A new proposal from the nation’s six largest telephone companies would double or triple Universal Service Fund (USF) fees on many telephone lines, extending them to wireless, broadband-based phones, cable TV “digital phone” products, and potentially even Internet accounts, providing billions from consumers for the companies proposing the plan.

Universal Service Fund reform has been a hot topic this year in Washington, as regulators attempt to reform a long-standing program designed to help keep rural landline telephone service affordable, subsidized with small charges levied on customer phone bills that range between $1-3 dollars, depending on the size of your community.

The original goals of the USF have largely been achieved, and with costs dropping to provide telephone service, and ancillary services like broadband DSL opening the door to new revenue streams, some rural phone companies don’t need the same level of support they received in earlier years.  As a result, USF funds have progressively been disbursed to an increasing number of projects that have little to do with rural phone service.  Several funding scandals over the past decade have underlined the need for USF reform, and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been a strong advocate for directing an increasing amount of USF resources towards rural broadband deployment projects.

But now some of America’s largest phone companies want to establish their own vision for a future USF — one that preserves existing funding for rural phone service –and– levies new fees on ratepayers to support broadband expansion.

The ABC Plan's chief sponsors are AT&T...

America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan (ABC), proposed jointly by AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Windstream, Frontier Communications and FairPoint Communications, departs markedly from Genachowski’s vision for a revised USF that would not increase the overall size of the Fund or its cost to consumers.

That’s why some ratepayer consumer groups and utility regulators have taken a dim view on the phone companies’ plan.

Colleen Harrell, assistant general counsel to the Kansas Corporation Commission says customers would find USF fees doubling, if not tripling on their home phone bills under ABC.  That could mean charges of $6 or more per month per phone line.

While the plan substantially benefits the companies that propose it, critics say ABC will do little to enhance service for ordinary consumers.  In fact, some language in the proposal could open the door for landline companies to discontinue universal landline service, a long time goal of AT&T.

In fact, protection for incumbent phone companies seems to be the highest priority in most of the ABC’s framework:

1. The proposal provides a right of first refusal to the incumbent phone company, meaning USF grant funds effectively start at the landline provider, and are theirs to accept or reject.  This has competitors howling, ranging from Wireless ISPs, mobile data providers, cable companies, and even fiber networks.  The ABC proposal ignores who can deliver the best broadband most efficiently at the lowest price, and is crafted instead to deliver the bulk of funding to the provider that has been around the longest: phone companies.
2. Provisions in the ABC Plan provide a convenient exit door for landline providers saddled with providing service to some of America’s most rural communities.  An escape clause allows “satellite service” to be provided to these rural households as a suitable alternative to traditional wired service, sponsored by an annual $300 million Advanced Mobility/Satellite Fund.  This, despite the fact consumer ratings for satellite providers are dismal and existing providers warn their services are often unsuitable for voice calls because of incredibly high latency rates.
3. Provisions in the ABC Plan adhere to a definition of acceptable broadband well within the range favored by telephone company DSL providers — 4Mbps.  Setting the bar much higher could force phone companies to invest in their networks to reduce the distance of copper wire between their offices and customer homes and businesses, allowing for faster speeds.  Instead, lowering the bar on broadband speeds assures today’s deteriorating rural landline network will make-do, leaving a rural/urban speed divide in the United States.
4. To “resolve” the issue of the increased fees and surcharges that could result from the plan’s adoption, it includes a subjective cap of $30 a month on residential basic landline home phone service (without calling features).  But since most ratepayers pay substantially less for basic home phone service, the maximum rate cap provides plenty of room for future rate increases.  Also, nothing precludes phone companies from raising other charges, or creating new “junk fees” to raise rates further, ignoring the “cap.”

...and Verizon

Rural states seem unimpressed with the phone companies’ proposal.  The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) called various provisions of the plan “a train wreck.”  Kansas is one of several states that developed their own state-based Universal Service Fund to help the state’s many rural agricultural areas receive acceptable telecommunications services.  Kansans initially paid one of the highest USF rates in the country when their state plan was enacted in 1996.  But Kansas phone companies used that money to modernize their networks, especially in rural communities — some of which now receive fiber-based phone service, and the rates have fallen dramatically as upgrade projects have been completed.  Today, most Kansans pay just $1.45 in USF fees to rural phone companies, while AT&T customers in larger Kansas towns and cities pay an average of $2.04.

If the ABC Plan is enacted as-is, Kansans will see phone bills spike as new USF fees are levied.  That’s because the federally-based USF Fund reform program would require today’s 6.18% state USF rate double or triple to sustain various programs within its scope.

And forget about the $30 ‘smoke and mirrors’ “rate cap”, according to the KCC:

[…] The ceiling will not preclude carriers from increasing the basic rate beyond $25 or $30 through higher state USF surcharges or higher local rates.  Multiple states including Kansas  have partially or totally deregulated basic local phone service rates, and the only component of retail  local service pricing that the FCC regulates is the federal Subscriber Line Charge.  Thus, a carrier may face no constraint whatsoever in increasing basic local rates to the point that total local rates are well above the illusory ceiling.

The state of Wyoming was also unimpressed with a one-size-fits-all national approach advocated primarily by big city phone companies AT&T and Verizon, the chief sponsors of the ABC Plan.

The Wyoming Public Service Commission filed comments effectively calling the ABC Plan boneheaded, because it ignores the plight of particularly rural states like Wyoming, chiefly served by smaller phone and cable companies that face challenges in the sparsely populated, mountainous state.

First among the Wyoming PSC’s complaints is that the plan ignores business realities in rural states.  No matter how much USF funding becomes available or what compensation schemes are enacted, dominant state phone companies like CenturyLink are unlikely to “invest in broadband infrastructure unless it is economically opportune to do so.”

The PSC points to the most likely outcomes if the ABC Plan is enacted:

• Phone companies not challenged by a broadband competitor will make due with their current copper wire wireline infrastructure the PSC says has been deteriorating for years.  The PSC fears broadband expansion funds will be used to improve that copper network in larger areas where cable competition exists, while the rest of the more-rural network gets ignored;
• In areas like larger towns or suburbs where phone companies suspect a cable (or other) competitor might eventually expand or launch service, USF funding could be spent to bolster the phone company’s existing DSL service to deter would-be competitors from entering the market;
• 

  We'll pass, too.

  The Wyoming PSC believes phone companies will spend broadband funds only where it would improve the phone company’s competitive position with respect to cable competitors.  Providers are unlikely to expand into currently-ignored rural areas for two reasons: lack of ongoing return on investment and support costs and the ABC Plan’s willingness to abandon rural America to satellite providers.  “We are familiar to a degree with satellite service at it presently exists in Wyoming markets, and we are not particularly enamored of the satellite solution,” the PSC writes.  But if adopted, no rural phone company would invest in DSL service expansion in areas that could be designated to receive federally-supported satellite service instead.

Wireless competitors are not happy with the ABC Plan because it ignores Wireless ISPs and sets ground rules that make them unlikely to ever win financial support.  Many also believe the ABC Plan picks technology winners and losers — namely telephone company provided DSL service as the big winner, and everyone else a loser.

The Fiber to the Home Council also heaped criticism on the ABC Plan for the low bar it sets — low enough for any phone company to meet — on broadband speeds.  The FTTH Council notes the ABC Plan would leave rural America on a broadband dirt road while urban America enjoys high-speed-rail-like service.

Coming Next… Who Really Supports the Phone Companies’ ABC Plan.

Any consumer who has ever paid an early termination contract cancellation fee to a wireless carrier might feel a little satisfaction today knowing AT&T’s languishing deal to acquire T-Mobile comes with its own $3 billion dollar penalty payable to Deutsche Telekom if the merger fails to come to fruition.

Sachin Shah, merger arbitrage strategist with Tullett Prebon Americas Corp., suggests that $3 billion dollar fee (and the spectrum giveaway that goes with it) delivers a real incentive for AT&T executives to find a way to force the deal through, and their next venue will likely be federal court in the District of Columbia to keep the government from getting a preliminary injunction against the merger deal.

For AT&T, any legal action will certainly cost far less than $3 billion dollars, so the company has little to lose rolling the dice trying to find a remedy in a district court that has become increasingly business-friendly.

Shah believes yesterday’s announcement by the Justice Department also provides additional paths for AT&T to consider:

• Renegotiate the deal: AT&T could go back to the bargaining table with T-Mobile and return to the DOJ with an amended proposal it hopes will be more acceptable to the government’s antitrust lawyers;
• Reboot the lobbying campaign: AT&T could claim scuttling the deal will cost American jobs — a particularly sensitive topic with unemployment around 9 percent;
• Re-engage AT&T Employee Unions: The Communications Workers of America are true believers in the AT&T/T-Mobile deal, if only because it is likely to broaden union membership to include T-Mobile workers.  Shah thinks the unions might speak to a more receptive audience among certain union-friendly lawmakers who have also been concerned AT&T will use the merger to clear-cut T-Mobile’s employees.

Shah thinks the Justice Department has not entirely slammed the door shut on AT&T’s proposed merger, and there have been precedents of DOJ lawyers changing their minds.

Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission, quieter than a church mouse ever since the deal was announced, apparently found cover from the DOJ decision, and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski delivered his own “me too” statement hours after the Justice Department announced their lawsuit:

“By filing suit today, the Department of Justice has concluded that AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would substantially lessen competition in violation of the antitrust laws,” Genachowski said. “Competition is an essential component of the FCC’s statutory public interest analysis, and although our process is not complete, the record before this agency also raises serious concerns about the impact of the proposed transaction on competition. Vibrant competition in wireless services is vital to innovation, investment, economic growth and job creation, and to drive our global leadership in mobile. Competition fosters consumer benefits, including more choices, better service and lower prices.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg DOJ Lawsuit Not Unexpected 8-31-11.flv[/flv]

Sachin Shah says the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit to block AT&T Inc.’s proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA Inc. does not mean the deal is dead.  He speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.”  (5 minutes)

As we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, emergency responders promised a state-of-the-art emergency communications voice, broadband, and mobile network are still waiting, even though billions in taxpayer dollars have been thrown away in crony insider deals, incompetence, and faulty design work.

Findings from the original 9/11 Commission found radios that couldn’t receive public safety signals, an inability for different fire, police, and ambulance agencies to easily communicate with each other, communications failures when the Twin Towers fell, and nightmarish congestion on civilian cell phone networks often used as a backup when radios are overwhelmed with traffic.

After hundreds of public safety personnel died, the Commission recommended federal funding of a national communications network for emergency responders and other priority traffic.  That recommendation has never been implemented, and piecemeal funding of individual projects in its place on the state level have achieved only mixed success.

Now, legislation languishing to Washington to pay for a national emergency network is getting a renewed push from Democratic senators Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican.

The estimated cost of the new network is between $10-12 billion dollars, but before taxpayers foot the bill for a new voice/data emergency network, federal officials should learn from past mistakes that have wasted billions of dollars and have been delayed or worse by waste, fraud, and abusively bad planning.

Examples from just one state — the one worst impacted by the events on 9/11, provide numerous examples of bad decisionmaking and repeated mistakes that could cost taxpayers even more.

The New York Statewide Wireless Network – A Disaster Of Its Own Making

In the summer of 2004, New York State accepted bids to construct what it thought would be a $500 million-$1 billion dollar statewide wireless radio and data system to connect emergency responders together anywhere from Buffalo to Long Island.  The $1 billion dollar winning bid came from Tyco Electronics’ MA/COM division, which claimed it could do the job for one-third of the cost of the next qualified bidder Motorola, which put the price tag closer to $3 billion.

The wide disparity in bids created significant controversy, especially for Motorola which has years of experience in constructing emergency radio systems.

“There’s something wrong with this picture,” John McFadden, Motorola’s vice president of sales for the northern division of its North America Group told Urgent Communications magazine. “There shouldn’t be a massive gap in these prices.”

Indeed, M/A-COM and Motorola — the first vendors to deploy Project 25-compliant systems — often find themselves as bidding competitors, but their proposals typically are in the same price range, Motorola spokeswoman Pat Sturmon told the magazine.

“If we had lost by 10% or 15%, we would have packed our bags and moved on,” she said.

Then-state assemblyman David Koon (D-Fairport), also raised his eyebrows over the veracity of MA/COM’s bid.  He called MA/COM a “kind of unproven company” for its track record of successfully completing projects on time and on budget.  Koon said Pennsylvania’s wireless system, also being built by MA/COM, ran significantly over budget and was running late.

Four years later, MA/COM’s reputation took a hit when Lancaster County canceled their contract with the company for inadequate reception of fire ground communications.  By 2009, Pennsylvania’s statewide network was still suffering reception problems and remained incomplete, costing state taxpayers $500 million, when it was originally expected to cost $179 million.  Despite this, state officials involved in the original approval of MA/COM defended the company’s performance in the state, blaming mountainous terrain for reception issues and changes in the scope of the network.

In 2007, many of Koon’s fears about MA/COM’s eventual performance in New York were proven correct as costs for the billion dollar network more than doubled, and its construction ran considerably behind schedule.  In late 2007, a field test of MA/COM’s network in Erie County was called an abject failure.

Syracuse’s Post-Standard delivered the report card:

Buffalo’s fire commissioner said many radios had no reception in the western half of the city. And many radios that did get signals had poor sound quality. Problems surfaced, too, that pointed out the need for more effective training of the folks operating the network’s equipment.

[…] The Erie-Chautauqua leg of the network was supposed to be up and running by last June. It was on track to meet that target as late as December 2006, according to the state comptroller. Now, the state is hoping to see it working by April 2008.

It was not to be.  Citing 10 pages of the deficiencies that M/A-COM did not fix or remedy, then Gov. David Paterson canceled the contract in January 2009, and effectively sidelined the network.  In fact, state officials were seeking a refund of at least $50 million in wasted taxpayer dollars.

While New York and Pennsylvania were struggling with performance issues in rolling out MA/COM’s networks, MA/COM employees were testifying before the FCC, advocating the federal government adopt the kind of “end-to-end IP network” similar to what the company was building for New York.

But the controversies don’t stop there.  Several contractors hired to develop, administer, or deploy various projects have come under fire for their performance on various projects:

Hiding Projects from Public Scrutiny

Harry Bronson, Monroe County's former Democratic Minority Leader is among many asking questions about Monroe County's public safety communications project.

In December 2010, New York’s comptroller rejected a $118 million contract to update New York City Transit’s communications system, citing the association of the engineering company involved in an alleged $80 million corruption scheme involving city payroll processing.  The government officials who supported the bid were under suspicion of ignoring the consultant fraud and money laundering alleged by federal prosecutors, perhaps to protect their own reputations.  Details of the project under scrutiny were carefully controlled and selectively released by the Office of Payroll Administration, the body in charge of the “problematic project.”  The executive director was suspended.  He later resigned and as of June of this year, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was demanding a refund of $600 million — all the money one of the project entities has been paid for the project under scrutiny since 2003.

In Monroe County, N.Y. county officials are under increasing state scrutiny over a project to convert the county’s fire radio system to a digital platform.  Questions have been raised about the establishment of a local development corporation — Monroe Security and Safety Systems, Inc. (M3SI) and a contractor — Navitech, which some believe are being used to avoid state oversight requirements.  The Center for Government Research suggested the cozy relationship between the county and the contractors might not be above-board:

[…] Navitech sought bids from only two vendors, Motorola and Harris RF Communications. After Navitech awarded a $30 million contract to Harris, Motorola cried foul, asserting that the bid lacked specific requirements and that the bid was uncompetitive in other ways.

Press and blog reports of the transaction suggest that personal ties among the County Administration and Navitech are involved. Whether allegations of “self-dealing” are true or not, by delegating the big money transaction to Navitech, M3SI appears to have violated the spirit of openness and transparency suggested by open meetings laws and the public bidding process. We accept the proposition that a private firm can operate more efficiently than a public entity. Perhaps complying with all of those laws would have resulted in higher cost. But that seems unlikely. Properly managed, a public bidding process that employs clear specifications and seeks bids from all comers will squeeze excess profit from prospective vendors, securing a better deal for the taxpayer. There is more to learn about how this bidding process was managed. But what we appear to know about the circumstances leaves open the possibility of self-dealing and corruption.

Communications System Upgrades Some Local Fire Officials Think Are Worse Than What They Have Now

Naples, N.Y. Fire Chief Pat Elwell doesn't want Ontario County to spend money on a digital radio upgrade.

In Ontario County, N.Y., some public safety officials understand the need for upgrades, especially a decade after 9/11, but the systems being promoted by some vendors who dazzle local and state officials with glossy presentations and help with federal and state aid don’t get the same glowing assessments by individual fire and police agencies that are forced to use them.  As the hilly Finger Lakes county contemplates a digital upgrade to its public safety networks, Naples Fire Chief Patrick Elwell said the new system could endanger firefighters, not help them.

“There have been numerous failures of the digital trunk communication system, which have contributed to the death of firefighters,” said Elwell.

Although digital systems open up more individual channels for police and fire agencies to communicate, the audio quality often leaves much to be desired.  Almost all sound worse than the average cell phone, with audio artifacts that can give a “watery” quality to voices.  Background noise, common at a fire scene, can actually be amplified by some digital systems, although “hiss and static” common to weak analog signals is eliminated.  Unfortunately, according to Elwell, digital communications systems do occasionally crash, which can disrupt all radio communications county-wide.

The Messenger Post newspaper elaborates:

Elwell provided supervisors with a packet of information included documented cases of radio failure that resulted in the death of firefighters. One took place on April 16, 2007, when a Woodbridge, Va., firefighter died in the line of duty. The Prince William County Department of Fire Rescue concluded that the county’s Motorola Digital Trunked radio system contributed to the tragedy. In another case, firefighters were using their cell phones to communicate when the digital system failed.

Elwell suggested the county reconsider its investment in the digital system and maintain the 400 MHz radio system.

“The financial burden will be less, and the 400 MHz system will assure clear communication on fire ground,” he said.

“Secure” Communications Network Easily Eavesdropped and Subject to Effective Jamming With $30 Children’s Toy

When modified, an effective jammer for critical safety communications.

Among the most ubiquitous modern digital communications networks public safety agencies rely on is based on a standard called Project 25 (P25).  Many manufacturers can build equipment that can support this standard, which makes competition among different vendors possible.  P25 networks are increasingly common in cities around the country for law enforcement and fire communications. But recent revelations suggest P25, touted as secure and effective in public emergencies, isn’t as robust as its backers would have you believe.  In fact, new findings suggest eavesdropping on secure transmissions is easier than many thought, and anyone using a $30 children’s toy can effectively jam even the most sensitive law enforcement communications.

Scanner enthusiasts and the media have legally monitored public safety communications for decades, listening to fire and police calls and causing no harm.  But some agencies don’t appreciate the public audience, and have used digital radio systems to make listening more expensive (digital scanners cost hundreds of dollars) or encrypt even the most routine communications.

The Wall Street Journal reports findings from the University of Pennsylvania that suggest eavesdropping is still routine, even for encrypted, sensitive communications.

University of Pennsylvania researchers overheard conversations that included descriptions of undercover agents and confidential informants, plans for forthcoming arrests and information on the technology used in surveillance operations.

“We monitored sensitive transmissions about operations by agents in every Federal law enforcement agency in the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security,” wrote the researchers, who were led by computer science professor Matt Blaze and plan to reveal their findings Wednesday in a paper at the Usenix Security Symposium in San Francisco.

More disturbing is the fact P25 transmissions can be effectively jammed over a considerable distance with the use of a modified $30 children’s toy — the GirlTech IM-Me:

The GirlTech-based reflexive subframe jammer is able to reliably prevent reception from a nearby Motorola P25 transmitter as received by both a Motorola XTS2500 transceiver and Icom PCR-2500, with the jammer and the transmitter under attack both operating at similar power levels and with similar distance from the receiver. A standard off-the-shelf external RF amplifier would be all that is necessary to extend this experimental apparatus to real-world, long-range use. While we did not perform high power or long-range jamming ourselves (and there are significant regulatory barriers to such experiments), we expect that an attacker would face few technical difficulties scaling a jammer within the signal range of a typical metropolitan area.

The AT&T Document Dump

On Friday, the tech-wireless media was in a frenzy over news one of AT&T’s law firms accidentally posted an un-censored copy of “highly confidential information” regarding its merger proposal with T-Mobile on the Federal Communications Commission website.  Although nobody seems to have a complete copy of the notorious filing to share (it was quickly pulled down after Wireless Week — an industry trade publication — blew the whistle), it turns out if you are willing to plow through AT&T’s periodic publicly-available document dumps, you don’t really need “top secret” information to realize how AT&T is trying to sucker America into accepting its competition-busting merger deal with T-Mobile USA.

What AT&T is Telling the FCC’s Lawyers But Hiding from You

As part of the approval process, the FCC sent AT&T a significant homework assignment, demanding answers to some detailed questions about the justification for the merger, how AT&T intends to use both its existing and newly-acquired wireless spectrum from both Qualcomm and, presumably, T-Mobile, and what specific plans the company has to expand its next generation wireless data network to rural America.

Last week, we learned from the unredacted filing that AT&T will pay $39 billion for T-Mobile to expand a 4G network that AT&T refused to spend $3.8 billion dollars to build themselves.  You read that right.  AT&T says it can expand its own 4G network to an additional 55 million people for just under $4 billion, or buy T-Mobile for nearly $40 billion to accomplish the same thing.

And what exactly does AT&T get from T-Mobile?  A largely urban network running a 4G network that goes nowhere near the 55 million largely rural Americans AT&T claims it intends to serve if the merger wins approval.

So scratch AT&T’s claim that the acquisition of T-Mobile’s network will do anything directly for the rural Americans T-Mobile never directly served.

AT&T’s biggest selling point is that its acquisition of T-Mobile will allow it to reach “97 percent of America” with its improved 4G network:

Because of the spectrum gains and the overall economic benefits resulting from the transaction, senior management made a business judgment that the merger with T-Mobile USA allowed AT&T to expand its LTE build-out to 97 percent of the population. These economic benefits include incremental reductions in cost due to the addition of T-Mobile USA resources, greater scale economies, such as higher volume discounts on handsets and equipment, a larger customer base, and the expectation of a higher take-rate for its LTE service. In addition, the transaction will enable AT&T to re-purpose its existing capital budget allocated to spectrum acquisitions to be allocated for other uses. Overall, the scale and scope of the larger combined wireless business will permit the additional capital investment to be spread over a larger revenue base than would be the case absent the merger.

But the unredacted, “highly confidential” part of the same document exposes important facts AT&T didn’t want the public to know:

“AT&T senior management concluded that, unless AT&T could find a way to expand its LTE footprint on a significantly more cost-effective basis, an LTE deployment to 80 percent of the U.S. population was the most that could be justified,” wrote AT&T counsel Richard Rosen.

In other words, by collecting T-Mobile customers’ monthly payments, AT&T can utilize that additional revenue, earned mostly from T-Mobile’s urban customer base, and use it to pay for rural cell sites the company itself won’t spend the money to upgrade to achieve that 97 percent coverage.

You can read between the lines of AT&T’s public statements and come to the same conclusion Rosen made confidentially, but it helps when the company’s own lawyer says it out loud.

Karl Bode from Broadband Reports thinks there is something familiar about that 97 percent figure.  It just so happens to be Verizon’s existing 3G coverage area.  Verizon pointed to their more robust 3G coverage in a major ad campaign that began just prior to the Christmas shopping season in 2009.  It did enough damage to bring AT&T to court in an effort to stop the ads, and reacquainted America with Luke Wilson, who threw postcards on a floor map touting AT&T’s more robust, but considerably less speedy, last-generation EDGE data network.

Verizon completed their expansive 3G network without the benefit of a merger and is in the process of building their 4G LTE network on their own as well — capable of eventually reaching the majority of Americans without taking out the fourth largest wireless carrier in the country.  AT&T, on the other hand, spent its time in court and handing Wilson more postcards to throw  instead of investing appropriately in its network over the last three years.

AT&T’s Document Dump: More than 1 Million Documents Bury FCC and Justice Lawyers

Another important revelation that doesn’t require the accidental disclosure of redacted data is the fact AT&T is burying government lawyers at both the FCC and Department of Justice in virtual paper.  The company admits to sending at least 1.2 million documents to Justice alone.  Reviewing AT&T’s filings with the FCC exposes the use of the old legal trick of burying your opponents in paper, hoping they will miss important documents that could call into question the veracity of the company’s arguments.

With the FCC, AT&T’s lawyers love to use appendices and attachments as virtual dumping grounds, adding copies of virtually any company document that contain “key words” or “search terms” in response to the Commission’s questions.

Take this Q&A exchange:

FCC Question: Provide all plans, analyses, and reports discussing: (a) spectrum requirements for all band segments; (b) the average data transmission speeds that the Company expects customers will be able to obtain; (c) actual and forecasted traffic and busy hour analyses, (d) total data tonnage; (e) capacity utilization rate; (f) vertically integrated operations; or (g) other technical or engineering factors required to attain any available cost savings or other efficiencies necessary to compete profitably in the sale or provision of any relevant product or any relevant service.

AT&T’s Answer: To respond to this request, AT&T conducted key word searches of custodian files as detailed in the tables appended as Exhibit A. Documents responsive to this request are included in AT&T’s production.

It’s the equivalent of putting the phrase “data transmission speeds” into a search engine and then attaching every document that appears in the results and calling it “your answer,” relevant or not.

AT&T used the same approach in answering the FCC’s questions about how the merger would specifically bring improved 4G service to areas without service today, what impact the merger will have on roaming agreements and wholesale access to the combined AT&T/T-Mobile network, and even in response to a basic question about plans for targeting particular competitors, customers, or customer segments after the merger.

Reality: AT&T Doesn’t Care About T-Mobile’s Network

So what else does AT&T win from a nearly $40 billion investment in T-Mobile?  While the leak of confidential information continues to be largely protected by a trade industry publication that has not released it publicly in full, anyone versed in telecommunications can easily find plenty in AT&T’s public documents.

The most important point is that AT&T admits, publicly,  it has not determined exactly what it intends to do with T-Mobile’s most important asset — its network:

• “AT&T, however, will not be in a position to make any final determinations until it is able to obtain more detailed information about T-Mobile USA’s operations, which will occur later in the acquisition process.”
• “AT&T has not yet begun detailed integration planning efforts.”

Would you spend $40 billion to buy a cellular service provider and not have the first clue what you would do with it?

But it gets even sillier.  AT&T doesn’t even know, several months after the merger was announced, exactly where T-Mobile’s cell towers are and what kind of backhaul connectivity they have:

AT&T has not yet begun detailed integration planning and its knowledge of T-Mobile USA’s operations is necessarily limited at this early stage. The actual process of determining which specific T-Mobile USA sites to integrate and which to decommission will require substantially more data from T-Mobile USA regarding its network as well as a more thorough engineering analysis of each area’s characteristics and capacity needs, which could change by the time the Transaction closes. Consequently, AT&T has not yet determined the exact number or location of T-Mobile USA towers or other locations used for transmission of signals that will be integrated into the combined company’s network to increase network density.

Because AT&T has not yet begun detailed integration planning and its knowledge of T-Mobile USA’s operation is necessarily limited at this early stage, AT&T does not have documents regarding the integration of the two companies’ switching facilities and backhaul.

These facts have made it impossible for AT&T to be responsive to specific questions from the FCC about the impact of acquiring and integrating T-Mobile’s operations into AT&T’s.  That left the company answering the Commission’s questions with statements like this:

Q. Provide all plans, analyses, and reports discussing any possible modification by the Merged Company of the terms, including prices, for providing backhaul for unaffiliated mobile wireless service providers to new or existing towers.

A. AT&T has not yet begun detailed integration planning, and its knowledge of T-Mobile USA’s operations is necessarily preliminary at this early stage. Any consideration regarding potential modification of terms and pricing for backhaul has not yet occurred. Thus, AT&T does not have any documents responsive to this request.

Good to know… or not know.

So if AT&T isn’t dwelling on the details of T-Mobile’s network, what do they expect to obtain from its purchase?

Here are AT&T’s “assumptions.”  That’s right, AT&T isn’t actually promising to do any of this.  It just “assumes” it will based on earlier planning — the same kind of planning that was supposed to deliver 4G upgrades without T-Mobile in the equation, until company executives changed their minds:

• Utilize the parties’ combined scale, spectrum, and other resources to extend AT&T’s deployment of LTE services to over 97% of the U.S. population, extending service to an additional 55 million Americans;
• Integrate AT&T’s and T-Mobile USA’s wireless networks, including:

1. Integrate T-Mobile USA cell sites into the AT&T wireless network, resulting in a more robust network grid;
2. Combine AT&T’s and T-Mobile USA’s GSM networks, eliminate redundant GSM control channels and maximize utilization efficiencies;
3. Combine AT&T’s and T-Mobile USA’s GSM spectrum holdings, resulting in channel pooling efficiencies and improved coverage;
4. Optimize usage of the parties’ combined spectrum holdings and deploy additional spectrum to support more spectrally efficient network technologies; and
5. Decommission redundant cell sites and reuse radios and other equipment from decommissioned sites to enhance network efficiency and performance.

• Make AT&T rate plans available to T-Mobile USA customers, while preserving rate plans for T-Mobile USA consumers who wish to maintain their existing plan of choice;
• Make AT&T services, smartphones, and other devices available to current T-Mobile USA customers;
• Integrate retail outlets, dealers, and marketing efforts under the AT&T brand;
• Integrate billing, customer care, and other support services;
• Integrate certain functional units, including, but not limited to human resources, general & administrative, information technology, finance, procurement, and legal.
• Achieve savings in network infrastructure investment and network and customer equipment purchases; and
• Achieve efficiencies in interconnection and transport costs.

During AT&T’s periodic communications with shareholders, the company has spent most of its time talking about cost savings made possible from closing redundant retail outlets, integrating networks, and the always-vague savings from job redundancies (read that major layoffs).  In fact, AT&T has said they will save up to $10 billion dollars in infrastructure expenses with the merger.  At the same time, its public relations efforts promise the company will spend a veritable fortune — up to $8 billion, improving AT&T’s own network.

You can be certain to the uninitiated, eight billion dollars sounds like a lot of money.  It’s a dollar amount that is sure to razzle-dazzle plenty of people.  That is, until you realize during the same period of time, T-Mobile itself would have been spending up to $18 billion of its own money upgrading its network.  Eighteen billion minus eight billion equals the aforementioned $10 billion — the savings AT&T will realize from continuing to under-spend on both its network and T-Mobile’s.

More Fun Facts: AT&T Cares More About Counting Your Usage Than Measuring Network Capacity & Utilization

Wading through AT&T’s filings has revealed another important fact pertinent to Stop the Cap! readers: AT&T obsesses about measuring your wireless data usage but doesn’t have much of a clue about how much network capacity it has at different cell sites, nor the utilization rates at those sites.  No wonder AT&T drops calls.  If the company isn’t carefully measuring network utilization at a granular level, it can’t hope to find overcongested sites that badly need upgrades to stop the problem of dropped calls and slow speed data:

AT&T does not maintain in the ordinary course of business a nationwide list of all CMAs where its individual network is underutilized. With regard to the areas where AT&T’s and T-Mobile USA’s networks may be underutilized relative to each other, AT&T does not have this information on a CMA by CMA basis, nor does AT&T have engineering data that would provide this granular information for T-Mobile USA.

Money - Better Earned Than Spent

However, when the opportunity to engage in highly-profitable Internet Overcharging exists, measuring customer usage takes a high priority, as we learn from AT&T in response to another question from the FCC:

The .csv file in Exhibit 19-1 contains current (as of March 11, 2011) data usage for each UMTS site (by USID) measured in kilobytes, during the monthly busy hour, and separately for the uplink and the downlink. The .csv file in Exhibit 19-2 contains current (as of March 11, 2011) data usage for each GSM site, measured in Erlangs, combined for the uplink and downlink, for the monthly busy hour. At the Commission’s request, AT&T also provides an estimate of GSM data usage in terms of Kilobytes, using a formula that converts Erlangs to Kilobytes. ll Both exhibits identify the CMA associated with each site. The .xlsx file in Exhibit 19-3 contains usage projections that are currently used by the network engineers for each of AT&T’s 27 regional clusters in the ordinary course of business.

AT&T doesn’t lose any money when it drops your call from an overcongested cell site (unless you grow weary enough of it to cancel service), but can lose plenty if it doesn’t measure customer data usage in hopes of limiting customer use or charging them an overlimit fee when they don’t.

AT&T’s Mother-of-all-Disclaimers: AT&T Has Not Verified It Has Produced All Requested Documents

The most flippant part of AT&T’s document dump is the revelation that despite the million plus documents thrown at two government agencies, AT&T isn’t willing to affirm it actually produced copies of the relevant documents the government wants as part of the review process.  In a host of disclaimers and AT&T’s own descriptions of how it defines the meaning of the government requests, the company notes:

Pursuant to discussions with the Commission staff, AT&T is submitting its Response consistent with the following qualifications:

• Custodian files were searched covering the period from January 1, 2009 through March 21, 2011, except for certain custodians, whose files were searched through early May, 2011.
• AT&T has not verified that it has produced “all other documents referred to in the document or attachments,” pursuant to instruction 4.
• AT&T has not searched backup disks and tapes for documents.

Nothing to slip through scrutiny there, right?

California’s Public Utilities Commission promises a thorough review of the merger proposal from AT&T and T-Mobile, now under increasing scrutiny by the state’s regulators for potentially reduced competition and higher prices for cell phone customers.

The PUC has held seven public meetings so far regarding the proposal, with particular focus on what T-Mobile’s exit would mean for rural communities in northern, central, and eastern California.  Under the leadership of Commissioner Catherine Sandoval, California’s review of the merger proposal is proving to be the most aggressive nationwide, surprising even seasoned regulators.

“This is pretty unheard of,” Brian O’Hara, a legislative director at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “California’s seems to be the most in-depth review. It’s amazing to me that the PUC is doing so much.”

The public-interest group Consumer Watchdog has recommended a rejection of the deal, saying it will lead to higher prices.  This week, the group sent a letter to Sandoval, the Justice Department, and the Federal Communications Commission opposing the merger.  Bloomberg notes aggressive investigations may force AT&T to sell off a growing percentage of their T-Mobile acquisition to win approval:

With the pressure from California and other regulators, AT&T may have to divest 30 percent to 40 percent of T-Mobile USA’s spectrum and subscribers nationwide, Michael Nelson, an analyst with Mizuho Securities USA, said in an interview.

“I expect the requirements to be extremely high,” he said.

California could even seek to block the deal outright, a step usually taken by the FCC or Justice Department. If federal regulators approve the deal and California objects, the commission could go to the state’s attorney general to file a lawsuit to stop it, said Naruc’s O’Hara.

“An attorney general lawsuit may be the only recourse,” he said.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC ATT T-Mobile Merger Backlash 7-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC reports some members of Congress are coming out against the merger proposal, claiming it will reduce competition and raise prices.  (2 minutes)