AT&T and Verizon: The Doublemint Twins of Wireless

In an unsurprising move, AT&T has followed Verizon Wireless and announced it has discontinued subsidies for wireless tablet devices.

Engadget received word from an AT&T insider the company has withdrawn subsidies often amounting to $150 off the devices in return for a two-year contract. The subsidies helped defray the more costly ($400+) 3G/4G-capable units most consumers bypass in favor of less expensive Wi-Fi-only tablets. Verizon Wireless stopped subsidizing tablets in June.

Consumers can still buy the devices at full price from AT&T, and in another move, AT&T slightly reduced its DataConnect pricing by $5:

• 250MB for $14.99
• 3GB for $30
• 5GB for $50
• Tethering to an existing shared data plan is available for an extra $10

AT&T also announced it was planning to limit the use of Apple’s FaceTime exclusively to those who agree to switch to the company’s new “Mobile Share” plans. AT&T will not allow customers with older individual or family use plans to use the popular video conferencing service over its mobile broadband network at any price.

The official statement, first reported by 9 to 5 Mac:

AT&T will offer FaceTime over Cellular as an added benefit of our new Mobile Share data plans, which were created to meet customers’ growing data needs at a great value. With Mobile Share, the more data you use, the more you save. FaceTime will continue to be available over Wi-Fi for all our customers.

AT&T is able to introduce these types of restrictions because of the failure of the Federal Communications Commission to enforce Net Neutrality protection on wireless networks. Net Neutrality would require carriers to treat online content, applications, and services equally, allowing customers to use and pay for the services of their choice.

Wireless carriers fought Net Neutrality claiming it would harm efforts to technically manage their networks and would ultimately discourage investment. But AT&T’s arbitrary, non-technical restriction of FaceTime suggests the company is actually pushing customers to the more-profitable service plans AT&T favors.

Wood

Consumer group Free Press policy director Matt Wood:

“These tactics are designed with one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money each month by handicapping alternatives to AT&T’s own products.  If customers want to use FaceTime on AT&T’s mobile network, then they have buy a more expensive monthly data plan with extra voice minutes and texts they’ll never use thrown in. Blocking mobile FaceTime access for much of its user base may be a win for AT&T but it’s a losing proposition for the rest of us.

“It’s not supposed to be this way. The Net Neutrality protections in place today for wireless are too weak, but at least prevent carriers from blocking these types of apps. The FCC’s rules prohibit such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by wireless companies. Such behavior would be a problem no matter what Internet platform you choose. It would be unimaginable on your home broadband connection. Apple’s FaceTime comes pre-installed on a Macbook Pro, too, but no home broadband provider would dream of blocking the app there unless you’d signed up for a more expensive data plan.

“The FCC’s Open Internet order aside, AT&T’s latest scheme to make you pay more for less would never fly if we had real competition in the wireless marketplace. Instead, we have Ma Bell’s twin offspring running amok and forcing consumers onto ridiculous plans that make them pay for the same data twice. It’s only going to get worse until lawmakers recognize the problem and act to solve this competition crisis.”

While AT&T will block many customers from using FaceTime, a competing service from Skype remains unaffected.

(Image courtesy: FCC.com)

The Department of Justice today announced it had achieved a settlement with Verizon and four major cable operators regarding their efforts to establish a cross-marketing agreement to sell each other’s services, sell wireless spectrum, and develop a technology research joint venture.

Despite criticism that the deal represented a strong case for marketplace collusion that would reduce competition between Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home service and cable company offerings, the Justice Department signed off on a series of deal revisions it defends as protective of competition and consumers. Among them is a time limit for the cross-marketing deal and restrictions on where Verizon Wireless can cross-market cable company services.

“By limiting the scope and duration of the commercial agreements among Verizon and the cable companies while at the same time allowing Verizon and T-Mobile to proceed with their spectrum acquisitions, the department has provided the right remedy for competition and consumers,” said Joseph Wayland, acting assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “ The Antitrust Division’s enforcement action ensures that robust competition between Verizon and the cable companies continues now and in the future as technological change alters the telecommunications landscape.”

The proposed settlement forbids Verizon Wireless from selling cable company products in areas where its FiOS service is available. That is a major reversal from the original agreement between Verizon and Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox and Bright House Networks which restricted Verizon Wireless from marketing FiOS. Under the original deal, Verizon Wireless stores could effectively only sell cable company products, never FiOS. The Justice Dept. will still permit Verizon Wireless to sell cable service, but supposedly not at the expense of the fiber service.

The agreement also specifies that Verizon Wireless can sell cable service in areas where it currently markets DSL only until the end of December 2016, renewable at the sole discretion of the Justice Dept. Antitrust lawyers were concerned Verizon would be unlikely to expand its FiOS network or improve DSL service in areas where it could simply resell cable service.

Justice lawyers also put a similar time limit on the technology joint venture, making sure any collaborative efforts don’t impede competition.

The settlement also approves of Verizon’s proposed acquisition of spectrum from the cable companies and T-Mobile USA’s contingent purchase of a significant portion of that spectrum from Verizon.

The deal has been signed off by Justice lawyers, the companies involved, and the New York State Attorney General’s office. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski also weighed in separately with a positive press statement about the agreement.

But consumer advocates remain concerned that the deal does nothing to enhance competition and allows the companies involved to enjoy a new era of competitive detente from a stable and predictable marketplace. Verizon still has little incentive to innovate its DSL service, free to pitch cable service in those areas instead, and without robust changes to the marketplace where FiOS is sold, cable operators have little to fear from Verizon’s stalled FiOS rollout and recent price increases.

Parts of the agreement may also prove confusing to consumers. An important concession prohibits Verizon Wireless from selling any cable service to a street address that is within the FiOS footprint or in any neighborhood store where Verizon FiOS is available. Consumers likely to receive broadly marketed special offers that offer bundled discounts could be frustrated when they are prohibited from signing up because of where they live.

This concession also requires both Verizon and cable operators collaborate to share information about where Verizon FiOS competition exists currently and where it will become available in the future, so that unqualified customers are not sold cable service in violation of the agreement. That represents valuable information for cable operators, who will receive advance notification that customer retention efforts may be needed in areas where Verizon’s fiber optic service is scheduled to become available for the first time.

Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to Lawrence M. Frankel, Assistant Chief, Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may enter the proposed settlement upon finding that it is in the public interest.

Chickamauga Telephone Cooperative office (Courtesy: WRCB-Chattanooga)

AT&T and some of Georgia’s cable operators are under attack by telephone customers outraged to learn of a plan to force two independent phone companies to raise their rates because some think they charge too little.

Residents packed the Chickamauga Civic Center Monday night to loudly protest an effort by AT&T and the Georgia Cable TV Association to force both Chickmauga and Ringgold Telephone to raise their rates, in some cases by 100 percent.

“We’re here today because another company has complained about Chickamauga Telephone rates [claiming] that they are too low,” said Chickamauga city superintendent of schools Melody Day. “Maybe it’s just that their rates are too high.”

Retirees complained the rate increases demanded by AT&T and cable operators were unaffordable, with residential customers facing hikes of 42% for phone service. AT&T claims both phone companies are subsidizing their rates with money from the Universal Service Fund to an artificially low level. AT&T rates are considerably higher, and now AT&T wants the two independents to raise their rates accordingly.

If AT&T has their way with the Georgia Public Service Commission, Chickamauga residential customers currently paying $13.30 per month will be billed $18.83 per month for basic phone service with a limited local calling area. Business customer rates would double from $20.40 to $40.80 per month.

Local businesses and politicians are complaining loudly about the proposal, and want AT&T to mind its own business.

AT&T does not directly compete with landline service in the area, considered a suburb of nearby Chattanooga, Tenn. But cable operators do compete and AT&T sells cell phone service locally.

“It’s important for the Public Service Commission to be able to hear from our constituents around the state,” said PSC Chairman Tim Echols. “And we’re glad people packed the auditorium tonight.”

State regulators told the Times Free Press the Commission was unlikely to approve the kind of rate increase being demanded by AT&T. But they may approve a cut in state subsidies received by Chickamauga and Ringgold telephone companies, which would likely force both to raise rates anyway.

Chickamauga city manager John Culpepper said the city alone is looking at paying $200 more per month — money that will ultimately fall on the taxpayer. Culpepper says independent small businesses are already having a hard time competing with corporate America.

“When you double their rates, it is another financial impact.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WRCB Chattanooga Walker County phone customers fighting rate increase 8-13-12.mp4[/flv]

WRCB in Chattanooga reports on the unrest among phone customers in Chickamauga, Ga. over a plan by AT&T and Georgia cable companies to get regulators to force their local telephone cooperative to increase rates by as much as double. (4 minutes)

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

Today: Frontier — “Rightsizing” Our Broadband Revenue in Barely-Competitive Markets, Even When It Costs Us Customers

“We have been very disciplined with our [data] pricing and really trying to make sure that we are moving the prices up in a right direction and looking at customers who are paying way below where they should be,” Donald R. Shassian, chief financial officer and executive vice president of Frontier Communications told investors on a conference call earlier this month. “They are not a valued customer. If we can’t get them up, we are sort of letting them disconnect off, if you would, and it’s enabling us to be more disciplined.”

That “direction” has meant higher bills for some long-standing customers that suddenly lost discounts or service credits. One common example is Frontier’s mandatory broadband modem rental fee, increasingly turning up on customer bills even though they own their own equipment or had previously arranged a fee waiver. Ex-Verizon customers were particularly hard hit when Frontier switched to its own billing platform. Just about every customer has also been impacted by Frontier’s “junk fees,” including company surcharges that effectively raise the price of the service.

As a result of higher pricing and dissatisfaction with the quality of service, some customers have disconnected, and the company recently reported second quarter profits were down 44%, offset by slightly higher earnings from higher bills.

The New Frontier

Frontier Communications has enormously expanded its reach over the past few years. Frontier’s original “legacy” service areas were dwarfed in 2010 by the company’s acquisition of 4.8 million landlines from Verizon Communications.

Frontier’s Combined Service Map — Areas in red are “legacy” Frontier service areas. Those in blue were acquired in 2010 from Verizon. (click to enlarge)

Frontier roughly tripled in size as a result, and the huge spike in customers delivered four straight quarters of triple-digit revenue growth. But the transition for ex-Verizon customers has not been easy. Customers endured billing errors, service plan confusion, and service quality issues as Frontier got up to speed managing Verizon’s landline network. A significant number of those customers have had enough and are switching to other providers.

West Virginia is the best place to study the contrast between Frontier’s failures and successes. A large number of service problems and lengthy outages plagued the state after Frontier took charge of a landline network Verizon treated as an afterthought. Over at least a decade, Verizon allowed its landline network to deteriorate to abysmal condition in several areas of the state. Little was invested to upgrade service, and Verizon ultimately left West Virginia with one of the lowest national broadband service penetration rates — about 60 percent.

Verizon’s priorities were elsewhere: spend millions on FiOS fiber upgrades in larger, urban markets while letting rural landline networks stagnate. Eventually, Verizon’s management team decided it was no longer worth hanging on to these low priority service areas and began selling them off. FairPoint Communications acquired Verizon customers in northern New England and Frontier bought mostly rural midwestern and western territories long struck from Verizon’s priority list.

Wilderotter

Frontier’s key argument for acquiring Verizon landlines was that the company could bank on deploying broadband to a much larger percentage of customers than Verizon ever bothered to serve.

Frontier places a very high priority on broadband, because the company can significantly boost the average revenue it earns from each customer by providing the service. With Frontier often the only home broadband choice around in its most rural markets, the company can charge whatever it wants for DSL service, tempered only by how much customers can afford to pay. Broadband is also a proven customer-keeper, an important consideration for any company facing ongoing losses from customers dumping landlines for cell phones.

Since its acquisition, Frontier has been aggressively deploying rural broadband in the former Verizon territories — typically the cheapest form it can deliver — 1-3Mbps ADSL service. Frontier considers its legacy service areas already well-covered, claiming around 93 percent of customers can already subscribe to Frontier DSL.

In states like West Virginia, the fact anyone is supplying anything resembling broadband has been well-received by those who have never had the service before. But where competition exists, Frontier has been losing ground (and customers) as cable competitors provide more consistent, higher speeds and quality of service.

The frustration is especially acute in the Mountain State. Steve Andrews, a Beckley resident complained, “This company’s idea of broadband access is up to 3Mbps DSL while nearby states like Virginia and Pennsylvania are getting fiber or cable broadband speeds ten times faster.” Andrews added that on most days his Frontier-provided broadband provides only around 800kbps, not the advertised 3Mbps.

Frontier Admits It Uses Government (Your) Money to Expand Broadband Where It Would Have Expanded Service on Its Own… Eventually

Frontier Communications was by far the most enthusiastic participant in the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund (CAF). This subsidy program currently covers $775 of the cost to extend broadband service to a currently unserved customer. Frontier agreed to accept nearly $72 million from the program, which commits the company to offering at least 4Mbps broadband service to an additional 92,877 homes and businesses around the country.

But Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications, admitted Frontier would have eventually spent its own money to extend service to those rural customers without a subsidy:

“Get broadband out faster to a bunch of customers that we would have built anyway, at some point in time. And it also accomplishes the objectives of using the funds that are available from the FCC. We actually could have taken more money…. So we felt good about it. We totally understand why the other carriers made the decisions they made because we didn’t — we’re not building anything on our legacy markets. So it’s the money. It’s all in the acquired properties where we still had pretty low penetration with enough density to support the parameters that the FCC put in place.”

The fund, paid for by telephone customers nationwide through a surcharge on customer bills, will also subsidize a lucrative business opportunity for Frontier, according to Wilderotter.

“These are unserved locations that really are not competitive at all,” Wilderotter told investors. “So there’s no competition in those areas. So we’re pretty excited about it. We think that this is going to be good for Frontier and good overall.”

More than $38 million of the total broadband subsidy Frontier received will be spent in 30 counties in just one state: Wisconsin. Among other locations where Frontier will spend the money:

• 1 Arizona county
• 2 California counties
• 1 Florida county
• 5 Idaho counties
• 25 Illinois counties
• 2 Indiana counties
• 26 Michigan counties
• 2 Nevada counties
• 8 New York counties
• 1 North Carolina county
• 8 Ohio counties
• 5 Oregon counties
• 2 Tennessee counties
• 7 Washington counties
• 25 West Virginia counties

Trying to Hang Onto Customers Frontier Already Has… With Serious Speed Boosts

Frontier’s speed plans through 2013.

One of the loudest and most consistent complaints Frontier broadband customers mention is the slow speeds they receive from Frontier’s DSL. Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps in rural areas, up to 10Mbps in urban areas. But in fact many customers report their speeds are much lower than advertised. Data from the FCC’s national broadband speed measurement program bears this out. Frontier was the only measured provider in the United States that has been losing ground in promised broadband speed and performance.

Frontier officials announced earlier this month the company was shifting some of its capital investments away from broadband expansion towards improving the performance of its broadband service for current customers.

In highly competitive, urban markets Frontier will deploy VDSL2 technology which can support significantly faster and more reliable Internet speeds. In more rural markets, bonded ADSL 2+ will deliver speeds of 10Mbps or better to customers currently stuck with around 1-2Mbps speed.

Daniel J. McCarthy, president and chief operating officer:

• We expect our 20Mbps service to move from 28% of residential households today to 42% by year-end and then 52% by the end of 2013;
• The 12Mbps services planned to increase from 33% of homes today to 51% by year-end and 60% by 2013;
• And the 6Mbps service is planned to increase from 57% of homes today to 74% by year-end and 80% by 2013.

The new speeds will not come free of charge. Customers will be marketed speed upgrades for additional monthly fees.

Customers will also discover Frontier has been simplifying its packages and moving away from high-value promotional offers that bundled a free laptop, television, or satellite dish in return for a lengthy contract. Today, the company is emphasizing increasing discounts for customers subscribing to two or more services that include telephone/long distance, broadband, and satellite television.

Speeds Going Up, Employees (and their salaries) Going Down

Finally, Frontier executives told investors they are scouring the company looking for cost savings. They appear to have identified around $100 million worth, a good portion of which will come from employees facing job cuts or salary reductions.

Wilderotter said she is focusing on call center workers, retiree positions, and “tech op” savings.

“We still have some bubble workforce in the call centers that will continue to go away,” Wilderotter told Wall Street. “We have a number of employees, too, that are going to be retiring over these next several months. And our goal is not to replace any of those retirees either.”

One of the best examples of this cost savings, according to unions representing Frontier employees, is the forthcoming closure of an Idaho-based call center in Coeur d’Alene. More than 100 workers, average age 55, will lose their $15-21/hour jobs Sept. 18 while Frontier prepares to leverage cheaper labor in South Carolina.

Frontier’s new call center employees in Myrtle Beach will receive $11 an hour while training, $12/hour after training — with a five year wage freeze. Benefits will be considerably leaner for South Carolina employees as well, according to union officials.

The CWA’s Verizon-Cable Company Deal Monster

While Verizon customers in more than two dozen towns and communities around Boston can enjoy fiber optic broadband service today, residents inside the city of Boston cannot buy the service at any price. It is largely the same story in Syracuse, Buffalo, and Albany, N.Y., and Baltimore, Md.

With Verizon’s fiber network FiOS indefinitely stalled, local community leaders and union workers are more than a little concerned that Verizon is spending time, money and attention promoting a deal with the cable industry — its biggest competitor.

The Communications Workers of America is stepping up its protest of a proposed deal between Verizon’s wireless division and large cable operators including Comcast and Time Warner Cable that would result in cross-marketing agreements that sell cable service to Verizon Wireless customers and wireless service to cable customers.

The union is urging the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to stop the deal because, in their view, it will destroy any further expansion of fiber optic-based FiOS, reduce competition, and raise prices for consumers.

The union notes that cable operators are not being asked to promote Verizon’s FiOS network, only Verizon Wireless’ phone services. Verizon Wireless, which barely mentions FiOS service in many of its wireless stores, would suddenly be promoting Comcast and Time Warner Cable instead.

The odd-network-out is clearly Verizon’s fiber optic FiOS service, which was originally envisioned as a competitor against dominant cable operators. But when the economy tanked, Verizon stalled fiber deployment, agreeing only to wire areas where the company already concluded negotiations with local officials. That leaves urban population centers in the northeast (except New York City) stuck with the cable company or Verizon’s DSL service, which has been become increasingly difficult to buy.

Verizon countered the deal would be good for consumers, especially those buying cable packages.

“We believe these agreements will enhance competition, allowing Verizon Wireless to take market shares from other wireless companies, while allowing cable companies to more vigorously compete by enabling them to offer wireless services as part of a triple or quad-play package of services,” the company said in a statement.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA TV Ad Behind Closed Doors.flv[/flv]

The Communications Workers of America launched this new ad — “Behind Closed Doors” — last week in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Pennsylvania media markets. (1 minute)

But union workers in FiOS-bypassed communities like Binghamton, N.Y. suggest customers will simply be on the short end of Verizon’s stick. They note the nearest city where Verizon is deploying fiber optics is suburban Syracuse — more than 70 miles to the north.

BALTIMORE: Left behind as FiOS spreads to six surrounding counties

BOSTON: No Internet revolution

ALBANY: The Empire State’s capital city has no FiOS

BUFFALO: Hit hard by the digital divide

SYRACUSE: Surrounded by high speed—but none for the city

[flv width=”580″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WBNG Binghamton Union Fights Verizon Deal 8-8-12.mp4[/flv]

WBNG reported on a CWA-sponsored protest against Verizon’s deal with cable companies in FiOS-deprived Binghamton, N.Y.  (1 minute)