Assurance Wireless, owned by Sprint, delivers Lifeline cell phone service to low income Americans.

Low income Americans may soon be able to obtain substantial discounts on broadband Internet service as part of an expansion of the Lifeline program, which currently provides subsidized landline and cell phone service.  The Federal Communications Commission is considering the future of the program, which currently focuses on basic telephone service, but could soon be expanded into broadband.

But before that can happen, the Lifeline program itself must undergo a comprehensive review process, according to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

The FCC admits the program is overdue for reform. Recent investigations found billions in potential savings from the elimination of significant waste, fraud, and abuse.

The most costly problems appear to be coming from the recently introduced subsidized cell phone program, which hands out free or extremely low-cost cell phones to poor Americans, paid for by other ratepayers as part of the “Universal Service” surcharge.  Recent audits found many recipients double-dipping or worse, signing up for free cell phones for individual family members while already receiving a separate landline discount.  Under FCC rules, Lifeline recipients are supposed to receive a single subsidy per household, either for cell phone or landline service, not both.  But in several cases, informal audits found families with multiple cell phones, some handed out to children.

The FCC only recently decided to create an Accountability Database to track Lifeline program benefits.  Scammers have used loopholes to sign up those unqualified to participate, and some customers have obtained cell phones from multiple providers, a violation of the rules. Ratepayers could save nearly $2 billion annually once ineligible accounts are closed and the double-dipping has been stopped.  Some of those savings can be used to help defray the costs of Lifeline broadband, a potential new program that could deliver basic broadband service to low income households for around $10 a month.

Currently, a handful of cable and phone companies offer a similar service to those families who qualify for subsidized school lunches.  The FCC is analyzing data collected by providers like Comcast to help build a model program not affiliated with any single provider.

Genachowski said the program will not only help defray the costs of broadband service, but also get low-cost computers and training into the hands of needy families.

One of the most commonly-reported reasons why consumers do not adopt broadband service is its relatively high cost.  Most low-income broadband programs deliver basic 1-3Mbps service, but only to families with school-age children.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FCC Lifeline.flv[/flv]

The FCC produced this video explaining the Lifeline program, who is eligible, how it works, and how to sign up.  (8 minutes)

One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

Verizon Wireless became the Bank of America of late 2011 when it attempted to impose a $2 “convenience fee” on select customers who prefer to pay their monthly phone bills online or through an automated telephone attendant.  It’s just the latest experiment in customer gouging — the same kind of toe-in-the-water strategic experimenting that unleashed ubiquitous baggage fees on airlines, low balance fees on checking accounts, and the increasingly-common practice of charging customers extra to mail them their monthly bill.

An entire industry of consultants pitch their creative talents to companies like Verizon who want “a little extra” from captive customers.  These specialists sell their expertise identifying the most vulnerable (and least likely to leave), who will grin and bear just about any kind of abuse heaped on them. Many income and resource-challenged consumers are left feeling powerless to protest and reverse unwarranted extra charges.

The consultant gougers-for-hire made millions for large banks when they figured out how to score the biggest bounced check and overdraft fees (simply pay the biggest check first, opening the door to $39 bounced check fees for all the little checks that follow).  Verizon’s $2 fee targeted customers who couldn’t afford to let the company automatically withdraw their monthly payment, or didn’t trust the company to do it correctly.  Even more, Verizon’s fee would target more desperate past-due customers who needed to make a fast payment to avoid service interruption.  Consumer advocates wondered if Verizon was successful charging these customers more, would they expand the fees to cover all online or pay-by-phone payments?

We’ll never know because the public outcry and intensive media coverage during a slow holiday week combined to force Verizon into a fourth quarter revenue retreat, rescinding the fee 24 hours after announcing it.  But Verizon may be pardoned if they feel they were unfairly singled out.  That is because other telecommunications companies have been charging certain customers bill payment fees of their own for years:

Verizon's evolved position on the $2 convenience fee (Courtesy: WTVT)

• Stop the Cap! reader Larry writes to share TDS Telecom, an independent phone company, charges a $2.95 “third party processing fee” when accepting payments by phone.  “In its place you either have to revert to U.S. Postal Service, or agree to electronic billing for on-line payment access.”
• AT&T charges a $5 bill payment fee for “certain customers.”
• Sprint/Nextel not only has its own $5 bill payment fee for those paying at the last minute,  it also forces customers with spotty credit to sign up for auto-pay to avoid a mandatory surcharge.  Want a paper bill?  That’s $2 extra a month.
• Comcast charges a $5.99 payment fee, but only in certain states.
• Time Warner Cable charges fees ranging from an “agent assisted payment” fee ($4.99) to a statement copy fee ($4.99) in some locations.

While Verizon has agreed to drop its latest new charge, the company’s carefully-named bill-padding extra fees attached to monthly bills remain.  In addition to breaking out and passing along all government fees and surcharges, Verizon also bills customers administrative and regulatory recovery fees that, for other companies, would represent the cost of doing business.  These latter two go straight into Verizon’s pocket, despite the implication they are third party-imposed mandatory surcharges.

Had Verizon called their new $2 “convenience” fee a “business efficiency accounting recovery fee,” would they have snookered enough consumers to get away with it?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVT Tampa Verizon cancels planned 2 bill-pay fee 12-30-11.mp4[/flv]

WTVT in Tampa says Verizon did a complete 180 on its $2 bill payment “convenience fee.”  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Verizon Dumps Fee 12-30-11.flv[/flv]

CNN hints the FCC’s potential involvement in Verizon’s business may have had something to do with the quick shelving of the $2 fee.  (2 minutes)

FAIL

AT&T announced Monday it has officially dropped its bid for Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA.

The company blamed regulator opposition for the failure of the merger, underestimating the Obama Administration’s tolerance for super-sized acquisition deals that could reduce competition and raise prices for consumers.

The real challenge for AT&T initially came not from the Federal Communications Commission, but from the U.S. Department of Justice which filed suit against the merger in August. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski soon followed with statements that suggested the merger would have a difficult time at the Commission as well, and after a scathing report from FCC staffers was made public, Wall Street began to reduce the chances of the merger getting through to the single digits.

Had AT&T successfully merged with fourth-place T-Mobile, it would have easily become the nation’s largest and most powerful wireless provider, advancing beyond current leader Verizon Wireless.

The failure for AT&T will cost the company at least $4 billion in cash and spectrum it earlier agreed to give T-Mobile if the merger failed to complete.  Industry analysts say the real winner this year will easily be Verizon Wireless, which successfully accomplished its own spectrum acquisition by quietly buying unused spectrum from some of the nation’s largest cable companies.  With that spectrum now under Verizon’s control, AT&T has been reduced to signing new roaming agreements with an independent T-Mobile to share their GSM technology networks.  That will do little to alleviate AT&T’s dropped call problem in large cities, analysts say, because most roaming agreements specify sharing network resources only in areas where one carrier does not provide service.

Where U.S. Cell Phone Companies Stand Today

AT&T: AT&T still retains a considerable amount of unused wireless spectrum, but some of it is located on frequency bands that provide a lower quality of service indoors.  AT&T may have a difficult time finding new spectrum, because other carriers have signed partnership deals with most of the companies still holding unused frequencies. One of the largest holders of unused, warehoused spectrum is DISH Networks, and they’ve indicated no interest in selling.  DISH may partner with T-Mobile now that AT&T has exited.  That leaves AT&T with lobbying the government to speed up new spectrum auctions and working internally to expand their cell tower network to divide the traffic load.  It’s an expensive proposition, and several Wall Street analysts are advising their clients to dump AT&T stock.  Kevin Smithen, a Macquarie Capital USA Inc. analyst who downgraded AT&T to “sell” from “hold” last week advised AT&T was running out of options.

Verizon Wireless: Big Red remains in excellent shape to maintain its current market leadership position, particularly as it uses recently-acquired spectrum to bolster its 4G LTE network.  A UBS analyst was more direct: It will have 56 percent more 4G spectrum than AT&T in the top 10 markets and 46 percent more in the top 100, giving it a “meaningful competitive advantage.” Verizon has also cut a deal with cable operators that could reduce competitive pressure on Verizon’s landline/FiOS network from cable companies.  That fringe benefit comes courtesy of an agreement to market each others’ products to consumers.

Sprint: In addition to building its own 4G network, the company still has an agreement with Clearwire that allows Sprint to purchase the former company’s spectrum if it ever becomes available for sale.  With T-Mobile still obviously up for sale, Sprint could attempt its own merger, although it may be wary of stirring the same regulatory pot that got AT&T into trouble.  That leaves T-Mobile’s next buyer likely to be a regional cell phone company, a foreign firm entering the U.S. market, or an existing telecommunications company that decides a wireless division would be of benefit.

Extended Video Coverage

News of AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Failure Breaks

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/AP T-Mobile Merger Dead 12-19-11.mp4[/flv]

This report from the Associated Press informs consumers of the basics — the merger is no-go, leaving AT&T and T-Mobile as competitors, at least for now.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATT Pulls T-Mobile Bid After Regulator Opposition 12-19-11.mp4[/flv]

AT&T Inc. abandoned a $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA after underestimating opposition from regulators, thwarting its ambitions to become the biggest U.S. wireless carrier. AT&T will take a pretax charge of $4 billion to reflect cash payments and other considerations due to T-Mobile-owner Deutsche Telekom AG, the Dallas-based company said in a statement today. Peter Cook, Lisa Murphy, Adam Johnson and Sheila Dharmarajan report on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (7 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Blair Says ATT’s T-Mobile Bid Was All About Spectrum 12-19-11.mp4[/flv]

Brian Blair, an analyst at Wedge Partners Corp., talks about AT&T Inc.’s decision to abandon a $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA and Apple Inc.’s victory in a final patent-infringement ruling that bans some HTC Corp. smartphones from the U.S. Blair speaks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (11 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Baird on ATT T-Mobile Failure 12-20-11.mp4[/flv]

Apologists for AT&T on CNBC wring their hands over how wireless networks will get built out into rural areas now that the T-Mobile deal is dead. Will Power, R.W. Baird & Co, weighs in with a host who clearly cheerleads AT&T’s world-view.  (5 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC ATT Drops Bid for T-Mobile 12-20-11.mp4[/flv]

AT&T drops its $39 billion bid for T-Mobile USA, with Todd Rethemeier, Hudson Square Research.  AT&T’s talking points don’t fly with Rethemeier.  (4 minutes)

T-Mobile’s CEO Speaks About the Merger Failure

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Deutsche Telekom CEO on Failed T-Mobile Merger 12-20-11.mp4[/flv]

Rene Obermann, Deutsche Telekom CEO, explains why the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile USA should have gone through. “This transaction would have solved a number of industry issues,” he says.  Obermann is in friendly territory on CNBC.  (8 minutes)

The Impact on Sprint

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Horan Sees T-Mobile Eventually Merging With Sprint 12-19-11.mp4[/flv]

Tim Horan, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., talks about AT&T Inc.’s decision to abandon a $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA, thwarting its ambitions to become the biggest U.S. wireless carrier. Horan speaks with Adam Johnson and Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Gamcos Haverty Says Sprint an Endangered Species 12-19-11.flv[/flv]

Larry Haverty, portfolio manager at Gamco Investors Inc., talks about AT&T Inc.’s decision to abandon a $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile USA, and the outlook for Sprint Nextel Corp. and the wireless industry. Haverty speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (6 minutes)

 Will DISH Network Be AT&T’s Next Acquisition Target?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Trading on ATT’s Failed T-Mobile Bid 12-20-11.mp4[/flv]

Shares of Dish Network up 9% in the aftermath of AT&T’s failed bid to acquire T-Mobile. Michael McCormack, Nomura telecom analyst, weighs in on whether Dish is the next target for AT&T.  (2 minutes)

"Hey, we're #19!"

The United States may be a leader in many things, but broadband isn’t one of them. The country has now fallen two more positions — to 19th place, behind South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and even Iceland, since the Berkman Center for Internet and Society released its last rankings in 2009.

In 2004, President George W. Bush complained about the U.S. falling to 10th place, which he declared was “ten spots too low.”

Now eastern Europe and former Soviet Republics in the Baltics threaten to overtake the United States, and countries in southeast Asia already have.  Innovation in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand means deploying fiber to the home service to the vast majority of the population.  Innovation in North America means conjuring up new pricing schemes to raise prices on broadband service and engage in competition-busting mergers and acquisitions.

But a USA Today editorial this week also places much of the blame on corporate influence inside Washington, which has promulgated legislative policies that favor telecommunications companies and throw customers under the bus.

“The simple answer is that other countries have policies that promote competition and innovation,” the editors write. “In contrast, policies here have allowed a few dominant players that control the least interesting parts of the broadband landscape (the cables and the wireless spectrum) to dominate.”

Indeed, a series of telecommunications laws enacted by Congress, combined with short-sighted policies at the Federal Communications Commission, have allowed a handful of super-sized players to own and control broadband service in America, resulting in providers establishing non-competing fiefdoms that avoid head-on competition.

The worst policy of all allowed broadband providers to keep competitors from reaching customers over existing broadband networks.  During the days of dial-up, you could purchase Internet access from the phone company, a large provider like MSN or AOL, or thousands of smaller regional and local service providers.  Simply dial a local access number and you were connected to the provider of your choice.  Now, U.S. law gives broadband network operators the right to restrict these independents from selling service over their networks.  Comcast need not sell anything other than Comcast Internet.  Frontier Communications can make a killing selling its own DSL service, while protecting that revenue from other Internet Service Providers who might sell the service over Frontier’s network for half the price.  Time Warner Cable voluntarily allows Earthlink and a handful of other companies to sell cable broadband service over its infrastructure, but at prices equal to or higher than what Time Warner charges itself.

Broadband providers argue that allowing competitors to sell service on their network would discourage future investment and rob shareholders a return on investments already made.  Today, major cable operators and phone companies are falling all over themselves denying they are in anything but the broadband business.  It has become an enormously lucrative enterprise, more profitable than television or telephone service.

USA Today compares the broadband landscape back home with that in South Korea — perennially the world’s fastest, and considerably less expensive than what North Americans pay for service:

South Korea has made broadband a national priority, mandating deployment and in some cases giving private companies incentives to build out. It has also prevented major players from monopolizing their businesses, encouraging competition and innovation. In South Korea, consumers can get broadband service from a cable or telecom company. But they may also choose among myriad independent providers that are given access to the physical infrastructure. This competition keeps prices down and the quality of service high.

[…] But over time, cable and telecom companies worked the courts and Congress to make sure that this competitive world would never come to be [in the United States]. […] Wireless is a bit better. But the market has remained a near duopoly, with none of the smaller players emerging as a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon.

The same open network concept has fought its way forward in Canada (where Bell has worked furiously to sabotage the business plans of independent providers) and in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand where all three governments have decided the best solution would be to scrap the ancient landline network and start fresh with an open-to-all-comers fiber to the home service.

Back home in the States it is business as usual with increasing broadband prices and the looming prospect of usage-limiting schemes designed to cut capital costs, monetize broadband usage, and stop cord-cutting.

The opposing point of view comes courtesy of dollar-a-holler, corporate-backed think tank The Heartland Institute, who is stuck quoting notorious industry-funded studies and think tanks like the Discovery Institute and the Technology Policy Institute:

The idea that European and Asian countries are lapping America in the race for broadband speed and penetration is a fallacy created with statistics comparing “persons” instead of “households.” Once you make that correction, the USA is firmly planted among the top of industrialized nations, as economist Scott Wallsten pointed out when he was a staffer at the Federal Communications Commission in 2009.

And as tech researcher Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics points out, if you measure Internet usage by gigabytes used per month — a better measure of the speed and utility of networks — the USA has nearly lapped Western Europe once and Asia twice.

Heartland Institute: "By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

If you measure how many mouse clicks customers in New York make on a Thursday afternoon, we could be number one as well!  Gigabytes used per month does not measure the speed or price of service on broadband networks, considerations that actually do impact broadband rankings.

Mr. Wallsten is a familiar favorite go-to-guy for The Heartland Institute.  He’s also the choice of Time Warner Cable, who paid him $20,000 for a 2010 essay: “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”

There is big money to be made writing corporate-funded research reports.  Bret Swanson knows that very well, having been involved with the Discovery Institute, a “research group” that delivers paid, “credentialed” reports to telecommunications company clients who waive them before Congress to support their positions.  Swanson is also a “Visiting Fellow” at Arts+Labs/Digital Society, which counted as its “partners” AT&T and Verizon.

The gentleman from Heartland also quotes from the misnamed “Progressive Policy Institute,” which counts among its funding partners, AT&T.

It would have been probably easier (but ineffectively transparent) to simply quote from AT&T and Comcast directly.

The Heartland Institute, unsurprisingly, believes letting existing broadband providers deliver service exactly the way they want is the best option:

The digital economy — one of the only vibrant economic sectors left — doesn’t need more government “investment” or regulation. It needs only for government to butt out and let the market work the magic that continues to bring us the marvels of the modern age.

That magic will cost you $50 a month and rising.  If some providers have their way, while the rest of the world abandons usage caps, American providers can’t wait to slap them on, reducing the value of your service even further.