AT&T is offering T-Mobile customers — and only T-Mobile customers — up to $450 to switch their wireless service to AT&T, but is the switch actually worth it? A close inspection of AT&T’s fine print suggests some customers might want to think twice.

According to AT&T, beginning Jan. 3, under the limited-time offer, T-Mobile customers who switch to AT&T can trade-in their current smartphone for a promotion card of up to $250, which can be used toward AT&T products and services.  Trade-in values will vary based on make, model and age of the smartphone, but many of the latest and most popular smartphones will qualify for a value of $250.  T-Mobile customers can receive an extra $200 credit per line when they transfer their wireless service to AT&T and choose an AT&T Next plan, buy a device at full retail price or activate a device they currently own. The “Next” plan offers customers a chance to upgrade to a new device every year under an installment plan that divides the retail price of the phone over 20 months.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN The Most Dangeous Man in Wireless 1-8-14.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal’s ‘Digits’ explores the open marketing warfare between AT&T and T-Mobile. (3:34)

Although $450 sounds like an outstanding deal, some Wall Street analysts that usually panic when a company seems to be giving away the store, are still sleeping well at night.

“It’s not as great an offer as it appears on the surface,” Michael Hodel, equity analyst at Morningstar tells MarketWatch. “The fine print is critical.”

1. Not every smartphone will qualify for the $250 “promotional card.” Only the latest model smartphones showing no signs of wear and tear are going to earn full value. Customers with older feature or basic phones will not qualify for anything at all. Customers may be able to get just as much selling their old phone themselves.
2. AT&T is not offering a cash rebate. The value of the “promotional card” and the $200 ‘switch from T-Mobile’ bonus can only be spent on AT&T products and services. The promotional card will help defray the cost of buying a new smartphone from AT&T (which may not have the best price) and the $200 bonus will appear as a credit on a future AT&T bill.
3. By accepting the $200 bonus, customers give up any device subsidies, an important distinction if you want an Apple iPhone. AT&T’s device subsidy on this phone is higher than $200.
4. AT&T has tighter credit standards than T-Mobile. Customers with spotty credit may be asked to put down a deposit with AT&T before the company will take your business.

Legere

AT&T argues its offer will benefit T-Mobile customers by giving them access to the larger coverage area of AT&T’s wireless network and more widespread 4G service. But AT&T customers pay higher prices for access to that network. A T-Mobile customer is more likely to be sensitive to the price of the service — one of the strongest marketing points T-Mobile has in its favor. Most customers unhappy with T-Mobile’s less robust coverage tend to cancel service at the end of their contract (or earlier) and switch to either AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

According to an October report from MoffettNathanson Research, a typical T-Mobile family with 3-5 lines on a single account usually save around $50 a month off AT&T’s prices. That represents $600 a year in savings.

T-Mobile’s scrappy and aggressive marketing has had an impact, particularly on AT&T. Just a few years earlier AT&T tried to buyout T-Mobile in a consolidation move rejected by the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. After the merger collapsed, incoming T-Mobile CEO John Legere has long forgotten whatever niceties existed between the two companies when they were trying to join forces. Legere has been on the attack against both AT&T and Verizon Wireless all year, and the effort is clearly beginning to pay off as T-Mobile adds customers.

Last year at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) Legere called AT&T’s network “crap” on stage. So when Legere crashed AT&T’s party at this year’s CES convention, still sporting his pink T-Mobile t-shirt, AT&T’s security guards threw him out.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN The Most Dangeous Man in Wireless 1-8-14.flv[/flv]

CNN calls T-Mobile’s John Legere the most dangerous man in wireless, for exposing “disgusting” AT&T and Verizon’s over 90% gross margin on their wireless services and their consumer unfriendly business practices. (2:41)

AT&T today announced it has agreed to buy 49 Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum licenses from a venture that has done nothing with the frequencies since acquiring them at auctions dating back as early as 2004.

Aloha Partners II, L.P. has no intention to use the frequencies it controls, so it has sold part of its spectrum portfolio to AT&T. The acquired licenses cover almost 50 million people in 14 states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Aloha Partners II is selling a considerable amount of its AWS portfolio to AT&T for an undisclosed sum. The venture never used the frequencies, although it controlled some of them as early as a decade ago.

The acquisition will complement AWS frequencies AT&T already controls in the band, which ranges from 1710 – 1755 and 2110 – 2155MHz.

Financial terms were not disclosed.

Carriers have complained regularly about spectrum shortages but some consumer groups charge carriers and spectrum squatters are not putting the airwaves they already control to use. Spectrum has become such a valuable asset, some investors have pooled resources to buy licenses only to resell at a profit later.

Before today’s announcement, Aloha Partners II was the 8th largest owner of wireless spectrum in the U.S. The venture owns AWS spectrum concentrated in 12 of the top 50 markets including many of the leading high-tech areas like San Francisco, San Jose, Denver, Austin and San Antonio.

Klobuchar

After months of fruitless discussions with cell phone carriers, the U.S. Senate is moving closer towards legislation that would stop phone companies from blocking “kill switch” technology that could disable lost or stolen phones, discouraging would-be thieves.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) sent letters this week to Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile asking the carriers to do more to protect customers from phone theft.

Klobuchar is concerned wireless companies may be blocking cell phone manufacturers from enabling anti-theft technology customers could activate to disable missing phones and prevent unauthorized access or reactivation without the customer’s consent.

“Mobile devices aren’t just telephones anymore – increasingly people’s livelihoods depend on them,” Klobuchar said. “That’s why we need to do more to crack down on criminals who are stealing and reselling these devices, costing consumers billions every year. The wireless industry needs to step up to the plate and address these thefts, and make sure consumers have the most advanced security technology at their fingertips.”

The technology is already widely available internationally and has dramatically reduced smartphone theft by eliminating most of the resale value of the expensive devices, which are rendered useless once the phone is disabled.

Apple has contractual control over its products unlike most cell phone manufacturers.

But American carriers have so far refused permission to allow manufacturers like Samsung to introduce the feature in North America. Apple has successfully introduced a “kill switch” on many of its latest devices thanks to favorable contractual language that limits outside interference with the software Apple develops for its wireless devices. Other manufacturers are generally required to bow to carrier demands.

“I think that this is motivated by profit,” San Francisco district attorney George Gascon told CNN. Gascon reported he had seen e-mails from carriers that rebuffed Samsung’s efforts to introduce the technology in the American market.

Companies like AT&T claim that a “kill switch” feature could be exploited by hackers and make restoring service extremely difficult. But manufacturers and proponents of kill switch technology dismiss that argument, claiming the process is easily reversible once a customer enters a correct name and password. Critics believe carriers are motivated by the potential loss of millions from the sale of insurance plans, replacement phones, and the increased revenue earned from the reactivation of stolen phones.

With more than 1.6 million smartphones stolen or lost annually, carriers sell more than $800 million of replacement phones worth at least $500 each. Wireless phone companies also profit selling insurance plans priced at $7 or more monthly that offer free or discounted, typically refurbished cell phone replacements. Most customers never use the insurance plans, earning providers an extra $84 a year in revenue per customer.

Without kill switch technology and other theft prevention measures, the incentive to steal valuable smartphones continues to increase. As the price of sophisticated smartphones continues to increase, they are a prime target in street crime incidents. In San Francisco, 67% of robberies are related to mobile devices, according to the police department. Ten percent of phone owners have had a phone stolen, according to a Harris poll.

For now, the industry has only agreed to develop a voluntary database of phones reported lost or stolen. But participating carriers are largely American, allowing crooks to bypass the list by exporting phones overseas where they are quickly reactivated.

Klobuchar wants carriers to go on the record about kill switch technology, and her letter requested a formal response to three questions:

• Whether companies received offers from handset manufacturers to install “kill switch” technology;
• Have companies introduced the technology and, if not, why not;
• How companies will introduce such technology in the future.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Kill Switch Smartphones 11-20-13.flv[/flv]

CNN reports American cell phone companies aren’t interested in allowing customers to remotely disable their lost or stolen cell phones. (0:43)

Two years after energy conservation groups revealed many television set-top boxes use almost as much electricity as a typical refrigerator, a voluntary agreement has been reached to cut the energy use of the devices 10-45 percent by 2017.

The Department of Energy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the Consumer Electronics Association, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association agreed to new energy efficiency standards for cable boxes expected to save more than $1 billion in electricity annually, once the new equipment is widely deployed in American homes. That represents enough energy to power 700,000 homes and cut five million tons of CO2 emissions each year.

“These energy efficiency standards reflect a collaborative approach among the Energy Department, the pay-TV industry and energy efficiency groups – building on more than three decades of common-sense efficiency standards that are saving American families and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “The set-top box efficiency standards will save families money by saving energy, while delivering high quality appliances for consumers that keep pace with technological innovation.”

DVR boxes are the biggest culprits. American DVRs typically use up to 50W regardless of whether someone is watching the TV or not. Most contain hard drives that are either powered on continuously or are shifted into an idle state that does more to protect the life of the drive than cut a consumer’s energy bill. A combination of a DVR and an extra HD set-top box together consume more electricity than an ENERGY STAR-qualified refrigerator-freezer, even when using the remote control to switch the boxes off.

Manufacturers were never pressed to produce more energy-efficient equipment by the cable and satellite television industry. Current generation boxes often require lengthy start-up cycles to configure channel lineups, load channel listings, receive authorization data and update software. As a result, any overnight power-down would inconvenience customers the following morning — waiting up to five or more minutes to begin watching television as equipment was switched back on. As a compromise, many cable operators instruct their DVR boxes to power down internal hard drives when not recording or playing back programming, minimizing subscriber inconvenience, but also the possible power savings.

In Europe, many set-top boxes are configured with three levels of power consumption — 22.5W while in use, 13.2W while in standby, and 0.65W when in “Deep Sleep” mode. More data is stored in non-volatile memory within the box, meaning channel data, program listings, and authorization information need not be re-downloaded each time the box is powered on, resulting in much faster recovery from power-saving modes.

The new agreement, which runs through 2017, covers all types of set-top boxes from pay-TV providers, including cable, satellite and telephone companies. The agreement also requires the pay-TV industry to publicly report model-specific set-top box energy use and requires an annual audit of service providers by an independent auditor to make sure boxes are performing at the efficiency levels specified in the agreement. The Energy Department also retains its authority to test set-top boxes under the ENERGY STAR verification program, which provides another verification tool to measure the efficiency of set-top boxes.

Comcast, DirecTV, DISH Network, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, Verizon, Cox Communications, Charter Communications, Cablevision, Bright House Networks and CenturyLink will begin deploying new energy-efficient equipment during service calls. Some customers may be able to eventually swap equipment earlier, depending on the company.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCCO Minneapolis Check Your Cable Box 6-27-11.mp4[/flv]

WCCO in Minneapolis reported in 2011 cable operators like Comcast may make subscribers wait 30 minutes or more for set-top box features to become fully available for use after plugging the box in. (1:50)

A Wall Street research firm is asking questions about the “mixed messages” AT&T is sending consumers over its broadband offerings.

Ovum Research senior analyst Kamalini Ganguly said AT&T’s fiber to the home (FTTH) network in Austin — set to upgrade customers to 1Gbps next year — is likely to confuse AT&T and its shareholders over the future direction of AT&T’s current fiber to the neighborhood (FTTN) upgrade effort, dubbed Project VIP.

Having spent eight years deploying the U-verse FTTN service, a year ago AT&T chose to expand household coverage and upgrade speeds. That effort, called Project VIP, is still ongoing and until now has reflected AT&T’s projection that 45Mbps downstream (and 6Mbps upstream) should be good enough for the majority of its customers.

AT&T says it intends to boost part of its Project VIP footprint to 75Mbps or 100Mbps with VDSL2 vectoring, but the extent of this is unknown. It has also deployed a small amount of GPON FTTH in greenfield markets, typically designed to support 80–100Mbps to each household. Also as part of Project VIP, it plans to reach 1 million businesses with symmetric 1Gbps FTTH.

However, the GigaPower offering in Austin will be AT&T’s first 300Mbps or 1Gbps mass-market FTTH offering targeting consumers, not just businesses, in a major market. It is also a symmetric offering, meaning upstream will be 1Gbps as well. Those speeds are far higher than what Project VIP will deliver to the majority of consumers. The jump from 45/6Mbps to 1/1Gbps for consumers raises questions around its strategy. The cost issue looms large. Deploying 1Gbps point-to-point FTTH will continue to cost much more than GPON FTTH, which in turn still costs a lot more than FTTN – even with vectoring. AT&T needs to explain better what has changed from last year in the business case for FTTH over FTTN.

Wall Street is asking questions because AT&T has repeatedly denied its fiber project in Austin has anything to do with Google’s intention to offer a similar fiber network in Austin next year and everything to to do with its general broadband strategy. There is increasing skepticism about AT&T’s veracity on that point, particularly after AT&T announced pricing that was suspiciously similar to what Google charges its fiber customers in Kansas City and is likely to charge in Austin. Ovum’s researchers also took special note of AT&T’s intention to “examine its customers’ browsing habits in order to generate incremental revenues with targeted ads and commercial offers.”

There is evidence Google is proving a growing market disruptor, turning cable and telco industry pricing models upside down where the search engine giant threatens to compete. Industry plans to charge premium prices for incrementally faster broadband speed tiers is at risk with Google’s gigabit offer, priced at just $70 a month. Comcast charges up to $300 a month for considerably less speed. Community owned fiber broadband providers are increasingly adopting Google’s pricing model themselves. EPB in Chattanooga reduced the price of its 1Gbps tier from $300 to $70 earlier this year.

“By accepting a ceiling of $70, AT&T may be making it harder to break even,” writes Ganguly. “We may see lower prices cascading down for all broadband services. AT&T runs the risk of de-valuing its own broadband business and ultimately that of others too. On a more positive note, demand for 1Gbps was seen as questionable when prices were unaffordable for consumers and when multiple HD streams can be supported by 40–50Mbps. With these price levels however, demand may spike and boost the business case for 1Gbps.”