New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is convinced Verizon Communications is abandoning quality landline service for millions of New Yorkers while diverting money and resources to its more profitable cell service Verizon Wireless.

Last week, Schneiderman blasted the state’s largest landline provider for mounting complaints about poor service that now impact 92 percent of its customers, calling deregulation a failure for consumers and businesses in New York.

“Verizon customers deserve the high-quality service they’ve been promised,” Schneiderman told The Associated Press.

The attorney general reports that the number of customers enduring service outages for more than 24 hours has increased, while landline infrastructure — particularly wiring — is allowed to deteriorate.

Schneiderman suspects Verizon is shortchanging landline service as an increasing number of wired phone customers disconnect service, often in favor of Verizon’s more lucrative cell phone service.  The state Public Service Commission (PSC) fined Verizon $400,000 in March for similar concerns, pointing to the company’s intentional workforce reductions lengthening repair windows and creating repair backlogs in some regions.

Schneiderman’s office filed comments with the PSC requesting changes to Verizon’s Service Quality Improvement Plan, which was originally launched in 2010:

At best, New York’s telephone service market is a duopoly, and contrary to theoretical expectations of market controls, the presence of a single competitor has not in fact prevented Verizon from allowing customer service to continue to degrade. Rather than meet its obligations to provide wireline telephone customers with minimally adequate telephone service, Verizon is continuing to drastically reduce its workforce with the result that the company cannot meet its customers’ repair needs in a timely manner.

Verizon’s management has demonstrated that it is unwilling to compete to retain its wireline customer base, and instead is entirely focused on expanding its wireless business affiliate. It is incumbent on the Commission to take appropriate regulatory action to ensure that customers receive reliable telephone service with adequate repair performance. Therefore, the Commission should modify Verizon’s service plan to ensure customers receive adequate service quality in the future.

Verizon defended its service in New York pointing out the company has invested $1.5 billion in the state for infrastructure, including its FiOS fiber to the home network.  Verizon spokesman John Bonomo questioned Schneiderman’s claim that 92 percent of Verizon New York customers had poor service, noting 98 percent of its landline customers don’t have service problems.

Schneiderman’s highlighting of a $400,000 service fine imposed by the PSC did not account for unprecedented damage from both Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee late last summer, Bonomo added.

But the state’s attorney general notes Verizon’s service problems in New York have been ongoing well before last summer.

Service complaints, charted here from 2008-2011, show a major spike last summer and fall and remain higher than normal.

Schneiderman

“Since at least 2008, Verizon has frequently failed to meet these PSC telephone service standards essential to safe and reliable telephone service,” Schneiderman says. “Even as the number of telephone lines needing to be maintained has dwindled to half those of a decade ago (as customers choose to rely instead on wireless and/or cable telephony), Verizon’s continues to fail to meet the PSC’s service standard.”

Customers on the upper west side of New York City don’t need to be reminded of Verizon’s service failures.  Hundreds of Verizon landline customers in New York’s largest city were left without basic phone service for more than a week, only made worse by the fact Verizon told many of them they’d be without service for at least one additional week while the company worked on repairs.

Phone and Internet service went dead in multiple buildings along Central Park West April 10, but customers wanted to kill when they learned the phone company wanted more than two weeks to get service restored.

“I was like, excuse me, are you serious? Two weeks?” Iram Rivera, a concierge at 262 Central Park West, told DNAinfo.  His building was hard hit by the service outage — 80 percent of the building’s 80 apartments were affected.

“I just don’t get the feeling that there’s much of an appreciation on Verizon’s part that this is a hardship for people,” said Ken Coughlin, who lives on West 87th Street and Central Park West. “There’s no communication, there’s no updates, it’s infuriating.”

The outage only affected traditional landline service and DSL broadband over copper phone wiring. The more modern fiber-optic FiOS network that provides TV, Internet and voice service wasn’t affected, Bonomo said.

Schneiderman notes landline outages have an especially hard impact on small businesses:

In the current recession, the fragile economic condition of many small businesses puts them at risk of financial disaster if they suddenly lose telephone service, and their provider is unable to restore service promptly. Each day that these businesses are without service they lose significant revenues that many simply cannot survive without.

Small businesses depend on functional telephone service to meet the needs of their customers in numerous ways. When customers are unable to reach a business by telephone, they may assume the business is closed and purchase the goods or services they want elsewhere. Restaurants are prevented from giving reservations to prospective customers who call. Many types of businesses depend on working telephone lines for processing credit card charges, and may lose substantial sales by limiting transactions to cash or checks. Professional offices can be prevented from providing medical, legal or accounting services to their clients without working telephone service.

In Schneiderman’s view, the deregulation policies now in place in New York have failed consumers, leaving them with a duopoly of phone providers with insufficient oversight.

For competition to benefit customers with improved service, lower prices, and more innovation, there has to first be a willingness to compete, which is significantly absent from Verizon-New York’s policies and practices.

Rather than robust competition, New York’s telephone market is at best a duopoly, with as many indicators of cooperation between the two providers as robust contest for customers. Furthermore, the actual behavior of consumers in the real world is markedly different from the PSC’s theoretical assumptions about the telephone market.

When a Verizon customer experiences a prolonged service outage or installation delay, the option to switch carriers to a cable provider is of no immediate use. Finally, even if consumers wanted to compare Verizon’s service performance with cable provider alternatives, the lack of available information prevents consumers from making educated choices.

In New York, most customers are served by Verizon Communications, Time Warner Cable, or Cablevision.  Time Warner Cable and Verizon recently agreed to cross-market the other’s products and services as part of a wireless spectrum transfer.

Other than the original “five families” that ruled New York’s underworld from the 1930s on, it is hard to find a level of collusion higher than in today’s telecommunications marketplace.  It’s a veritable No-Fight Club, and the first rule is cable companies don’t fight with other cable companies. (The second is phone companies don’t compete with other phone companies.)  Everyone has their respective territory, and only the bravest interlopers dare to intrude on the cozy duopoly territory most North Americans endure, at least until the boys can drop a dime with the feds and put the kibosh on them with anti-community broadband laws or buying them out and telling them to scram.

But Time Warner Cable does not have to rub it in.  But they do anyway, see.

One reader of the Consumerist was perturbed when Time Warner Cable sent him a letter congratulating him for his decision to move... and welcoming him to consider Comcast Cable as his new provider.

Do you think Ford would ever send you a letter suggesting you give Toyota a try? Or would McDonald’s ever shoot you an e-mail telling you to check out the lovely Burger Kings in your new neighborhood? Of course not. So why would the cable industry not care which company you choose?

Consumerist reader Mike recently moved out of an area where he had no choice for cable TV other than Time Warner Cable to a town where Comcast is the only option.

[…] “What makes me even angrier is that they spent money printing and mailing this letter that only serves to remind me that I don’t have any choice!”

That mailer came courtesy of something called, “The Cable Movers Hotline,” which sounds like a clearinghouse for consumers searching for a moving company.  Indeed, the website for the group even includes video moving tips courtesy of HGTV’s Lisa LaPorta, David Gregg, senior editor, Behindthebuy.com, and interior designer Libby Langdon.

What’s the real story, morning glory? Don’t blow your wig, sister.  It’s coming.

In fact, the “Hotline” is a creature of CTAM – the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing, a Maryland-based trade group that includes most of the nation’s largest cable operators as members.  CTAM’s “Hotline” is the cable industry’s attempt to make sure that fresh start in your new cave doesn’t include service from the dirty rat phone company or some grifter satellite TV provider with a flim-flam rebate scam.  With none of CTAM’s members willing to compete head-on with other cable operators, trading customers back and forth doesn’t hurt business, keeps the butter and egg man counting up those bills, and helps bleed you dry.

A 21st century clip joint?  You said it!

Don't thank us, it was nothing!

If you want better Canadian broadband with fewer tricks and traps and live in Ontario or Quebec: put the house up for sale, pack up your things, and head west.

Canada’s heavily metered and capped broadband is ubiquitous in the country’s two most-populated provinces where a convenient duopoly of Bell and Rogers in Ontario and Bell and Videotron in Quebec control the vast majority of the broadband market.  But cross west into Saskatchewan and things start to look a lot better.

Canadians telecommunications consultancy The Seaboard Group praised SaskTel, the provincial phone company, for refusing to slap usage caps on its customers.  SaskTel does not deliver the cheapest Internet access by any means, but the company is investing heavily in fiber optic upgrades to turn the page on aging copper wire infrastructure.  Stringing fiber through Regina, Saskatoon and beyond may seem counterintuitive to other providers.  Saskatchewan, one of Canada’s “prairie provinces,” is hardly packed with people.  With more than 20 million Canadians living in Ontario and Quebec, Saskatchewan gives its 1 million residents a lot of open space.  Sparser populations usually translate into higher costs per customer for upgrades, but SaskTel persists.

SaskTel has historically relied on traditional DSL and has competition in larger communities from Shaw Cable, western Canada’s largest cable operator.  Although SaskTel’s DSL delivers lower speeds than Shaw can provide, it does so with no usage limits.

Shaw’s decision to provide considerably more generous usage allowances has kept the pressure on SaskTel to upgrade its infrastructure to compete.

SaskTel CEO Ron Styles told the Leader-Post its fiber optic network will give cable a run for its money, and until then, it is satisfied undercutting cable pricing for broadband, delivering a far better experience than either Rogers or Bell provides eastern Canadians, Styles says.

Seaboard president Iain Grant found that what customers are willing to pay for service can also influence what prices providers charge.

“The price is more based on what you’re prepared to pay,” Grant said.

People in western Canada evidently are not willing to hand over as much money as their friends in Ontario and Quebec.

West of Saskatchewan lies Alberta and British Columbia — Telus territory.  Telus is western Canada’s largest phone company and also principally competes with Shaw Cable.

Shaw has forced Telus to back down on fueling enhanced revenue with usage caps of its own, and has been aggressively upgrading its network with additional fiber optics and DOCSIS 3 technology, forcing Telus to embark on its own upgrade effort.

Macleans reports western Canada’s more-competitive broadband market has been good for consumers, but has also exposed a difference in priorities for providers.

With Shaw breathing down its neck, Telus has committed to a $3 billion fiber optic network expansion in B.C., improved wireless coverage, and more IPTV service.  Macleans notes Telus is the only major telecom or cable company in Canada that hasn’t purchased a television asset, focusing instead on its core businesses of connecting customers.

In eastern Canada, Bell faces Rogers and Videotron.  Critics contend Bell sees no imminent threats there, and the phone giant is spending its money elsewhere, announcing a $3.4 billion acquisition of Astral Media — an entertainment company owning 24 specialty cable channels and pay-TV networks, including the Movie Network and HBO Canada.

Bell’s latest “investment” follows its 2010 $1.3 billion buyout of CTV and last year’s $1.32 billion co-purchase of Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment (the other buyer was their ‘arch-competitor’ Rogers Communications).

While Telus spends money on upgrading its broadband and video services to customers, Bell is positioning itself to control 34% of Canada’s TV universe.  Bell is also the same company that advocated slapping nationwide usage-based pricing on Canadian broadband consumers to pay for the “network upgrades” it contends were needed to handle increasing demand.

The Republican takeover of the North Carolina legislature in 2010 was great news for some of the state’s largest telecommunications companies, who successfully received almost universal support from those legislators to outlaw community broadband service in North Carolina — the 19th state to throw up impediments to a comfortable corporate broadband duopoly.

Dialing Up the Dollars — produced by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, found companies including AT&T, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and the state cable lobby collectively spent more than $1.5 million over the past five years on campaign contributions.  Most of the money went to legislators willing to enact legislation that would largely prohibit publicly-owned competitive broadband networks from operating in the state.

North Carolina consumer groups have fought anti-community broadband initiatives for the past several years, with most handily defeated in the legislature.  But in 2010, Republicans assumed control of both the House and Senate for the first time since the late 1800s, and the change in party control made all the difference.  Of 97 Republican lawmakers who voted, 95 supported HB 129, the corporate-written broadband competition ban introduced by Rep. Marilyn Avila, a legislator who spent so much time working with the cable lobby, we’ve routinely referred to her as “(R-Time Warner Cable).”

Democrats were mostly opposed to the measure: 45 against, 25 for.  Stop the Cap! called out those lawmakers as well, many of whom received substantial industry money in the form of campaign donations.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Community Fiber Networks Are Faster Cheaper Than Incumbents.flv[/flv]

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance pondered broadband speeds and value in North Carolina and found commercial providers lacking.  (3 minutes)

*AT&T’s total includes contributions from BellSouth in 2006 and 2008 and AT&T Mobility LLC. **CenturyLink’s total includes contributions from Embarq Corp.

According to Catharine Rice, president of the SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, HB 129 received the greatest lobbying support from Time Warner Cable, the state cable lobbying association — the North Carolina Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCCTA), and CenturyLink.

Following the bill’s passage, the NCCTA issued a press release stating, “We are grateful to the members of the General Assembly who stood up for good government by voting for this bill.”

CenturyLink sent e-mail to its employees suggesting they write thank you letters to supportive legislators:

 “Thanks to the passage of House Bill 129, CenturyLink has gained added confidence to invest in North Carolina and grow our business in the state.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CenturyLink Frustration.flv[/flv]

A CenturyLink customer endures frustration from an infinite loop while calling customer service. Is this how the company will grow the business in North Carolina?  (1 minute)

Consumers Pay the Price

In North Carolina, both Time Warner Cable and AT&T increased prices in 2011.

After the bill became law without the signature of Gov. Bev Purdue, Time Warner Cable increased cable rates across North Carolina.  CenturyLink’s version of AT&T’s U-verse — Prism — has seen only incremental growth with around 70,000 customers nationwide.  The phone company also announced an Internet Overcharging scheme — usage caps — on their broadband customers late last fall.

Someone had to pay for the enormous largesse of campaign cash headed into lawmaker pockets.  For the state’s largest cable operator — Time Warner Cable — another rate increase handily covered the bill.

In all, lawmakers received thousands of dollars each from the state’s incumbent telecom companies:

• Lawmakers who voted in favor of HB 129 received, on average, $3,768, which is 76 percent more than the average $2,135 received by the those who voted against the bill;
• 78 Republican lawmakers received an average of $3,824, which is 36 percent more than the average $2,803 received by 53 Democrats;
• Those in key legislative leadership positions received, on average, $13,531, which is more than double the $2,753 average received by other lawmakers;
• The four primary sponsors of the bill received a total of $37,750, for an average of $9,438, which is more than double the $3,658 received on average by those who did not sponsor the bill.

Even worse for rural North Carolina, little progress has been made by commercial providers to expand broadband in less populated areas of the state.  AT&T earlier announced it was largely finished expanding its U-verse network and has stalled DSL deployment as it determines what to do with that part of its business.

In fact, the most aggressive broadband expansion has come from existing community providers North Carolina’s lawmakers voted to constrain. Salisbury’s Fibrant has opted for a slower growth strategy to meet the demand for its service and handle the expense associated with installing it.  Wilson’s Greenlight fiber to the home network supplies 100/100Mbps speeds to those who want it today.

In Upside-Down World at the state capitol in Raleigh, community-owned providers are the problem, not today’s duopoly of phone and cable companies that deliver overpriced, comparatively slow broadband while ignoring rural areas of the state.

Key Players

Some of the key players that were “motivated” to support the cable and phone company agenda, according to the report:

Tillis collected $37,000 from Big Telecom for his last election, in which he ran unopposed. Tillis was in a position to make sure the telecom industry's agenda was moved through the new Republican-controlled legislature.

Thom Tillis, who became speaker of the house in 2011, received $37,000 in 2010–2011 (despite running unopposed in 2010), which is more than any other lawmaker and significantly more than the $4,250 he received 2006–2008 combined. AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon each gave Tillis $1,000 in early-mid January, just before he was sworn in as speaker on January 26. Tillis voted for the bill, and was in a key position to ensure it moved along the legislative pipeline.

The others:

• Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger received $19,500, also a bump from the $13,500 he received in 2008 and the $15,250 in 2006. He voted for the bill.
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown received $9,000, significantly more than the $2,750 he received in 2006 and 2008 combined. Brown voted in favor of the bill.
• Democratic Leader Martin Nesbitt, who voted for the bill, received $8,250 from telecommunication donors; Nesbitt had received no contributions from telecommunication donors in earlier elections.

The law is now firmly in place, leaving North Carolina wondering where things go from here.  AT&T earlier announced it had no solutions for the rural broadband challenge, and now it and other phone and cable companies have made certain communities across North Carolina don’t get to implement their solutions either.

What You Can Do

1. If you live in North Carolina, check to see how your elected officials voted on this measure, and how much they collected from the corporate interests who supported their campaigns.  Then contact them and let them know how disappointed you are they voted against competition, against lower rates, against better broadband, and with out of state cable and phone companies responsible for this bill and the status quo it delivers.  Don’t support lawmakers that don’t support your interests.
2. If you live outside of North Carolina and we alert you to a similar measure being introduced in your state, get involved. It is much easier to keep these corporate welfare bills from becoming law than it is to repeal them once enacted.  If you enjoy paying higher prices for reduced service and slow speeds, don’t get involved in the fight. If you want something better and don’t appreciate big corporations writing laws in this country, tell your lawmakers to vote against these measures or else you will take your vote elsewhere.
3. Support community broadband. If you are lucky enough to be served by a publicly-owned broadband provider that delivers good service, give them your business.  Yes, it may cost a few dollars more when incumbent companies are willing to slash rates to drive these locally owned providers out of business, but you will almost always receive a technically superior connection from fiber-based providers and the money earned stays right in your community. Plus, unlike companies like CenturyLink, they won’t slap usage caps on your broadband service.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable – Fiber Spot.flv[/flv]

What do you do when your company doesn’t have a true, fiber to home network and faces competition from someone that does?  You obfuscate like Time Warner Cable did in this ad produced for their Southern California customers. (1 minute)

HissyFitWatch: Damn you FCC!

For the first time in a long time, AT&T did not get what it wanted from Washington regulators and legislators. The repercussions of the company’s failure to secure its controversial merger with Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA has been one HissyFit after another, including the resignation-retirement of Forrest Miller, a 30-year veteran who was the company’s head of corporate strategy and mergers and acquisitions. After heads rolled, there was the small matter of the multi-billion dollar “breakup fee” payable to T-Mobile. Now someone has to pay:  You.

At Stop the Cap!, we scrutinize quarterly conference calls at major telecommunications companies so you don’t have to. We’ve sat through renditions of “we’re sorry” when Charter Communications’ executive management allowed the company to be flushed into bankruptcy, we’ve heard the Excuse-o-Matic from Frontier Communications about why their broadband service is woefully overloaded with promises of better days ahead, and a whole lot of creative spin to emphasize cord-cutting-bad-news at the nation’s largest cable companies isn’t really a problem all — it’s the housing market, it’s the ‘seasonal residences’ or ‘college students going home’ problem… or sunspots.  Who really knows?  It’s definitely not that they’re charging too much.

Whether it has been Time Warner Cable’s Glenn Britt, or Verizon’s Ivan Seidenberg, chief executives always project a cool, calm, steady authority that leaves shareholders and financial analysts with an impression the adults are in charge, even if they tell little white lies to keep the stock price up.

And then there is AT&T’s chief executive — Chairman Emperor Randolph Stephenson, who used the occasion of AT&T’s 4th Quarter earning results conference call to become a spectacle that brought the house down.

As we look ahead, the issue that gives me the most concern, quite frankly, isn’t our ability to execute. The #1 issue for us as we move forward, and for the industry, I believe, it continues to be spectrum. This industry continues to see just explosive mobile broadband growth and is providing one of the few bright spots in the U.S. economy, but I think we all understand this growth cannot continue without more spectrum being cleared and brought to market. And despite all the speeches from the FCC, we’re all still waiting.

He didn’t stop there.  In an impromptu rant, Stephenson lectured Washington from afar, excoriating all-concerned for failing to agree with their multi-million dollar propaganda campaign that merging America’s second and fourth largest wireless carriers in a market with just four national providers was good for consumers and would bring wireless nirvana to the heartland and lower prices for all.  Evidently America was not ready to accept the word of AT&T-compensated telecommunications experts at the NAACP, the Special Dream Farm, the Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission and cattle ranchers a combination of T-Mobile’s spectrum and AT&T’s would ease the capacity crunch, bring 4G to Beaver, Oklahoma, and stop driving AT&T customers nuts with dropped calls and reception black holes.

How it usually works in Washington.

AT&T would have gotten away with their merger if it weren’t for those darned kids (consumers), the FCC and Justice Department ruining everything.

“The last significant spectrum auction was nearly 5 years ago now. And this FCC has made it abundantly clear that they’ll not allow significant [mergers and acquisitions] to help bridge their delays in freeing up new spectrum,” Stephenson complained. “So in the absence of auctions, our company and others in the industry have taken the logical step of entering into smaller transactions to acquire the spectrum we need to meet this demand. But even here, we need the FCC’s action and leadership, and unfortunately, even the smallest and most routine spectrum deals are receiving intense scrutiny from this FCC, oftentimes taking up to a year and sometimes longer before these are approved.”

Stephenson ignores the fact the FCC has rubber-stamped a number of wireless mergers over the past several years, which is why consumers no longer buy competitive service from Cingular, Alltel, Dobson Communications, Centennial Wireless, West Virginia Wireless, Unicel, Ramcell, or SureWest Wireless.  All of these former competitors are now a part of the nation’s two largest carriers AT&T and Verizon Wireless.  Even more impressively for the man in full denial, the FCC just quickly and quietly approved AT&T’s spectrum transfer purchase from Qualcomm.

“Now I hope I’m wrong, but it appears the FCC is intent on picking winners and losers rather than letting these markets work,” the chief executive said.

In other words, AT&T’s definition of letting markets “work” means letting them write their own laws governing the pesky concepts of antitrust, monopoly/duopoly market power, anti-competitive activity, etc.  AT&T has no problem picking winners and losers in the community-owned broadband front, lobbying its way through state legislatures trying to block new networks from being built, even while slapping usage limits on their own customers’ DSL and U-verse accounts because of “capacity” concerns.

In the wireless marketplace, Charlie Sheen would declare AT&T “winning,” considering it has achieved 1/3rd of the U.S. wireless market.  It wants more of course, even though Trefis, a market research firm, noted that had the FCC granted Stephenson’s wishes for three national carriers, AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Sprint “will control more than 90% of the U.S. wireless market, resulting in lower competition and higher prices for consumers.”

No problem there.

Stephenson also noted a lot of the company’s close friends were on their side (and handsomely compensated along the way we might add):

A lot of recent comments and speeches about certain members of this FCC suggest that they and not Congress should decide how spectrum auctions are conducted, including who can participate and what the conditions should be for participating. Meanwhile, we pile more and more regulatory uncertainty on top of an industry that is a foundation for a lot of today’s innovation*, making it difficult for all of us to allocate and commit capital. And in this industry, we all know capital investment equals jobs*. So the end result of this is we have a industry that is just really stuck in terms of creating real capacity*.

(*- except when community-based, publicly-owned networks are involved. They must be stopped at all costs.)

No matter that AT&T continues to sit on earlier spectrum acquisitions it continues not to use.  It only grudgingly agreed to roaming agreements with the company it preferred to dismantle altogether: T-Mobile.  In earlier, accidental disclosures, it was clear even before the merger and the newly-reticent FCC, AT&T preferred to raise prices, restrict service, and hang onto its profits instead of sufficiently investing them back into its network.  Verizon Wireless has a 4G network, no dropped-call-syndrome, fewer signal black holes, and no apparent spectrum panic attacks.

Part of Sprint's fact sheet opposing the merger deal.

AT&T bit off more than they could chew through, and now faces the humiliating prospect of paying off its gambling debts.  Only now, AT&T has effectively declared they are not going to pay for their costly mistake. Customers are.

Stephenson: Payback time.

The company introduced new, higher prices for its smartphone data plans this month, and intends to continue to increase prices and crack down on data use with speed throttles in 2012 and blame it on the “spectrum crunch”:

“In a capacity-constrained environment, usage-based data plans, increased pricing, managing the speeds of the highest volume users, these are all logical and necessary steps to manage utilization,” Stephenson said.

But AT&T’s chief executive also told shareholders repeatedly those increased prices were key to boosting company revenue and profits:

“We’ll expand wireless and consolidated margins. We’ll achieve mid-single-digit EPS growth or better. Cash generation continues to look very strong again next year. And given the operational momentum we have in the business, all of this appears very achievable and probably at the conservative end of our expectations.”

AT&T’s chief financial officer John J. Stephens put a spotlight on it:

In 2011, 76% of our revenues came from wireless and wireline data and managed services. That’s up from 68% or more than $10 billion from just 2 years ago. And revenues from these areas grew about $7 billion last year or more than 7% for 2011. We’re confident this mix shift will continue. In fact, in 2012 we expect consolidated revenues to continue to grow, thanks to strength in these growth drivers with little expected lift from the economy.

[…] We also continue to bring more subscribers onto our network with tiered data plans, more than 22 million at the end of the quarter, with most choosing the higher-priced plan. As more of our base moves to tiered plans and as data use increases, we expect our compelling [average revenue per subscriber] growth story to continue.