[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Sprint Liquidity Doesnt Fix Company 9-26-12.mp4[/flv]

Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett is back on Bloomberg News dismissing Sprint’s business strategy and lamenting the cost of subsidizing Apple’s iPhone 5 for existing customers who don’t really ‘need’ a new phone. Moffett sees all downsides for America’s third largest carrier (in May he gave the company a 50-50 shot of landing in bankruptcy court), trying to compete against a virtual duopoly successfully maintained by AT&T and Verizon. He thinks iPhone subsidies and purchase guarantees cost Sprint too much, their 4G LTE network is too little, too late (and will never perform as well as larger competitors who have lower frequency spectrum available for better reception), and their stock is overvalued. Wall Street routinely brings out analysts cheerleading additional mergers and acquisitions for further consolidation in the wireless market. By cutting down Sprint, Wall Street continues to emphasize it has already picked winners (AT&T and Verizon) and losers (Sprint, T-Mobile, everyone else).  (6 minutes)

The Federal Communications Commission today approved a request from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the chief cable industry lobbying group, that will allow cable operators to acquire competing phone companies under certain circumstances, which the Commission says will increase competition.

“Acquisitions of competitive [phone companies] by cable operators often will strengthen facilities-based competition for telecommunications services, which will in turn provide customers with better service and functionality and lower prices,” the Commission ruled.

The FCC theorizes that when a community is served by two (or more) telephone companies, there will be no degradation in competition if the local cable operator acquires one of them. The Commission suspects most cable operators seek out competing phone companies that target business customers for commercial telephone service. The FCC believes that such acquisitions will enhance the cable company’s competing phone service. That, in turn, will theoretically force the dominant phone company to lower its prices to compete with a strengthened cable competitor.

But officials from Montgomery County, Maryland thought some of the FCC’s logic was short-sighted, noting cable companies have been substantially boosting investments in commercial services on their own, without buying the competition. Montgomery County officials worry the unintended consequence of fewer players in the market could be higher prices for residential customers:

“With this level of growth in commercial services revenues by cable companies, any new cable-[telco] merger might reduce competition by merging two competitors rather than “injecting” competition in a local marketplace as the [NCTA] claims,” the county’s legal team wrote. “And the impact on the local residential marketplace of any cable-[telco] merger can only serve to lessen competition for residential customers as the cable companies already are dominant wireline providers in their local residential markets. Thus, a declaratory order will not necessarily promote competitive market conditions at all, and could in fact facilitate a substantial decrease in competition.”

The FCC’s UHF TV Diet Plan: Slimming Down the Free TV Dial to Make Room for Expensive Wireless Broadband

By the end of this month, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on proposed rules governing a planned 2014 auction that will allow over the air TV stations to surrender their “free TV” channels in return for money from the nation’s wireless phone companies looking for more mobile broadband spectrum.

The Commission is considering reallocating UHF TV channels 31-51 for mobile data, compacting the nation’s over the air TV stations onto VHF channels 2-13 and UHF channels 14-30. But the FCC also expects many stations, particularly smaller independent or specialty channels in large cities, will be happier surrendering their broadcast TV licenses in return for cash compensation.

If the five FCC commissioners approve the plan, it will be the largest spectrum auction since 2008, and could earn the U.S. treasury billions, tempered by payouts to television stations agreeing to shut down their transmitters, and to compensate remaining stations for the cost of moving operations to a new channel number, when necessary.

“To ensure ongoing innovation in mobile broadband, we must pursue several strategies vigorously: freeing up more spectrum for both licensed use and for unlicensed services like Wi-Fi; driving faster speeds, greater capacity, and ubiquitous mobile Internet coverage; and taking additional steps to ensure that our invisible infrastructure for mobile innovation can meet the needs of the 21st century,” the agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, said in a statement.

The controversial auction would compensate broadcasters even before the FCC knows exactly how much spectrum it will eventually have available to auction to wireless carriers. Nobody is sure how many stations will ultimately choose to abandon their over-the-air audiences, but an FCC report predicts the largest number of station losses would be in large metropolitan areas, which often have more than a dozen stations devoted to infomercials/home shopping, ethnic shows, religious programming, and independent network affiliates. The FCC suspects some of these lower-rated stations will see the money as a strong incentive to surrender their broadcast licenses.

Genachowski

The FCC considered several spectrum-saving proposals that would free up as much channel space as possible to resell to wireless operators. One proposal would have full power broadcast outlets switch to low-powered cellular-style transmitter networks to reduce the potential interference on an increasingly crowded dial. But that proved unpopular and expensive for broadcasters. Instead, the FCC predicts stations could effectively share channels and still retain HD service. For example, a local CBS station could agree to surrender its license and broadcast instead over the transmitting facilities of the local NBC station, splitting one station’s allocated channel bandwidth in half. Other stations will be relocated on the dial or moved to different transmitter sites to reduce potential interference from stations in nearby cities.

Stations that do not require an HD service could share space with those serving several standard definition channels to the public. These are typically public, educational, or ethnic-oriented broadcasters.

As a consequence, the FCC says many stations might have to give up on their “multicast” standard definition secondary services — the 24 hour local weather or news channel, Me-TV, This TV, Retro TV, Antenna TV, and Bounce, for example, because there would be insufficient bandwidth when two services sharing one channel are transmitting in HD.

The FCC does not believe stations would mind too much, quoting from RBR/TVBR:

“So far, nobody’s been able to figure out what can go on a digital side channel and pay for its own presence there. Mostly it’s been used as a revenue-neutral or money-losing place to put 24-hour weather… Nobody watches these things in strong enough numbers to generate any advertising revenue.”

But the FCC did recognize that certain viewers in fringe reception zones could experience a loss of service — one that could be addressed by subsidizing improved antennas for homeowners or requiring cable or satellite operators to develop a “lifeline” television service consisting of local broadcasters, either for free or at a minimal monthly cost.

Some consumer groups worry that any forthcoming spectrum auction would be dominated by Verizon Wireless and AT&T — the nation’s two largest carriers, who could easily outbid smaller cell phone companies also clamoring for spectrum. During the last auction in 2008, which netted nearly $20 billion, Verizon Wireless walked away with the bulk of the spectrum on offer. Without auction rules setting aside significant spectrum for smaller competitors, both dominant carriers could lock up one of the last spectrum auctions for the next 5-10 years, cementing their de facto duopoly.

The FCC is considering reworking its market concentration rules before the bidding begins, which could constrain Verizon and AT&T from bidding and winning the bulk of available frequencies in the cities where they dominate.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg FCC Chair on Spectrum Auctions 9-10-12.flv[/flv]

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski talks about rising demand for mobile broadband access and the outlook for spectrum auctions to free up more airwaves. He speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (7 minutes)

CenturyLink is having a tough time competing against Tacoma, Wash.-based Click! Network, so the phone company hired third party vendors who are spreading lies about its community-owned competitor.

Click!, a division of Tacoma Power, recently upgraded its network to begin selling 100Mbps broadband to Tacoma residents. That proved a problem to CenturyLink’s outsourced sales force who cannot begin to offer those kinds of speeds to Tacoma residents over CenturyLink’s copper-wire facilities. So when you can’t compete, the next best thing is to lie.

The News Tribune reports CenturyLink’s door-to-door sales force is misinforming current Click! customers the service is shutting down and offering to transfer their service to CenturyLink.

“Customers have been told that Click! Cable TV is going out of business in the next couple of months,” said Tenzin Gyaltsen, Click! Network general manager. “That is not true. Click! Cable TV is still in business, offering competitive pricing – and will continue to do so for many years to come.”

A complaint will be filed with the Office of the State Attorney General against CenturyLink accusing them of an apparent violation of state law – RCW 19.86.020 – which states, “Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”

“It’s a vendor we’re using,” Meg Andrews from CenturyLink admitted. “When we were made aware of the situation the vendor was told it is not in our best interest. It’s not really in our voice, or tone. It’s not a good thing for us. We’ve never had this type of experience before.”

Although the salespeople are not CenturyLink employees, the phone company hired the firm that employs them.

Tacoma residents enjoy the competition. Prices are lower than in nearby Seattle, and residents can choose from CenturyLink, Comcast, or one of three independent ISPs that provide service over the Click! Network.

One Tacoma resident told Community Broadband Networks the competition can’t afford to charge the usual prices other Washington residents pay:

I have Comcast in Tacoma and all I know is since there is competition down here Comcast is about half the cost as it is in Seattle. They give you a rate good for a year. When your year is up you call up and just say Click! and bam back down you go. A friend in Seattle once called Comcast with both of our bills with similar service and mentioned my price and they said I must live in Tacoma and they wouldn’t match the price.

The city asks anyone who hears a CenturyLink sales representative misrepresent Click! call 253-502-8900 to report it.

Pricing for broadband on Tacoma’s Click! Network

T-Mobile is proving once again that as an independent cell phone provider, it is prepared to be a scrappy competitor for your wireless dollar. America’s fourth largest cell phone company today announced it was getting into an emerging “unlimited data” war with its larger competitor Sprint and smaller contender MetroPCS, announcing it will bring back a truly unlimited data plan for its customers.

“We want to double-down on worry-free (marketing),” said Harry Thomas, T-Mobile’s director of marketing. “We want to eliminate the situation of ‘Do I want to stream Netflix for kids or worry about data overage?’ ”

Starting Sept. 5, T-Mobile’s Unlimited Nationwide 4G Data plan will be available for $20 per month when added to a Value voice and text plan or $30 per month when added to a Classic voice and text plan. For example, a single line Value plan with unlimited talk and text combined with unlimited nationwide 4G data will cost $69.99 or a single line Classic plan with unlimited talk, unlimited text and unlimited nationwide 4G data will cost $89.99.  The plan cannot be combined with Smartphone Mobile Hotspot/tethering. Customers who want to share their phone’s data service with other devices will have to choose between a 5GB or 10GB add-on option instead.

TmoNews obtained this screen shot courtesy of an anonymous employee at T-Mobile USA.

T-Mobile says their new unlimited 4G data plan comes without tricks or traps, promising no data caps, speed limits/throttles or bill shock from overlimit fees. But like every provider, T-Mobile will have a provision in its terms of use that allows it to cut the data usage party short in cases of exceptionally extraordinary usage, but the company says it will enforce that only in the most extreme cases.

“We’re big believers in customer-driven innovation, and our Unlimited Nationwide 4G Data plan is the answer to customers who are frustrated by the cost, complexity and congested networks of our competitors,” said Kevin McLaughlin, vice president, marketing, T-Mobile USA.  “Consumers want the freedom of unlimited 4G data. Our bold move to be the only wireless carrier to offer an Unlimited Nationwide 4G Data plan reinforces our value leadership and capitalizes on the strength of our nationwide 4G network.”

T-Mobile doesn’t consider Sprint’s “truly unlimited” plan in the same class, because it currently operates on a much slower “4G” standard called WiMAX, which Sprint is moving rapidly away from. Many T-Mobile customers use the company’s 4G-like HSPA+ network for data, which offers respectable speeds if your phone supports the standard (the Apple iPhone, for example, does not.) T-Mobile is moving forward on its own upgrade to 4G LTE starting in 2013.

T-Mobile’s announcement comes one day after MetroPCS, a regional carrier, announced its own limited-time promotion offering unlimited talk, text, and data for $55 a month (up to three additional lines can be added for $50 a month each). Once a customer signs up for the unlimited service promotion, they can keep it as long as they remain a customer.

The two attention to unlimited data plans from the three carriers are in marked contrast to AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which have both moved to curb unlimited use plans — switching customers to usage allowances and overlimit fees. Both companies, considerably larger than any of their competitors, claim unlimited data is impossible to offer because of wireless spectrum shortages and the expense of continually upgrading networks to meet demand.

But this does not seem to pose any problem for Sprint, T-Mobile, or MetroPCS.

Wall Street believes the new interest in unlimited data is a marketing move to differentiate the smaller companies from the two dominant providers.

Wells Fargo analyst Jennifer Fritzsche wrote in a research note to her investor clients that T-Mobile is strategically re-positioning itself in the market to attract new customers.

“We believe T-Mobile felt the need to make some change in order to attract attention,” wrote Fritzsche.

Other analysts believe T-Mobile needed a “game-changing” marketing move to help it recover from its ongoing losses of contract customers. The company has been losing just over 500,000 “branded” contract customers every quarter for the last year.

The pricing and service changes may require Sprint to revisit its current rates.

Sprint’s $109.99 Simply Everything plan offers unlimited data, text, and voice — and runs $20 higher per month than T-Mobile’s forthcoming offer, $55 more than MetroPCS.