300 per unit fee is returned. But if a renter opts for the free, slower Internet service Google provides, the landlord will have to absorb the installation cost. Tenant screening questions include employment background and credit scores.

“If people can get free Internet, they’re not going to pay for premium,” Gambill told the newspaper. “If someone doesn’t want to pay for Internet, they really don’t have to, but then we’ve lost out on that reimbursement.”

Time Warner Cable won’t engage in an expensive bidding war for ownership of Hulu so it is trying to convince the online video venture’s current owners not to sell.

Sources tell Bloomberg News the cable company has offered to buy a minority stake in the online video streaming service alongside its current owners, which include Comcast-NBC, Fox Broadcasting, and Walt Disney-ABC.

If Hulu accepted the offer, the other bidders’ offers may not even be entertained.

Among those filing binding bids/proposals with Hulu as of the July 5 deadline:

• DirecTV, which reportedly wants to convert Hulu into an online companion to its satellite dish service for the benefit of its satellite subscribers;
• AT&T and investment firm Chernin Group, which submitted a  joint bid, presumably to beef up online video options for U-verse customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Plot Thickens in Bidding War for Hulu 7-9-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News discusses how the various bidders for Hulu would adapt the service for their own purposes. It’s all about bulking up online video offerings.  (4 minutes)

Hulu’s new owners could continue to offer the service much the same way it is provided today, with a free and pay version. But most expect the new owners will throw up a programming “pay wall,” requiring users to authenticate themselves as a pay television customer before they can watch Hulu programming. If Time Warner Cable acquired a minority interest and the current owners stayed in place, Time Warner Cable TV customers could benefit from free access to certain premium Hulu content, now sold to others for $8 a month. That premium content would presumably be available to U-verse customers if AT&T emerges the top bidder, or DirecTV could offer Hulu to satellite subscribers to better compete with cable companies’ on-demand offerings.

Hulu’s influence will be shifted away from broadcast networks and more towards pay television platforms regardless of who wins the bidding. That could end up harming the major television networks that provide Hulu’s most popular content. Many of Hulu’s viewers are cord-cutters who do not subscribe to cable or satellite television. Placing Hulu’s programming off-limits to non-paying customers could force a return to pirating shows from peer-to-peer networks or third-party, unauthorized website viewing.

Online video rights are so important to cable operators and upstarts like Intel, which wants to launch its own online cable-TV like service, providers are willing to pay a premium for streaming rights.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Why Hulu Is Attracting Billion Dollar Bids 7-8-13.flv[/flv]

Richard Greenfield, analyst at BTIG, and Scott Galloway, chairman and founder of Firebrand Partners, discuss Hulu and the ability to stream on multiple platforms. They speak on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg Surveillance.” (4 minutes)

The Los Angeles Times reports that pay TV distributors are in a rush to make deals, not only to offer more viewing options for customers, but to potentially get rid of expensive and cumbersome set-top boxes.

Interlopers like Intel, Apple, and Google who want to break into the business have not had an easy time dealing with programmers afraid of alienating their biggest customers. Even DirecTV, which has done business with some of the largest cable networks in the country for well over a decade still meets some resistance.

Acquiring Hulu could be an important part of DirecTV’s strategy to develop the types of services satellite TV has yet to manage well. On-demand programming is no easy task for satellite providers. But if DirecTV acquired Hulu, satellite customers could find DirecTV-branded on-demand viewing through the Internet. The Times speculates DirecTV could even build an online subscription service for subscribers who don’t want a satellite dish, receiving the same lineup of programming satellite customers now watch.

Distributors that acquire enough online streaming rights could even launch virtual cable systems in other companies’ territories, potentially pitting Comcast against Time Warner Cable, but few expect cable operators to compete against each other.

The general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission predicts your landline will stop working within the next ten years, abandoned by companies like AT&T and Verizon in favor of wireless service in rural America or fiber (if you are lucky) in the cities.

Phillip “Did you know your landline will be dead within ten years?” Dampier

Sean Lev, the FCC’s general counsel, said in a blog post that “we should do everything we can to speed the way while protecting consumers, competition, and public safety.”

But the FCC seems to be abdicating its responsibility to do exactly that by singing the same song some of America’s largest phone companies have hummed since they decided to get out of the copper landline business for fun and profit.

Traditional boring telephone service is regulated as a utility — a guaranteed-to-be-available service for any American who wants it. Hundreds of millions of Americans do, especially in rural areas where America’s cell phone love affair is tempered by dreadful reception, especially in mountainous areas. Oh, and the nearest cable company is ten miles away.

AT&T and Verizon — two of America’s direct descendants of the Bell System, just don’t want to pay to keep up a network most of urban America doesn’t seem to want or need anymore. In addition to a dwindling customer base, providing a regulated legacy service means having to answer to unions and government-types who make sure employees are fairly compensated and customers are given reasonable service at a fair price. The alternatives on offer from AT&T and Verizon carry no such regulatory (or union) baggage. Prices can change at will and customers have no guarantee they will receive service or have someone to complain to if that service is sub-standard.

While in the past regulators have taken the lead to make sure telephone companies meet their obligations, the new FCC seems to spend most of its time observing the business agendas of the companies themselves.

Lev implied to the Associated Press the FCC is not exactly leading the parade on the future of landlines. He seems more comfortable trying to analyze the intentions of AT&T and Verizon’s executives:

Most phone companies aren’t set to retire their landline equipment immediately. The equipment has been bought and paid for, and there’s no real incentive to shut down a working network. He thinks phone companies will continue to use landlines for five to 10 years, suggesting that regulators have some time to figure out how to tackle the issue.

Lev

AT&T is more direct: It wants to switch off all of its landline service, everywhere, by 2020. Customers will be given a choice of wireless or U-verse in urban areas and only wireless in rural ones. Where U-verse doesn’t serve, AT&T DSL customers will be in the same boat as Verizon customers on Fire Island: pick an expensive wireless data plan, satellite fraudband, or go without.

Verizon prefers a “gradual phase-out” according to Tom Maguire, Verizon’s senior vice president of operations support.

Verizon claims it has no plans to shut down working service for customers, but it does not want to spend millions to continue to support infrastructure fewer customers actually use. That means watching the gradual deterioration of Verizon’s copper-based facilities, kept in service until they inevitably fail, at which point Verizon will offer to “restore service” with its Voice Link wireless product instead.

For voice calls, that may suffice for some, especially those comfortable relying on cell technology already. But at a time when the United States is already struggling with a rural broadband problem, abandoning millions of rural DSL customers only makes rural broadband an even bigger challenge. The wireless alternative is too variable in reception quality, too expensive, and too usage capped.