Now what: AT&T Next and Verizon Edge

Wireless carriers know that the average relationship between a smartphone and its owner is becoming shorter every day. Sometimes the relationship is over when a customer drops or loses their phone and needs a replacement. Others simply covet the next best thing. When a large enough contingent of customers is willing to open their wallets and let their money fall out, what’s a poor wireless company to do? Ignore the pile of twenties falling to the floor? Not on your life.

AT&T last month announced it was dumping its 20-month early upgrade offer, following Verizon (again) which announced it was pulling the rug out on a similar plan in April. ‘Customers should wait a full 24 months before expecting a new subsidized phone,’ said both companies.

Then came scrappy T-Mobile, the company AT&T originally wanted to put out of business. TMO decided to apply some European competitive logic in the U.S. market. No more two-year contracts with nasty termination fees, declared CEO John Legere. But no more “phone subsidy” either. In return for the end of contracts, customers should expect to pay retail price for their smartphone, but at least they can finance it through T-Mobile and have the somewhat affordable monthly installments added to their bill.

Now, in a remarkable about-face for Verizon Wireless and AT&T, the features and promotions diet imposed on customers that has eroded discounts, ended early upgrades, and slapped on early termination fees and opaque junk bill charges might be coming to an end. Early upgrades are back… for a price.

It is the first step in a major shift away from the North American wireless business model which traditionally offers customers cheap devices at massive discounts known as “device subsidies.” Since the early days of cell phones, wireless companies in the U.S. and Canada typically grant customers up to $350 off their phone purchase in return for a 24 month contract (until recently, 36 months in Canada). But wireless providers don’t just give away free money. Carriers get back every penny of this subsidy over the life of a cell phone contract by setting their plan rates artificially high.

T-Mobile isn’t giving away the store either, but at least everything is on sale. By jettisoning the subsidy, T-Mobile’s plan rates are dramatically lower than those offered by its competitors. That is no surprise because TMO no longer has to worry about recouping device subsidies.

When a customer walks into a T-Mobile store, they can buy the latest iPhone for $650 or agree to finance it at the retail price through the carrier. They can even buy it somewhere else. But T-Mobile’s new Jump plan also offers customers a chance to “jump” to a newer phone every 6-9 months with its trade-in program. For avid phone upgraders, the end effect is like leasing your phone. You will always have a device newer than the next guy, and you will always be paying a monthly fee for the phone itself. That looks a lot more attractive than trying to wait 24 months with AT&T or Verizon or frequently buying a new phone for north of $500 and trying to recoup part of the cost by selling your old phone on eBay or Craigslist.

Wall Street would normally punish carriers that do anything to shorten the 24-month traditional upgrade cycle because investors generally hate the whole concept of the phone subsidy. It costs companies liquidity to tie up money fronting that $350 discount and waiting up to two years to get the money back. But since T-Mobile can immediately book the full purchase price of a phone for accounting purposes and does not need to show the amount of money dedicated towards phone subsidies, analysts are not pummeling the stock into the ground.

As Stop the Cap! has written for more than a year, the wireless Golden Calf Wall Street really wants to worship is a cell phone plan priced artificially high to recover a subsidy providers no longer give. That’s a plan only Ma Bell and its shareholders could love. But nobody thought AT&T and Verizon Wireless could get away with it.

Silly people.

Introducing The Wireless Trojan Horses: AT&T Next from AT&T and VZ Edge from Verizon

Yay!: No more expensive subsidies and extra free money

AT&T yesterday introduced AT&T Next — the company’s response to T-Mobile’s Jump with AT&T’s usual gouging touch.

The highlights of the plan include:

• No membership, activation or upgrade fees;
• Buying a new phone under AT&T Next does not require a down payment, any finance charges, or early payoff penalty;
• Customers can trade-in for an upgrade after one year or keep the device for 20 months and own it.

VZ Edge is still a rumor, but leaked promotional material indicates it is nearly identical to AT&T Next, with some important exceptions:

• VZ Edge appears to be an extension of Verizon’s existing 12-month financing plan, limited to two devices at a time with a combined financed balance not to exceed $1,000;
• First payment due at time of purchase with a recurring finance charge of $2 for each month there is a remaining balance;
• No upgrade fees, no contracts, no pre-payment/payoff penalty;
• Customer qualifies for their next upgrade after 50 percent of their current phone’s retail price is paid;

The leaked document does not include details about the disposition of your device when beginning an upgrade. Presumably, Verizon will accept it for trade-in or the customer can pay the remaining balance off immediately and own it.

What sets Verizon and AT&T far apart from T-Mobile are the prices of their service plans. Both AT&T and Verizon are effectively ending their subsidy program for those participating in these early upgrade plans. Customers must purchase (or finance) their next device at the regular retail price, which will range between $500-650 for most top-of-the-line smartphones.

Bunco

But neither Verizon or AT&T are lowering their service plan pricing, which was specifically designed to recoup a subsidy they are no longer providing. T-Mobile has appropriately lowered their plan pricing because the company no longer needs to win back that $350 subsidy they might have given you for the newest Apple iPhone or Galaxy device. That means you are effectively paying AT&T and Verizon twice for the same phone. It’s Wall Street’s dream come true: kill the subsidy and keep the money still being charged to recoup it. That amounts to as much as $29 a month out of your bank account and into theirs.

For now, only those itching for fast upgrades will get the pinch, at least until AT&T and Verizon decide this is the new and improved way to sell phones to everyone without a two-year contract. Now if we can only get AT&T and Verizon to rescind the contract taken out on our wallets….

Time Warner Cable’s decision to spend $11 billion to broadcast Los Angeles Lakers and Dodgers games at an estimated cost of $50-60 a year per subscriber is the subject of a class action lawsuit from fed up customers.

The plaintiffs are upset cable subscribers across Southern California will have to cover the cost of the 20-year deal with no option to opt-out of the sports channels because they are bundled into the most popular cable package.

The suit, filed this week in Superior Court alleges at least 60 percent of subscribers have no interest in the sports programming, but will collectively cover $6.6 billion of the deal and never watch a single game.

Time Warner Cable is also accused of forcing AT&T U-verse, Charter Cable, Cox Cable, DirecTV and Verizon FiOS to sign restrictive contracts that compel the companies to include the sports channels on the basic lineup.

Ironically, Time Warner Cable itself regularly complains about the increasing cost of programming and contract terms that force it to bundle expensive sports channels inside the basic tier instead of offering customers optional, added-cost sports programming packages.

Both sports teams are also named as defendants in the suit because they were aware that all subscribers would face rate increases as a result of the deal.

“TWC’s bundling results in Defendants making huge profits, much of which is extracted from unwilling consumers who have no opportunity to delete unwanted telecasts,” the complaint states.

The suit claims there is no legitimate reason Time Warner Cable and the sports teams could not have offered the new networks only to customers that wished to pay for them. The suit wants the bundling of the sports networks stopped and customers given refunds for the higher television bills that resulted.

T-Mobile has scrapped the traditional two-year cell phone contract.

T-Mobile’s shift away from subsidized smartphones and standard two-year contracts could be a game-changer for American wireless consumers, but does the scrappy carrier have a good deal for you or mostly for itself?

T-Mobile is and has been America’s fourth largest carrier — the smallest among those offering nationwide home coverage. The provider has lost contract customers for years. T-Mobile’s coverage has been less than great in many areas and it often did not offer the latest and most popular smartphones. After its merger effort with AT&T was shot down by the Department of Justice for anti-competitive reasons, T-Mobile has attempted to remake itself by changing the rules under which most of us buy mobile service.

The biggest change of all is the end of the subsidized phone. For years, cell phone companies have offered free or low-cost phones to customers, earning back that subsidy by charging higher monthly rates and locking customers to two-year contracts with early termination fees. T-Mobile will still give you an affordable phone, only now you will pay it off in small installments over a two-year financing agreement.

What difference does this make? Customers who bounce from one two-year contract to the next may not see much difference. But if you keep your phone longer than two years or buy one elsewhere, your monthly rate with T-Mobile will no longer include an artificially higher price designed to recover the phone subsidy you no longer receive.

It also means nothing traps you with T-Mobile. If after six months you find their service unbecoming, you can leave without hundreds of dollars in termination fees. But customers on financing agreements will continue to make their payments for equipment purchases, and those phones will not be unlocked for use on another carrier until the remaining balance is paid off.

A typical T-Mobile customer looking for the latest iPhone will pay a $100 down payment and then finance the remaining balance, paying $20 a month for 24 months. Your monthly rate will start at $50 a month, which includes unlimited talk and texting, and a 500MB data allowance. If that is insufficient, an extra $10 a month will buy you an extra 2GB of data. If you want unlimited data, that plan is available for an extra $20 a month.

T-Mobile says their plans will save you $1,000 over the life of a two-year contract with AT&T or Verizon. We think they are exaggerating a bit.

Like their competition, T-Mobile is moving away from budget-minded “minute plans” that bundle calling, text and data. Instead, T-Mobile charges at least $50 a month for unlimited talk/text and a small data plan whether you want those features or not.

The Associated Press found that although T-Mobile ends up being the cheapest, the savings over its rivals is closer to $700 on average. The price over two years for a 16-gigabyte iPhone 5 with unlimited calling, unlimited texting and 2.5 gigabytes of data usage per month, excluding taxes, is:

• T-Mobile: $2,020
• AT&T/Verizon: $2,635 (2-3GB data plan)
• Sprint: $2,840 (unlimited data plan included)

Some other things to consider:

• Once your phone is paid off, your ongoing T-Mobile bill will no longer show a phone subsidy payback built into prices charged by other carriers;
• You can pay your phone off early, with no penalty;
• T-Mobile’s 4G network is a mix of HSPA+ and LTE. The more commonly encountered HSPA+ network gets good marks for speed, but a number of densely populated T-Mobile coverage areas surprisingly often default to their older 2G network, which is painfully slow. LTE is only available in about seven cities at the moment, so it is still a rarity;
• T-Mobile’s unlimited service is free from tricks and traps like soft caps and speed throttles. It also performs better than Sprint’s unlimited service on its overloaded 3G and spotty Clearwire 4G WiMAX network. Sprint’s LTE network is on the way… slowly. It seems to be rolling out first in small cities you have never heard of;
• T-Mobile’s coverage in rural and exurban areas is frankly terrible. Travelers on main highways may not encounter many signal gaps, but those living in small towns or off the beaten path may get a roaming signal or poor or no reception from T-Mobile’s own towers at all. The frequencies used for its data service also do not work as well indoors as its larger rivals.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/T-Mobile Ad 4-2-13.flv[/flv]

T-Mobile channels Oprah in this new ad as the big four wireless cowboys get in touch with their feelings. But only one is ready to don a pink hat and ride off on his own. (1 minute)

The inauguration of President Barack Obama for a second term in the White House is brought to you by generous financial contributions from AT&T, Microsoft, and a handful of big health care and pharmaceutical companies that all do business with the federal government.

AT&T, which donated generously to the Romney campaign, has been making amends with the administration remaining in office by underwriting the lavish festivities, despite earlier promises from the Obama Administration not to accept corporate money for the inauguration.

The telecom giant is among seven corporations that have found their way around federal laws that bar contractors from spending money to influence elections. No law stops them from writing big checks for inaugural events or political conventions (see here, here, here, and here for our earlier reports).

AT&T is among the most powerful special interests in Washington, with more than $14 million spent lobbying Congress and federal agencies like the FCC in just the first nine months of 2012, according to The Center for Responsive Politics’ website, Open Secrets.

AT&T handed out nearly $2 million to political action committees, parties, and secretive independent groups that run campaign ads without disclosing who pays for them. Candidates did not suffer for money either. Direct AT&T contributions totaling $3,297,096 were handed to members and would-be members of Congress, with the company heavily favoring Republicans.

Among those winning AT&T checks valued at $10,000 or more were 65 Republicans and 16 Democrats:

But the Money Party doesn’t end there. At least 49 members of the House and Senate that vote on legislation that directly affects AT&T’s bottom line also happen to be shareholders of the company:

Akin, Todd (R-MO)
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV)
Berman, Howard L (D-CA)
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM)
Boehner, John (R-OH)
Bonner, Jo (R-AL)
Buchanan, Vernon (R-FL)
Burgess, Michael (R-TX)
Cassidy, Bill (R-LA)
Coats, Dan (R-IN)
Coble, Howard (R-NC)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Cohen, Steve (D-TN)
Cole, Tom (R-OK)
Conaway, Mike (R-TX)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Cooper, Jim (D-TN)
Doggett, Lloyd (D-TX)
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-NJ)
Gibbs, Bob (R-OH)
Hagan, Kay R (D-NC)
Hanna, Richard (R-NY)
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)
Inhofe, James M (R-OK)
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
Johnson, Ron (R-WI)
Keating, Bill (D-MA)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kingston, Jack (R-GA)
Lance, Leonard (R-NJ)
Marchant, Kenny (R-TX)
McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY)
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)
McCaul, Michael (R-TX)
McKinley, David (R-WV)
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO)
Peters, Gary (D-MI)
Renacci, Jim (R-OH)
Rogers, Hal (R-KY)
Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R-WI)
Sessions, Pete (R-TX)
Smith, Lamar (R-TX)
Tipton, Scott (R-CO)
Upton, Fred (R-MI)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Webb, James (D-VA)
Welch, Peter (D-VT)
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)
Whitfield, Ed (R-KY)

AT&T, which Open Secrets deems a “heavy hitter,” also benefits from Washington’s revolving door between public service and private sector lobbying. The group notes at least 63 out of 86 AT&T lobbyists have previously held government jobs, often at the agencies that oversee and regulate the company.

Public Citizen says it is disturbed by revelations companies like AT&T, Microsoft, and various pharmaceutical and health care interests like Centene and Genentech-Roche Pharmaceuticals have been allowed to contribute because all of them are in business with the federal government. AT&T has been awarded more than $101 million in federal contracts this fiscal year. Microsoft, which spent $5.7 million lobbying Washington has earned most of that back with $4.6 million in contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and other federal agencies.

Almost none of the companies contacted by USA Today were willing to return calls or comment on the contributions. But Public Citizen did go on the record with the newspaper.

“Such donations are more troubling when they come from companies that have significant ongoing business with the federal government,” said Robert Weissman, the group’s president. “They will expect a very good hearing regarding any concerns, complaints or aspirations they might have.”

Think your wireless service contract ties you down?

More than 500 Canadians filed comments about their wireless service with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as the telecom regulator wrestles with a proposed code of conduct for Canada’s wireless industry and the contracts they hand customers. Why? Because of language like this from a typical contract with Rogers Communications:

Device Savings Recovery Fee (applicable to term commitment customers only for any new term entered into on or after January 22, 2012): A Device Savings Recovery Fee (DSRF) applies if you have been granted an Economic Inducement (as defined below) upon entering your new term, and if, for any reason, your wireless service or your new term is terminated prior to the end of the term of your Service Agreement (Service Agreement Term). The DSRF is the amount of the economic inducement (which may take the form of a discount, rebate or other benefit granted on the price of your Equipment), as stated in your Service Agreement (Economic Inducement), less the amount obtained by multiplying such Economic Inducement by a fraction representing the number of months elapsed in your Service Agreement Term as compared to the total number of months of your Service Agreement Term (plus applicable taxes). In other words, DSRF = Economic Inducement [Economic Inducement × (# months elapsed in your Service Agreement Term ÷ Total # months in your Service Agreement Term)] + applicable taxes. An Additional Device Savings Recovery Fee (ADSRF) also applies if, for any reason, your wireless data service, or your data plans commitment term (Data Term), is terminated prior to the end of your Data Term. An Additional Device Savings Recovery Fee (ADSRF) also applies if, for any reason, your wireless data service, or your data plans commitment term (Data Term), is terminated prior to the end of your Data Term. The ADSRF is the additional Economic Inducement you received for subscribing to your wireless data service, less the amount obtained by multiplying such Economic Inducement by a fraction representing the number of months elapsed in your Data Term as compared to the total number of months of your Data Term (plus applicable taxes), and applies in addition to the DSRF for termination of your Service Agreement. If you subscribe to a plan combining both voice and data services, both the DSRF and the ADSRF apply, up to the total Economic Inducement.

Despite contract confusion being an issue in the eyes of the CRTC, the overwhelming majority of comments focused on something else that irks Canadians above all else: being held hostage by the industry’s traditional 36-month wireless contract, one year longer than consumers in the United States find common.

“Get rid of the 36 months contract,” wrote one Canadian, noting contract creep is all the rage. “It first started with 12 months, then 24 months, now the standard is 36 months, which is ridiculous!”

Most of the comments came from customers of the chief three providers: Bell, Rogers, and Telus. All three received scorn from customers for uncompetitive, expensive service.

The state of competition in Canada:

Roger offers new plans:
– $55 1000min local, unlimited text, 200MB
– $65 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $75 unlimited local/text, 2GB
– $95 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Then Bell offers their new competitive plans:
– $55 1000 min local, unlimited text, 200MB
– $65 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $75 unlimited local/text, 2GB
– $95 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Then Telus offers their competitive plans:
– $70 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $80 unlimited local/text, 3GB
– $100 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Where is the competition? These plans are all the same.

Also unfamiliar to Americans, the automatically-renewing contract that snags Canadians that forget to cancel with a brand new service commitment complete with a cancellation penalty. Perhaps the most consumer-friendly provinces in Canada are Quebec and Manitoba, which ban certain kinds of termination fees and auto-renewing contracts. Canadians want these bans extended nationwide. The European Union already bans 36 month contracts and made 24 months the maximum. One former resident of the United Kingdom noted the EU also compels providers to offer 12 month contracts for those who want them.

The CRTC may not provide much relief if it remains convinced the marketplace remains competitive.

The agency points out under the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC will only intervene in a market if there is insufficient competition to protect the interests of users.  In the 1990s the CRTC decided to allow market forces to guide the growth of the mobile wireless industry.

The CRTC seems to have already made up its mind on this issue when it announced its proceeding:

In the decision issued on 11 October 2012, the CRTC found that there was competition sufficient to protect the interests of consumers and it did not need to regulate rates.  Although many consumers indicated concerns about wireless rates and the competitiveness of the wireless market, a number of market indicators demonstrate that consumers have a choice of competitive service providers and a range of rates and payment options for mobile wireless services. According to the CRTC’s 2012 Communications Monitoring Report, new entrants in the mobile wireless market continue to increase their market share and coverage. Companies continue to invest in new infrastructure to bring new innovative services to more Canadians. Moreover, the average cost per month for mobile wireless services has remained relatively stable.

The CRTC concluded that competition in the mobile wireless market continues to be sufficient to protect the interests of users with respect to rates and choice of competitive service provider.

That makes it more likely than not the agency will limit itself to ordering wireless carriers to better explain their wireless policies, not force them to change them.

The only relief potentially available outside of canceling service is considering one of several new competitors which offer relaxed terms and better prices to attract customers. So far, only 4% of Canadians have switched to WIND, Mobilicity, Vidéotron, or Public Mobile. Some may be trapped in current contracts with larger companies or are discouraged having to buy new equipment to switch providers. Most providers in Canada, like in the United States, lock phones so they cannot be easily used on another company’s network.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CRTC Cell Phone Contracts 12-12.flv[/flv]

The CRTC used this video to invite consumers to share comments about confusing wireless service contracts. Instead, criticism of tricky term contracts that auto-renew and last three years arrived in buckets. (2 minutes)