Stop the Cap! reader Steve L. has heard enough of AT&T’s promises that deregulation would bring more competition and better deals to Californians.

The Carlsbad resident is staring at the fruits of AT&T’s labor — winning deregulation of phone rates in 2006: a  basic phone bill that has increased from $5.70 a month before deregulation to $21.25 effective Jan. 2, 2014. That represents a 272 percent increase for basic measured (pay-per-minute) local telephone service. As if that was not enough, AT&T is also raising the per-minute rate for semi-local calls for the second time in two years. Earlier this year, AT&T slashed customers’ calling allowances by 25 percent, reducing the 225 minutes a month of toll-free calling down to 168 minutes in January.

Customers living in large, spread out cities in California are accustomed to Zone Usage Measurement (ZUM) charges for calls placed to numbers more than 12 miles from the local telephone exchange. But they may get bill shock after noticing how much the per-minute rates have increased:

• ZUM 1/2 (12-15 miles): Calls have doubled in price over the last 36 months. Prior to 2013, calls cost three cents per minute. AT&T raised prices to four cents in January and will raise them again to six cents per minute on Jan. 1;
• ZUM 3 (15-16 miles): Calling prices have increased from five cents a minute in 2012 to six cents a minute in 2013 and will be seven cents per minute in 2014.

“After surcharges, fees, and taxes, my bill will be nearly $30 per month for measured rate service, representing a near doubling of cost in just a 22-month period,” Steve writes. “I have no other choice than AT&T for a true powered landline, but I am rejecting this latest increase and plan to test and move to a VoIP system.”

The constant parade of rate increases from the state’s largest local telephone company began shortly after the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) unanimously approved sweeping deregulation of telephone rates in August 2006. Then Republican Commissioner Rachelle Chong was the driving force behind the effort, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

Chong embraced AT&T’s attitude about telecommunications deregulation, promising consumers would not face abusive rate hikes or bad service. Under the old system, AT&T telephone rates were capped in California. AT&T had to approach the CPUC and justify any proposed increases. Without solid evidence, the company’s rate increase requests were rejected. Under deregulation, AT&T was permitted to set rates at-will.

“By the end of the 2010, these rate caps will no longer be necessary,” Chong promised as the new rules were being phased in. “The market will be so competitive it will discipline prices.”

Not quite.

AT&T’s rates have shot up as much as 222 percent for the average Californian’s measured rate phone service. Some customers, including our reader, found rates nearly three times higher than they were before deregulation. In the last few years, AT&T has increased prices on landline service and calling features even more dramatically across the state:

• AT&T Flat-Rate landline service jumped 115 percent since 2006, from $10.69 to $23 a month;
• Call Waiting, a popular phone feature, is up nearly 180 percent;
• Anonymous Call Rejection fees have almost quadrupled;
• Lifeline Service for California’s most disadvantaged is up 28 percent.

“My belief is that AT&T is essentially harvesting,” Dane Jasper, chief executive of Sonic.net, a competing broadband Internet service in Santa Rosa that tosses in domestic phone service for free, told the newspaper. “They jack up the rate by a pretty egregious amount … because if people leave, well, where are they going? AT&T mobile phone service in at least half the cases. So they’re happy to have them leave or happy to have them stay.”

AT&T defends the increases by suggesting rates were artificially restrained by rate regulators under the old system, and the new higher prices reflect economic reality and the deregulated marketplace. But AT&T’s rate increases have blown past other service providers in the state. Verizon’s flat rate service only increased 18 percent since deregulation. Independent providers SureWest and Frontier Communications have only raised prices by about six percent.

With these kinds of rate increases, customers like Steve are making hard choices about whether to keep or ditch their landline service. Ironically, AT&T’s argument to decommission traditional landline service is based on the premise customers are abandoning landline service. AT&T advocates moving customers to its deregulated U-verse platform in urban areas and switch rural customers to wireless-only service.

Chong paid a personal price for her erroneous predictions of consumer savings. In December 2009, the Democratically controlled State Senate refused to hold hearings on Chong’s reappointment to the CPUC, ending her term. AT&T and Verizon strongly backed Chong and lobbied hard for her confirmation. AT&T even turned out its notorious “dollar-a-holler” sock puppet brigade of non-profit groups that showered the legislature with letters supporting her reappointment, without bothering to disclose AT&T had made substantial direct or indirect contributions to the groups in the past.

Murray Bass, head of a small nonprofit in Northern California, initially wrote lawmakers saying Chong was a strong voice for low-income seniors. But in an interview, he admitted he’d endorsed her at the suggestion of executives at AT&T, which had given his group money.

“There’s an essential conflict of interest when a regulated — or supposedly regulated — entity is intervening on behalf of a regulator that’s friendly to them,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a group that opposed Chong.

SUPPORTERS OF COMMISSIONER CHONG WITH TIES TO AT&T

 Notes

• 1.  CUDC – The California Utilities Diversity Council is a collaboration between the CPUC , the utility companies and other industry participants  to promote diversity in the utility industry.  AT&T is a gold sponsor of CUDC’s annual convention.
•  2.  CETF – CETF is a private non-profit corporation created by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and funded entirely by AT&T and Verizon.  Commissioner Chong is Chair of the CETF Board of Expert Advisors and its Accessibility Committee.  CPUC President Michael Peevey is Chairman of the CETF Board of Directors. The CETF board is appointed by the CPUC, AT&T and Verizon.

Sources:

• AT&T Foundation IRS form 990
• The Utility Reform Network

Verizon “redacted” hundreds of pages of information about its controversial Voice Link project, including its User’s Guide.

Verizon today lost its appeal to keep company documents about its controversial Voice Link wireless landline replacement away from company critics that allege the company is intentionally undercutting its landline network and redirecting investment towards its more profitable wireless service.

In a 20-page decision published this afternoon, Kathleen Burgess blamed Verizon for hurting its own case with excessive secrecy.

“But for Verizon’s failure to submit documents with fewer redactions, as directed by the Records Access Officer (RAO), it might have satisfied its burden of proof,” that the company would suffer harm if it released proprietary information that could be accessed by competing providers, ruled Burgess.

Burgess took a dim view of Verizon’s attempt to claim blanket confidentiality for its Voice Link project, even including a redaction of Voice Link’s User’s Manual — the same one given to customers subscribing to the service. Burgess noted in response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request from consumer groups, Verizon responded with “13 documents – 330 pages – with blanket redactions except for the page headings and page numbers.”

Verizon needed to meet its burden of proof by “presenting specific, persuasive evidence that disclosure will likely cause it, or another affected enterprise, to suffer a competitive injury.”

“Verizon apparently believes that it is possible to meet the burden of protecting information under FOIL by providing a cogent and persuasive explanation of how a competitor could use the information and why it is likely to lead to harm,” Burgess observed (emphasis ours). “As an initial matter, [Verizon] has not parsed out each of the 13 documents and demonstrated how each, if disclosed, would competitively injure it. Instead, Verizon is attempting to obtain a blanket exemption for all 13 documents by summarily stating that disclosure would enable competitors to obtain, for free, information on processes that the company developed at considerable expense and effort. Verizon has, however, failed to demonstrate, in adequate detail, how the complete disclosure of all 13 documents would result in substantial competitive injury.”

Verizon hurt its own case by “co-mingling” detailed cost information that might otherwise win confidentiality with the Public Service Commission with less proprietary marketing information and even publicly available documents and then redacted all of them, according to Burgess.

As a result, Verizon lost its case:

The Commission recognizes that limiting competitor access to proprietary material is an important policy. Exemptions are to be narrowly construed, however. The entity resisting disclosure bears the burden of proof and, therefore, must demonstrate a particularized and specific justification for denying access to the subject documents. Absent such a showing of competitive injury covering each document that comprises the response, the speculative concerns articulated by Verizon are not enough to sustain the company’s burden of proving that the information should remain protected as trade secret materials.

[…] Under FOIL case law, the burden is on Verizon to demonstrate a particularized and specific justification, supported by evidence, for denying access to the documents at issue and, inasmuch as Verizon has failed to meet its burden, I uphold the RAO’s November 4, 2013 Determination.

Absent a court order or later ruling, full versions of the blacked-out documents may become public two weeks from today.

In Search Of… Savings

The cable industry’s week-long feeding frenzy over consolidating Time Warner Cable out of existence comes with the theory that growing larger guarantees cheaper programming costs from volume discounts and influence. But hang on, says Wall Street analyst firm Sanford C. Bernstein.

This week, senior analyst Todd Juenger released a report, “Will Cable Consolidation Slow Down Affiliate Fee Growth? We Say ‘No,’” that questions the theory the bigger the company, the more leverage available to keep costs down.

Juenger says that few customers are in love with their local cable company, and programmers know it. If another brawl erupts between CBS and a cable operator, the presumption of leverage to quickly resolve the dispute is more hope than reality because customers will readily abandon one provider for another to get what they want.

“Consumers are much more loyal to their favorite TV networks than they are to their distributor,” Juenger says. “Every time a distributor has tried to fight back by dropping the content from one of these [big programming] companies, it has ended badly for the distributor because consumers will switch distributors, not TV networks.”

Programming carriage wars will continue to hurt cable companies as long as there is a satellite or telco-TV competitor ready to sign up disgruntled customers. If a suite of Viacom-owned networks are dropped during a cable fee dispute, the cable operator will save around $2.75 a month per subscriber. But if that subscriber decides to change providers, operators lose as much as $40 in marketing costs paid to attract that subscriber in the first place.

Juenger believes the only way combining cable operators will save on programming fees is when smaller cable operators like Charter get the benefit of big discounts on programming offered to larger, high volume providers like Time Warner Cable.

Juenger adds bringing Comcast in as a buyer gets complicated because if Comcast tries to drop networks, programmers might have leverage by appealing to the federal government with claims Comcast is violating its agreement with the federal government to avoid abuse of market power to strangle competitors.

AT&T this month signed up their 10 millionth customer to U-verse High Speed Internet service, surpassing Verizon FiOS as the nation’s biggest telephone company supplier of broadband, television, and telephone service. Coinciding with that success, AT&T is raising prices for U-verse, despite AT&T’s record earnings from the fiber to the neighborhood service, now accounting for $1 billion a month in revenue.

AT&T is protecting its broadband flank by convincing current DSL customers to switch to higher-speed U-verse broadband as the network upgrade reaches into more homes across AT&T’s service areas. In the last quarter U-verse picked up 655,000 new broadband customers nationwide, many upgraded from traditional DSL. Where AT&T has not invested in U-verse upgrades and cable competition exists, results are not as good. AT&T lost 26,000 DSL customers last quarter, most moving to cable broadband.

“This latest milestone shows how U-verse is helping transform AT&T into a premier IP broadband company,” said Lori Lee, senior executive vice president, AT&T Home Solutions. As of the third quarter of this year, total U-verse high-speed Internet subscribers represented about 60 percent of all wireline broadband subscribers, compared with 43 percent in the year-earlier quarter.

Verizon FiOS, in comparison, has signed up just 5.9 million customers FiOS Internet subscribers on its stalled fiber optic network. Most Verizon broadband customers with no FiOS in their future either stick with DSL service or, increasingly, switch to a cable competitor for faster speeds.

Some of AT&T’s strongest U-verse growth came from its TV package. At least 265,000 cable and satellite cord-cutters looking for a better deal switched to U-verse TV in the last three months, a gain from 198,000 at the same time last year. That’s the second-best quarterly gain ever. A total of 5.3 million AT&T customers subscribe to U-verse TV.

Much of the growth has come from AT&T’s investment in expanding U-verse to new areas. Project Velocity IP is a three-year, $14 billion plan to upgrade AT&T’s wireless and wired broadband networks. AT&T has added almost 2.5 million more homes to its broadband footprint so far this year and hopes to expand broadband availability to reach about 57 million customers by the end of 2015.

Although $14 billion is a significant investment, AT&T has spent considerably more on its shareholders. John Stephens, AT&T’s chief financial officer told Wall Street analysts AT&T has bought back 684 million shares of stock that will save the company more than $1.2 billion in future dividend payouts.  Combined with its dividend payout, AT&T has handed shareholders $18 billion so far this year and more than $40 billion since the beginning of 2012. AT&T expects to spend $20 billion on wireless and wireline network improvements in 2014.

AT&T’s speed upgrades have also not run as smoothly as AT&T claims. Efforts to increase speeds to 45Mbps in 79 markets has had mixed results with a significant number of customers complaining they cannot get qualified for the faster speeds because of infrastructure problems with AT&T’s network. The company still says it is on track to offer 75 and 100Mbps speed tiers in the future and is building a fiber to the home network in Austin to compete with Google.

Many customers who have been with AT&T for more than a year are learning better service does not come for free. AT&T has filed rate increases for its television service beginning Jan. 26, 2014 for customers not on a pricing promotion. The monthly price for the following U-verse TV service plans will increase $3, along with fee hikes for local stations and equipment, bringing AT&T at least $15 million in extra revenue each month:

• U-family to $62;
• U200 to $77;
• U200 Latino to $87;
• U300 to $92;
• U300 Latino to $102;
• U450 to $124;
• and U450 Latino to $134.
• Grandfathered plans also will increase $3: U100 to $64 or $69, depending on when first ordered; and U400 to $119.

• The monthly price of each non-DVR TV receiver will increase from $7 to $;
• Beginning on February 1, 2014, the Broadcast TV Surcharge will increase $1 to $2.99 per month to recover a portion of the amount local broadcasters charge AT&T to carry their channels.

Those customers who have a U-verse TV pricing promotion will continue to receive the promotional benefit until the applicable promotion ends or expires.  Customers are being notified of these changes via bill messaging occurring in November and December and a reminder in January and February 2014.  In addition, customers will be notified of these changes online at www.att.net/uversepricechange and att.com/uversesupport.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT U-verse with GigaPower — Reactions 11-13.mp4[/flv]

AT&T is trying to get ahead of Google by advertising AT&T U-verse with GigaPower, a 1,000Mbps fiber to the home service promised in Austin sometime in the future. (0:30)

News that two major cable operators are contemplating breaking up Time Warner Cable and dividing customers between them has caused stock prices to jump for all three of the companies involved.

CNBC reported Friday that Time Warner Cable approached Comcast earlier this year about a possible friendly takeover under Comcast’s banner to avoid an anticipated leveraged takeover bid by Charter Communications. Top Time Warner Cable executives have repeatedly stressed any offer that left a combined company mired in debt would be disadvantageous to Time Warner Cable shareholders, a clear reference to the type of offer Charter is reportedly preparing. But the executives also stressed they were not ruling out any merger or sale opportunities.

News that there were two potential rivals for Time Warner Cable excited investors, particularly when it was revealed possible suitor Comcast is also separately talking to Charter about a possible joint bid that would split up Time Warner Cable customers while minimizing potential regulatory scrutiny.

The Wall Street Journal reported Charter is nearing completion of a complicated financing arrangement that some analysts expect could include up to $15 billion in debt to finance a buyout of Time Warner Cable. Such deals are not unprecedented. Dr. John Malone’s specialty is leveraged buyouts, a technique he used extensively in the 1980s and 1990s to buy countless smaller cable operators in a quest to build Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) into the nation’s then-biggest cable operator.

In addition to Barclays Bank, Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank — all expected to finance Malone’s bid — Comcast may also inject cash should it team up with Charter’s buyout. Comcast is interested in acquiring new markets without drawing fire from antitrust regulators.

If the two companies do join forces and pull off a deal, Time Warner Cable’s current subscribers will be transitioned to Charter or Comcast within a year. That is what happened in 2006 to former customers of bankrupt Adelphia Cable who eventually became Comcast or Time Warner Cable customers. Analysts predict the two companies would divide up Time Warner Cable territory according to their respective footprints. New York and Texas would likely face a switch to Comcast service, for example, while North Carolina, Ohio, Maine, and Southern California would likely be turned over to Charter.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Comcast Charter consider joint bid for Time Warner Cable 11-22-13.mp4[/flv]

CNBC reports Charter Cable and Comcast might both be interested in a buyout of Time Warner Cable that would dismantle the company and divide subscribers between them. (4:18)

Reportedly financing the next era of cable consolidation.

Both bids are very real possibilities according to Wall Street analysts. Comcast has sought formal guidance on how to deal with the antitrust implications of a controversial merger between the largest and second-largest cable operators in the country. The industry has laid the groundwork for another wave of consolidation by winning its 2009 court challenge of FCC rules limiting the total market share of any single cable operator to 30 percent. Despite that, a Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal would still face intense scrutiny from the Justice Department. Getting the deal past the FCC may be a deal-breaker, admits Craig Moffett from MoffettNathanson.

“The FCC applies a public interest test that would be much more subjective,” Moffett said. “It wouldn’t be a slam dunk by any means. The FCC would be concerned that Comcast would have de facto control over what would be available on television. If a programmer couldn’t cut a deal with Comcast, they wouldn’t exist.”

Roberts

Supporters and opponents of the deal are already lining up. Charter shareholders would likely benefit from a Charter-only buyout so they generally support the deal. Time Warner Cable clearly prefers a deal with Comcast because it can afford a buyout without massive debt financing and deliver shareholder value. Comcast shareholders are also encouraging Comcast to consider s deal with Time Warner Cable. Left out of the equation are Time Warner Cable customers, little more than passive bystanders watching the multi-billion dollar drama.

The personalities involved may also be worth considering, because Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and John Malone have history, notes the Los Angeles Times:

Malone and Roberts first brushed up against each other more than two decades ago. At that time, both Liberty and Comcast were shareholders in Turner Broadcasting, the parent of CNN, TNT, TBS and Cartoon Network. When Time Warner, which was also a shareholder, made a move to buy the entire company,  there was tension because Comcast felt Liberty got a better deal to sell its stake. Roberts grumbled at the time that Liberty was getting “preferential treatment.”

A few years later, it was Malone’s turn to be mad at Roberts. When TCI founder Bob Magness died in 1996, Roberts made a covert attempt to buy his shares, which would have given him control of [TCI]. Malone beat back the effort, but it left a bad taste in his mouth.

“Malone was livid,” wrote Mark Robichaux in his book, “Cable Cowboy: John Malone and the Rise of the Modern Cable Business.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Comcast seeks anti-trust advice over TWC deal 11-22-13.mp4[/flv]

Even cable stock analyst Craig Moffett is somewhat pessimistic a Comcast-TWC merger would have smooth sailing through the FCC’s approval process. Moffett worries Comcast would have too much power over programming content. (3:53)

Ironically, when Malone sold TCI to AT&T, the telephone company would later sell its cable assets to Comcast, run by… and Brian Roberts.

Most of the cable industry agrees that the increasing power of broadcasters, studios, and cable programmers is behind the renewed interest in cable consolidation. The industry believes consolidation provides leverage to block massive rate increases in renewal contracts. If a programmer doesn’t budge, the network could instantly lose tens of millions of potential viewers until a new contract is signed.

Many in the cable industry suspect when Glenn Britt retires as CEO by year’s end, Time Warner Cable’s days are numbered. But any new owner should not expect guaranteed smooth sailing.

“We expect a Comcast-TWC deal would draw intense antitrust/regulatory scrutiny and likely resistance, stoked by raw political pushback from cable critics and possibly rivals who would argue it’s simply a ‘bridge too far’ or ‘unthinkable,’” Stifel telecom analysts Christopher C. King and David Kaut wrote in a recent note to clients. “We believe government approval would be possible, but it would be costly, with serious risk. This would be a brawl.”

Usage Cap Man may soon visit Time Warner Cable customers if either Charter or Comcast becomes the new owner.

While the industry frames consolidation around cable TV programming costs, broadband consumers also face an impact from any demise of Time Warner Cable. To date, Time Warner Cable executives have repeatedly defended the presence of an unlimited use tier for its residential broadband customers. Charter has imposed usage caps and Comcast is studying how to best reimpose them. Either buyer would likely move Time Warner Cable customers to a usage-based billing system that could threaten online video competition.

“Our sense is the DOJ and FCC would have concerns about the market fallout of expanded cable concentration and vertical integration, in a broadband world where cable appears to have the upper hand over wireline telcos in most of the country (i.e., outside of the Verizon FiOS and other fiber-fed areas),” Stifel’s King and Kaut wrote. “We suspect the government would raise objections about the potential for Comcast-TWC bullying of competitors and suppliers, given the extent and linkages of their cable/broadband distribution, programming control, and broadcast ownership.”

Since none of the three providers compete head-on, the loss of “competition” would be minimal. Any Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal would likely include semi-voluntary restrictions like those attached to Comcast’s successful acquisition of NBC-Universal, including short-term bans on discriminating against content providers on its broadband service.

Customers can expect a welcome letter from Comcast and/or Charter Cable as early as spring of next year if Time Warner Cable accepts one of the deals.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast and Charter Reportedly Weighing Bid for TWC 11-22-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports if Comcast helps finance a deal between Charter and Time Warner Cable, Comcast would likely grab Time Warner Cable systems in New York for itself. (2:26)