Consumer Reports has unveiled its second annual Naughty & Nice Holiday List, a compilation of companies who deliver more than they promise, or stick their customers with a lump of customer service coal.

Among telecommunications providers, the consumer magazine is slamming Verizon Wireless for its gouge-you-now, tell-you-about-it-later “early warning system” that is supposed to notify customers before they exceed their arbitrary data plan limits.  Verizon can’t let a little customer service get in the way of making a ton of money on extortionist overlimit fees for customers who dare to use too much:

The company tells the Federal Communications Commission that it voluntarily provides ample warning to customers who seem about to exceed their monthly allotment of minutes, messages, or data, so a mandatory rule that would make it issue such alerts isn’t necessary. But we caught Verizon doing — and admitting to — something else. Two staffers who are Verizon customers recently were notified only after they went over their allotment, at which time the company tried to upsell them to a pricier plan. When contacted by our reporter, a company spokesman acknowledged that its voluntary alert system isn’t always reliable. But it now looks like better protection from “bill shock” is on its way. Under a mid-October deal with the FCC, members of CTIA – The Wireless Association, a trade group representing 97 percent of wireless carriers, agreed to begin issuing alerts of impending overages. Full implementation of the alert system could take until April 2013.

That represents at least a year-long Money Party for Big Red, which began enforcing its idea of an “appropriate amount” of usage earlier this year.  Green, silver and gold are not just for the holidays at VZW.

SiriusXM‘s customer service don’t-care-bears also come in for a spanking. On top of hold times that can rival a typical workday, customers who don’t trust the satellite radio company with their credit card number pay a price for their wariness – a $2 monthly bill fee:

If a subscriber wants to receive a bill in the mail and pay by check (the old-fashioned way), he or she will get socked with a $2 surcharge every month. The penalty can be avoided if the customer gives Sirius credit-card information and elects to be billed electronically on a recurring basis.

While AT&T breathes a sigh of relief they are not on the naughty list this year, Cablevision is pleasantly surprised to find themselves with a nice stocking stuffer courtesy of CR.

Telecom companies are a frequent target of consumer displeasure, but this industry giant offers more to subscribers who sign up for its Optimum Triple Play – Internet, phone, and TV service – free movie tickets on Tuesdays and deeply discounted tickets on other days. Customers who sign up for Cablevision’s Optimum Rewards program (it’s free) also get perks like discounted popcorn and soda at participating theaters.

Considering popcorn and soda purchases at most theaters now warrant an accompanying easy financing credit application, that’s no snowjob.

[flv width=”476″ height=”288″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Consumer Reports American Apparel is naughty American Express is nice in latest Consumer Reports list 11-21-11.flv[/flv]

Watch Consumer Reports’ 2011 Naughty & Nice Holiday List of the good, bad, indifferent, and just plain lousy companies that want a piece of your holiday action.  (2 minutes)

Phillip 'Not Picking Up What Moffett Puts Down' Dampier

Tech, business, and even a few mainstream media outlets have been booking Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett as an independent observer of all-things-broadband, without revealing he literally has a vested interest in boosting profits for the telecommunications industry.

The latest of Moffett’s heavily-slanted ideas appeared over the weekend on ZDNet, where Larry Dignan’s Between the Lines column used one of Bernstein’s “research notes” to provoke readers into a discussion about Internet Overcharging:

Metered broadband access is inevitable and may even be good for adoption of speedy Internet access.

That’s the argument from Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note. Moffett sets the scene:

• The FCC’s open Internet push allows for metered broadband.
• AT&T has introduced usage caps across its wireline business. DSL customers are limited to 150 GB of monthly consumption. U-Verse subscribers get 250 GB, or the same as Comcast. Users will be charged an extra $10 a month if they exceed the cap and it’s $10 per 50 GB after that.
• AT&T has already introduced tiered wireless plans.
• Time Warner Cable has a few usage based pricing pilots underway.

Moffett

Nowhere in Dignan’s column does he disclose Moffett is a paid Wall Street analyst working for the interests of investor clients of Sanford Bernstein who want to maximize the value of their telecommunications stocks.  Moffett’s long history of statements about industry pricing reflect those interests, which are often very different from those of most consumers.  Moffett’s world view: anything that brings in more revenue is good for shareholders (rate hikes, metered billing), anything that drives down shareholder value is not (infrastructure upgrades, pricing cuts, customer defections).

On that basis, Moffett has been called a “cable stock fluffer” by our friends at Broadband Reports for his relentlessly pro-cable industry commentary, even while ridiculing transformational projects like Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network for being “too expensive” and not delivering enough return on shareholder investment.  Consumer Reports delivers the opposite view: high marks for Verizon FiOS, mediocre to lousy marks for most of the nation’s cable operators.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with Moffett doing his job on behalf of his paying clients, using his views outside of that context — particularly when those interests go undisclosed — is journalistic malpractice.

Oh, and Time Warner Cable abandoned their usage-based pricing pilots in 2009 after customers declared war on the cable company.  Those darn customers, ruining the industry’s plans!

The rest of Moffett’s research note doesn’t get much better in the “true facts”-department:

The goal of moving to usage based pricing is not to undermine competition from Netflix (or anyone else… although it certainly wouldn’t be good news for Internet video). And it is most decidedly not to simply “raise prices for broadband” as Public Knowledge or New America would have it (although it might well do precisely that, too). Instead, it is nothing less than to re-align the entire business model of today’s infrastructure providers with the next generation of communications… so that broadband providers might stop fighting against the tide and embrace it instead.

With usage based pricing, broadband providers, and Cable operators in particular, can create an “iso-profit” curve, where the amount they make from a physical connection is about the same whether someone uses that connection for linear video or, alternatively, web video. The goal is not to stifle competition, but instead to create indifference not just to the end state of video by-pass, but indeed for all points along the way. The adoption of usage based pricing would be transformational to the debate for Cable operators, inasmuch as it would essentially indemnify them against all potential outcomes.

Moffett represents his interests, not yours.

Yet some of Moffett’s earlier statements would seem to argue with himself.

For instance, back in March Moffett was making plenty of noise about AT&T’s caps precisely targeting video providers like Netflix:

Moffett believes usage caps have everything to do with stopping the torrent of online video.  He notes AT&T’s caps are set high enough to target AT&T customers who use their connections to watch a considerable amount of video programming online.

“Only video can drive that kind of usage,” Moffett writes.

Moffett has repeatedly predicted any challenge to pay television models from online video will be met with pricing plans that eliminate or reduce the threat:

“[I]f consumption patterns change such that web video begins to substitute for linear video, then the terrestrial broadband operators will simply adopt pricing plans that preserve the economics of their physical infrastructure,” Moffett said. “Of course, any move to preserve their own economics has far-ranging implications. Any move towards usage-based pricing doesn’t just affect the returns of the operators, it also affects the demand of end users (the ‘feedback loop’).”

The only thing usage-based pricing indemnifies is the industry’s confrontation with revenue-eroding cable-TV cord-cutting.  And Moffett knows this, although he would probably give rave reviews to bringing similar usage-based-billing to cable television packages, which would charge you for every show you watched on top of your monthly bill.

These pricing models, already firmly rooted in Canada, have done nothing to bring the “next generation of communications” to our neighbors to the north.  Indeed, Canada’s ranking in broadband continues its decline as large cable and phone companies pocket the profits instead of committing to wholesale upgrades of their networks to deliver the kind of service increasingly common in Europe and Asia.

But the real laugh out loud moment comes last: Moffett’s prediction that AT&T’s usage pricing will increase broadband adoption.  Perhaps that’s true if you prefer telecommunications companies abuse you, but as we’ve documented over the past three years, these pricing schemes never save anyone money — they just increase the price of your service while decreasing the value of it.

Consumer Reports underlines the point: America's worst cell phone company promises America better things by merging with America's second-worst cell phone company. Is this a good deal for America or just for AT&T and T-Mobile?

This morning’s announced deal of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is what antitrust rules were made to prevent.  This bold merger would not have even been attempted had the two companies believed they could not get it past supine regulators and members of Congress who receive substantial contributions from AT&T.

Ordinary consumers can see right through AT&T’s business plans, so why can’t our regulators and policymakers?  In a word, money.

The FCC’s own National Broadband Plan delivers clear warnings that the growing concentration in the wireless industry will hamper better broadband in the United States, not enhance it.  Reduced consumer choice and competition takes the pressure off carriers to innovate, expand, and keep wireless costs under control.

Reducing the number of players on the field delivers countless benefits to carriers and their shareholders.  But for consumers, there is nothing but a few promised spoonfuls of sugar to help the industry’s agenda go down — with vague promises of better rural service, faster wireless data, and new handsets.

In a truly-competitive marketplace, Washington regulators need not exact promises of better service from mega-sized carriers: the much-vaunted “free market” would deliver them naturally, as competitors invest and innovate to succeed.  But that kind of market is increasingly disappearing with every merger.

Nowadays, officials at the FCC and Justice Department are willing to accept deals if they promise some token bone-throwing, at least until the company lobbyists inevitably manage to get those conditions discarded during the next round of deregulation — cutting away rules that “tie the hands” of companies picking your pockets.

Money makes the impossible very possible, and AT&T intends to spend plenty to earn plenty more down the road.  Let’s review how the game will be played, and what you can do to stop it.

The “Free Market” Crowd Sells Out

Randolph May is willing to sell robust competition down the river if it means he can get 4G network access faster.

When the chorus of capitalism capitulates on the most important formula for success in a deregulated marketplace — robust competition on a level-playing field, we know there is a problem.  Take Randolph May.  He works for the free market think tank Free State Foundation.  Watch what happens when even the most ardent supporter of ‘letting the marketplace sort things out’ twists and turns around admitting America is facing a future duopoly in wireless:

“In an ‘idealized’ marketplace, the more competitors the better. But the telecom marketplace is not an idealized market. It is one that requires huge ongoing capital investments to build broadband networks that deliver ever more bandwidth for the ever more bandwidth-intensive, innovative services consumers are demanding,” he says.  “My preliminary sense is that the benefits from the proposed merger, with the promise of enhanced 4G network capabilities implemented more quickly than otherwise would be the case, outweigh the costs. Even after the merger, the wireless market should remain effectively competitive with the companies that remain.”

That’s a remarkable admission for someone who normally argues that marketplace fundamentals are more important than individual players.

May is willing to sell a robust competitive marketplace down the river in return for 4G — a standard AT&T is hurrying to bring to its customers threatening to depart for better service elsewhere.  With this deal, disgruntled customers will have one fewer choice to turn to for service.

Make no mistake: a free, unregulated wireless marketplace requires more than two national carriers and a much-smaller third (Sprint) to deliver real competition.

The Dollar-A-Holler Phoney Baloney Astroturf Groups

AT&T will waste no time trotting out comments from non-profit groups essentially on their payroll who will peddle filings with regulators promoting AT&T’s business agenda in return for substantial sized donation checks to their causes.  The usual suspects, which include groups serving minority communities, will tout the “wonderful things” the deal will bring to their constituencies.

Already out this morning is this curious remark picked up by Broadcasting & Cable from Debra Berlyn, who claims to represent consumers as part of a group called the Consumer Awareness Project:

Beryln's consumer group has a few problems: It's not a group, it doesn't represent consumers, and she is an industry consultant.

“Wireless acquisitions over the course of the past decade have not led to price increases for consumers and, in fact, the statistics show that prices have declined during this period. While some consumer voices have focused on the loss of a wireless competitor in relation to AT&T’s recently announced plans to acquire T-Mobile USA, the news for consumers should be seen in another light with a focus on the benefits that this merger can bring to consumers across the U.S.”

Perhaps the first goal of any group trying to make consumers aware of anything is to actually have a website associated with your group.  The “Consumer Awareness Project” forgot this important first step, but we eventually found the “group” using a re-purposed web address, “consumerprivacyawareness.org,” and note they have only recently become significantly active on this issue, now peddling AT&T’s agenda with gobbledygook.

When Berlyn isn’t pounding out prose to benefit AT&T, she is making guest appearances in Comcast’s corporate blog or being a favorite source of industry-connected groups like the nation’s largest broadband astroturf effort, Broadband for America.

In fact, after some digging, one learns there are no actual consumers involved with the “Consumer Awareness Project.”  The entire affair is actually a project of a Washington, D.C., lobbying-consultancy firm — Consumer Policy Solutions, which counts among its services:

• Federal advocacy: Legislative and regulatory advocacy work before Congress, federal agencies and the administration.
• State and local advocacy: Policy development and implementation and grassroots mobilization.

That is the very definition of interest group “astroturf.”  But my favorite section of this company’s website is the promise paying clients will get Berlyn’s experience “in communicating complex language and issues into easily understandable, applicable messages for consumers.”

Such as: AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile is good for consumers, even if it raises prices and reduces competition.

I’m sold.

The Cowardly Lion & A Myopic Justice Department

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's cowardly cave-ins set the stage for AT&T's bold merger move, believing they have government oversight under their control.

The first hurdle this deal will need to overcome is among Washington regulators, most of whom are either way over their heads understanding the implications of super-sized mergers like this or are simply terrified of going out on a limb with a multi-billion dollar company that can create headaches for your agency in Congress.

AT&T will sell this deal within a very limited context of the deal itself, and urge regulators to ignore “emotional” issues about the increasingly concentrated wireless marketplace.  Verizon did much the same with its acquisition of Alltel — urging regulators to ignore the fact they were removing a player in the market and focus instead on the benefits Verizon’s size and scope could bring to existing Alltel customers.  Of course, in many areas Alltel served, customers were free to do that themselves simply by signing up for Verizon service.

Dan Frommer, a senior staff writer at Business Insider, delivers a TripTik outlining AT&T’s roadmap to deal approval:

“AT&T believes its experience with regulatory review has given it a good picture of what’s realistic and what isn’t from an approval standpoint, and believes it can frame the deal in a way that won’t be rejected,” he writes.  “AT&T says the Feds are looking at “the facts” — hinting that they aren’t acting based on emotions or politics. Though, no doubt, there will be plenty of jockeying in the press and among lobbyists from those on both sides of the deal.”

But Frommer wades in too deep and drowns his credibility claiming the combination of some of the largest wireless carriers in the country still leave plenty of competitors.  Besides Verizon, there is just a single national player of consequence remaining – Sprint.  MetroPCS and Cricket deliver service in urban areas in selected cities. US Cellular, Cellular South, and several others deliver service to an even smaller number of communities, entirely dependent on large carriers for roaming coverage.

The Justice Department’s typical solution to antitrust concerns is to force limited concessions like divestiture of assets in particularly concentrated markets.  In most cases, companies agree because those assets are often redundant and would be sold anyway, or cover such a limited area as to be inconsequential to the greater deal.  Former Alltel customers found themselves traded first to Verizon and then divested away to AT&T.

Most of the customers divested away from T-Mobile’s future with AT&T will likely end up switched to Verizon, hardly a success story for increased competition.

FCC lawyers will likely review this transaction with a narrow scope, too.  Instead of contemplating the implications of the inevitable duopoly that could result, the FCC will likely find itself negotiating over individual details of the deal without considering an outright rejection of it.

AT&T admits they are on a mission to monetize data usage.

At the FCC, Julius Genachowski’s performance as a regulator has been nothing short of a disaster, pleasing almost nobody in the process.  His “cowardly lion” approach to regulation has delivered rhetoric without substance and a whole lot of broken promises.  Genachowski has proven to be unable to stand up to the companies he is tasked with regulating.  With two Republican commissioners likely to favor the deal and Michael Copps almost certainly in opposition, it will be up to Julius Genachowski and Mignon Clyburn to vote this deal up or down.

But regulators are also responsive to Congressional pressure and dramatic backlash by consumers, such as what happened just a few years ago when big media companies lobbied to relax media ownership rules.  When consumers (and voters) revolt, regulators will change their tune… and fast.

What You Can Do

Consumers can make a difference in what comes next for T-Mobile and AT&T.  The first step is to make this an issue with your member of Congress and two senators.  Let them know you have profound concerns about another huge wireless merger.

There is simply no tangible benefit that can outweigh the loss of another important competitor in the American wireless marketplace.

AT&T’s bottom-rated service will not become any better acquiring the second-to-last rated service.  The company must invest in its network to compete, not simply pick off competitors to save money.  The loss of T-Mobile would mean only three national carriers, and it is highly unlikely Sprint would be able to withstand pressures on Wall Street to merge themselves away, probably to Verizon.

Tell your elected officials the AT&T/T-Mobile deal is a consumer nightmare and should not be approved under any circumstances.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Glenchur Says Regulatory Risk Substantial for ATT 3-21-11.mp4[/flv]

The always optimistic Bloomberg News says AT&T’s deal could still get past regulators, but there is a substantial risk as well.  Consumers can help make that risk unsustainable by telling the Obama Administration and Congress better broadband does not come from a duopoly, no matter how well-intentioned.  (4 minutes)

Some of America’s largest media companies are starting to get nervous over reported stipulations Comcast and NBC-Universal must meet in order to win FCC approval of their merger deal.

The Wall Street Journal reports ‘all-lobbyists-on-deck’ as companies fear collateral damage to their own nascent online video businesses.

At issue is the FCC-proposed condition that would require Comcast to offer NBC programming to any online video service that has reached a similar deal for content from at least one of NBC’s competitors, such as Walt Disney Co. or News Corp.

That could create a highly competitive online video marketplace, with open access to video programming — content many companies want to tightly control.

Last week, lobbyists from Disney, News Corp., and Time Warner pelted the FCC with filings fearing Comcast-NBC deal stipulations could also impact their businesses, potentially risking exclusivity deals with firms like Netflix or Apple.  At the worst, such rules could permit the development of virtual ‘online cable systems,’ delivering hundreds of hours of programming daily — more than enough to potentially invite customers to turn away from traditional cable-TV or satellite packages.

Perish the thought, suggest some Wall Street analysts who are prepared to downgrade companies that cannot maximize revenue from a controlled online video marketplace.

The three companies, among others, have suggested language that limits any stipulations exclusively to the Comcast-NBC deal, or changing the terms to impact their own operations less.

Public interest groups continue to press their views that the proposed deal delivers nothing to consumers but higher bills and fewer programming choices.

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, joined with more than two dozen public interest groups urging a more careful review of the deal:

“We believe that a merger of this size and scope will have a devastating effect on the media marketplace,” a letter to President Barack Obama and Congress says. “It will result in less competition, higher consumer costs and fewer content choices. It also will give one company unprecedented control over innovative new media that offer news, information, entertainment and cultural programming through emerging technologies.”

Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union, said this proposed merger could have major consequences for consumers: “This merger would combine a major television network and film studio with the nation’s largest cable company and residential broadband provider, which could be a recipe for disaster. This merged giant has great potential to lead to higher cable and broadband rates for consumers, less competition in online video, and less diversity among the programming choices for viewers. There are no clear benefits to consumers from this merger.”

Comcast has agreed to several stipulations that are supposed to protect consumers.  Among them, a three-year requirement Comcast provide standalone Internet service to consumers for $49.95 a month.  But the deal says nothing about Comcast’s Internet Overcharging scheme — an arbitrary usage cap on their broadband service.

Comcast would also agree to adhere to Net Neutrality rules (as defined by the FCC) for up to seven years.  Since those rules are closely aligned to what Comcast volunteered to follow earlier, there was little reservation agreeing to them going forward.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Deal May Hang on Showing Rivals Online Video 12-23-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News’ Todd Shields explains the proposed conditions the FCC seeks to impose on the Comcast-NBC merger deal.  (12/23/2010 — 4 minutes)

In the financially difficult world of landline service, there has been one bright spot for Verizon — its state-of-the-art fiber optic service FiOS.  The cost of replacing obsolete copper phone with 21st century fiber optics has proved to be an expensive, but successful endeavor, at least in the eyes of customers.  Hated by Wall Street for its costs but loved by those who enjoy the service, FiOS has successfully proven traditional phone companies can earn money by providing the kinds of services consumers want, just so long as investors are willing to hang in there while the investment pays off over time.  But many investors aren’t.

Some of Verizon’s critics in the investment community complain the company is n0t earning enough from FiOS — in fact, for some critics who didn’t want Verizon spending money on a fiber-to-the-home network in the first place, financial returns provide the evidence used to claim they were right all along.

Despite the naysayers, revenue for Verizon FiOS is up by almost one-third each year, with average revenue per user now reaching $145 a month.  That’s well above the money Verizon earns on its legacy copper network phone customers keep leaving, especially outside of major cities where DSL service is spotty.  There is plenty of room for Verizon FiOS to grow in the limited communities it reaches.  Unfortunately, Verizon has stopped expanding its FiOS network to new communities, in part from pressure from investors who want to see cost cutting from the telecommunications giant.

Despite the positive reviews (subscription required) FiOS earns from consumer publications like Consumer Reports, Verizon slashed marketing and promotion expenses, resulting in second-quarter net additions for FiOS TV coming in at 174,000, compared with 300,000 a year earlier.

With Verizon now deploying service to communities on a reduced schedule, the results have been underwhelming according to the Wall Street Journal:

Verizon Communications may want to tweak the ad slogan for its TV and ultrafast Internet service to “This is FIOS. This is pretty small.”

Not catchy, but it would be more accurate than the current “This is Big” line.

[…]It eventually became clear that Verizon had slowed the time frame of the buildup, originally scheduled to be mostly done this year. Instead, it now expects to meet its target of passing 18 million homes with the network by 2012.

The slower timetable allows Verizon to trim capital spending this year. The problem is that FiOS’s expansion could stall with a less aggressive approach to growth. Already, Verizon has retreated from its target of adding one million subscribers a year, in favor of boosting penetration to 40% of homes passed. At June 30, its 3.2 million TV subscribers was about 20% of homes passed.

[…]And that can only reinforce questions about long-term returns on the $23 billion FIOS investment.

Evidence that Verizon is looking for more customers in its existing FiOS markets can be found in the news the company dropped its contract commitment for new customers.  The term contracts may have held some potential customers back out of fear of a lengthy term commitment with a $360 early cancellation fee.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon FiOS goes contract free ad.flv[/flv]

Verizon started running this ad several weeks ago touting its new “no contract” FiOS service.  (15 seconds)

But a change in strategy isn’t enough for investors who demand immediate results through further cost cutting measures.

In Verizon’s second quarter earnings reports, company executives speak to this perception, proudly noting they have slashed costs through job-cutting and reduced spending on infrastructure and services.  Some of those services include DSL expansion for rural Verizon customers, many who are now left on hold waiting for broadband from Verizon indefinitely.

In many states, Verizon’s DSL expansion was incremental at best, with the company issuing press releases touting new service for literally hundreds of potential customers.

Verizon’s traditional landline business continues to lose customers year after year, and is abandoning millions of others through sell-off deals with companies like Frontier Communications.  Light Reading notes Verizon eliminated 11,000 jobs in its Mid-Atlantic and Eastern regions through early retirement incentive programs, an idea soon to spread to other regions, particularly California and Texas in the coming months.  This kind of cost cutting saves cash and allows companies to report positive financial results in quarterly reports.

According to John Killian, executive vice president and CFO of Verizon, the job cuts are just getting started.  As Verizon further alienates its non-FiOS landline customers who can find better service and lower prices elsewhere, the company expects “further force reductions” in the coming months.  Verizon is also slashing costs by selling off real estate, consolidating operations and vacating buildings.

The impact can become a vicious circle of deteriorating service, customer defections, and additional cost cutting, which starts the circle all over again.  In West Virginia, deteriorating Verizon phone lines reached the point of serious service outages whenever major storms hit the state.  Then Verizon simply sold off its network in West Virginia.  Those customers are now served by Frontier Communications.

Verizon previously declared the era of the landline dead, and is now seeking to prove its point, even as it demonstrates it can make money by spending money on FiOS, if only investors would give them the chance.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Behind the scenes at Verizon Fios 3-15-10.flv[/flv]

CNN took a behind the scenes tour of Verizon’s FiOS network in New York City, from the central offices to individual apartments.  (4 minutes)