AT&T and Verizon: The Doublemint Twins of Wireless

In an unsurprising move, AT&T has followed Verizon Wireless and announced it has discontinued subsidies for wireless tablet devices.

Engadget received word from an AT&T insider the company has withdrawn subsidies often amounting to $150 off the devices in return for a two-year contract. The subsidies helped defray the more costly ($400+) 3G/4G-capable units most consumers bypass in favor of less expensive Wi-Fi-only tablets. Verizon Wireless stopped subsidizing tablets in June.

Consumers can still buy the devices at full price from AT&T, and in another move, AT&T slightly reduced its DataConnect pricing by $5:

• 250MB for $14.99
• 3GB for $30
• 5GB for $50
• Tethering to an existing shared data plan is available for an extra $10

AT&T also announced it was planning to limit the use of Apple’s FaceTime exclusively to those who agree to switch to the company’s new “Mobile Share” plans. AT&T will not allow customers with older individual or family use plans to use the popular video conferencing service over its mobile broadband network at any price.

The official statement, first reported by 9 to 5 Mac:

AT&T will offer FaceTime over Cellular as an added benefit of our new Mobile Share data plans, which were created to meet customers’ growing data needs at a great value. With Mobile Share, the more data you use, the more you save. FaceTime will continue to be available over Wi-Fi for all our customers.

AT&T is able to introduce these types of restrictions because of the failure of the Federal Communications Commission to enforce Net Neutrality protection on wireless networks. Net Neutrality would require carriers to treat online content, applications, and services equally, allowing customers to use and pay for the services of their choice.

Wireless carriers fought Net Neutrality claiming it would harm efforts to technically manage their networks and would ultimately discourage investment. But AT&T’s arbitrary, non-technical restriction of FaceTime suggests the company is actually pushing customers to the more-profitable service plans AT&T favors.

Wood

Consumer group Free Press policy director Matt Wood:

“These tactics are designed with one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money each month by handicapping alternatives to AT&T’s own products.  If customers want to use FaceTime on AT&T’s mobile network, then they have buy a more expensive monthly data plan with extra voice minutes and texts they’ll never use thrown in. Blocking mobile FaceTime access for much of its user base may be a win for AT&T but it’s a losing proposition for the rest of us.

“It’s not supposed to be this way. The Net Neutrality protections in place today for wireless are too weak, but at least prevent carriers from blocking these types of apps. The FCC’s rules prohibit such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by wireless companies. Such behavior would be a problem no matter what Internet platform you choose. It would be unimaginable on your home broadband connection. Apple’s FaceTime comes pre-installed on a Macbook Pro, too, but no home broadband provider would dream of blocking the app there unless you’d signed up for a more expensive data plan.

“The FCC’s Open Internet order aside, AT&T’s latest scheme to make you pay more for less would never fly if we had real competition in the wireless marketplace. Instead, we have Ma Bell’s twin offspring running amok and forcing consumers onto ridiculous plans that make them pay for the same data twice. It’s only going to get worse until lawmakers recognize the problem and act to solve this competition crisis.”

While AT&T will block many customers from using FaceTime, a competing service from Skype remains unaffected.

“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.

Scrap heap

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.

Shammo

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.”

Our friends at Broadband Reports have managed to get at least one confirmation of a leaked slide from an internal company presentation outlining major changes in Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, but initially only in areas where Verizon’s fiber to the home network FiOS has given the cable operator a run for the money.

The biggest changes will be price reductions for customers signed to triple play packages and fast speeds from the cable company. Comcast sees an opportunity to exploit Verizon’s recent price increases for its FiOS broadband offerings, and hopes new, lower-priced broadband will hold and possibly even win back customers.

The new pricing is anticipated to take effect in early 2013 in FiOS areas, but “most of Comcast’s markets” will see these prices by the end of next year. Customers who do not bundle other services will pay a $15 surcharge.

As Karl Bode points out, Verizon’s rate increases have made FiOS a difficult sell for standalone basic broadband. Verizon FiOS’ entry level 15/5Mbps service is now priced at $70 a month.

The new pricing information does not include references to usage caps. Comcast has announced it is testing 300GB usage caps with overlimit fees in some markets.

• Comcast Basic (5/2Mbps): $29/month
• Comcast Performance (25/5Mbps): $49/month
• Comcast Preferred (50/10Mbps): $69/month
• Comcast Extreme (100/25Mbps): $99/month
• Comcast Premier (300/75Mbps): $119/month

Otero

When a former labor leader suddenly starts advocating for the interests of AT&T and other super-sized telecommunications companies, even as AT&T’s unionized work force prepared to strike, the smell of Big Telecom money and influence permeates the air.

Jack Otero, identified in the Des Moines Register as “a former member of the AFL-CIO Executive Council and past national president of the AFL-CIO’s Labor Council for Latin American Advancement,” penned a particularly suspicious love letter to deregulation that might as well have been written by AT&T’s director of government relations:

[…]Industries — like broadband Internet — are thriving and creating innovations. Tossing a regulatory grenade into these businesses could wreck markets that create value for consumers and jobs for workers.

The United States is one of the most wired nations in the world. More than 95 percent of households have access to at least one wireline broadband provider, and the vast majority can connect at speeds exceeding 100 Mbps. And monthly packages start as low as $15. That means more families can go online to improve their job skills, look for work or help the kids with their school assignments.

More choices and higher speeds — the signs of a vibrant market — are the product of private investment, not public dollars. Internet service providers have invested over $250 billion in the last four years alone. This has created roughly half a million jobs laying fiber-optic and coaxial cable.

But some squeaky wheels are demanding heavy-handed regulations that would move our broadband Internet to the European model, where taxpayers have to subsidize outdated networks with slow speeds. Some want broadband providers to be required to lease their networks to competitors at discounted prices — as they do in Europe. But lawmakers in both parties agree that this policy, tried in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, failed miserably.

Others argue that broadband Internet providers should not be able to impose a small surcharge on the tiny percentage (less than 1 percent) of consumers who download hundreds of movies and tens of thousands of songs every month — effectively the data usage of a business. They say these fees discriminate against online video companies like Netflix. But that’s silly. More than 99 percent of users can watch plenty of Apple TV or Netflix without approaching the lowest data allotment. Without tiered pricing plans, the rest of us would have to underwrite these super-users.

Okay then.

Otero’s Fantasy World of Broadband sounds great, only it does not exist for the vast majority of Americans. Are most of us able to connect at speeds exceeding 100Mbps?

If you happen to live in a community served by a publicly-owned broadband provider Otero effectively dismisses, you can almost take this fact for granted.

Some of America’s most advanced telecommunications providers are actually owned by the public they serve in dozens of communities small and large. EPB Fiber, Greenlight, Fibrant, Lafayette’s LUS Fiber, among others, deliver super-fast upload and download speeds at very reasonable prices while the giant phone and cable companies offer less service for more money.

The only major telecommunications company with a wide deployment of fiber-to-the-home service is Verizon Communications.

You cannot easily buy residential 100Mbps service from Time Warner Cable, AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, FairPoint, or a myriad of other telecom companies at any price, unless you purchase an obscenely expensive business account. From the rest, 100Mbps service typically sets you back $100 a month.

Otero’s quote of affordable $15 broadband is not easy to come by either. It usually requires the customer to qualify for food stamps or certain welfare programs, have a family with school-age children, a perfect payment history, and no recent record of subscribing to broadband service at the regular price.

The only people who believe America is the home of a vibrant market for broadband service are paid employees of telecom companies, paid-off politicians, or their sock-puppet friends and organizations who more often than not receive substantial contributions from phone or cable companies. The fact is, the United States endures a home broadband duopoly in most communities — one cable and one phone company. They charge roughly the same rates for a level of service that Europe and Asia left behind years ago. Broadband prices keep going up here, going down there.

Simply put, Mr. Otero and actual reality have yet to meet. Consider his nonsensical diatribe about the impact of the “heavy-handed” 1996 Telecommunications Act, actually a festival of mindless deregulation that resulted in sweeping consolidation in the telecommunications and broadcasting business and higher prices for consumers.

Otero is upset that big companies like AT&T and Verizon originally had to open up their networks in the early 1990s to independent Internet Service Providers who purchased wholesale access at fair (yet profitable) prices. Those fledgling ISPs developed and marketed third-party Internet service based on those open network rates. Remember the days when you could choose your ISP from a whole host of providers? In some markets, this tradition carried forward with DSL service, but for most it would not last.

The telecommunications industry managed to successfully lobby the government and federal regulators to change the rules. Phone companies did not appreciate the fact they had to open their networks for fair access while cable operators did not. So in 2005, the FCC allowed both to control their broadband networks like third world despots. Competitors were effectively not allowed. Wholesale access, where available, was priced at rates that usually guaranteed few ISPs would ever undercut the cable or phone company’s own broadband product.

The lawmakers who believed open networks represented awful policy were almost entirely corporate-friendly or recipients of enormous campaign contributions from the telecom companies themselves.

So which market is actually on the road to failure?

The LCLAA couldn’t do enough to help AT&T swallow up competitor T-Mobile USA.

The American broadband business model is a firmly established duopoly that charges some of the world’s highest prices and has rapidly fallen behind those “failures” in Europe.

In the United Kingdom, BT — the national phone company, is required to sell access at the wholesale rates Otero dismisses as bad policy. As a result, UK consumers have a greater choice of service providers, and at speeds that are increasingly outpacing the United States. Nationally backed fiber to the home networks in eastern Europe and the Baltic states have already blown past the average speeds Americans can affordably buy from the cable company.

Even Canada requires Bell, the dominant phone company, to open its network to independent ISPs selling DSL service. Without this, Canadians would rarely have a chance to find a service provider offering unlimited, flat rate service.

Otero’s final, and most-tired argument is that data caps force “average” users to subsidize “heavy” users. In fact, as Stop the Cap! reported this week, that fallacy can be safely flushed away when you consider the largest ISPs pay, on average, just $1 per month per subscriber for usage, and that price is dropping fast. The only thing being subsidized here is the telecom “dollar-a-holler” fund, paid to various mouthpiece organizations who deliver the industry’s talking points without looking too obvious.

The Des Moines Register omitted the rest of Mr. Otero’s industry connections. We’re always here to help at Stop the Cap!, so here is what the newspaper forgot:

• Mr. Otero is a board member of Directors of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI), a group funded in part by AT&T and Verizon;
• He is the past president of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, a group that enthusiastically supported the anti-competitive merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA;

Mr. Otero has a side hobby of penning nearly identical editorials with largely these same broadband talking points. One wonders what might motivate him into writing letters to the Des Moines Register, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Gainesville Sun, the Star-Banner, and the Ledger-Inquirer.

Otero may have a case for plagiarism, if he chooses to pursue it, against Mr. Roger Campos, president of the Minority Business RoundTable (the top cable lobbyist, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association is labeled an MBRT “strategic partner” on their website). Campos uses some of the exact same talking points in his own “roundtable” of letters to the editor sent to newspapers all over the place, including the Ventura County Star, the Leaf Chronicle, and the Daily Herald.

Comcast last week told Wall Street three important facts:

1. They have plenty of capacity to handle increasing broadband traffic and can deliver faster speeds;
2. They are reducing the amount of money they invest in broadband;
3. They are still moving forward on usage caps and usage billing experiments.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts told investors the company was well positioned to handle increasing broadband traffic and monetize its usage.

Wall Street liked what it heard. Valuentum Securities Inc., called themselves “big fans of Comcast’s cash flow generation.”

“We’re big fans of the firm’s Video and High-Speed Internet businesses because both are either monopolies or duopolies in their respective markets,” Valuentum concludes. “Further, we believe that both services have become so sticky and important to consumers that Comcast will be able to effectively raise prices year after year without seeing too much volume-related weakness.”

An other way to raise prices is to cap broadband usage and charge customers extra for exceeding their allowance, a plan Comcast has begun testing.

“As you know we announced two different flavors of plans,” Roberts said. “One was capacity linked with the tier that subs are buying and [the other] was just being able to buy blocks of capacity.”

Roberts is referring to Comcast’s pricing experiments now being rolled out in markets like Nashville. The tests will determine whether customers will pay higher prices for different tiers of broadband based on variable speed and usage allowances or whether a flat cap with an overlimit fee is the better way to go.

Roberts

“[Hard] caps are gone,” Roberts said. “We raised the amount people could consume to 300 gigabytes as a base limit. We have not announced the markets for the roll outs yet but I would expect something shortly.”

Comcast used to have a 250GB hard cap which, if exceeded, could result in termination of a customer’s account. Now the company is pondering whether a consistent 300GB cap with an overlimit fee is a better choice.

But Roberts also acknowledged Comcast has plenty of capacity and flexibility to adjust its broadband offerings to compete.

“[…] We have a great network that has tremendous flexibility and capacity to offer more speeds than we offer today and we’re constantly hoping that new applications and needs develop,” Roberts said in response to a question regarding potential competition with Google Fiber.

Comcast added 156,000 new high speed data customers, an 8% increase, over the last quarter. At the same time, the company lost 176,000 video subscribers.

The importance of Comcast’s broadband service was underlined by the fact broadband revenue was the largest contributor to cable revenue growth in the second quarter, with revenue increasing 9%. Comcast attributes that to rate increases, a growing number of new broadband customers, and the 27% of current subscribers upgrading to higher speed services.

Comcast does not and will not have to spend a growing amount of its capital on its broadband service. Comcast cut spending on its network by 5% in the second quarter to $1.1 billion. That represents 11.4 percent of cable revenue earned by Comcast. So far this year, capital expenditures have dropped 2.4% to $2.2 billion — 11.2% of its total revenue.

These days, much of Comcast’s capital expenses support the company’s expansion into business services. The company also expects considerable reductions in spending from completion of its transition to digital — freeing up capacity on existing cable systems instead of spending money to upgrade them. For the full year, including its business services expansion, Comcast expects spending on its own network to be flat.

Comcast’s new X1 platform (Image courtesy: BWOne)

In other Comcast developments of note:

• In June Comcast rolled out its new X1 cloud based set top platform in Boston and is currently launching X1 in Atlanta. Comcast is marketing the upgraded platform first to HD Triple Play customers, who can upgrade for a one-time installation fee. The company plans to roll out the new upgraded platform in five major markets by the end of this year, with a greater expansion in 2013;
• Comcast has increased broadband speeds, particularly in competitive markets, for no additional charge;
• Streampix now offers twice as many titles as the product offered at launch in February;
• Comcast has rolled out its marketing partnership with Verizon Wireless to 22 markets nationwide;
• The company’s ongoing rebranding under the Xfinity name now has a new catchphrase: Xfinity — The Future of Awesome;
• Nearly 75% of Comcast’s customers now take at least two products and almost 40% are signed up for the company’s triple play package;
• Comcast has saved more than $8 million by reducing the number of occasions the company will send technicians to customer homes. The cable company is heavily promoting self-install kits, which has brought a 65% increase  in the number of customers who install Comcast equipment and services themselves.