AT&T has new wireless data plans you can’t afford.

Saving money takes a back seat to AT&T’s newest supersized Mobile Share data packages reported by The Verge. AT&T’s goal of monetizing data usage for their most ravenous wireless data users means a 900 percent price hike from the days of the company’s $30 unlimited data plan. Here are the newest plans:

• 30GB data usage = $300 a month
• 40GB data usage = $400 a month
• 50GB data usage = $500 a month

Unlimited texting and talking are included in these prices, but the individual device fees for each smartphone, tablet, or wireless modem are not.

AT&T’s pricing is relevant to rural customers who face an imminent threat of losing landline phone and broadband service should the phone company win the right to abandon its copper wire network in favor of wireless-only service. A family watching Netflix consuming 45GB of usage on AT&T’s DSL service pay as little as $15 a month for broadband. With AT&T’s wireless Internet service, that same family will spend a prohibitive $500 a month.

Dr. John Malone’s Liberty Media will buy a 27.3 percent interest in Charter Communications with a $2.62 billion investment in America’s fourth largest cable operator.

Liberty will buy the stake from investment firms Apollo Management, Crestview Partners, and Oaktree Capital Management.

“We are pleased with Charter’s market position and growth opportunities and believe that the company’s investments in its high-capacity digital network which provides digital HD and on demand television, high-speed data and voice, will benefit its customers and shareholders alike,” Malone said in a statement.

Malone is no stranger to the cable industry, having been at the helm of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), the largest cable operator in the country in the 1980s and 1990s. TCI systems were sold to AT&T in 1999, which eventually spun them off to Comcast and Charter Communications, which still run them today.

Dr. John Malone

Since Malone’s exit at TCI, he has been in charge of Liberty Global, which owns cable systems overseas and controls several U.S. cable programming interests through his Liberty Media operation. The investment in Charter represents Malone’s return to an American cable industry he helped pioneer.

The agreement requires Liberty to acquire no more than 35 percent of Charter until January 2016, at which point Liberty’s maximum allowable controlling interest rises to 39.99 percent. Liberty also wins four seats on Charter’s board of directors. But many industry analysts predict Malone will not be satisfied with anything less than eventual full control.

Malone often takes an initial minority interest in the companies he later intends to acquire outright. Macquarie analyst Amy Yong told Reuters he employed a similar tactic to gain control of SiriusXM, the satellite radio company.

“He’s probably going to have a pretty big say in the company’s future over the next few years. This will accelerate capital returns and take advantage of Charter’s tax assets to consolidate the cable industry some more,” Yong said.

Malone is attracted to investment opportunities in companies with high marketplace leverage opportunities and exploiting potential revenue from captive customers in the rural, less-competitive markets Charter has traditionally favored.

Here today, gone tomorrow: Bresnan Communications that was Optimum is now Charter Cable.

Malone also has a strong philosophy towards marketplace consolidation, something ongoing in the cable industry, particularly among smaller cable operators serving less-populated areas.

Under the leadership of ex-Cablevision executive Thomas Rutledge, Charter Communications recently acquired the interests of Cablevision West — former Bresnan Cable systems in the mountain west. Malone sees considerable opportunities expanding operations in smaller communities that have either received substandard cable service, or none at all.

Malone has recently been stockpiling available cash for investments, spinning off his former cable programming properties Starz, a premium cable channel, Discovery Communications, which runs the Discovery Networks, and Liberty Interactive, which owns the lucrative home shopping channel QVC.

Charter Communications has had a difficult history. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen bought a controlling interest in the cable operator in the late 1990s, primarily because he saw cable broadband as a natural fit for his vision of a future wired America. Allen’s weighty investment was used to jump into a cable industry consolidation frenzy still underway more than a decade ago. Cable operators claimed consolidation was necessary to increase efficiency by building up regional clusters of cable systems. Before consolidation, it was not unusual for two or three different cable operators to serve customers in separate parts of a metropolitan area. Often one operator would serve the city with one or two other cable companies offering service in suburban and exurban communities nearby.

In 1999 alone, under Allen’s leadership, Charter Cable acquired 10 cable companies.

By 2005, Charter Cable had amassed millions of new subscribers, but not as many as company executives claimed when they artificially inflated subscriber numbers to protect the value of the company’s stock. Four executives were indicted that year for criminal accounting fraud. By 2009, with $22 billion in debt, the company declared bankruptcy, eventually wiping out shareholders.

The court’s decision to forgive 40 percent of the company’s debt angered creditors but opened an opportunity for private equity firm Apollo Capital Management to gain control by ending up with the majority of shares in the restructured company.

For years, the company has continued to receive some of the worst customer satisfaction ratings in the industry, usually ranking at or near the bottom. But many Charter customers stay because there is little competition from other players, especially telephone companies. AT&T’s U-verse is the most likely triple-play competitor, but AT&T has avoided introducing U-verse in many of Charter’s service areas because they are deemed too small.

Malone sees Charter’s future revenue potential grow as a broadband provider, considered both a money-maker and must-have service. Analysts say that Charter is well-positioned to poach more customers from phone companies, which typically only offer slow DSL service in much of Charter’s rural footprint.

Gore: Malone is the Darth Vader of cable.

But customers may find with Malone’s involvement, that service may come at a price. Malone was criticized heavily in the 1980s and 1990s for leading the charge for customer rate increases. TCI’s captive customers in Tennessee found their cable bills increased between 71-116 percent in just three years during the 1980s.

Former Sen. Al Gore, Jr., at the time called Malone the head of a “Cable Cosa Nostra” and the Darth Vader of big cable. The cable executive was a frequent target of lawmakers flooded with constituent complaints about poor cable service and accelerating prices.

In 1999, The Guardian noted Malone was an admirer of telecom oligopolies:

He is scathing about regulatory attempts to prevent monopolies and mergers. Governments, he says, are “antediluvian” in their approach to the emerging new world economic order. Instead of trying to prevent mergers and collusion between media and communications companies, Malone says governments should actually promote the creation of “super-corporations” (such as his own) with enough capital to exploit the potential of new technology.

That attitude may soon be back in play with the cable industry’s increasing focus on expanding broadband service as their new primary revenue generator.

United to grow AT&T’s revenue at the expense of rural America.

The National Farmers Union has a long tradition of protecting rural farmers and defending the rural economy, but has been completely taken in by AT&T’s proposal to abandon rural wired service.

In addition to AT&T appearing in fine print as a sponsor of the National Farmers Union’s 111th Anniversary Convention, the phone company won prominent placement at the group’s annual convention to deliver a speech about AT&T’s lobbying agenda on rural broadband courtesy of Ramona Carlow, AT&T’s vice president of public policy.

AT&T sends its lobbying forces to rural agriculture events with scare stories about impending wireless shortages and doom if the Federal Communications Commission does not hand over more spectrum. In an interview with Beth Canuteson, AT&T regional vice president of external affairs, she tells Brownfield – Ag News for America AT&T will run out of spectrum in seven years. (June 26, 2012) (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The National Farmers Union joined several other rural farm groups in comments (never mentioned on the organization’s website) to the Federal Communications Commission applauding AT&T’s plan to abandon its rural “TDM” landline network:

The United States is poised for a historic transition in communications. Completing the transformation from legacy TDM-based network technology designed in the 20th century to the all-IP networks of the 21st century will allow every computer, laptop, smartphone, machine and tablet to communicate with each another and work seamlessly around the clock. These devices, connected with each other and with a host of other machines ranging from cars to thermostats via these IP-enabled networks, are changing almost every aspect of our lives in areas well beyond traditional communications. If the FCC grants AT&T’s Petition, the full build out of 21st century IP-based networks can being to spur growth, create jobs, and stimulate new opportunity across America, but especially in rural communities that are often handicapped by distance and other opportunity-limiting barriers.

AT&T has the money to upgrade its rural wireline networks.

Unfortunately for the rural farm members of the National Farmers Union, the future proposed by AT&T isn’t as rosy as the NFU would have you believe:

1. AT&T has neglected its rural landline network for years. Whether the technology is wired or wireless, the bean counters at AT&T are clear: there is no Return on Investment formula that works for the company at the current low prices charged for traditional rural landline and DSL service. AT&T has poured billions into a half-measure upgrade, a fiber-copper wire compromise called U-verse, but only in urban areas where it can justify that  investment to hungry shareholders. AT&T has no plans to deploy U-verse in rural areas. Instead, Wall Street’s economic expectation is that fixed wireless is the best solution for rural areas, because it delivers dramatically higher prices that accelerate return on investment and future enhanced earnings;
2. AT&T continues to be America’s lowest-rated wireless carrier — worst for dropped calls and worst for customer service. If you live in a rural area, you already know what AT&T wireless cell service is like. Do you want to depend on that network for all of your telecommunications needs, including emergency calls to 911?
3. AT&T’s DSL service starts at $15 a month on commonly available pricing promotions and has a barely enforced usage cap of 150GB a month. AT&T’s wireless smartphone plans start at $20 a month with a usage cap of 200MB a month. A 5GB plan costs $50 a month. On AT&T’s heavily marketed Family Share plan, 1GB of usage costs $40 a month. A typical broadband customer using between 15-20GB a month, now considered the national average, would pay $15 a month for AT&T’s DSL or $200 a month on AT&T’s wireless network, based on a plan designed to avoid overlimit fees;¹
4. AT&T’s plan also includes fringe benefits for itself: a transition to technology not subject to consumer protection and oversight laws, rate regulation, quality of service guarantees, and “carrier of last resort” obligations. In short, it means AT&T is not responsible if your wireless reception is unsuitable for voice or data use.

AT&T’s cash on hand. Q.: Where will they spend it, on their networks or on their shareholders? A.: “AT&T generated best-ever cash from operations and free cash flow in 2012, which let us return a record $23 billion in cash to shareholders, including dividends and share buybacks.” — AT&T 2012 Annual Report.

The National Farmers Union needs to consider whether AT&T’s proposal meets the terms the organization lays out in its own policy statement on rural telecommunications:

We support:

a) Efforts to ensure competitively priced, high-speed broadband access to the Internet for rural America, which should remain free of censorship and not interfere with other frequencies;

b) Collaborative efforts and public/private initiatives that leverage internet-based technology and use the internet to improve communications, reduce costs, increase access and grow farm business for producers and their cooperatives; and

c) Legislative action and efforts by the administration to encourage robust broadband and wireless deployment in rural America to drive economic development, better serve farmers and ranchers and to prevent a digital divide between rural and urban citizens.

Strong earnings growth.

Let’s consider how AT&T will manage with these tests:

• Wireless competition in rural America exists even less than in urban America. For most, there are one or two choices, typically AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which charge nearly identical, expensive prices;
• AT&T and its various front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) lobby state lawmakers to prohibit public initiatives that would enhance rural broadband, particularly community-owned broadband networks. Advocating for AT&T’s imposed rural solution is a far cry from the NFU’s past. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the group lead the charge for rural utilities cooperatives, owned and operated by the communities they served. In 2013, the group seems satisfied with whatever scraps AT&T is willing to throw the way of rural America;
• A digital divide can exist in many ways. The NFU proposes to cut the digital divide by introducing a pricing divide. Can most rural Americans afford $200 a month for AT&T’s wireless service, assuming they can get a good signal? AT&T returned $23 billion in excess cash to shareholders in 2o12². Imagine what half of that would offer rural America if the company chose to upgrade its existing landline network for the same 21st century service it proposes to offer urban customers.

¹-AT&T’s Mobile Share with Unlimited Talk & Text 20GB package, not including a $30 additional device fee for each smartphone on the account.

²- AT&T Annual Report 2012.

Pulling the wool over your eyes.

As the Federal Communications Commission continues to consider AT&T’s proposal to abandon its wired infrastructure in rural service areas, hundreds of comments are arriving at the federal agency both for and against the idea. Between the submissions from large telecom companies and state regulators, a curious mix of professionally prepared comments favoring AT&T’s proposal have also arrived, many from organizations that simply do not have a direct interest in the outcome.

These Friends of AT&T include a range of non-profit, minority, and civil rights groups that have little interest in rural telecommunications policy but every interest in pleasing a company that lends executives to serve on advisory boards or writes big checks.

Even worse, some of the constituencies these groups purport to represent are among the most vulnerable. The rural poor, elderly, and economically disadvantaged are precisely those that cannot afford to lose budget-friendly phone and broadband service in favor of the expensive wireless solutions AT&T proposes as replacements.

Not all groups favoring AT&T are simply trolling for corporate contributions. Some seem to have been hoodwinked by the AT&T’s lobbyists, believing that abandoning rural wired infrastructure is an evolutionary step towards better service. They do not understand AT&T will offer exceptionally expensive broadband and voice calling over a wireless network notorious for dropped calls, poor rural reception, and stingy data caps in its place.

Stop the Cap! is here to help. Over the coming weeks, we will be running a special series calling out a range of groups that either take AT&T money and advocate for their cause or seem misinformed about the future rural reality AT&T has in store for rural America. We encourage readers to contact these groups and let them know they are hurting themselves — and you — spending precious resources advocating for a multibillion dollar telecommunications company that honestly does not need their help and does not have their interests at heart.

Ask these groups to carefully consider the comments from organizations that live and breathe rural broadband, consumer protection, and oversight:

A million-five can buy a lot of advocacy.

RURAL BROADBAND POLICY GROUP: “[We are] alarmed at the request AT&T has presented before the Commission, and believes that approving this petition will inflict negative consequences on rural communities and consumers including loss of affordable and reliable basic telephone service, which is the only form of communication many remote communities can access; eliminate consumer protections that have made it possible for rural people to access telecommunications services; reverse our commitment to Universal Service; endanger our national public safety; and fuel a divest-from-Rural-trend that will disadvantage our national economy and global competency. We simply cannot allow that to happen.”

FREE PRESS: “For the typical consumer, the grant of AT&T’s wishes would mean no protections from price gouging, no accountability for service outages, no consumer protections from cramming and slamming, and no reliable access to emergency services. For millions of consumers and businesses, it would mean no access at all, as AT&T would be free to stop providing service. And because there would no longer be any obligation for interconnection, Americans should expect to see rolling localized Internet blackouts as intercarrier disputes pop up, which will be “resolved” by higher prices paid to dominant carriers like AT&T.”

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION: “The MPSC recognizes that the transition to an IP-based network is already underway. The MPSC supports the transition from TDM to IP-based or other next generation networks and services, and the deployment of affordable, open, and high-capacity broadband by all broadband providers. However, it is imperative to recognize that great care must be taken to ensure the continuation of the competitive marketplace, universal service, and consumer protections. AT&T’s Petition proposes sweeping deregulation of the incumbent providers, which would allow them to withdraw service unilaterally. There cannot be a reduction in competition, thus leaving customers subject to prices and/or rates that are not just, reasonable, and affordable, with little or no competitive recourse.”

Coming Up: The National Farmers Union: Hoodwinked by AT&T’s Lobbyists

Stop the Cap! has developed a sample e-mail message Georgia residents can use to petition the state legislature to vote NO on H.B. 282, the latest Big Telecom corporate welfare bill to kill competition from publicly-owned broadband networks. With thanks to Mark Creekmore, one of many rural Georgians suffering with DSL “service” from Windstream Communications, we have jointly created this letter to illustrate the folly of this bad bill. We may need to send this to members of the state Senate as well.

We realize many of you are served by AT&T, Comcast, or other rural providers, so this letter should be tailored to include the horror stories that you have experienced with your own provider. Make sure you change the relevant sections, including references to your local town’s provider (things that should be changed in your letter are highlighted in blue below) before sending your e-mail to House members today:

Dear Rep. -or- Sen.  [insert name]

I am writing to tell you that I do not support H.B. 282 — the Broadband Municipalities Act, and neither should you.

This proposed legislation is a solution in search of a problem. No community I know of gets interested in entering the broadband business on a whim. But when you live in a rural area served by a single provider that delivers poor service, as I do, it becomes understandable why some communities seek a public broadband solution as a last resort.

At its core, this is a bill designed to protect the broadband status quo at the cost of Georgia’s economic development and its citizens’ need for quality broadband service.

[Share several sentences here detailing the problems you have with your provider.]

Georgia has a long way to go to meet the broadband speeds available in cities like Chattanooga, Tenn. That city’s municipal power company offers 1,000Mbps service to residents that cannot buy those speeds from any other provider. That has attracted companies in this state to move to get the kind of service they just cannot get from our providers. Comcast and AT&T are hardly going out of business in Chattanooga and actually claim to welcome the competition. But things are much worse here in rural Georgia, where just getting 12Mbps service is a real challenge. That is because the local phone company has oversold its network and is too crowded, slowing speeds to a crawl. I’d welcome competition even more, but there just isn’t any.

Consider this: While Dawsonville suffers with Windstream’s oversubscribed DSL service as our only practical option, Thomasville residents can get 22Mbps of service over a fiber to the home network owned by the local community. Rose.net is hardly a financial failure either. It has been so successful, the city eliminated the local property tax. If you pass H.B. 282, Dawsonville will never have a chance, because no other provider is interested in serving us and the local community will never be able to because Windstream arguably already does.

If you believe H.B. 282 will stimulate rural broadband investment, you need to read Windstream CEO Jeff Gardner’s own statements during a February 2013 conference call to investors. He noted Windstream plans to cut capital expenses and investments this year and even more the next, including those made right here in Georgia. Gardner noted that Windstream’s rural customers are largely captive with no competitive alternatives, making extra investment unnecessary. That means we have to live with the service we are lucky enough to get at the high prices we are forced to pay. In effect, we are told to live with what we have or go without. This is an embarrassment to our state which boasts of its high-tech communications capability and is home to several major data centers.

The bill’s logic is also lacking. Private telecom companies enjoy the benefits of state taxpayer dollars in several ways, ranging from access to public rights of way to receiving federal stimulus dollars to incentivize rural broadband expansion. To date, Windstream’s only help for Georgia seems to be wiring 250 homes in Blue Ridge. If local communities decide they need a better broadband solution, allowing out-of-state corporations like Windstream to tie their hands and dictate terms is an outrage. We have been here before in the last century when giant electric utilities refused to provide adequate service in rural Georgia, so those communities managed it themselves with municipal utilities.

It is clear to me, despite a few inadequate revisions to the bill since its introduction, H.B. 282 is a disaster for Georgia’s telecommunications future. It is little more than protectionism for incumbent providers who will continue to treat rural Georgians like second class citizens, delivering service that falls far below what was advertised, yet costing the same as big city folks pay. If my community decides it is essential for our future to do better than what Windstream is willing to offer, making the town work through an expensive qualification process analyzing census blocks is nothing more than a deterrent to keep them from even trying.

With all the problems we face in Georgia today, spending time protecting Windstream from competition is not on my list and it certainly should not be on yours.

I respectfully ask you reject H.B. 282 in full, regardless of current or future revisions. The next time a telecommunications company comes by your office to lobby you on bills like this, let them know the best way they can protect themselves from municipal broadband is to deliver the good service Georgians deserve at a fair price. If they manage that, there would be no demand to build these alternative networks in the first place.

I look forward to hearing your views on this critical matter to me.

Respectfully,

// signature