AT&T pays a lot of money — millions annually — to make sure its business agenda does not run into political or legislative roadblocks in Washington, D.C.  With dozens of members of Congress effectively on AT&T’s campaign contribution payroll and the company’s unparalleled skill at convincing non-profit organizations to advocate for its interests, worrying about the government’s antitrust views on its proposed buyout of Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile was the least of its troubles.

“It’s a done deal,” several analysts predicted shortly after the deal was announced, especially after AT&T demonstrated its confidence level in the merger was as high as the enormous $6 billion dollar breakup concession payable to Telekom if it ever fell apart.

Then the government dared to put its two cents in, in the form of a “are you kidding me?”-lawsuit courtesy of the U.S. Department of Justice.  It seems, in the words of some Beltway cynics, the Obama Administration can manage to see a clear cut case of anti-competitive behavior when given enough time.

Since the lawsuit was announced on Aug. 31, it has been “all-hands-on-deck” for the company’s government relations division, packed full of the company’s top lobbyists.  While company lawyers desperately attempt to block what it sees as “pile on” objections and lawsuits from worried competitors, Sprint-Nextel in particular, AT&T lobbyists are trying to compromise away the Justice Department case with proposals of concessions and giveaways to make approval more palatable.

Further north, as fall turns into winter in New York’s financial district, Wall Street analysts are cold on the troubled deal themselves.

The Financial Times reports most analysts think there is now less than a 50-50 chance the merger will be completed unless the two companies agree to disgorge themselves of market share, territories, and increasing “shareholder value” that will come from eventual rate increases a wireless duopoly would inevitably bring.

Some are even less sanguine, predicting AT&T has only a 20 percent shot, and only if it sells off considerable chunks of valuable spectrum to competitors other than Verizon Wireless.

AT&T is retuning its “message” for the times, downplaying the original, ludicrous notion that urban-focused T-Mobile would be the keystone of a new era in 4G wireless service for rural America.  There is a reason T-Mobile isn’t the first choice for small town America’s cell phone buyers.

Instead, AT&T is now positioning the merger deal as a lifeboat for its troubled competitor.  AT&T suggests the number four carrier is in immediate peril — hemorrhaging customers, caught without a coherent 4G strategy, and an exodus of interest by its increasingly neglectful parent — Deutsche Telekom.

Could Time Warner Cable be an eventual part-owner of T-Mobile USA?

“Over the past two years, T-Mobile USA has been losing customers despite explosive demand for mobile broadband,” AT&T said in a statement this week. “T-Mobile USA has no clear path to 4G LTE, the industry’s next generation network, and its German parent, Deutsche Telekom, has said it would not continue to make significant investments in the United States.”

With AT&T predicting the demise of its smaller would-be cousin, consumers may not be in the mood to sign a two-year contract with a company that could soon be rechristened AT&T, especially those leaving AT&T for T-Mobile.

But don’t tell T-Mobile’s marketing department it’s a phone company on life support.  T-Mobile has beefed up its advertising and continues to irritate its larger competitors, particularly AT&T, with very aggressive pricing on its prepaid plans.

T-Mobile recently unveiled two disruptive $30 4G prepaid plans that offer either 1500 shared minutes/text messages and 30MB of data usage -or- 100 voice minutes combined with unlimited texting and up to 5GB of mobile data before the speed throttle kicks in.  Those prices are too low for AT&T and Verizon to ignore, especially when offered on a 4G network.

So far, the Justice Department shows no signs of backing down from their resolute opposition to the deal, minor concessions or not.  Shareholders may not appreciate giving the government too much of what it wants in order to win approval.  Washington lawmakers are split — virtually every Republican favors the merger, Democrats are less absolute, with most opposed.  Among those in favor, by how much is often a measure of what kind of campaign money AT&T has thrown their way.

AT&T absolutely denies they have a “Plan B” in case the merger eventually fails.  But the Times doubts that, reporting as time drags on, an alternative deal might emerge.  Some of the possibilities:

• T-Mobile USA could merge its spectrum with Dish Network, the satellite TV company, to launch a new 4G mobile operator in the USA;
• Combine forces (and spectrum) in a deal with leading U.S. cable companies like Cox, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable to launch a new cable-branded mobile operator;
• Sell or merge operations with MetroPCS, Leap Wireless’ Cricket, or one of several regional cell companies.

Perennial cable booster Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein predictably favors the cable solution, which would let companies offer a quad or quint-play of cable TV, wireless mobile broadband, wired broadband, phone, and cell phone service all on one bill.  It would also get the FCC off the backs of cable operators Time Warner and Comcast, who both control a total of 20MHz of favored wireless spectrum they have left unused since acquiring it at auction.  The Commission is increasingly irritated at companies who own unused spectrum at a time when the agency is trying to find additional frequencies for wireless providers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATTs 96000 Job Claim in T-Mobile Deal Questioned 11-8-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News questions AT&T’s claim its merger deal with T-Mobile will create 96,000 new jobs. [Nov. 8] (3 minutes)

Windstream disappointed Wall Street Friday when it reported a 16 percent income drop for the third quarter of the year, surprising investors who expected more from the Little Rock, Ark. phone company.

Windstream is attempting a makeover as it attempts to shed its image as a residential landline service provider for brighter prospects delivering business telecommunications services.  But shareholders weren’t impressed as company officials noted the company has increased spending on capital projects like data centers and wiring cell phone towers with fiber optics and the $840 million acquisition of Fairport, N.Y.-based PAETEC Holding Corporation.

Most of Windstream’s successes are tied to the company’s business products and services.  The company reported growth selling advanced Internet products to corporate customers, including virtual LAN services and dedicated Internet access.  A considerable amount of the company’s Internet revenue growth is coming from data center services such as webhosting and wireless backhaul circuits sold to cell phone providers.

Windstream’s residential customers can be split into two groups: traditional landline users who are increasingly disconnecting their service and those who are buying DSL service to accompany their existing phone line.  Windstream reported another 4.6% of their residential customers permanently disconnected service this year.  Windstream’s largely rural customer base has remained more loyal and the company added an additional 8,000 DSL customers during the quarter, a growth of 4.4%.  Windstream’s penetration rate for broadband among their landline customers is 65%.

Keeping broadband customers loyal to DSL requires regular service improvements to avoid customer poaching by cable competitors, and Windstream is attempting to keep up with a $40 million investment to improve broadband speeds, including the introduction of advanced VDSL service in selected areas.

Whittington

“We increased broadband speeds to residential and business customers that can now offer 12Mbps service to over 40% of our footprint and 24Mbps service in our most competitive markets,” said Windstream chief operating officer Brent K. Whittington. “We expanded our Raleigh data center to increase the floor space by 10,000 square feet to keep up with the rapidly growing customer base and demand for cloud-based services.”

Whittington notes customers that hunger for faster broadband speeds are using them largely to watch online video, and Windstream has begun marketing campaigns targeting video-hungry customers.  Customers using the Internet for basic web browsing and e-mail are not very interested in paying more for faster service, however.

“Customers still don’t want to pay incrementally for higher speed services,” Whittington said. “We try to position Windstream as all the speed you need, which is really trying to help make sure customers understand our parity with cable as it pertains to speeds because some of the perceptions around traditional ADSL services, they’ve used against us, and that’s working for us. But again, customers really just, we find, don’t want to spend a lot more for incremental speeds. We see that as revenue upside in the future, but not seeing a great deal of demand there right now.”

While Windstream customers will likely find current product pricing stable over the coming year, the FCC’s recent approval of Universal Service Fund (USF) reform does allow the phone company to raise rates on customers.  Some Wall Street investment firms have suggested Windstream do precisely that to boost revenues.

Timothy Horan from Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. noted Windstream’s local rates seem low.

“I don’t think they’ve been raised for a long period of time,” Horan observed. “I think you have to go through some [state regulators], but can you do that without having rate cases, and is that part of the plan at all?”

Anthony W. Thomas, Windstream’s chief financial officer, tried to put Horan at east.

“The FCC has provided a mechanism, it is our understanding, in the order that will allow us to pass along price increases up to $0.50 per month to our customers over a 5-year period,” Thomas explained.

Phillip Dampier on USF Reform: It might have been great, it could have been a lot worse, but ultimately it turned out to be not very good.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission unveiled their grand plan to reform the Universal Service Fund, a program originally designed to subsidize voice telephone service in rural areas deemed to be unprofitable or ridiculously expensive to serve.  Every American with a phone line pays into the fund through a surcharge found on phone bills. Urban Americans effectively subsidize their rural cousins, but the resulting access to telecommunications services have helped rural economies, important industries, and the jobs they bring in agriculture, cattle, resource extraction, and manufacturing.

The era of the voice landline is increasingly over, however, and the original goals of the USF have “evolved” to fund some not-so-rural projects including cell phone service for schools, wireless broadband in Hollywood, and a whole mess of projects critics call waste, fraud, and abuse.  For the last several years, USF critics have accused the program of straying far from its core mission, especially considering the costs passed on to ratepayers.  What originally began as a 5% USF surcharge is today higher than 15%, funding new projects even as Americans increasingly disconnect their landline service.

For at least a decade, proposals to reform the USF program to bridge the next urban-rural divide, namely broadband, have been available for consideration.  Most have been lobbied right off the table by independent rural phone companies who are at risk of failure without the security of the existing subsidy system.  Proposals that survived that challenge next faced larger phone company lobbyists seeking to protect their share of USF money, or by would-be competitors like the wireless industry or cable operators who have generally been barred from the USF Money Party.

This year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski finally achieved a unanimous vote to shift USF funding towards the construction and operation of rural broadband networks.  The need for broadband funding in rural areas is acute.  Most commercial providers will candidly admit they have already wired the areas deemed sufficiently profitable to earn a return on the initial investment required to provide the service.  The areas remaining without service are unlikely to get it anytime soon because they are especially rural, have expensive and difficult climate or terrain challenges to overcome, or endure a high rate of poverty among would-be customers, unable to afford the monthly cost for the service.  Some smaller independent phone companies are attempting to provide the service anyway, but too often the result is exceptionally slow speed service at a very high cost.

The new Connect America Fund will shift $4.5 billion annually towards rural broadband construction projects.  Nearly a billion dollars of that will be reserved in a “mobility fund” designated for mobile broadband networks.

The goal is to bring broadband to seven million additional households out the 18 million currently ignored by phone and cable operators.

The FCC believes AT&T will take a new interest in upgrading its rural landline networks, even as the company continues to lobby for the right to abandon them.

Unfortunately, the FCC has set the bar pretty low in its requirements for USF funding.  The FCC defines the minimum level of “broadband” they expect to result from the program — 4/1Mbps.  That’s DSL speed territory and that is no accident.  The phone companies have advocated a “less is more” strategy in broadband speed for years, arguing they can reach more rural customers if speed requirements are kept as low as possible.  DSL networks are distance sensitive.  The faster the minimum speed, the more investment phone companies need to make to reduce the length of copper wiring between their office and the customer.  Arguing 4Mbps is better than nothing has gotten them a long way in Washington, but it also foreshadows the next digital divide — urban/rural broadband speed disparity.  While large cities enjoy speeds of 50Mbps or more, rural towns will still be coping with speeds “up to” 4Mbps.

The FCC does not seem too worried, relying heavily on a mild incentive program to prod providers to upgrade their DSL service to speeds of 6/1.5Mbps.

The irony of asking AT&T to invest in an aging landline network they are lobbying to win the right to abandon is lost on Washington, and future speed upgrades for rural America from companies like Verizon are in serious doubt when they sell off their rural areas to companies like FairPoint and Frontier and leave town.

Critics of USF reform suggest the program is still stacked in favor of the phone companies, and considering the state of their copper wire networks, would-be competitors are scratching their heads.

The cable industry, in particular, is still peeved by reforms they feel leave them at a disadvantage.  Of course, Washington may simply be recognizing the fact cable companies are the least likely to wire rural America, but when they do, the service that results is often faster than what the phone company offers.  The nation’s biggest cable lobbyist — ironically also the former chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell — still feels a little abused after reading the final proposal.

“While we are disappointed in the Commission’s apparent decision to ignore its longstanding principle of competitive neutrality and provide incumbent telephone companies an unwarranted advantage for broadband support,” said National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Michael Powell, “we remain hopeful that the order otherwise reflects the pro-consumer principles of fiscal discipline and technological neutrality that will bring needed accountability and greater efficiency to the existing subsidy system.  We are particularly heartened by the Commission’s efforts to ensure that carriers are fairly compensated for completing VoIP calls.”

Wireless operators are not happy either, because the arcane requirements that come with the USF bureaucracy were written with the phone companies in mind, not them.  Small, family-owned providers find it particularly difficult to do business with the USF, if only because they don’t have the staff or time to navigate through endless documents and forms.  Phone companies do.

Your phone bill is going up.

Many consumer groups are relieved because it could have been much worse.   The FCC could have simply capitulated and adopted the phone companies’ wish-list — the ABC Plan.  Thankfully, they didn’t, but the FCC has naively left the door open to substantial rate increases for consumers by not capping the maximum annual outlay of the fund.  That follows the same recipe that invited higher phone bills and questionable subsidies awarded in an effort to justify the original USF program even after it accomplished most of its goals. Consumers may face initial rate increases of $0.50 almost immediately, and up to $2.50 a month five years from now.

The FCC, unjustifiably optimistic, suspects phone companies and other telecommunications interests won’t gouge customers with higher prices.  They predict rate increases of no more than 10-15 cents a month.  I wouldn’t take that bet and neither will consumer groups.

“We’re going to press the FCC to ensure that these are temporary increases, because history has shown that these types of costs tend to stick around and go on and on and on,” said Parul Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union.

An even bigger question left unanswered is just how far the FCC will get into the broadband arena when it refuses to take the steps necessary to ensure it has an admission ticket.  The agency has avoided classifying broadband as a telecommunications service, an important distinction that would bolster its authority to oversee the industry.  Without it, some members of Congress, and more importantly the courts, have questioned whether the FCC has any business in the broadband business.  Just one of the many high-powered players in the discussion could test that theory in the courts, and should a judge throw the FCC’s plan out, we’ll be back at square one.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C-SPAN Tom Tauke from Verizon on Changes to the Universal Service Fund 10-29-11.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s chief lobbyist Tom Tauke spent a half hour last weekend on C-SPAN taking questions about USF reform and the side issues of IP Interconnection and Net Neutrality policies. Tauke supports consolidation of small phone companies into fewer, larger companies.  He also expands on his company’s lawsuit against Net Neutrality, which fortuitously (for Verizon) will he heard by the same D.C. Court of Appeals that threw out the FCC’s fines against Comcast for throttling broadband connections.  Politico’s Kim Hart participates in the questioning, which also covered wireless spectrum issues impacting Verizon Wireless, AT&T’s stumbling merger deal with T-Mobile, and Verizon’s latest lawsuit against the FCC for data roaming notification rules.  (28 minutes)

La Schiazza

AT&T Illinois president Paul La Schiazza is in the business of predicting the future of other mobile phone companies.  In an interview with the Journal-Star, La Schiazza said AT&T should be permitted to complete its purchase of T-Mobile, because if they don’t, T-Mobile will never make the investment in 4G upgrades and “whether we buy them or not, (T-Mobile) is going to go away eventually.”

That’s ironic for Mr. La Schiazza to say, considering his employer made a decision not to make substantial investments in 4G upgrades itself, before suggesting it would with the purchase of T-Mobile.

La Schiazza admits AT&T has thrown its landline business under the bus, now considering it antiquated and irrelevant for a growing number of Americans.

“More people, especially young people, are cutting the cord,” he said, referring to customers who drop landline service completely. “We’ve changed our business model to be a mobile/broadband company,” said La Schiazza.

La Schiazza was also willing to call out AT&T itself when he noted wireless companies in Illinois, including his, have put rural areas at a “significant disadvantage.”  That’s because wireless companies ignore rural areas where providing coverage does not make economic sense.  Yet La Schiazza oddly claimed that with the absorption of T-Mobile, 97 percent of Illinois could get enhanced AT&T service.  He did not explain exactly what business formula was used to justify the enhanced proposed coverage maps he brought with him to the interview.

David Kolata, executive director of the Chicago-based Citizens Utility Board, provided the newspaper with a countering viewpoint — rare in newspaper stories featuring interviews with AT&T executives.  Kolata told the newspaper he was less thrilled about a possible T-Mobile-AT&T merger. “The cellphone industry is already pretty concentrated. When one of the biggest players buys another large company, it raises competitive concerns,” he said.

“The fact that the Department of Justice and five or six state attorney generals (including Lisa Madigan in Illinois) across the country oppose the merger as currently proposed is an indication that it could be bad for consumers,” said Kolata.

[Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Bob for the news tip.]

Wall Street is pushing back against Justice Department efforts to unwind a merger proposal between AT&T and T-Mobile that will leave America with three national carriers.  Some investment firms even believe three carriers are still “too many” and want mergers and acquisitions to accelerate to allow two dominant national carriers to emerge.

“It’s pretty clear what the end game is in wireless,” said Julie Richardson, managing director at Providence Equity Partners Inc. “LTE, 4G — you have to have those services to compete. One of the most interesting things to watch in telecom will be these players coming together.”

Richardson shares the view among many on Wall Street that carriers forced to build costly 4G services like LTE need less competition and more cash-on-hand to pay for upgrades and to obtain needed spectrum.

Only AT&T and Verizon Communications have the resources to support a national 4G Long Term Evolution network, Richardson said. Sprint, the third-biggest U.S. wireless operator, is struggling to compete against larger rivals and has lost money for 15 consecutive quarters, Bloomberg News reports.

Among smaller players, Richardson believes the future is clear: mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships.  Sprint is moving increasingly closer to the nation’s cable companies, which have sought a cost-efficient way to deliver the ultimate “quad-play” service package that includes wireless, landline, cable-TV, and Internet service, all from the cable company.  But talk of constructing competing cell networks has gone largely nowhere, and cable companies that do offer some type of wireless service typically resell an existing service under their own brand.  Road Runner Mobile, from Time Warner Cable, for example, is really Clearwire under a different name.  Same for Comcast’s wireless Internet service.  Cox is pitching “unbelievably fair” wireless phone service that actually comes from Sprint.

But cable operators currently don’t seem to be interested in outright acquisitions of cell companies like Sprint, preferring to partner with them instead.

Clearwire, which needs financing and better wireless spectrum, may eventually find a friend in Dish Networks, the satellite TV company.  Dish controls wireless frequency spectrum it currently does not use, and has expressed an interest in expanding beyond a traditional satellite television provider.  An acquisition of Sprint or Clearwire could help them accomplish that.