AT&T lost 649,000 DSL customers in three months.

AT&T’s broadband customers are taking their business elsewhere as second quarter results show the phone company lost 649,000 DSL customers in the last three months, while only picking up 553,000 new U-verse Internet users to replace those leaving. The result was a net loss of nearly 100,000 broadband customers in a single quarter. The company also only managed to attract 155,000 new U-verse television customers away from satellite or cable operators during the quarter.

AT&T blames the losses on “seasonality” — code language for part-time residents, college students, and other fluctuations that occur as customers come and go. Total broadband connections dropped 0.2% for AT&T, with 16.43 million remaining customers.

Landline customers also continue to depart AT&T in droves. More than one million home phone customers pulled the plug on AT&T this quarter. AT&T has lost nearly 11 percent of their landline customers over the past year.

For those remaining, a combination of rate increases, cost cutting and fierce marketing of bundled packages of services are keeping revenue growing on both the residential and business side.

AT&T is getting closer to announcing a “rural landline solution,” which some analysts predict will be the company’s exit from the rural landline business.

Executives continue to hint the company is reviewing its future in the rural landline business. AT&T lobbyists have shepherded new laws in several states that would allow them to abandon rural landline customers where the company is no longer required to be “the carrier of last resort.”

AT&T U-verse is turning out to be not much of a threat to cable and satellite operators, only achieving a 17.3% penetration rate in areas where the service is available.

The real money for AT&T is being made in the wireless sector, where increasing prices, changes to service packages, and data usage-based billing are all paying off  — revenue for wireless data alone is up 18.8% to $1 billion during the second quarter. AT&T earned $14.3 billion from its wireless business in just the second quarter alone.

At the same time, the company is slashing investments in parts of its network and cutting employees.

Capital expenditures in the second quarter amounted to $4.48 billion, down 15% from the $5.27 billion AT&T spent a year ago. AT&T also cut its workforce by 6.4% since June 2011, with a reported 242,380 total remaining employees.

Despite the company’s talking points, AT&T’s upgrade fee is designed to slow down customers considering upgrading their smartphones.

In other highlights:

• Wall Street analysts are praising AT&T’s stricter upgrade policies and device upgrade fees. In fact, at least one analyst wants to see AT&T raise the fee to $50 for every phone upgrade. The fees discourage customers from upgrading their phones, which dramatically reduces AT&T’s costs. AT&T subsidizes phones for customers. The longer customers hold off from upgrading, the more revenue AT&T keeps for themselves and shareholders. AT&T has made it clear it will continue to “introduce discipline”  in the handset market to enforce “rational pricing,” which means customers will continue to see further reductions in device subsidies and face higher prices when upgrading phones.
• Much of AT&T’s investment will be in its LTE 4G network. AT&T’s spending on wireline services including U-verse is on the decline.
• AT&T admitted its policy of monetizing data usage for profit is well underway: “[We are getting] ourselves set up for revenues that are going to be tied to usage, which will then be tied to our capital requirements and a really profitable situation.”
• AT&T is aggressively pushing customers to upgrade to smartphones so they can earn additional revenue. “Smartphone subscribers now number 43 million and make [up] 62% of our total postpaid base. But smartphones accounted for 77% of postpaid sales during the quarter, showing continuing opportunity for growth. And when you look at our total smartphone base, we’ve added 9 million high-value smartphone customers in just the last 12 months.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT 2Q2012 Results.flv[/flv]

AT&T spins its 2nd Quarter results for shareholders in the best possible light. Although revenues are up, the number of customers leaving AT&T for other providers may challenge future growth and earnings. (4 minutes)

Phillip “They Want to Save You Money By Charging You More” Dampier

The pro-Internet Overcharging forces’ meme of “pay for what you use” sounds good in theory, but no broadband provider in the country would dare switch to a true consumption-based billing system for broadband, because it would destroy predictable profits for a service large cable and phone companies hope you cannot live without.

Twenty years ago, the cable industry could raise rates on television packages with almost no fear consumers would cancel service. When I produced a weekly radio show about the cable and satellite television industry, cable companies candidly told me they expected vocal backlashes from customers every time a rate increase notice was mailed out, but only a handful would actually follow through on threats to cut the cord. Now that competition for your video dollar is at an all-time-high, providers are shocked (and some remain in denial) that customers are actually following through on their threats to cut the cord. Goodbye Comcast, Hello Netflix!

Some Wall Street analysts have begun warning their investor clients that the days of guaranteed revenue growth from video subscribers are over, risking profits as customers start to depart when the bill gets too high. Cable companies have always increased rates faster than the rate of inflation, and investors have grown to expect those reliable profits, so the pressure to make up the difference elsewhere has never been higher.

With broadband, cable and phone companies may have found a new way to bring back the Money Party, and ride the wave of broadband usage to the stratosphere, earning money at rates never thought possible from cable-TV. The ticket to OPEC-like rivers of black gold? Usage-based billing.

Since the early days of broadband, most Americans have enjoyed flat rate access through a cable or phone company at prices that remained remarkably stable for a decade — usually around $40 a month for standard speed service.

In the last five years, as cord-cutting has grown beyond a phenomena limited to Luddites and satellite dish owners, the cable industry has responded. As they learned customers’ love of broadband has now made the service indispensable in most American homes, providers have been jacking up the price.

Time Warner Cable, for example, has increased prices for broadband annually for the last three years, especially for customers who do not subscribe to any other services.

Customers dissatisfaction with rate hikes has not led to broadband cord cutting, and in fact might prove useful on quarterly financial reports -and- for advocating changes in the way broadband service is priced:

1. Enhance revenue and profits, replacing lost ground from departing video customers and the slowing growth of new customers signing up for video and phone services (and keeping average revenue per user ((ARPU)) on the increase);
2. Using higher prices to provoke an argument about changing the way broadband service is sold.

Pouring over quarterly financial reports from most major providers shows remarkable consistency:

• The costs to provide broadband service are declining, even with broadband usage growth;
• Revenue and profits enjoy a healthy growth curve, especially as increased prices on existing customers make up for fewer new customer additions;
• Earnings from broadband are now so important, a cable company like Time Warner Cable now refers to itself as a broadband company. It is not alone.

Still, it is not enough. As usage continues to grow in the current monopoly/duopoly market, providers are drooling with anticipation over the possibility of scrapping the concept of “flat rate” broadband, which limits the endless ARPU growth Wall Street demands. If a company charges a fixed rate for a service, it cannot grow revenue from that service unless it increases the price, sells more expensive tiers of service, or innovates new products and services to sell.

Providers have enjoyed moderate success selling customers more expensive, faster service, also on a flat rate basis. But that still leaves money on the table, according to Wall Street-based “usage billing” advocates like Craig Moffett, who see major ARPU growth charging customers more and more money for service as their usage grows.

Moffett has a few accidental allies in the blogger world who seem to share his belief in “usage-based” billing. Lou Mazzucchelli, reading the recent New York Times piece on Time Warner’s gradual move towards usage pricing, frames his support for consumption billing around the issue of affordability. In his view, usage pricing is better for consumers and the industry:

It costs real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand, and those costs are ultimately borne by the subscriber. So in the US, we have carriers trying to raise their rates to offset increases in capital and operating expenses to the point where consumers are beginning to push back, and the shoving has come to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which has raised the possibility of treating Internet network providers as common communications carriers subject to regulation.

I believe that flat-rate pricing is a major source of problems for network carriers and consumers. In the carrier world, the economics are known but ignored because marketers believe that flat rates are the only plans consumers will accept. But in the consumer world, flat rates are rising to incomprehensible levels for indecipherable reasons, with little recourse except disconnection. Consumer dissatisfaction is rising, in part because consumers feel they have no control over the price they have to pay. This is driven by their sense of pricing inequity that is hard to visualize but comes from implicit subsidies in the current environment. The irony is that pay-per-use pricing solves the problem for carriers and consumers.

Mazzucchelli reposted his blog piece originally written in 2010 for the benefit of Times readers. Two years ago, he measured his usage at 11GB a month. His provider Verizon Communications was charging him $64.99 a month for 25Mbps service, which identifies him as a FiOS fiber to the home customer.  Mazzucchelli argues the effective price he was paying for Internet access was $5.85 for each of the 11GB he consumed, which seemed steep at the time. (Not anymore, if you look at wireless company penalty rates which range from $10-15/GB or more.)

Mazzucchelli theorized that if he paid on a per-packet basis, instead of flat rate service based on Internet speed, he could pay something like $0.0000025 per packet, which would result in a bill of $31.91 for his 11GB instead of $65. For him, that’s money saved with usage billing.

On its face, it might seem to make sense, especially for light users who could pay less under a true usage-based pricing scenario like the one he proposes.

Verizon Communications is earning more average revenue per customer than ever with its fiber to the home network. That’s about the only bright spot Wall Street recognizes from Verizon’s fiber network, which some analysts deride as “too expensive.”

Unfortunately for Mazzucchelli, and others who claim usage-based pricing will prove a money-saver, the broadband industry has some bad news for you. Usage pricing simply cannot be allowed to save you, and other current customers money. Why? Because Wall Street will never tolerate pricing that threatens the all-important ARPU. In the monopoly/duopoly home broadband marketplace most Americans endure, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in the war for revenue and profits.

That is why broadband providers will never adopt a true usage-based billing system for customers. It would cannibalize earnings for a service that already enjoys massive markups above true cost. In 2009, Comcast was spending under $10 a month to sell broadband service priced above $40.

Mazzucchelli

Instead, providers design “usage-based” billing around rates comparable to today’s flat rate pricing, only they slap arbitrary maximum usage allowances on each tier of service, above which consumers pay an overlimit fee penalty. That would leave Mazzucchelli choosing a lower speed, lower usage allowance plan to maximize his savings, if his use of the Internet didn’t grow much. On a typical light use plan suitable for his usage, he would subscribe to 1-3Mbps service with a 10GB allowance, and pay the overlimit fee for one extra gigabyte if he wanted to maximize his broadband dollar.

But his usage experience would be dramatically different, both because he would be encouraged to use less, fearing he might exceed his usage allowance, and he would be “enjoying” the Internet at vastly slower speeds. If Mazzucchelli went with higher speed service, he would still pay prices comparable for flat rate service, and receive a usage allowance he personally would find unnecessarily large. The result for him would be little to no savings and a usage allowance he did not need.

Mazzucchelli’s usage pattern is probably different today than it was in 2010. Is he still using 11GB a month? If he uses double the amount he did two years ago, under his own pricing formula, the savings he sought would now be virtually wiped out, with a broadband bill for 22GB of consumption running $63.82. By the following year, usage-based pricing would cost even more than Verizon’s unlimited pricing, as average use of the Internet continues to grow.

That helps the broadband industry plenty but does nothing for consumers. Mazzucchelli might be surprised to learn that the “real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand,” is actually more than covered under today’s profit margins for flat-rate broadband. In fact, if he examines financial reports over the last five years and the statements company executives make to shareholders, virtually all of them speak in terms of reducing capital investments and the declining costs to deliver broadband, even as usage grows.

Verizon’s fiber network, while expensive to construct, is already earning the company enormous boosts in ARPU over traditional copper wire phone service. While Wall Street howled about short term capital costs to construct the network, then-CEO Ivan Seidenberg said fiber optics was the vehicle that will drive Verizon earnings for decades selling new products and services that its old network could never deliver.

Still, is Mazzucchelli paying too much for his broadband at both 2010 and 2012 prices? Yes he is. But that is not a function of the cost to deliver broadband service. It is the result of a barely competitive marketplace that has an absence of price-moderating competitors. Usage-based pricing in today’s broadband market assures lower costs for providers by retarding usage. It also brings even higher profits from bigger broadband bills as Internet usage grows, with no real relationship to the actual costs to provide the service. It also protects companies from video package cord-cutting, as customers will find online viewing prohibitively expensive.

One need only look at pricing abroad to see how much Americans are gouged for Internet service. Unlimited high speed Internet is available in a growing number of countries for $20-40 a month.

Usage-based billing is a dead end that might deliver temporary savings now, but considerably higher broadband bills soon after. It is not too late to turn the car around and join us in the fight to keep unlimited broadband, enhance competition, and win the lower prices users like Mazzucchelli crave.

A summary of recent quarterly earnings reports from America’s wireless companies:

Verizon Wireless: Verizon has been uncompetitive in the prepaid market for the last several years, as it focused on its postpaid/contract customers.  No more.  Recent price cutting and the introduction of new contract-free plans that offer unlimited calling or packages of features comparable to contract plans are starting to win Verizon a bigger share of the prepaid market.  But Verizon also successfully picked up 1.2 million new contract customers as well, many switching from AT&T or smaller providers.  That’s the second best result the company has had in the last two years.  Verizon has a whopping 87.4 million people on two-year contracts and 21.3 million prepaid customers — 108.7 million total.  Verizon’s iPhone remains popular with 4.3 million activations last quarter.

AT&T: Growth at AT&T achieved its best results in the last quarter of the year, but the company continues to trail Verizon Wireless.  AT&T added 717,000 contract customers last quarter, and has been behind Verizon adding new customers for more than a year.  The company’s reputation for lousy service and policies that antagonize their customers have driven people to look elsewhere — mostly to Verizon.  But iPhone devotees are remaining loyal to AT&T, with one of every five new iPhone activations happening on AT&T’s network.  The company picked up 7.6 million new iPhone activations last quarter.

Sprint: The iPhone is killing Sprint’s balance sheet, but is bringing the company new contract customers.  Historically, Sprint’s most predictable growth has come from its resale agreements with third party providers and its various prepaid service divisions (Boost/Virgin Mobile).  But with the introduction of the Sprint iPhone (1.8 million new activations last quarter), customers looking for unlimited data or a cheaper plan are finding both at Sprint.  Unfortunately for the company, the wholesale cost of the iPhone is eating heavily into the company’s cash on hand.

Leap Wireless/Cricket and MetroPCS: Both companies are facing increasing challenges sustaining their prepaid service business models because of growing competition from larger providers.  Just about everyone who wants a two year contract-cell phone plan already has one, limiting new growth opportunities.  That is forcing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile to turn their attention to the still-growing prepaid market, which is attractive for the credit-challenged, occasional users, travelers, and those with lower incomes.  Both Cricket and MetroPCS have traditionally targeted urban markets, where their networks are focused, to sell customers inexpensive service plans with convenient payment options.  But their networks don’t extend outside of suburban and urban areas, so roaming expenses can be higher for customers on the go.  Customers of both companies are increasingly looking to larger providers with more robust network coverage and increasingly aggressive pricing.

That has left Cricket with anemic, but acceptable growth, picking up 179,000 new customers in the fourth quarter.  MetroPCS, however, failed to meet expectations with just 197,410 new customers in the fourth quarter.  Existing MetroPCS subscribers are also leaving at a higher rate.

Verizon Buying Portion of Plateau Wireless’ New Mexico Operations

Plateau Wireless serves eastern New Mexico and portions of western Texas.

The consolidation of America’s wireless market continues with this week’s announcement Verizon Wireless intends to acquire a portion of Plateau Wireless’ network operations in southwest New Mexico.

Verizon will take over Plateau’s 259,000 mostly rural customers in portions of Roswell, Carlsbad, Artesia, Hobbs, and Ruidoso, N.M.

The acquisition covers a service territory of 26,100 square miles.

Plateau says the decision came down to money.  The wireless company needs the infusion of cash a Verizon purchase would bring to help finance high speed wireless upgrades.

The FCC will have to review the transaction before it can be approved.

Frontier Communications faced unhappy investors Thursday after announcing it was slashing its dividend nearly in half in an effort to raise money to sustain the company’s cash flow and reduce its debt.

The company’s earnings fell 8.1% as customers continued to leave for the competition, seeking better service and lower prices.

The poor earnings results and the dividend cuts delivered a one-two punch to Frontier stock, which slid to $4.20 a share, down 16 percent in the last three months.

Among Frontier’s biggest challenges remains the quality of its broadband service to customers.  Where competition exists, Frontier DSL continues to lose the speed battle, and recent junk fees padding customer bills, including a “High Speed Internet surcharge,” and increasing modem rental fees have alienated some customers.

Frontier’s chief operating officer and executive vice president Dan McCarthy told investors 83 percent of Frontier’s service area has access to the company’s broadband product.  However, fewer than 20% of Frontier’s customers have access to speeds as high as 20Mbps.  Only just over half can access the Internet at 6Mbps.  Many of Frontier’s customers can only access lower speed service (66% can choose 4Mbps, 76% — 3Mbps, and the rest 768kbps-3Mbps).

“We’ll be investing throughout the year to improve speed-reaching capability in all our markets,” McCarthy told investors on a conference call last week.

In the second half of 2010, Frontier is expected to increase the amount of Ethernet in its middle mile network, which McCarthy expects will allow the company to deliver faster speeds over VDSL2 and VDSL2 bonding as means of driving both speed increases in the residential and the commercial markets.

However, Frontier’s preoccupation with an internal system conversion, to integrate its acquired Verizon service areas with the rest of its network, has stalled much of the company’s marketing.  Promotions, in particular, have been anemic over the last several months and will likely remain that way until later this year.  Where competition exists, cable operators have successfully been picking off Frontier’s customers.

• Broadband and satellite TV additions are down, in part due to the lack of promotions and marketing;
• FiOS video losses continue as the company shuns its fiber video service in favor of satellite TV cross-marketing;
• Line loss rates remain very high: 8.3% of Frontier’s customers disconnected their landline service in the last quarter, 5.9% in areas that were not acquired from Verizon.
• Once customers leave, they rarely return.  Churn rate of Frontier customers coming and going is at just 1.6%.

As with similar Verizon landline sales in the past, initial revenue growth from acquired customers starts out high, boosting revenue numbers and often the value of a company’s stock.  But the heavy debt load incurred from acquisitions and ongoing line losses to the competition eventually take their toll, and Frontier’s revenue now reflects the reality of a company trying to sell more services to a declining number of customers.

Morningstar notes the company’s debt problems are significant:

Frontier has struggled to bring leverage down and hasn’t successfully placed new debt since closing the Verizon transaction in 2010. Management has talked about taking care of the $580 million maturity it faces in early 2013 for the better part of a year, with no result to date. Yields on the firm’s existing debt have increased over the past year, despite the sharp decline in Treasury rates.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services reduced its outlook on the company from stable to negative, noting the competition is increasingly hurting Frontier’s capability to raise revenue.

The company’s decision to slash its dividend in an effort to reduce debt has created consternation for some investors who stuck with the company when the share price was above $7 and the dividend was declared safe for two years.  Neither seems to the be case any longer.

Britt

On this morning’s conference call for investors, Wall Street continued to pound Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt about when the company would introduce an Internet Overcharging scheme for broadband customers in the form of so-called “usage based billing.”

This quarter, the pressure came from Deutsche Bank’s Doug Mitchelson, who used the occasion to remind Britt he called usage pricing “inevitable” and wanted to know when the company was going to get the ball rolling on the pricing scheme.

Britt was unprepared to answer, other than to make comparisons about his “inevitable” remark with wireless carriers, who have said the same thing about the end of unlimited use plans in wireless, a different technology.

After following Britt’s public statements for more than two years about this subject, we detected a moderating view.  Britt told investors he believes “there should remain an unlimited plan for those who want to buy that,” and suggested Time Warner Cable might not be interested in applying usage pricing on every level of its broadband service.  That could be good news, so long as Britt doesn’t believe the price of “unlimited” should be the $150 a month the company proposed in 2009.

“We’re more focused on affordability and lower income people who might be light users and might seek to pay less because they use less,” Britt said. “That’s a much better context than the usual ‘oh those people using all the bandwidth’ and caps and all that stuff.”

Britt added he doesn’t anticipate having caps across the board.

Mitchelson explained in a follow-up question why Wall Street is interested in the adoption of usage pricing – an increase in “ARPU growth” — the average revenue earned from each broadband customer in the form of more expensive usage plans.

Britt acknowledges what Stop the Cap! has predicted all along — ARPU growth can be realized instead from subscribers upgrading to faster speed tiers, which carry higher costs.  Britt told Mitchelson he, and other investors, can get the ARPU growth they crave by looking at those numbers instead of earnings from usage based pricing.

How long before Wall Street demands both speed-related ARPU growth and extra earnings from usage pricing is an open question, but Britt’s latest remarks represent a significant shift in attitude about pricing broadband, potentially because the company has a new found appreciation for the limited capability of customers to keep opening their wallets to pay higher and higher cable bills.  That was clearly in evidence as the company tried to explain another quarter of declining cable TV customers, many forced out of the service because of its high cost.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt answers a question about usage-based pricing from Deutsche Bank’s Doug Mitchelson, just one of a parade of Wall Street banks pushing broadband providers to adopt Internet Overcharging to increase profits. July 28, 2011. (2 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.