Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

A new study predicts an agreement between Verizon and the nation’s top cable companies to cross-sell each other’s products could cost up to 72,000 jobs in the northeastern U.S. and potentially threaten Verizon’s state-of-the-art fiber optics network FiOS.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Justice are continuing to review a proposed deal that would allow Verizon Wireless and companies including Time Warner and Comcast to cross-market each other’s products, which critics allege will eliminate competition and job-creating investment.

In the crosshairs of the deal: Verizon’s fiber to the home network FiOS, which has been stalled since 2009 when Verizon signaled it was “winding down” FiOS spending. According to the new report, produced by the Communications Workers of America (CWA), FiOS is at risk of being undercut by Verizon in favor of reselling cable-TV packages from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and other cable companies. At worst, some critics of the deal contend Verizon will eventually abandon FiOS altogether.

The CWA has already seen the impact of Verizon’s declining interest in expanding FiOS as the company has left several major American cities in its service footprint, including Baltimore, Buffalo, Syracuse and Boston without fiber optic upgrades.

The CWA is calling on regulators to impose conditions on any deal between Verizon and cable operators:

• Prohibit Verizon Wireless and the cable companies from cross-marketing in Verizon’s landline service areas;
• Require Verizon to build the FiOS network to 95% of Verizon households in its landline footprint, including in rural and low-income areas;
• Ensure that Verizon Wireless and other cable companies are not able to lock out competitors.

If Verizon were to maintain the expansion of FiOS to non-FiOS areas, about 72,000 new jobs would be created, the CWA report found. Job growth would be concentrated in eight Eastern states and Washington D.C.

“If done right, the proposed deal would add tens of thousands of new jobs and allow underserved communities access to high quality broadband service,” said Debbie Goldman, telecommunications policy director for the CWA. “The FCC has the obligation carefully to assess this deal in terms of likely job loss.  We expect regulators to reject this deal unless the parties accept conditions that would create jobs, increase network investment, and promote consumer choice.”

Those living in Verizon service areas without FiOS are already upset that they have been effectively bypassed by the phone company.

“It’s an arrogant stand,” Buffalo Councilman Darius Pridgen said in a phone interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer. Verizon has upgraded other areas in upstate New York with FiOS, but not financially distressed Buffalo. “It’s advertised in the city, but it’s not available in the city.”

In Philadelphia, Verizon obtained a 15-year video franchise agreement with city officials and the company agreed to extend FiOS throughout the city by 2016. But residents are complaining that Verizon’s definition of “extending service” has meant wiring cables down major thoroughfares, not wiring up every home that wants the service.

City Councilman James Kenney called for a public hearing in April amid complaints that Verizon was reneging on its commitment to city officials and residents.

Cole

Baltimore councilman William Cole thinks his city was skipped by Verizon for a reason, while more affluent areas are set to get fiber upgrades. Cole told the newspaper his constituents have called Verizon after seeing local ads for FiOS service, but are told they cannot get the service.

Verizon spokesman Edward McFadden said the decision to build the FiOS network was never popular on Wall Street. “We got hammered,” he told the Inquirer, “and our shareholders were punished for this.”

Now that the network is up and running, McFadden says Verizon retains a strong incentive to maintain its FiOS business because of the huge investment and the increased earnings it brings the phone company.

But the CWA’s Goldman remains convinced Verizon has broken its word with regulators and politicians who believed promises from Verizon and other telecom companies that passage of the deregulation-packed 1996 Telecommunications Act would inspire the dawn of a new competitive era in American telecommunications. Now instead, Verizon and the cable companies want to simply sell each other’s services.

“They wanted deregulation, and they said they would compete,” Goldman said. “This marks the beginning of the surrender, this truce.”

Despite concerns from consumer groups that a deal to exchange wireless spectrum in return for collaborative marketing between two competitors will lead to higher prices for consumers, the Federal Communications Commission seems prepared to approve it, according to a report from the Reuters news agency.

Two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the FCC has taken the lead on the “spectrum transfer” issue, which involves turning over prime wireless spectrum currently owned by large cable operators Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House Networks to Verizon Wireless. The combined licenses the cable industry holds are in the majority of major American cities, which critics charge Verizon will acquire to eliminate any potential competitive threat from a new nationwide wireless carrier.

Verizon’s recent moves to sell off its own “excess” spectrum to its current competitors has garnered favor inside the FCC, according to sources. Verizon Wireless recently agreed to transfer some of that spectrum to T-Mobile USA, which coincidentally was a fierce opponent of the deal between Verizon and cable operators. T-Mobile’s opposition has since muted.

Licenses owned by the cable industry would have been expansive enough to launch a new national wireless competitor. (Image: Phonescoop)

The deal between Verizon and the nation’s top cable companies is worth about $3.9 billion, but the Justice Department continues to signal concerns it would ultimately cost consumers more than that. According to Reuters, Verizon remains in “tougher talks” with lawyers inside the Justice Department who are concerned cooperative marketing between the phone and cable companies would result in decreased competition and higher prices.

One source told Reuters regulators were hoping Verizon’s now-stalled fiber to the home network FiOS would bring major competition to the cable industry, which until then had only faced moderate competition from satellite dish providers. In return, Comcast and other cable operators were expected to invade the wireless phone marketplace, adding needed competition.

Instead, both sides have retreated to their respective positions — Verizon focusing on its wireless service and Comcast and other cable companies abandoning interest in wireless phones and sticking to cable-based products.

The idea that both would begin to cross-market each other’s products is “a problem” according to the Justice source not authorized to speak publicly.

Additionally, concerns are being raised over a proposed “joint operating entity” between Verizon and cable operators that would focus on developing new technologies that could lock out those not in the consortium.

No decision is expected from the Justice Department until August, but Justice officials have signaled they have several options they can pursue:

1. Sue to stop the spectrum transfer;
2. Force the companies to modify their proposal to reduce potential collusion;
3. Approve the deal but monitor how cross-marketing agreements impact on consumer markets for wireless and cable products.

History repeats itself. In 1889, it was railroads, steel, iron, and energy. Today it is telecommunications.

My first introduction to the concept of corporate doublespeak — designed to cushion the blow of bad news behind a wall of barely-comprehensible babble came in October 1987 when I heard one Wall Street analyst refer to the great stock market crash that had just befallen the financial district as a “fourth quarter equity retreat.”

Holy euphemism, Batman!

You weren’t fired — you were “made redundant.”  The bankruptcy of Detroit automakers and the layoffs that followed were not as bad as they looked. It was merely “a career-alternative enhancement program.”

And, no, Verizon and AT&T are not engaged in should-be-illegal marketplace collusion on pricing and services. They are just practicing some harmless “price signaling.”

That’s the awe-struck view of management consultant Rags Srinivasan, who just gushes over the marketing “stroke of genius” that threatens to give customers a stroke when they open their monthly bill.

Srinivasan’s piece, worthy of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, turns up instead on GigaOm, where it gets some pretty harsh treatment from tech-lovers who hate the rising prices of wireless service.

Price signaling has always existed between the number one and number two players in any market. Agreeing to not engage in a price war is truly a win-win for the market leaders. Since outright price fixing is illegal, market leaders resorted to signaling to tell the other company their intentions or send a threat about their cost advantages.

But traditionally, it was more like flirting — ambiguous enough that the underlying intentions could be denied. Why are these two not shy about admitting to flirting now? The simple answer is the iPhone.

Not too long ago we worried about running out of talk minutes and paying overage. Service providers offered us tiered plans that offered more minutes for a higher price and unlimited minutes for an even higher price. With the additional revenue flowing directly to their bottom line, these higher priced plans were real cash cows.

For those who have any doubt about the profits from unlimited plans, I’d point out that the costs of a mobile service provider are sunk with zero marginal cost for additional minutes. And texts don’t even consume traffic channels — they piggyback on control channels.

[…] In another genius pricing move, Verizon Wireless is presenting this $100 mobile service plan to customers in a bundle — talk minutes plus data. In the past, around $70 was allocated to talk because consumers valued it more. Now subscribers pay only $40, but they still pay the same $100 total price. This is nothing short of pricing excellence, protecting customer margin while also using strong price signaling to make sure that the next biggest market share leader follows suit.

What Srinivasan calls “business at its best” and “pricing excellence” we call collusion at its most obvious. The GigaOm author says he does not want the government tinkering with this kind of marketplace “signaling,” and it does not appear likely he has much to worry about. AT&T and Verizon executives have grown increasingly brazen (and obvious) with their near-identical pricing and “me-too” plans which leave little to differentiate the two carriers from a pricing perspective. The likely result will be at least 100 million cell phone customers eventually stuck paying for unlimited voice and texting services they neither want or need.

Wireless Wonder Twins Powers Activate: Shape of anti-competitive marketplace for consumers; form of collusion.

True, AT&T charges Cadillac prices but has the customer service image of a used 1995 Kia… but they did have the original exclusive rights to the Apple iPhone and Apple devotees proved they will endure a lot. Verizon Wireless has a better network and has always charged accordingly.

Unfortunately for consumers, the also-rans Sprint and T-Mobile (and the smaller still) depend on AT&T and Verizon for roaming off the city highway and into the countryside, and they are often stuck with devices that are a step down from what the bigger two can offer.

Srinivasan would have a better argument if the wireless marketplace had not become so consolidated. Had AT&T had its way with T-Mobile, America would have just a single national GSM network — AT&T. Verizon does not consider its CDMA competitor much of a bother either, and Sprint Nextel CEO Dan Hesse has to divide his time between fighting with Wall Street over why the company has not already sold out to the highest bidder (and now wants to spend a fortune upgrading its network) and customers who consider Sprint too much of a trade-off in coverage and its dismal “4G” Clearwire WiMAX network too slow for 2012.

Srinivasan is probably too young to understand AT&T and Verizon never invented “price signaling.” A century ago, the railroad robber barons did much the same, leveraging their anti-competitive networks-of-a-different-kind to maximize prices in places that had few alternatives. Where competitors did arrive, they were typically bought out to “maximize savings and eliminate market inefficiencies.” The same was true in the steel and energy sector of the early 20th century.

The result is that consumers were turned upside down to shake out the last loose change from their pockets. Eventually, government stepped in and called it marketplace collusion and passed antitrust laws that began a new era for true competition.

How soon some forget.

Shaw Communications executives last week announced, to the relief of Wall Street, the cable company is pulling back on great deals for cable TV, Internet and phone service this summer.

In an effort to appease Wall Street analysts like Phillip Huang, a researcher for UBS Investment Bank — who fear lower prices could “spiral into a price war, which obviously would be a lose, lose situation,” Shaw has made it clear it intends to stop some of its most aggressive promotions this summer.

“When you talk about promotions in the market, we’ve been very disciplined in that regard,” Shaw executives told analysts on last week’s quarterly results conference call. “It’s a highly competitive environment and will continue to be that way and we’re going to operate in a certain fashion.”

That “certain fashion” has cost them at least 21,500 subscribers who have already left Shaw this past quarter, most headed to Shaw’s biggest competitor Telus.

But some Wall Street analysts remain unsatisfied, noting there are major differences in telecommunications pricing in Canada. Western Canadians pay substantially less for phone, cable, and broadband service than their counterparts in Ontario and Quebec. Shaw and Telus customers also have much larger usage allowances for broadband service, and Telus so far has not enforced what limits they have.

Analysts peppered Shaw executives about why they are not raising prices to match what Bell, Rogers, and Vidéotron customers further east are paying.

Jay Mehr, Shaw’s senior vice president of operations told investors to hang in there.

“We still believe that we have some good pricing power when discipline really comes back into this market,” Mehr said on the call with investors. That signals Shaw is prepared to raise prices when aggressive deals end.

Wall Street also questioned why the company does not use long-term contracts to lock customers in place:

Mehr

Glen Campbell – BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division: […] On service contracts: You’ve been pretty firm in not using them. Your competitor clearly does. […] Can you talk about the reasons for not going down the service contract road and whether you might reconsider that position?

Bradley S. Shaw – Shaw Communications: Well, there’s arguments for contracts as you — I guess, it’s really what these contracts do. As you said, we have equipment. Our [indiscernible] space — our Easy Own plan certainly is a very consumer-friendly plan as customers are getting something, and they’re agreeing to pay for it over time. And that creates kind of a natural kind of a relationship. What we don’t want to have happen is having customers, who are feeling confined by a contract, who otherwise would like to do something else. We don’t think that’s consumer-friendly. And so we’re looking at ways that we’d have more consumer-friendly kind of relationships but that still create some kind of a longer-term relationship that you can count on. But we don’t want to have the ball and chain kind of contracts that others have adopted.

[…] From a customer point of view. But also, the nature of contracts is there needs to be an enticement to get the customer sign a contract, and that enticement tends to be what we’re seeing in the market, which is fairly significant giveaways of hardware and other devices to be able to incent that. And so it will have has an impact on your cost of acquisition, and we’re trying to manage that. As Peter said, our Easy Own program is a very customer-friendly way for people to come on and make a commitment to us. And at the end of the period, they own their equipment. They haven’t had to pay upfront, and so it’s a nice way to manage that without being heavy-handed.

Shaw’s Exo Wi-Fi service is coming soon across western Canada.

Some other developments at Shaw, reported during the conference call:

• Spending on upgrades will continue to be on the aggressive side as the company builds out its new Exo Wi-Fi network and converts cable systems to digital service, creating additional space for broadband speed increases and other services;
• Broadband delivers the highest profit margins of all of Shaw’s services, so it remains a very important part of Shaw’s package;
• Customers are gravitating towards higher speed broadband packages, delivering extra revenue;
• The company has re-priced some of its plans and offers to be more friendly to broadband-only customers;
• Shaw is working to gain approval from communities across western Canada to deploy its Wi-Fi network, with plans to begin limited promotion of the new service by late fall or early 2013. Shaw expects its Wi-Fi network to have substantial coverage across the region within three years;
• Shaw plans to work with U.S. cable operators to participate in a Wi-Fi roaming network that will allow its customers access to the Wi-Fi networks being built in the United States;
• Shaw’s “TV Everywhere” project is being designed to protect existing video revenue. Rights are being acquired across the board for broadband, tablets and other mobile devices for a robust on-demand service. But live streaming is secondary.

Thomas

Feisty T-Mobile is back on the attack, this time against Verizon’s new “Share Everything” plans which T-Mobile’s marketing gurus are calling a lousy deal for consumers.

Harry Thomas, director of segment marketing, dismissed Verizon’s new plans as costly, complicated, and punitive in a company blog post:

• They’re COSTLY – Verizon is charging more for what consumers want by raising rates on data, but promoting the “value” by pointing to unlimited talk and text even though today many consumers use less of these services. This is especially true for add-a-lines – now with Verizon’s Share Everything plans, adding a line starts at $30/month for a basic phone (non-smartphone) and, for accounts with at least one smartphone, requires unlimited minutes whether customers want unlimited or not.

• They’re COMPLICATED – Verizon is forcing customers to share data when many customers don’t know how much data they’re using, which makes it hard to stay within their limit when trying to balance multiple users (not to mention the family data hog).

• They’re PUNITIVE – At the same time that Verizon is making it harder for customers to manage overages, they are also increasing overage rates from $10/GB to $15/GB for accounts with at least one smartphone.

Thomas predicted Verizon’s new plans would deliver more benefits to Verizon’s bottom line than to consumers, and as they took effect late last week, he’s now convinced he was correct.

T-Mobile released this graphic showing its plans offer considerable savings over Verizon Wireless’ new “Share Everything” plans. Verizon is probably wishing AT&T managed to get that T-Mobile merger through, if only to stop this kind of competition.