Phillip "Not Paid by AT&T" Dampier

When asked if the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile will limit customer choice, NAACP’s local executive director Stanley Miller told a Cleveland, Ohio television station, “I don’t think that’s an issue in today’s environment; I think the companies are smarter today and they will make people understand and give them the beneficial services that they’ll need.”

The civil rights group had nothing to say about how much AT&T will charge for these “beneficial services.”

At least WEWS-TV in Cleveland is bothering to ask the question.  Most of America’s television news has either ignored the enormous merger on offer from AT&T and T-Mobile, or didn’t wade much further beyond AT&T’s press release about the “benefits” the merger will bring.  Unfortunately, the television station never bothered to alert viewers to the fact the civil rights group receives substantial financial support from AT&T.

Miller’s performance trying to tout his parent organization’s unqualified support for the merger sent a very clear message to anyone watching NewsChannel 5 — he doesn’t really understand what he is talking about.

On the issue of expanding wireless service into rural Ohio, Miller was left tongue-twisting his way into advocating a monopoly because they’ll be best equipped to get service to those who need it.  That’s a fascinating prospect — a monopoly spending money expanding service where it is unprofitable to provide.  That’s the reason companies like AT&T have ignored rural America, and will continue to do so — merger or not.

Miller (WEWS-TV)

In fact, AT&T’s claim that it needs the network of T-Mobile to stop the persistent problems of dropped calls and slow data service doesn’t make much sense either.  Verizon, AT&T’s closest competitor, doesn’t seem to be suffering those problems, perhaps because it has made investments in upgrades AT&T has avoided.

In California, consumer advocate Jon Fox was taking an equally skeptical look at AT&T’s claims on behalf of CalPIRG, the California Public Interest Research Group.  Fox noted AT&T’s promotion of the merger in his state came at invitation-only cheerleading sessions run by company officials:

Earlier this month, AT&T California President Ken McNeely explained to an invitation-only audience that the proposed merger with T-Mobile will create new jobs, help communities and improve wireless phone service. AT&T preferred not to take questions from the general public on how that vision fits with AT&T’s history of consolidation, layoffs and aggressive market behavior.

Nearly 30 years after regulators broke up AT&T’s unprecedented control over the U.S. wired phone market, consumers are asked to believe that this time things will be different. This notion defies both experience and common sense. Unless significant market regulation is put into place that encourages a competitive wireless arena to flourish, this proposed merger will be bad for consumers, innovation and economic growth.

Fox notes the wireless marketplace in the United States is hardly a paragon of competitiveness today.  If the merger were approved, 76 percent of Americans would receive wireless service from two providers — AT&T and Verizon.  Fox observed America’s next-most-hated conglomerate — the oil and gas industry — wishes it could have that sort of market power.  The top two oil companies in the U.S. have a combined market share of only 24 percent.  America, he notes, wouldn’t tolerate that kind of consolidation in the gasoline market, so why should we tolerate it in the mobile market?

The California Public Interest Research Group

Fox advocates more competition, not less.  He suggests the government force AT&T and Verizon to open their cellular networks to independent third party competitors at fair prices, and let everyone compete.  That could germinate competition that would end the chorus of rate increases from the largest players and allow for innovative pricing plans that don’t force customers into the nearly identical service plans AT&T and Verizon want to force you to accept.  T-Mobile already provides the most innovative pricing in the wireless marketplace, and AT&T is about to swallow that innovation whole.

What ultimately happens to a well-dwarfed Sprint remains an open question, but one many on Wall Street have already answered, suspecting America’s third largest carrier simply won’t be in a position to compete.  Fox thinks the situation is dire when two companies will have a virtual lock on wireless data services Americans increasingly depend on.

That’s not the view of the NAACP, of course.  But then the NAACP is hardly an independent observer, being the recipient of a considerable amount of money and executive talent from AT&T.  That counts for a whole lot more than the rank and file members of the organization, who will be paying the increased prices AT&T has in store for everyone.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEWS Cleveland ATT T-Mobile Merger 7-14-11.mp4[/flv]

WEWS-TV in Cleveland investigates the ramifications of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.  More than 94% of all Ohioans filing comments with FCC oppose the merger, but groups like the NAACP support it.  NewsCenter 5 wanted to find out why.  (3 minutes)

Cantor

For all of the bluster about not raising taxes, a group of House Republicans have proposed doing what one telecom organization concludes is exactly that by diverting Universal Service Fund revenue paid by landline and cell phone customers to reduce the budget deficit.

The idea to divert at least $1 billion annually — about 25% of the USF budget, comes from House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.).  USF fees are paid by consumers as part of their telephone bill.

With nearly a quarter of the USF’s $4.5 billion annual revenue diverted to the treasury, phone companies would either have to curtail efforts at rural broadband expansion, now proposed under USF reform efforts, or lobby for an increase in the amount of the fee to cover the diverted shortfall.

Telecom industry groups representing rural phone companies and local utility regulators blasted the proposal, saying it would destroy rural broadband expansion efforts underway by small independent and co-op phone companies.  The Universal Service Fund was designed to subsidize phone service in rural America to ensure equality of access and rates regardless of where Americans live. Without it, many rural phone companies face serious financial difficulties, especially as consumers increasingly look to providers to deliver broadband service.

“While we understand Congress is scrambling to resolve the deficit issue, our lawmakers should not tap into the Universal Service Fund as a last-minute solution. To divert these vital but limited funds from their intended use would be counterproductive and may undermine our national broadband goals,” said National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners president Tony Clark. “The Universal Service Fund is funded by fees consumers pay through their telephone company to ensure affordable access to telecommunications service across America. The Universal Service Fund receives no federal monies and should not even be under consideration in this debate.”

John Rose, president of the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO), called Cantor’s proposal “a totally new tax.”

The Federal Communications Commission has been working with state and local regulators, members of Congress, and rural telephone interests to transition the fund away from subsidizing basic telephone service, which is now ubiquitous in the United States, and towards a general purpose broadband rollout fund, to help provide capital to expand broadband service into communities deemed by larger providers as unprofitable to serve.

Some critics of the program suggest in its present form, it suffers from waste, fraud, and abuse.  Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) noted the original fund charged consumers less than five percent of their long distance bill, but subsequent increases have resulted in consumers paying up to 14%.  Stearns said more must be done to reduce the cost of the USF for consumers and has supported prior reform efforts.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Universal Service Fund – Cliff Stearns 11-18-09.flv[/flv]

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.)’s opening remarks in a 2009 hearing criticize the increasing costs consumers find on their phone bills for the Universal Service Fund.  (5 minutes)

Meigs County, Ohio

Connect Ohio, one of the many state chapters working with telecommunications industry-backed Connected Nation, has released its 2011 Technology Assessment about how the state is adopting broadband technology.

Despite celebrating improvements, large parts of rural Ohio still do not receive any kind of broadband service, especially from the state’s dominant provider AT&T, one of the companies that has traditionally backed Connected Nation.

The friendly relations these broadband groups maintain with their sponsors results in reports that strenuously avoid any direct criticism of providers for ignoring rural Ohio, particularly in the southeastern part of the state where broadband is especially difficult to obtain.

Connect Ohio’s findings, mostly provided by voluntary data from Internet Service Providers and respondents to various surveys, downplays rural Ohio’s broadband drought:

Statewide, 5% of Ohio residents report that broadband is not available where they live, 85% say with certainty that broadband is available, and 10% do not know whether broadband service is available.  By comparison, Connect Ohio’s provider-validated Broadband Service Inventory found that 1.7% of households do not have terrestrial fixed broadband service access.

The disparity in Connect Ohio’s numbers is especially apparent in rural Meigs County, located in southeastern Ohio.

“Geographically speaking, nearly two-thirds of Meigs County does not have easy access to affordable broadband,” Meigs County Economic Development Director Perry Varnadoe told The Daily Sentinel. “In terms of infrastructure, access to broadband is just as important as water and sewer service to businesses.”

Varnadoe thinks the few major providers that do offer service in the county are basically done expanding their service areas, and Varnadoe believes broadband adoption has reached a ceiling in Meigs County.

With much of the county bypassed for DSL or cable modem service, the only exception to this is fixed wireless service from New Era Broadband.  Unfortunately, it’s a costly alternative to traditional DSL.

New Era Broadband of Coolville is a Wireless ISP

New Era delivers up to 1.5Mbps service for $60 a month with a $200 installation fee and a two-year service agreement, and provides service in the vicinity of the community of Racine.

The company is still waiting on a $2.9 million grant to expand service to an additional 3,000 residents, mostly in the area of Five Points, which only has access to dial-up Internet.

Only about half the residents of Belmont, Jefferson, Monroe and Harrison counties have broadband connections at home, the study also found.  The Intelligencer/Wheeling News-Register placed most of the blame for that on residents not being particularly interested in the Internet, but service and cost are likely more important factors, as cable and DSL service is also spotty in those counties as well.  If there is a computer in the home, there is a demand for broadband service, especially in households where children find Internet access increasingly important to complete study work.

For most residents, it has become a waiting game to see who will deliver access, if anyone will.  In most of Ohio, customers look to the phone or cable company for access.  Rural Ohio lacks good cable broadband coverage, and DSL from the phone company first requires an interest in providing the service, and AT&T has not proven to be aggressive in rural communities in the state.

In fact, the phone company has been seeking approval to discontinue providing rural landline service at a time and date of its choosing.  If the landline goes, the chance for wired DSL goes with it.

With FairPoint Communications, customers often have to take the good with the bad.  The formerly bankrupt telephone company providing service in northern New England announced last week it had met its obligation to provide at least 90 percent of Vermont residents with a broadband option — typically 1-3Mbps DSL — and has trumpeted results showing 83 percent of Maine and 85 percent of New Hampshire is now served by FairPoint DSL, an improvement over former owner Verizon Communications, which routinely ignored rural areas in all three states.

But while winning the option to buy DSL service, thousands of customers found service lacking last week when a power cable in the Manchester Millyard area brought down both broadband and voicemail service across all three states.

In such circumstances, FairPoint’s backup generators are supposed to maintain service, but not in this case.

“I’m on dialup and went down for 10 (hours),” Wolfgang Milbrandt of Mason wrote in an e-mail to the Nashua Telegraph. “So why does FairPoint have so many eggs in the Manchester basket and is the backup power system that feeble?”

In Milford, Tom Schmidt lost his DSL broadband for about five hours last Monday, with it returning “around 6-ish.”

Company officials admitted they didn’t switch to the generator after the power failed, and customers noticed as voicemail and DSL service began to fail.  Service problems were ongoing even after power was restored after about 90 minutes, with some FairPoint customers reporting problems through the early part of last week.

FairPoint plans to press forward with DSL broadband expansion and has also prioritized build-out of its Ethernet-Over-Fiber service for cell phone towers, delivering fiber-fast connections to more than 800 tower sites to support 4G wireless broadband from major wireless carriers.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGME Portland FairPoint customers lose service 7-11-11.flv[/flv]
WGME-TV in Portland, Maine covers FairPoint’s substantial broadband outage last week. (1 minute)

Is this a T-Mobile priority coverage zone?

One of the “benefits” AT&T’s lobbying team claims will come with a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is improved wireless service for rural America.

But an investigation into T-Mobile’s urban-focused coverage, and AT&T’s own recent rural past prove those claimed benefits simply don’t make any sense.

Although rural and small town America is increasingly aware of AT&T, that comes mostly from the company’s recent acquisitions, not from mass expansion projects to blanket rural America with AT&T iPhones.  AT&T has been on a shopping spree for smaller regional wireless carriers for the last five years, picking up resources through acquisition, not from independent investment.  But a buyout of T-Mobile will bring no new assets for AT&T’s presence in rural America.  It will simply reduce competition in larger communities the same way AT&T cut out competitors in rural markets.

Just ask customers of Dobson Cellular.  In 2007, AT&T bought the rural provider, doing business as Cellular One, for $2.8 billion dollars and converted customers to AT&T.  Dobson was the largest cell phone company around in Alaska and rural Michigan.  In fact, the company provided roaming capability to customers of AT&T and T-Mobile who ventured into the rural areas Dobson specialized in serving.

After the conversion, did service improve for the newly acquired AT&T customers?

“No way,” says ex-Cellular One customer Jim Duncan who lives in a former Dobson service area in Michigan. “AT&T ruined cell phone service when they got here with dropped calls and phantom busy signals, turning a friendly local-focused company into one where you are just an account number reaching some national call center.”

Acquired by AT&T in 2007

Duncan says AT&T never cared one bit about rural Michigan before buying Dobson, and in his view, still doesn’t.

“Smaller markets are an afterthought for AT&T and T-Mobile has zero impact (and customers) in my area, so I have no idea what great improvements a merger will bring to our part of Michigan that neither company paid much attention to,” Duncan says.

That same year, AT&T also grabbed spectrum worth $2.5 billion with its acquisition of Aloha Partners, which spent time at FCC auctions buying up 700Mhz spectrum and then eventually reselling it at a profit to wireless carriers.  AT&T didn’t just buy some of Aloha’s spectrum, it acquired the whole partnership.

Acquired by AT&T in 2008.

In April 2008, Edge Wireless customers in southern Oregon, northern California, southeastern Idaho and Jackson, Wyoming discovered they were well on their way to becoming AT&T customers, too.  AT&T acquired Edge and rebranded it AT&T. That hardly represents investment and dedicated expansion into rural Rocky Mountain states — AT&T simply bought up another company that did.

Also in 2008, AT&T snapped up Centennial Communications, a considerable-sized regional player in the central United States.  Centennial delivered service in less urban areas in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan in the north, and Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi in the south.  One million customers, Centennial’s spectrum and name all became part of AT&T.  Did service improve for Centennial customers with that merger?

“Overall, it stayed the same when it was Centennial and switched to AT&T,” says our reader Kevin, who now lives in Ft. Wayne, Ind.  “We did get access to the iPhone, but along with it came AT&T’s infamous dropped calls and lousy customer service.”

Acquired by AT&T in late 2008.

Kevin switched to Verizon Wireless earlier this year.

“If I was the FCC, I wouldn’t approve this merger because it promises nothing for rural America or anyone else,” says Kevin. “AT&T had a presence in Indiana before they bought Centennial, so all the deal did was reduce competition in this state.”

Centennial’s service areas were not exactly among T-Mobile’s priority coverage areas, either.

Acquired by AT&T in 2011?

“T-Who?,” Kevin asks.  “We’re aware of them now, but I don’t know anyone who has service with them.”

The real unanswered question is what AT&T is doing with all of the rural spectrum it already owns, controls, or has acquired.  How will an acquisition of an urban-focused carrier help deliver improved service in the rural markets both companies have traditionally ignored?

Answer: It won’t.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Centennial Joins ATT 10-09 and 02-10.flv[/flv]

WANE-TV in Ft. Wayne, Ind., covered the merger of Centennial and AT&T back in 2009 and early 2010.  Fort Wayne was the home of a major regional office for Centennial.  (4 minutes)