Don’t like the prospects of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and worried your AT&T bill will increase as a result?  If you are an AT&T on-contract customer, the New York law firm of Bursor & Fisher wants to talk to you.

Scott A. Bursor, the founding partner of the firm, says he wants to represent AT&T customers to help stop the proposed merger, or win significant financial concessions on behalf of those who could face skyrocketing cell phone bills as a result of reduced competition in the marketplace:

AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile would turn back the clock to the era of the Ma Bell monopoly. The deal would give AT&T and Verizon control over 80% of the wireless market, would stifle the competitive market forces that would otherwise help to keep prices down, and would stifle new products and innovation.

AT&T’s claim that the takeover will help improve network quality makes no sense. T-Mobile’s network overlaps almost entirely AT&T’s. And AT&T already has more spectrum than any other company. In most areas, AT&T already holds at least 40 MHz of spectrum it is not even using. AT&T is keeping that spectrum off the market, which prevents competitors from using it to provide better service at lower prices.

Turning back the clock to the Ma Bell monopoly era will allow AT&T and Verizon to dictate what type of phone you can use, how you can use it, and what you will pay. It will destroy competition, leading to higher prices and worse service.

Since AT&T’s wireless contracts specifically prohibit customers from suing the company for any reason, the law firm seeks to pursue the alternative “mandatory arbitration” specified by AT&T in an effort to either derail the merger or force the price much higher.

Customers who retain the law firm on their website can expect the firm to follow four steps that could bring arbitration awards as high as $10,000 per customer:

First, when you sign up, you will receive a confirmation email with a copy of our retainer agreement. We will also provide you with the an email address where you can contact us if you have any questions or concerns about the process.

Second, shortly after you sign up, we will send a letter on your behalf by certified mail to AT&T giving them notice that you intend to file an arbitration seeking to enjoin the takeover of T-Mobile. This is the first hoop you have to jump through to bring an arbitration under the fine print of AT&T’s Arbitration Agreement. We will send you a copy of that letter by email.

Third, if AT&T does not agree to cease and desist from completing the merger within 30 days, we will file a demand for arbitration on your behalf with the American Arbitration Association. The demand will include extensive evidence and legal authority we have gathered to prove that AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile will harm competition in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act. We will email you a copy arbitration demand when it is filed.

Fourth, our team of lawyers will litigate your arbitration case aggressively to make sure that your arbitration rights, and your rights under the antitrust laws, are protected. If we are successful, we may seek a $10,000 payment for you.

Bursor

AT&T scoffs at the effort, releasing a statement calling Bursor & Fisher’s actions “completely without merit.” Company officials also claimed arbitrators have no standing to block a corporate merger, hinting the endeavor may be more about winning the law firm a substantial payout than representing the interests of consumers.

Bursor & Fisher are not pursuing AT&T for free.  The attorneys will deduct 50 percent of any award as their contingency fee — a percentage considerably higher than the more common 33-40 percent attorneys usually deduct, and this does not include further reductions to cover any “costs” advanced by the firm.

We found this somewhat curious, considering AT&T’s own arbitration legalese already provides for an attorney premium in their award — twice the amount of any legal fees and reimbursement of expenses.  So deducting an additional 50 percent and taking fees from any consumer awards seems like a case of unfair double-dipping.

But since you are not obligated to pay a cent in fees, anything you might manage to walk away with is more than you started with.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Chaplin Says ATT Margins Punished by IPhone Discounts 7-22-11.mp4[/flv]

Jonathan Chaplin, a director at Credit Suisse Holdings USA Inc., talks about competition between Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. for customers for Apple Inc.’s iPhone. AT&T spent much of the last quarter discounting new iPhones down to as little as $50 to keep customers from heading to Verizon Wireless. Chaplin also discusses incoming Verizon Chief Executive Officer Lowell McAdam. He speaks with Emily Chang and Jon Erlichman on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT T Mobile Merger.flv[/flv]

Free Press has some fun at AT&T and T-Mobile’s expense with these four video ads opposing the merger.  Of course, the expense is all yours if the merger succeeds in further reducing wireless competition and allowing the all-new AT&T to raise prices even higher.  (3 minutes)

Phillip "Not Paid by AT&T" Dampier

When asked if the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile will limit customer choice, NAACP’s local executive director Stanley Miller told a Cleveland, Ohio television station, “I don’t think that’s an issue in today’s environment; I think the companies are smarter today and they will make people understand and give them the beneficial services that they’ll need.”

The civil rights group had nothing to say about how much AT&T will charge for these “beneficial services.”

At least WEWS-TV in Cleveland is bothering to ask the question.  Most of America’s television news has either ignored the enormous merger on offer from AT&T and T-Mobile, or didn’t wade much further beyond AT&T’s press release about the “benefits” the merger will bring.  Unfortunately, the television station never bothered to alert viewers to the fact the civil rights group receives substantial financial support from AT&T.

Miller’s performance trying to tout his parent organization’s unqualified support for the merger sent a very clear message to anyone watching NewsChannel 5 — he doesn’t really understand what he is talking about.

On the issue of expanding wireless service into rural Ohio, Miller was left tongue-twisting his way into advocating a monopoly because they’ll be best equipped to get service to those who need it.  That’s a fascinating prospect — a monopoly spending money expanding service where it is unprofitable to provide.  That’s the reason companies like AT&T have ignored rural America, and will continue to do so — merger or not.

Miller (WEWS-TV)

In fact, AT&T’s claim that it needs the network of T-Mobile to stop the persistent problems of dropped calls and slow data service doesn’t make much sense either.  Verizon, AT&T’s closest competitor, doesn’t seem to be suffering those problems, perhaps because it has made investments in upgrades AT&T has avoided.

In California, consumer advocate Jon Fox was taking an equally skeptical look at AT&T’s claims on behalf of CalPIRG, the California Public Interest Research Group.  Fox noted AT&T’s promotion of the merger in his state came at invitation-only cheerleading sessions run by company officials:

Earlier this month, AT&T California President Ken McNeely explained to an invitation-only audience that the proposed merger with T-Mobile will create new jobs, help communities and improve wireless phone service. AT&T preferred not to take questions from the general public on how that vision fits with AT&T’s history of consolidation, layoffs and aggressive market behavior.

Nearly 30 years after regulators broke up AT&T’s unprecedented control over the U.S. wired phone market, consumers are asked to believe that this time things will be different. This notion defies both experience and common sense. Unless significant market regulation is put into place that encourages a competitive wireless arena to flourish, this proposed merger will be bad for consumers, innovation and economic growth.

Fox notes the wireless marketplace in the United States is hardly a paragon of competitiveness today.  If the merger were approved, 76 percent of Americans would receive wireless service from two providers — AT&T and Verizon.  Fox observed America’s next-most-hated conglomerate — the oil and gas industry — wishes it could have that sort of market power.  The top two oil companies in the U.S. have a combined market share of only 24 percent.  America, he notes, wouldn’t tolerate that kind of consolidation in the gasoline market, so why should we tolerate it in the mobile market?

The California Public Interest Research Group

Fox advocates more competition, not less.  He suggests the government force AT&T and Verizon to open their cellular networks to independent third party competitors at fair prices, and let everyone compete.  That could germinate competition that would end the chorus of rate increases from the largest players and allow for innovative pricing plans that don’t force customers into the nearly identical service plans AT&T and Verizon want to force you to accept.  T-Mobile already provides the most innovative pricing in the wireless marketplace, and AT&T is about to swallow that innovation whole.

What ultimately happens to a well-dwarfed Sprint remains an open question, but one many on Wall Street have already answered, suspecting America’s third largest carrier simply won’t be in a position to compete.  Fox thinks the situation is dire when two companies will have a virtual lock on wireless data services Americans increasingly depend on.

That’s not the view of the NAACP, of course.  But then the NAACP is hardly an independent observer, being the recipient of a considerable amount of money and executive talent from AT&T.  That counts for a whole lot more than the rank and file members of the organization, who will be paying the increased prices AT&T has in store for everyone.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEWS Cleveland ATT T-Mobile Merger 7-14-11.mp4[/flv]

WEWS-TV in Cleveland investigates the ramifications of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.  More than 94% of all Ohioans filing comments with FCC oppose the merger, but groups like the NAACP support it.  NewsCenter 5 wanted to find out why.  (3 minutes)

A Boston firm believes broadband is something best shared, and plans to put that notion to the test by bringing free access to wireless broadband to anyone in range of its equipment.

NetBlazr starts with gigabit fiber from Cogent Communications, and then delivers free or low-cost access to any customer that is willing to do two things:

1. Spend $299 for their basic installation kit, which includes a high speed router, three antennas, and some cabling;
2. Use the included equipment to receive service from NetBlazr and agree to share it with anyone in range of the wireless antennas included in the kit.

Reception of the wireless broadband signal, comparable to Business Class DSL, comes with no ongoing fees.  If you want dedicated, guaranteed speeds, NetBlazr will sell them to you at an added cost.  The more customers exchanging signals, the more robust and faster the network becomes, says NetBlazr CEO Jim Hanley.

Although the service is currently designed to operate for business customers in downtown Boston, Hanley sees the possibility of crowdsourcing a broadband platform eventually large enough to cover residential homes and businesses across the country, at almost no expense.

The venture is new, however, and the company’s FAQ warns businesses not to depend entirely on NetBlazr for dependable broadband just yet.

Because it’s still new, the quality and level of service is highly dependent on what kind of signal one can receive from the next nearest business that belongs to the cooperative.  If you are the only one for blocks around, the signal could be marginal to non-existent.

Such communal networks only work when they reach a critical mass of cooperative members to blanket areas with coverage.  At the moment, that means Boston’s Back Bay and downtown, where high-rise buildings help get the signals around densely populated neighborhoods.

NetBlazr’s marketing brochure touts the service can deliver symmetrical speeds up to 60Mbps for free, and is particularly suited to offices that need additional broadband resources, but don’t want to sign a pricey upgrade agreement with incumbent providers like Verizon.

NetBlazr’s competitors like the aforementioned phone company are reacting with a shrug of the shoulders so far.

Verizon spokesman Phil Santoro: “Competition is always healthy and the market for Internet service is already highly competitive.”

“We aren’t familiar with this company’s business proposition, but I can tell you that Comcast already offers secure and reliable high speed Internet,” spokesman Marc Goodman told the Boston Herald.

Earlier efforts to share Internet services in neighborhoods through Wi-Fi ran into trouble when Internet Service Providers found out.  Virtually all providers specifically prohibit customers from sharing their residential service with non-paying customers beyond the property line.  But since NetBlazr arranges for its own access, this stumbling block is overcome.

Company officials say they have enough connectivity to support the demand, although business users don’t traditionally pound networks with peer-to-peer file requests or lots of online video, so how NetBlazr will ultimately perform in a residential setting remains to be seen.

The company has impressed technology mavens at the Massachusetts Innovation & Technology Exchange.  NetBlazr won this year’s “Best Bootstrapped Start-up” award.  It was also a finalist for the $1 million MassChallenge competition held earlier this year.

Hanley’s ultimate goal is to provide cheap, commodity Internet access, and thinks within five years his idea will be a major game-changer for how broadband service is delivered in the United States.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NetBlazr.flv[/flv]

netBlazr CEO Jim Hanley indicts America’s broadband duopoly and says direct action through new competition will solve the problem faster than public policy can.  Hanley also explains how his service works. (10 minutes)