While AT&T and Verizon trade customers back and forth and enjoy fighting it out for “number one” in wireless service, smaller providers like Sprint are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with its two larger competitors, who have access to the best phones, most coverage, and don’t need to discount prices to attract new customers.

Forbes’ financial blog shares its impressions of the anticipated financial performance of the three biggest players in the U.S. market:

AT&T: Still the financial darling of Wall Street, AT&T will see some pressure on earnings from its integration of acquired assets of Alltel Verizon sold to win approval of its merger with the smaller carrier a few years ago.  Since Alltel’s network used CDMA technology, AT&T had to supply free new phones to every customer it acquired, as the GSM network it operates is not compatible.  AT&T is also still dealing with a slow bleed of iPhone customers departing for Verizon as contracts expire.  It will be interesting to see if Verizon’s imminent end of “unlimited smartphone data” will create a last minute rush from AT&T to VZW before Verizon terminates its unlimited data plan Wednesday night.

Verizon: Verizon will achieve the top spot for the number of new customers it has added during this quarter, mostly from new iPhone users.  The end of “unlimited data” could mean increased “average revenue per user” if new customers have to pay for a pricier data plan, but some analysts are keeping a “neutral” rating on Verizon’s stock, concerned about the margin squeeze created when Apple releases iPhone 5 this fall.  Customers off-contract or nearing expiration could jump for the new phone.  With the subsidy Verizon provides to new iPhone owners, it could bring down margins.

Sprint: The biggest challenge remains with the number three carrier Sprint, which had been picking up disaffected customers from AT&T, Verizon, and even T-Mobile.  That growth has since slowed, and now the company is depending on increased revenue from price hikes, especially on smartphones which now carrier a $10-higher price tag.  But Sprint is aggressively trying to hold the line on customer defections, sometimes approaching “giving away the store” in order to keep customers from leaving for AT&T or Verizon.  In addition to accelerating free/discounted upgrades to new smartphones, the company has also increased the number of calling minutes for its Everything Data plan from 400 to 750.

Sprint’s distant-third position requires the company to price its service plans more aggressively than its larger competitors, especially to counter the image it runs a smaller network with less-reliable coverage.  If AT&T succeeds in acquiring T-Mobile, the dominance of AT&T and Verizon will become even more solidified, threatening Sprint’s position as a viable alternative to the larger two.  That could leave Sprint in the difficult position of trying to finance upgrades even as it has to heavily discount service to keep its current customers loyal.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Sprint Going the Distance 4-28-11.flv[/flv]

On April 28, Sprint Nextel CEO Dan Hesse talked with Jim Cramer about his initial impressions of the announced AT&T/T-Mobile merger and how Sprint would cope with it.  (9 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Sprint Nextel CEO Speaks Out 6-9-11.flv[/flv]

Back in June, Dan Hesse was back with CNBC’s Jim Cramer to expand on Sprint’s strategy to deal with a wireless duopoly and how it hopes to compete in a market where two companies would control nearly 80 percent of all American wireless revenue.  (11 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Engadget Broadband in Europe.flv[/flv]

Rick Karr at Engadget delivers a sweeping indictment of America’s broadband duopoly in a special video presentation that explores Europe’s leapfrog advancements in broadband penetration, speed, and pricing.  It’s all made possible by technology policy.  In Europe, open access is guaranteed.  In the United States, telecommunications companies won the right to keep competitors off their networks.  The result is a staggering decline in America’s broadband ranking, now below Portugal and Italy.  So what happened to let Europe spring ahead of the United States?  Government regulation.

The game-changer in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands has been government regulators who have forced more competition in the market for broadband.

The market in the UK used to be much like ours here in the U.S.: British homes had two options for broadband service: the incumbent telephone company British Telecom (BT), or a cable provider. Prices were high, service was slow, and, as I mentioned above, Britain was falling behind its European neighbors in international rankings of broadband service.

The solution, the British government decided, was more competition: If consumers had more options when it came to broadband service, regulators reasoned, prices would fall and speeds would increase. A duopoly of telephone and cable service wasn’t enough. “You need to find the third lever,” says Peter Black, who was the UK government’s top broadband regulator from 2004 to 2008.

Starting around 2000, the government required BT to allow other broadband providers to use its lines to deliver service. That’s known as “local loop unbundling” — other providers could lease the loops of copper that runs from the telephone company office to homes and back and set up their own servers and routers in BT facilities.

Today, the UK’s broadband marketplace resembles America during dial-up Internet days, when customers could choose from a dozen or more providers and get substantial discounts or service tailored towards specific needs.  Today, that choice isn’t available from cable and phone companies.  There’s typically just one of each, and your practical choices usually end there. Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Corey for sharing the story with us.

The video lasts 16 minutes.

The employees of Sonic.net, a California ISP that threatens to expose the chasm between the cost of providing broadband and the profits reaped from it.

It doesn’t take trillions of dollars to offer world class broadband service in America.  Companies large and small are building gigabit broadband networks to reach customers at prices your local phone or cable company would charge at least $1,000 a month or more to receive, if you consider many charge around $100 a month for 100Mbps.  Now, 700 families in California are going to be offered 1,000Mbps service for just $69.99 per month — including a phone line.

Sonic.net has been in the ISP business for more than 15 years, selling DSL service to California customers at prices that offer value for money.  Most recently, Sonic has been pitching bonded DSL service offering speeds upwards of 40Mbps for the same price it plans to sell its new Fusion gigabit fiber broadband.  For customers who don’t need that much speed, Sonic recently reduced the price for its 20Mbps service to $39.95 per month (including phone line.)

For those in the Sebastopol area lucky enough to qualify for fiber service, Sonic promises unlimited access and an exceptional online experience.

Sonic’s qualifications to run the project are not in question, considering Google selected the company to operate and support the trial fiber-to-the-home network the search giant is building at Stanford University.

Google itself is building an extensive fiber to the home network to serve Kansas City residents and businesses, and promises service at a profitable, but reasonable price.  So has Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper, whose written views on the state of American broadband explains his personal drive to make Internet access better and faster, without ripping people off with Internet Overcharging schemes or unjustified high monthly prices.

Jasper recognizes much of North America is trapped in a broadband duopoly that delivers all of the benefits to investors, while leaving the continent saddled with slow and overpriced service.  Nine months ago Jasper explained the business model to Benoit Felten, a Yankee Group broadband analyst:

During the construction of this network we have given a lot of thought… to the business model in the US, and how we could do things in a different and more interesting way. The natural model when you have a simple duopoly capturing the majority of the market is segmentation: maximize ARPU [average revenue per user] by artificially limiting service in order to drive additional monthly spending. But fundamentally this is the wrong model for a service provider like us, and we have looked to Europe for inspiration. The model pioneered by Iliad under the Free brand is a better fit, both for us and for our customers.

As the marginal cost of providing more bandwidth or less, and providing [phone service] or not are both minimal, we have adopted a simple flat rate model instead of the more typical US model of “$5 more goes faster”… I believe that removing the artificial limits on speed, and including home phone with the product are both very exciting.

It’s exciting to customers as well, most who give the company nearly five star reviews for excellence, without five-star pricing.  An added bonus: Jasper occasionally responds to customer service inquiries himself.

Reviewing Sonic.net’s blogs and website shows off a company that loves the business it’s in.  If a switch 100 miles away has a problem that interferes with Sonic’s service, you will promptly read about it on the company’s technical blog.

There are houses for sale in Sebastopol, Calif., if you want affordable gigabit broadband.

Jasper’s frustration with the enormous corporate-owned ISPs that dominate the country (and Washington) was on full display in a blog entry in March, answering a question about why American broadband is lagging behind:

[…] In 2003 and 2004, the then Republican led FCC reversed course [on policies guaranteeing a level playing field for broadband], removing shared access to essential fiber infrastructure for competitive carriers and codifying instead a policy of exclusive use and “multi-modal competition”.

This concreted our unique US duopoly: cable versus telco, the two broadband choices that most Americans have today.

In exchange for a truly competitive market, the US received promises of widespread deployment. And, to some degree this has worked. Unfettered by significant competition or price pressure, broadband in at least in its most basic form can now be delivered to most homes in America, albeit at a comparatively high cost to the consumer.

What was given up in exchange for this far-reaching but mediocre pablum was true competition and innovation.

Elsewhere in the world, regulatory bodies followed the lead of the US Congress and separated essential copper and fiber infrastructure from the services and providers who used them, and the result has been amazing. In Asia and Europe, Gigabit services are becoming common, and the price paid by consumers per megabit is a tiny fraction of what we pay here at home.

I won’t deny the innovation that has occurred in the telco/cable duopoly. They’ve got TV, Internet and telephone bundles designed to serve up prime time network shows in over-saturated HD glory, with comparatively middling Internet speeds, all offered with teaser rates and terms that would baffle an economics professor. The clear value of the bundle is to baffle, and pity the consumer who wants to shed a component. At least during the intro periods, it’s often cheaper to take the whole package than just a component or two.

For cable companies, the entrenched interest in the television entertainment portion creates a clear conflict: why should they offer an uncapped broadband connection that can deliver enough video entertainment to allow consumers to cut the TV cord? And if you do drop the TV, up goes the price for even this slow and capped Internet connection, so you pay more either way. And now that telcos have gotten into the television business too, their interest in slowing the pace of increasing broadband speed is aligned as well.

This has yielded a competitive truce in America.

In a slow tide, back and forth, cable delivers a slightly better product, then telco slightly better again, all at the highest possible cost. It is iterative, not innovative, and Americans deserve more. After all, we invented the Internet, right?

Among the giant phone and cable companies providing broadband today are a growing number of innovation outliers — companies challenging the prevailing views that Americans don’t need or want fiber-fast speeds (not at the prices some providers charge), that there is no economic justification for the capital spending required to construct fiber networks when incremental upgrades can suffice (the Wall Street view), or that the best way to drive increased revenue from a maturing broadband market is to throw away today’s flat rate pricing model and establish a guaranteed growth fund collecting tolls on Internet traffic that is sure to rise in the days ahead (Time Warner Cable’s CEO).

Google cannot understand why 1Gbps broadband “doesn’t work” in the United States and intends to construct its own network to prove otherwise.  EPB, a municipal utility in Chattanooga, Tenn. sells gigabit broadband, in their words, because they can.  The concept of a provider offering the fruits of their innovation, even if they aren’t certain how to price or sell the service, is a remarkable and refreshing change from the usual obsession with nickle-and-dime “extras” for add-on features or not selling service that your marketing department does not understand or find useful.

It also exposes the indefensible gap between the cost of providing the service and the price paid to receive it.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Mark for sharing news about Sonic.net’s fiber network.

Vincent, one of our regular Stop the Cap! readers sent along a link to a story about the decrepit state of American broadband: it’s a real mess for those who can’t get it, can’t get enough of it, and compare it against what other people abroad are getting.

Cracked delivers the top five reasons why American broadband sucks.  Be sure and read their take (adult language), but we have some thoughts of our own to share:

#5 Some of Us Just Plain Can’t Get It

Large sections of the prairie states, the mountain states, and the desert states can’t get broadband no matter how much they want it.  That’s because they are a hundred miles or more from the nearest cable system and depend on the phone companies — especially AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream to deliver basic DSL.  AT&T is trying as hard as possible to win the right to abandon rural America altogether with the elimination of their basic service obligation.  Verizon has sold off some of their most rural territories, including the entire states of Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia.  CenturyLink has absorbed Qwest in the least populated part of America — the mountain and desert west.

Frontier and Windstream are betting their business models on rural DSL, and while some are grateful to have anything resembling broadband, neither company earns spectacular customer ratings.

So long as rural broadband is not an instant profit winner for the phone companies selling it, rural America will remain dependent on dial-up or [shudder] satellite fraudband.

#4 Often There are No Real Options for Service (and No Competition)

Cracked has discovered the wonderfully inaccurate world of broadband mapping, where the map shows you have plentiful broadband all around, but phone calls to the providers on the list bring nothing but gales of laughter.  As if you are getting service at your house.  Ever.  Stop the Cap! hears regularly from the broadband-deprived, some who have had to be more innovative than the local phone company ever was looking for ways to get service.  Some have paid to bury their own phone cable to get DSL the phone company was reluctant to install, others have created super-powered Wi-Fi networks to share a neighbor’s connection.  The rest live with broadband envy, watching for any glimpse of phone trucks running new wires up and down the road.

Competition is a concept foreign to most Americans confronted with one cable company and one phone company charging around the same price for service.  The most aggressive competition comes when a community broadband provider throws a monkey wrench into the duopoly.  Magically, rate hikes are few and fleeting and speeds are suddenly much better.  Hmmm.

#3 Those Who Have Access Still Lag Behind the Rest of the World

We're #35!

This is an unnerving problem, especially when countries like Lithuania are now kicking the United States into the broadband corner.  You wouldn’t believe we’re that bad off listening to providers, who talk about the innovative and robust broadband economy — the one that is independent of their lousy service.  In fact, the biggest impediment to more innovation may be those same providers.  Some have an insatiable appetite for money — money from you, money from content producers, money from taxpayers, more money from you, and by the way there better be a big fat check from Netflix in the mail this week for using our pipes!

Where is the real innovation?  Community providers like Greenlight, Fibrant, and EPB that deliver their respective communities kick-butt broadband — service other providers would like to shut down at all costs.  Not every commercial provider is an innovation vacuum.  Verizon FiOS and Google’s new Gigabit fiber network in Kansas City represent innovation through investment.  Unfortunately Wall Street doesn’t approve.

Still not convinced?  Visit Japan or Korea and then tell us how American broadband resembles NetZero or AOL dial-up in comparison.

#2 Bad Internet = Shi**y Economy

The demagoguery of corporate-financed dollar-a-holler groups like “FreedomWorks” and “Americans for Prosperity” is without bounds.  Whether it was attacking broadband stimulus funding, community broadband endeavors, or Net Neutrality, these provider shills turned broadband expansion into something as worthwhile as a welfare benefit for Cadillac drivers.  Why are we spending precious tax dollars on Internet access so people can steal movies and download porn they asked.  Why are we letting communities solve their own broadband problems building their own networks when it should be commercial providers being the final arbiter of who deserves access and who does not?  Net Neutrality?  Why that’s a socialist government takeover, it surely is.

It’s like watching railroad robber barons finance protest movements against public road construction.  We can’t have free roads paved by the government unfairly competing with monopoly railway companies, can we?  That’s anti-American!

The cost of inadequate broadband in an economy that has jettisoned manufacturing jobs to Mexico and the Far East is greater than we realize.  Will America sacrifice its leadership in the Internet economy to China the same way we did with our textile, electronics, appliances, furniture, and housewares industries?  China, Japan and Korea are building fiber optic broadband networks for their citizens and businesses.  We’re still trying to figure out how to wire West Virginia for 3Mbps DSL.

#1 At This Point, Internet Access is Kind of a Necessity

The United Nations this week declared the Internet to be a basic human right.  Conservatives scoffed at that, ridiculing the declaration for a variety of reasons ranging from disgust over any body that admits Hugo Chavez, to the lack of a similar declaration for gun ownership, and the usual interpretation of broadband as a high tech play-toy.  Some folks probably thought the same way about the telephone and electricity around 1911.

Yes, the Internet can be frivolous, but then so can a phone call.  Cursed by the U.S. Post Office for destroying their first class mail business, by telephone directory publishers, and those bill payment envelope manufacturers, the Internet does have its detractors.  But should we go back to picking out commemorative stamps at the post office?  Your local phone and cable company sure doesn’t think so.  We don’t either.

Phillip Dampier

Stop the Cap! reader Angela sent us a print-out, by mail, of a recent guest editorial published by the online news site, the Lincoln Tribune.  White, who is 89 and lives in North Carolina was irritated by the piece, written by Kinston, N.C. mayor B.J. Murphy.

“B.J., who was all of 29 when he was elected in 2009, is the first Republican mayor in Kinston since Reconstruction, and after writing pro-cable company nonsense like he did in that [online] paper, he better be the last,” White wrote.  “My mother and father grew up with the same kind of monopoly these cable companies have today, only then it was the damn railroads.  How we ended up electing a mayor who wants us back in that era is beyond me.”

What caught my attention early on skimming the mayor’s views was a single passage early on in his piece:

Municipal broadband, also known as Government Owned Broadband Networks (GONs) is quickly becoming our state’s new enterprise service of choice for cities and towns.

Really?  GONs?  Now I’ve been editing Stop the Cap! since mid-2008, and we’ve covered North Carolina’s broadband landscape extensively, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen community-owned broadband referred to as “Government Owned Broadband Networks.”  A quick Google search reveals why: it’s a loaded term conjured up by corporate-funded, dollar-a-holler groups that oppose public involvement in broadband.  People don’t like “government” they surmise, so let’s relabel these networks accordingly.  Besides, bin Laden is dead and we can’t use him.

In this case, the acronym ‘GONs’ doesn’t even make sense — shouldn’t it be GOBN?  But that wouldn’t sound as demagogic as “gones,” would it?

Your cable dollars pay for consultants who cook up these silly labels, which are not even accurate.  Community-owned broadband need not be a “government-owned” enterprise it all.  Some are public-private partnerships, others are co-ops or run on a not-for-profit basis independent of government.  What they do have in common is the ability to offer better broadband than the “take it or leave it” service many cable and phone companies provide, if they deliver it at all.

After getting past the pretzel-twisted acronym, it’s clear Mayor Murphy is no fan of community broadband.

I believe we should refrain from the temptation to compete with private communications providers on services and infrastructure that we are not equipped to properly manage.

Kinston, N.C.

Who is “we” exactly?  The city of Kinston?  Mayor Murphy must not believe in the talents and abilities of his employees.  Is Mayor Murphy confessing he is in the ironic position of attacking local government while also being an integral part of it?

Most of Murphy’s editorial is a rehash of talking points already delivered by dollar-a-holler groups like the Heartland Institute or something called the Coalition for the New Economy.  The hypocrisy of both “small government” groups calling for more government regulation on certain broadband providers while exempting their corporate friends and backers is lost on them.

Murphy suggests municipal utilities are not well run, and the locals evidently complain regularly about the one serving Kinston.  Are the complaints about service in other towns about companies like Duke Energy and CP&L — private providers — any fewer in number?  Who exactly loves their local gas and electric company?

Murphy concedes “many cities and towns throughout the years have seen voids in service or infrastructure, not easily duplicated by the private sector.  Those areas of service tend to be water, sewer, and sometimes electricity.”

Our rural grandparents lived that life, waiting for electricity and telephone service that private companies refused to provide because it was simply not profitable enough for them to do so.  In fact, NC Public Power was created precisely because private companies wouldn’t deliver electric service in rural North Carolina.  Just 30 years ago, the state allowed municipal construction of generating plants because there were fears private companies lacked the resources to handle the growth in electricity demand.  The Three Musketeers: Mayor Murphy, the Heartland Institute, and the “Coalition” would prefer cities go dark waiting for private capital to show up?  And at what rate of return would they demand from a state in desperate circumstances?  Imagine the complaints rolling in over that.

And so it goes with rural broadband — a service still not reliably available throughout rural communities in Murphy’s state and 49 others.  The problem of rural North Carolina’s pervasive lack of consistent service is so bad, the Golden LEAF Foundation targeted rural broadband development in 69 North Carolina counties, most lacking more than the slowest speed DSL.  Lenoir County, which includes Kinston is not among them.  Perhaps Murphy’s myopic views apply in his local community, but they certainly don’t in large parts of the rest of the state.  Nobody is forcing the mayor to build Kinston a broadband network.  It would be nice if he didn’t advocate away that right for other less fortunate areas.

Golden LEAF Broadband Project (click to enlarge)

Golden LEAF’s initiative, which is just one of several projects in the state, has garnered more than 130 letters of support including approximately 70 from state, county and municipal officials and 12 from middle-mile and last-mile service providers interested in using the fiber network to reach consumers and small businesses.  Part of the project is being funded by federal tax dollars.  Many of the providers eager to connect to that network are private companies, who seem to have no problem hopping on board a fiber backbone paid for, in part, by taxpayer dollars.

Other projects are community fiber to the home networks, designed to support high bandwidth requirements of the digital, knowledge-based economy.  These community providers didn’t appear out of nowhere.  Communities built these networks after incumbent providers refused upgrade requests, repeatedly.  Some communities even open up their existing municipal fiber networks to residential use.

The hue and cry among those opposing community broadband usually begins when these new providers start selling service to the public.  Private providers don’t complain when public networks provide service only to schools, health care facilities, and public buildings.  But when anyone can sign up, the complaints rage from corporate-funded dollar-a-holler groups, the companies themselves, and certain politicians, some who take campaign contributions from the other two.  The talking points are remarkably similar.  Too similar.

Murphy

Mayor Murphy makes an unfortunate comparison in his editorial — to those railroads which made Angela’s hair stand on end.

“His only experience with that monopoly and the barons who ran it came from his American History class and he wasn’t paying attention,” she says.

Government better serves the people by creating the framework for private business to thrive, not by actually owning or competing with private, tax-paying businesses.  Rarely, if ever, will one see two railroad tracks side by side owned by different companies.  Yet, that is what would happen with broadband service in many communities. In many cases, GONs would essentially use taxpayer dollars to build Internet infrastructure on top of that which has already been put in place by private providers.

Uh…

Is the mayor actually promoting a monopoly for broadband?  I suggest the mayor read our earlier piece about the historical plight of Danville, Virginia — a community on the border with North Carolina.  He will learn that those one-railroad-towns desperately wanted a second or third railway serving their community, if only to escape the horrible and expensive service monopolies and duopolies provided in places without sufficient competition.  It took decades to break the railway monopolies up, and consumers and businesses overpaid millions of dollars to robber barons who fixed prices and the type of service communities would receive.  That kind of control could make or break the economy of a town or city.  So it will be with broadband.

Of course, the mayor could suggest we liberalize access to existing broadband infrastructure and allow competitors to sell services on every available network, or allow a community to build one giant fiber optic pipeline on which every provider can deliver service, but we know what his free market friends would say about that.

Boiled down, Murphy’s arguments come from a position of already having access to the broadband resources he needs, wants, and can afford.  That’s a classic example of “I have mine, too bad you don’t have yours”-politics.

That seals the fate of rural North Carolina to an indefinite future of never getting broadband service.