The Republican platform on telecommunications and its criticism of the Obama Administration’s handling of broadband inspired a blogger at the Washington Post to ponder the question, “Whatever happened to Obama’s goal of universal broadband access?”

Brad Plumer sees the Republican criticism as valid, at least on the surface:

Does anyone remember when the Obama administration promised to bring “true broadband [to] every community in America”? The Republican Party definitely does, and its 2012 platform criticizes the president for not making any progress on this pledge:

“The current Administration has been frozen in the past…. It inherited from the previous Republican Administration 95 percent coverage of the nation with broadband. It will leave office with no progress toward the goal of universal coverage—after spending $7.2 billion more. That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers.

So whatever happened to the Obama administration’s plan to expand broadband access, anyway? In one sense, the Republican critics are right. Universal broadband is still far from a reality. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s annual broadband report, released in August, there are still 19 million Americans who lack access to wired broadband. Only about 94 percent of households have broadband access. Obama hasn’t achieved his goal.

Stop the Cap! has been watching the rural broadband debate since the summer of 2008, and believes the failure to do better isn’t primarily the fault of Republicans or Democrats — it lies with the nation’s phone companies — particularly AT&T and Verizon. But both political parties, to different degrees, have helped and hindered along the way.

Plumer slightly misstates the commitment of the Obama Administration at the outset. The Obama-Biden Plan never promised to successfully complete universal broadband access in the United States. Here is their actual pledge (emphasis ours):

Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Work towards true broadband in every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access.

Big Phone Companies Struggle to Abandon Landlines in Rural America

By far, AT&T and Verizon Communications are the most culpable for leaving rural Americans without broadband service. Over the last four years, both companies have diverted investment away from their landline networks into wireless. AT&T has also spent millions lobbying state governments to free itself from the requirement of serving as “the carrier of last resort,” a critical matter for rural landline customers, particularly because rural wireless coverage remains lacking.

In most states, the dominant phone company is still mandated to provide basic telephone service to every customer who wants it. Universal electric and telephone service goes all the way back to the Roosevelt Administration, who saw both as essential to the rural economy.

The Communications Act of 1934 that the Republicans today dismiss as outdated established the concept of universal telephone service: “making available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

The concept of universal service was reaffirmed, with the blessing of the telephone companies, under the sweeping deregulation of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. Republicans call that law outdated as well.

Rural America Can’t Win Better Broadband If Their Providers Don’t Play

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) with $7.2 billion to expand access to broadband services in the United States. Of those funds, the Act provided $4.7 billion to NTIA to support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, enhance and expand public computer centers, encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service, and develop and maintain a nationwide public map of broadband service capability and availability.

This first round of serious broadband stimulus was designed to help defray the costs of bringing broadband to rural areas where “return on investment” formulas used by large phone companies deemed them insufficiently profitable to service.

Remarkably, America’s largest phone companies declined to participate. In March 2009, AT&T and Verizon delivered their response to the Obama Administration through Bloomberg News:

Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. may have this response to the U.S. government’s offer of $7.2 billion for high-speed Internet projects: Keep it.

Unlike the businesses that welcomed the $787 billion stimulus package approved by Congress last month, the two biggest U.S. phone companies have reservations. They’re urging the government not to help other companies compete with them through broadband grants or to set new conditions on how Internet access should be provided.

The companies have remained noncommittal as they lobby to shape rules for the grants.

“We do not have our hand out seeking government funds,” James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president, told reporters March 11. While the company is “open to considering things that might help the economy and might help our customers at the same time,” he said AT&T’s primary focus for broadband is its own investment program.

AT&T’s own financial reports illustrate its “investment program” was largely focused on its wireless services division, not rural broadband. Many other phone companies filed objections to projects they deemed invasive to their service areas, whether they actually provided broadband in those places or not.

When the final NTIA grant recipients were announced, the overwhelming majority were middle-mile or institutional broadband networks that would not provide broadband to any home or business.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service managed the rest of the broadband grants and loans, and the majority went to exceptionally rural telephone companies, co-ops, and tribal telecommunications. AT&T did participate in one aspect of broadband stimulus — its legal team and lobbyists appealed to grant administrators to change the rules to be more flexible about how and where grant money was spent.

In the past year, both AT&T and Verizon have signaled their true intentions for rural landline service:

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam: “In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” McAdam said. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it.”

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson: “We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

More recently, Verizon has nearly disinherited its DSL service, making it more difficult to purchase (impossible in FiOS fiber to the home service areas). In states like West Virginia, it effectively slashed expansion and infrastructure investment as it prepared to exit the state, selling its network to Frontier Communications. AT&T has shown almost no interest expanding the coverage of its DSL service either. If you don’t have access to it today, you likely won’t tomorrow.

A good portion of the broadband stimulus funding provided by the government is actually in the form of low-interest, repayable loans. Despite rhetoric in the Republican platform about supporting public-private partnerships to expand rural broadband, the Republicans in Congress launched coordinated attacks on the Broadband Access Loan Program offered by the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service in the spring of 2011. Various right-wing pundits and pressure groups joined forces with several Republican members of Congress attempting to permanently de-fund the program, starting with $700 million in federally-backed loans in April, 2011. The loans were targeted to public and private rural telecommunications companies attempting to expand or introduce broadband service.

Attacks on the effectiveness of President Obama’s broadband campaign pledges in the Republican platform ring a little hollow when Republican lawmakers actively blocked the administration’s efforts to keep those promises.

Killing Community Broadband: Priority #1 for Providers With the Help of Corporate-Backed ALEC and State Politicians

Stop the Cap! has repeatedly reported on the challenges of community broadband in the United States. Launched by towns and villages to provide quality broadband service in areas where larger companies have either underserved or delivered no service at all, publicly-owned broadband is often the only chance a community has to stay competitive in the digital age.

That goal is shared by the GOP’s platform, which states how important it is to connect “rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

Unfortunately, unless your local phone or cable company is providing the service, all too often they would prefer communities continue to receive no service at all.

AT&T is among the most aggressive phone companies lobbying state officials, often through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to pass state laws hindering or banning community broadband development. ALEC supporters, overwhelmingly Republican, accept company-drafted legislation as their own and introduce it in state legislatures, hoping it will become law. Generous campaign contributions often follow.

In the past few years, AT&T and Time Warner Cable have been especially active in broadband backwater states like North and South Carolina and Georgia, where rural counties often receive nothing more than DSL service at speeds that no longer qualify as “broadband” under the Obama Administration’s National Broadband Plan. In North Carolina, Democratic state politicians well funded by Time Warner Cable helped push bills forward, but it took a Republican takeover of the North Carolina legislature to finally get those laws enacted. South Carolina presented fewer challenges for state lawmakers, despite protests from communities across the state bypassed by AT&T and other phone companies.

The efforts to de-fund broadband stimulus and tie the hands of communities seeking their own broadband solutions have done considerable damage to the rural broadband expansion effort.

Universal Service Fund Reform: Not Much Help If America’s Largest Phone Companies Remain Uninterested

The Obama Administration has also kept its pledge to reform the Universal Service Fund, recreating it as the Connect America Fund (CAF) to help wire rural America.

In its first phase of broadband funding, $300 million dollars became available to help subsidize the cost of rural broadband construction. Deemed a “mild stimulus” effort that would test the CAF’s grant mechanisms, only $115 million of the available funding was accepted by the nation’s phone companies — all independent providers like Frontier, FairPoint, CenturyLink, Windstream, and smaller players. Once again, both AT&T and Verizon refused to participate. There is no word yet on whether the two largest phone companies in the country will also effectively boycott the second round of funding, estimated to allocate over $1.8 billion to expand rural broadband.

“Getting to 100 percent is going to be a very difficult long-term goal, given the size of the U.S. landmass and the huge expense to reach those final couple of percentage points,” John Horrigan of the Joint Center Media and Technology Institute told Brad Plumer.

Politics and provider intransigence seem to be getting in the way just as much as America’s vast expanse. Many conservative and provider-backed groups have called America’s claimed 94% broadband availability rate a success story, and don’t see a need to fuss over the remaining six percent that cannot buy the service (and pointing to a larger number that don’t want the service at today’s prices).

Beyond the partisan obstructionism and middle mile/institutional network “successes” that ordinary consumers cannot access, the real issue remains the providers themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

It seems as long as AT&T and Verizon treat their rural landline customers as hayseed relatives they (and Wall Street) could do without, the rural broadband picture for customers of AT&T and Verizon will remain bleak at current stimulus levels regardless of which party promises what in their respective platforms.

CenturyLink has convinced Arizona state regulators local phone service is now competitive throughout the state, allowing the company to raise rates with less regulatory oversight. But some consumers are wondering how deregulation benefits them.

“Once again the phone company has sold us another bill of goods in Arizona,” says Tucson ex-CenturyLink customer Miguel Gonzalez. “First Qwest and now CenturyLink told us that deregulation would bring rates down for phone service, yet both companies fought for years to raise, not lower prices.”

Under the plan approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission, CenturyLink will be able to raise its residential rates up to 10 percent per year, so long as the rate increases do not exceed 25 percent over three years.

Arizona residential landline customers have paid roughly $13.18 for standard urban phone service since the 1990s, when Qwest was the local phone company. Now CenturyLink is free to raise those prices $1.30 a month in any of the next three years or up to $3.30 overall, even as customers continue to disconnect service across the state. Business customers face potentially higher rate hikes — 15 percent annually or 25 percent over three years.

Regulators expect the company to file for a rate increase before you finish reading this article.

Oddly, both CenturyLink and some members of the commission called the change a victory for consumers, despite the likely higher rates to follow. The plan won approval in the Republican-controlled body in a 4-1 vote.

“It should be a win-win for the consumer (and the company),” said Democrat commissioner Paul Newman, who represents southern Arizona and voted for the plan with reservations. “That’s yet to be seen, but I hope it will be.”

The Arizona Daily Star reports CenturyLink will not be able to charge different rates in competitive and less-competitive areas, which consumer advocates say will protect ratepayers in areas where wireless coverage is poor and cable companies do not compete.

CenturyLink said it needs “rate flexibility” to compete as people disconnect landlines and head for cell phones and cable company “digital phone” products. Although the company did not elaborate, it argues the right to raise rates will allow it to compete more effectively with dominant cable operators Cox and Comcast.

Prior to deregulation, CenturyLink was allowed a guaranteed rate of return based on the true cost of providing landline phone service. The company also guaranteed to provide phone service to any Arizona resident inside of its service territory who asked. Under the terms of the new agreement, CenturyLink will now enjoy more rate flexibility, but will continue serving as the phone company of last resort.

“I’m still scratching my head about how the pointy-heads in Phoenix believe that raising rates makes you more competitive with cable and cell phone companies and not less,” Gonzalez says. “I guess it’s the same kind of New Phone Math that CenturyLink uses to try and keep the customers that are slipping away from them faster than ever.”

Gonzalez says he pulled the plug on CenturyLink last August.

“They offer nothing compelling to me when I can get a better price and better service with more calling features from the cable company, and now they offer even less.”

Outside of a handful of consumer groups, just about everyone — including one “anti-tax” Republican on the Federal Communications Commission — favors the imposition of a new broadband tax on your Internet connection.

It is all a part of the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to transform a badly-outdated Universal Service Fund (USF) into the Connect America Fund (CAF) — an ongoing project to help defray the costs of wiring rural America for broadband service.

Phone and cable companies are on board. So are several state regulators. Even search engine giant Google favors applying a surcharge to consumer bills to retire a funding formula currently dependent on declining landline phone revenue.

In April, the FCC began accepting comments on its proposal to expand the number of telecommunications services subject to the surcharge, currently found on telephone bills. The FCC has proposed a number of possible taxes including the new broadband fee, a tax on text messages, or moving to a flat fee for each phone line instead of a variable tax rate (currently around 18%).

Virtually every major telecommunications company provisionally supports the new tax, for at least three reasons:

1. Most can benefit from future CAF funding opportunities, dipping into the fund to help subsidize expanding broadband into areas where current “return on private investment”-standards make deployment unprofitable;
2. Consumers will pay the tax, not providers;
3. The companies are confident their fierce lobbying will get the FCC to drop a proposed requirement the fee be included in the advertised price of broadband service. They want the fee broken out separately on customer bills, in part because they fear higher-advertised-prices for broadband will discourage customers from buying.

Google also supports the new tax because they profit from a larger broadband audience accessing their web pages and services. If the FCC were to tax online services, as Google fears, it would be bad news.

“Saddling these offerings with new, direct USF contribution obligations is likely to restrict innovative options for all communications consumers and cause immediate and lasting harm to the users, pioneers, and innovators of Internet-based services,” Google argued.

The Fiber to the Home Council, another industry group, was disturbed by one FCC proposal that would levy an increasingly higher percentage of the new tax on customers with progressively faster high speed connections. Although the Council agreed with many consumer groups that any new broadband tax would discourage broadband adoption, it was alarmed with the proposition of taxing consumers the most for selecting the highest speed broadband tiers.

“The Commission should not impose a fee that increases with greater performance capabilities (capacity/speed) because that would discourage plant and service upgrades and hinder the expansion of critically important high-speed broadband services,” the Council wrote in its comments to the FCC.

With 19 million Americans currently unable to obtain broadband service, adding a new tax on existing broadband customers’ bills would bring in millions that the CAF will ultimately award to rural landline providers and cable operators to encourage them to expand their broadband networks.

But consumer groups including Free Press worry the new tax would rob Peter to pay Paul, and further discourage poor Americans who can’t afford current broadband prices from ever signing up for service.

“In other words, as the Commission reforms the overall USF system in the name of greater broadband adoption, particularly among rural, poor and elderly consumers, assessing [a broadband tax] could lead to an overall lower level of broadband adoption, despite the availability of new broadband subsidies,” writes Free Press research director S. Derek Turner in an official filing with the FCC.

Free Press called the current comments from industry players largely as expected.

“Industry commenters simply offered self-serving proposals that will ensure that their (but not necessarily their customers’) contribution burdens are as low as possible,” Turner wrote. “We instead are strongly encouraging the Commission to conduct actual cost-benefit analysis prior to adopting rule changes that could have massive unintended consequences for consumers.”

Outside of a small handful of remarks from end users, the overwhelming majority of comments received by the FCC are from providers, industry groups, and telecommunications regulators. Almost none come from actual consumers, who will ultimately pay the proposed tax.

Some conservative anti-tax groups have been alarmed by the tax expansion and Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell’s apparent support of it. McDowell issued a statement in April declaring his support for reform of the USF system to broaden the tax to additional telecommunications users:

[…] “To put the importance of contribution reform into perspective, the contribution factor, a type of tax paid by telephone consumers, has risen each year from approximately 5.5 percent in 1998 to almost 18 percent in the first quarter of this year. This trend is unacceptable because it is unsustainable. Furthermore, the cryptic language on consumers’ phone bills, combined with the skyrocketing “tax” rate, has produced a new form of “bill shock.” We must tame this wild automatic tax increase as soon as possible.

[…] “Controversy, however, should not deter us from lowering the tax rate while broadening the base according to the authority granted to us by Congress. The current pool of contributors is shrinking. It must be expanded, but we must do so only within our statutory authority while keeping in mind the international implications of our actions.”

Spending money to earn more money is a fiscally sound principle of doing business, but short term investors often decry increased spending as harmful to the value of a company’s stock and dividend payout. That is why Hawaiian Telcom (HawTel) earns mixed reviews from Wall Street about the company’s aggressive infrastructure improvement project, a fiber to the neighborhood network that intends to bring television, phone, and faster broadband service to an increasing number of Hawaiians.

HawTel’s stock price has bounced up, down, up, and then down again as investors digest the company’s ongoing effort to reinvent itself as a 21st century telecom company.

HawTel’s fiber buildout began on the island of Oahu in 2011, eventually passing 27,400 homes on the island. At the end of 2011, 1,600 (6%) of those homes signed up for the service. That’s an acceptable number, especially for a service barely promoted. HawTel does not mention the television service on its primary website, and approaches potential customers one-on-one with in-person and targeted mail marketing.

At the end of the second quarter or 2012, HawTel TV had 6,400 subscribers. The company hopes to have an additional 50,000 homes enabled for its TV service by the end of 2012, with the goal of enabling 240,000 households across Hawaii over the next five years. HawTel hopes to eventually capture 30% of the Hawaiian market.

HawTel’s principal competitor is Oceanic Time Warner Cable, which provides traditional cable service across the Hawaiian Islands. HawTel had been at a substantial disadvantage competing with Time Warner’s television package and faster broadband service. But the fiber upgrades are allowing at least some customers to purchase speeds up to 50/10Mbps, slightly faster than what the cable operator offers.

Time Warner has taken note of the phone company’s re-emergence as a strong competitor, targeting Oahu with special promotional offers that lock customers in place with triple play discounts designed to make it inconvenient to switch providers.

Unfortunately for HawTel, fiber upgrades do not come cheap, and the company’s earnings have taken a hit.

Capital expenditures totaled $41.2 million for the six-months ended June 30, 2012, up from $35.4 million for the six-month period a year ago due primarily to investments in broadband network infrastructure and expansion of video enabled households.

Hawaiian Telcom reported an 18 percent decline in second quarter earnings, which it blamed primarily on broadband network expansion.

The company also announced it lost another 6% of traditional landline customers during the second quarter, but that was offset by expansion in its broadband and television service. For HawTel, the solution to ending landline losses is to upgrade their network to compete with the types of communications services consumers are interested in buying today.

But those plans can and do conflict with at least some stock traders who are interested primarily in short term financial results. Spending can cut into profits, so some analysts downgrade stocks of companies spending the most, even if only to compete more effectively down the road.

So far, HawTel executives have not been discouraged carrying their network expansion plans forward. In July, Hawaiian Telcom announced it would acquire Wavecom Solutions Corporation’s local exchange carrier business in a stock purchase transaction valued at $13 million.

The acquisition would give Hawaiian Telcom access to Wavecom’s fiber optic network connecting the main Hawaiian islands. Wavecom, formerly known as Pacific Lightnet, Inc., serves more than 1,700 customers across Hawaii.

In an application with the Federal Communications Commission, HawTel officials said access to Wavecom’s 400-mile undersea telecommunications cable network will permit the company to expand and enhance its broadband and television services beyond Oahu to other Hawaiian islands, and help position the company to effectively compete with Time Warner.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Hawaiian Telcom TV Tour.flv[/flv]

Watch a HawTel-produced video tour of the company’s new TV service.  (4 minutes)

“If you are a voice copper customer and you call in [with] trouble on your line, when we go out to repair that we are actually moving you to the FiOS product. We are not repairing the copper anymore.” — Fran Shammo, Verizon’s executive vice-president and chief financial officer

Verizon has declared the end of the copper wire phone line, at least in areas where the company’s companion fiber optic network FiOS is available. Fran Shammo, chief financial officer of Verizon Communications spoke about the death of the copper-based landline and the company’s strategic plans for its wired and wireless networks in the coming quarter at Oppenheimer’s 15th Annual Technology, Internet & Communications Conference last Wednesday.

Verizon’s quiet and involuntary switch-out to fiber service is part of the company’s grander marketing effort to push customers towards upgrading service.

“The benefit we are getting […]  if you are a voice customer and we move you to [fiber] we now can upsell you to the Internet,” Shammo explained. “If you come over as a voice and DSL customer and we move you to FiOS, you now are a candidate for the video product. So there is an upsell which is definitely a benefit to this.”

Verizon earlier announced it would no longer sell standalone DSL service to customers, and has stopped selling copper-based DSL products in areas where Verizon FiOS is available. It even discourages customers from considering standalone FiOS broadband, with a budget-busting price of $64.99 for stand-alone 15/5Mbps service with a two-year contract or $69.99 on a month-to-month basis. Verizon offers considerably better value when customers sign up for multiple FiOS services.

Verizon says the reliability of fiber makes maintaining older copper wire networks pointless.

“The bigger benefit is we are transforming the cost structure of our copper business because the copper fails two to three times more than fiber, which means we have two to three more times we have a tech and a truck rolling out to that copper connection. So we are eliminating that,” Frammo said.

Frammo added decreasing repair and maintenance expenses will help improve profit margins for the company.

Both CEO Lowell McAdam and Frammo have made profit margins a much higher priority for Verizon Communications than ever before.

“If you look at the [landline] side of the business, […] we have made a shift that said we are going to focus more on the profitability of FiOS this year. And that is important for us to do, because we need to generate the cash flow so that we can reinvest in those platforms,” Frammo said. “But I think as an industry as a whole you are seeing a different focus now, that it is more on returns, it is more on profitability. Can that continue? Sure. Obviously, you might have your blips here and there based on how fast something grows in one quarter versus another, but if you look at Verizon Wireless and you look at Verizon we are expanding our margins.”

Frammo addressed several key plans Verizon has for both its wired and wireless businesses, and what political priorities the company has for the rest of the year:

Verizon Wireless’ 4G LTE Network is a Platform for Profits

Shammo told investors Verizon’s 4G LTE platform is now available to 76 percent of its customers in 337 markets. LTE, Shammo said, delivers not only the speed customers want but reduced operating costs for the cell phone provider. But Shammo said that will not bring reduced prices for customers — Verizon intends to use its LTE network as a platform for increasing profitability.

“When you take that network and you overlay our shared plan with that and now others are following with that shared plan, the entire industry from a shared perspective has a lot of room for growth because when you think about that network and the speed it provides, and then you take all these devices and you think about the number of tablets that have been sold in the United States that are not connected to a wireless network, you now enable people to connect those devices much easier.

“So when you think about that speed and that price plan that pools those data minutes, the growth profile here is really good for the industry and very, very good for Verizon Wireless because we think we have a strategic lead here.

“We are going to have to wait to see what the usage profile of this is. But can we expand our data, our data pricing? Of course we can, so you just add in more tiers. But that is part of where we think the future is going because when you think about the speeds and the video capability of LTE we do project out that that usage is going to continue to substantially increase which then folks will buy up.

“So it is going to be very, very easy for people to attach devices to just go beyond what we know today as a smartphone, a dongle, or a tablet. Now take it to your car, now take it inside your home for remote medical monitoring or whatever else that can happen in that house. Those can also now be attached to that price plan and everything can run off of that network.”

Frammo also hinted Verizon Wireless may be prepared to bring back an old concept from the days of long distance dialing — peak and off-peak data usage rates. Use Verizon’s network during peak usage periods and the company could charge a premium. But its LTE 4G platform also allows it to offer reduced rates when the network is being used less.

Killing Off Your Phone Subsidy One Dollar at a Time

Shammo said Verizon Wireless is moving forward (along with other carriers) to gradually reduce equipment subsidies customers get when they upgrade their phones at contract renewal time. Verizon earlier discontinued customer loyalty discounts like its “New Every Two” plan and has stopped offering early upgrade incentives. Now the company is eliminating subsidies for some customers altogether and won’t offer them on several different types of devices.

“The industry has done a lot around trying to reform the upgrade policies and implement upgrade fees to try to strengthen the financial capability of that subsidy on a smartphone,” Shammo said. “We have also taken the track of not subsidizing tablets, less subsidy on dongles. It really is now all around the attachment of those devices into those price plans.”

Shammo added as competitors reduce subsidies, Verizon can continue to bring them down further over time. Shammo said that will improve the company’s margins.

Verizon Prepaid vs. Contract (Postpaid) Customers: “The religious belief is you can’t do anything that is going to deteriorate the postpaid base.”

Despite the company’s improved margins and declining costs from its 4G LTE platform, Frammo said Verizon has no plans to reduce prepaid pricing, because it could erode revenue from customers on two year contracts who might consider switching to a no-contract, prepaid plan.

“Obviously we are a postpaid carrier so anything we do — the religious belief is you can’t do anything that is going to deteriorate the postpaid base,” Frammo said. “I think people are willing to pay a slight premium to get on [Verizon’s] most reliable network and what we are finding is people are coming to that network. I think at this point we are very, very satisfied with where the prepaid market is. We are a premium to that prepaid market and, based on our growth trajectory right now, we are very comfortable with that price point.”

Verizon’s Political Priority for 2012: Where is our corporate tax cut?

While Shammo would not answer a question about which presidential candidate he feels would best serve Verizon’s interests if elected, Shammo made it clear the company is terrified of a so-called “tax cliff” — the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and a capital gains tax increase that would raise taxes on the wealthiest corporations from the current 15 percent to up to 25 percent — still lower than the tax rate paid by many middle class workers.

“Whoever is elected needs to deal with that tax cliff because that tax cliff could be detrimental to the economic performance of the U.S.,” Shammo said. “Then on a longer-term we definitely need corporate tax reform in the United States. We are not competitive with the rest of the world and I think everyone understands that. That is going to be harder to achieve, but I think that Washington understands that there needs to be some change within the corporate tax structure.”