Stephenson

With a 2011 failed T-Mobile merger well behind him, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson did well for himself in 2012, walking home with $21 million in compensation.

AT&T customers did less well, facing the imminent termination of AT&T Plus, a customer loyalty rewards program trialed in three states that offered customers waived upgrade and activation fees, gift cards, and 25% off cell phone accessories.

AT&T Mobility’s chief financial officer Pet Ritcher said that customers shifting into its Mobile Share data plans would do a better job of keeping customers in place.

Despite the fact Stephenson’s failure to secure the T-Mobile merger cost the company a $4.2 billion deal termination penalty payable in cash and wireless spectrum, his personal compensation only took a $2.1 million hit in 2011. All was forgiven in 2012, when his compensation hit a new record, up from the $20.2 million earned in 2010 — a four percent pay hike earned in an era of stagnant or declining wages for the middle and working classes.

The breakdown:

• Stephenson’s base salary of $1.55 million was enhanced with a $6.06 million bonus and $12.6 million in additional AT&T shares;
• Stephenson’s personal use of AT&T’s corporate jets cost the company $276,391;
• AT&T paid for Stephenson’s home security as a cost of $101,923;
• Miscellaneous compensation amounted to $803,308.

AT&T’s earnings amounted to $7.3 billion in 2012, up 84 percent from $3.9 billion earned the year before. Revenue increased to $127.4 billion.

AT&T paid no federal taxes in 2011. In fact, the company won a taxpayer-subsidized refund of $420 million.

Wireless plan changes, workforce reductions, rate increases, and other “cost savings” also all helped the company.

Riding away with your phone subsidy.

T-Mobile USA has thrown down the gauntlet, announcing it intends to end the kind of phone subsidies that have allowed customers to pick up pricey smartphones like the iPhone for as low as $99, with a two-year contract.

Wireless subsidies have been part of the North American wireless experience for nearly two decades. In an effort to bring new customers on board, carriers wanted the upfront cost to consumers to be as low as possible. Until expensive smartphones arrived, consumers were assured they could get a new, cutting-edge phone at contract renewal time for very little money. Carriers tolerated the subsidy even for existing customers because the difference between the company’s cost and the amount consumers paid wasn’t large enough to negatively affect a carrier’s balance sheet.

Companies gradually earn back the subsidy over the course of a typical two year contract by artificially inflating prices for service plans and add-ons. Because wireless rates have been set with the assumption a customer has received a subsidized phone, it made sense to keep getting new equipment every two years, because customers pay for it on each monthly bill.

In most countries outside of North America, it works very differently. Most customers either pay for a phone outright or agree to finance its purchase through a wireless company, paying monthly installments for smartphones that often cost more than $600. Some companies offer more aggressive discounts if one agrees to a 1-3 year contract, but buyers still cover much of the cost themselves. In return, wireless companies abroad typically charge much lower rates for service and do not force people into lengthy contracts. Customers also find they can switch companies as easily as replacing a SIM card, activating an old phone on a new carrier’s network.

There are pros and cons to the subsidy model:

PROS

• Consumers get the latest phones at a reduced up-front cost up to every two-years;
• The subsidy win-back is collected gradually over the course of 24 months;
• Carriers aggressively compete on huge subsidies for popular phones;
• The reduced price of a subsidized phone brings reticent consumers into the market;
• Carriers have increased control over the equipment that is used on their network through price incentives;

CONS

• The subsidy model gives carriers an incentive to lock discounted phones to their network;
• Customers pay artificially higher prices for service, whether they take advantage of a subsidized phone offer or not;
• Consumers don’t realize the true cost of the phones and expect them to cost less than $200 regardless of their retail price;
• Customers are locked into lengthy contracts with stiff early termination fees to protect the subsidy win-back structure;
• Without a subsidy, equipment manufacturers would face natural market pressure to cut costs to remain affordable;

Legere

T-Mobile announced last week it was ending its phone subsidy program next year, and customers will be expected to bring their own phone, buy one at an unsubsidized rate, or finance a full price phone with the carrier. In return, customers will get a lower priced T-Mobile calling and data plan.

Some in the tech press are heralding the announcement as a consumer victory and a breakthrough for lower priced service plans. But before throwing the confetti, consider this.

T-Mobile is making customers bring or buy their own phones, but will still lock them into a two year contract with a $200 early termination fee.

T-Mobile’s retention of its contract plans might delineate the postpaid side of its business and its month-to-month, contract-free, prepaid business. But that does not mean much for customers.

John Legere, the new CEO of T-Mobile USA hinted the measure is designed to reduce customer churn — customers coming and going. Locking a customer in place with termination penalties assures shareholders customers are more likely to remain with T-Mobile for the life of their contract.

That represents a win for T-Mobile, but not for customers. Legere explained the benefits to investors:

“[We are going] to have a lower device subsidy obviously and overall value,” Legere told attendees at the Capital Markets Day Conference. “[… because of the] device margin — $200 to $250 — which we do not have to eat. Over a 24-month period [we get] a customer life value that is the difference between $550 on a Classic [traditional subsidy contract] plan and $600 on a Value [no-subsidy] plan.”

In other words, T-Mobile doesn’t have to front a device subsidy, still holds a customer with a two-year contract, and despite the lower-priced service plans, comes out $50 richer when the contract expires.  T-Mobile is essentially admitting it does not return the entire value of its former subsidy back to the customer.

What is more, T-Mobile may pave the way for other carriers to also drop handset subsidies, keep the traditional two-year contract, and only slightly lower prices.

Nothing peeves Wall Street more than the huge subsidy costs carriers pay up front to discount the latest smartphones. Getting rid of subsidies while only mildly adjusting prices could be the next hidden “price increase,” the perfect gift for an investor that demands higher revenue from every customer.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act. The rhetoric rarely matched the results.

Washington insiders are predicting Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski will leave his position early in President Obama’s second term.

It cannot come soon enough, as far as we’re concerned.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Obama Administration has been the poor performance of a chairman that originally promised a departure from the rubber stamp-mentality that allowed Big Telecom providers to win near-instant approval of just about anything asked from the Republican-dominated FCC of the Bush Administration. If only to underline that point, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell joined Republican ex-commissioner Meredith Atwell-Baker on a trip through the D.C. revolving door, taking lucrative jobs with the same cable industry both used to oversee.

We had high hopes for Mr. Genachowski when he took the helm at the FCC — particularly over Net Neutrality, media consolidation, and predatory abuse of consumers at the hands of the comfortable cable-telco duopoly. Genachowski promised strong Net Neutrality protections, better broadband — especially in rural areas, an end to rubber stamping competition killing mergers and acquisitions, and more aggressive oversight of the broadband industry generally.

What we got was the reincarnation of the Cowardly Lion.

The Washington Post reviews Genachowski’s tenure during the first term of the Obama Administration and reports he has few unabashed supporters left. Telecom companies loathe Genachowski’s more cautious approach and consumer groups hate his penchant for caving in when lobbyists come calling. In short, another Democrat that talks tough and caves in at the first sign of trouble.

“His tenure has been nothing but a huge disappointment because he’s squandered an opportunity to give consumers the competitive communications market they deserve,” Derek Turner, head of policy analysis at public interest group Free Press told the Post. “If someone like him upholds compromise, it quickly leads to capitulation, which is what he’s done. He folds…to the pressure of big companies.”

Genachowski’s Record:

• Heavily promoted rural broadband and oversaw a review program measuring actual broadband speeds against those claimed by providers. But much of the money available for improving rural broadband has been separately awarded to “middle mile” and “institutional networks” that are not accessible to most consumers or businesses. Genachowki has heaped automatic praise on many of the phone companies winning broadband funding, despite the fact many of them are satisfied giving consumers no better than 4Mbps service;
• Reformed the outdated Universal Service Fund, which long outlived much of its usefulness, into a broadband expansion fund. But some unintended consequences have led to some rural providers suspending network upgrades because of funding uncertainties still unresolved;
• Approved a blockbuster merger deal between Comcast and NBC-Universal that included temporary “hard-won” concessions Comcast later admitted they were going to offer anyway – merger or not. The result is a new high bar for tolerating super-sized media consolidation with no serious consideration of the impact on consumers. The latest evidence: support for Rupert “Phone Hacker” Murdoch’s latest efforts to buy more newspapers in the United States;
• Rejected an AT&T/T-Mobile merger deal, but only after the Justice Dept. took the lead dismissing it as an anti-consumer, anti-competition nightmare. Within hours, Genachowski’s office issued a “me, too” press release condemning the deal he said little about earlier;
• Demanded a strong Net Neutrality framework to protect the open Internet, but utterly caved under pressure from politicians receiving hefty corporate contributions from AT&T and others. The resulting loophole-ridden “protections” do not apply to wireless, and the industry-approved compromise is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by some of the same companies that earlier applauded Genachowski’s flexibility;
• Genachowski handed out his direct phone numbers to the CEO’s of the top Big Telecom companies, and has been directly lobbied by those “super-citizens,” while ordinary consumers are stuck filing comments with the FCC’s arcane Electronic Comment Filing System. Genachowski also directed closed-door meetings be held on the subject of Net Neutrality with large telecom companies. These meetings were closed to the public with no consumer representatives on hand;
• Genachowski refused to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service,” which would give the agency clear-cut authority to oversee the service. Instead, he has stuck with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s odd interpretation of broadband as “an information service,” not subject to much review by the agency;
• Appropriately nixed Philip Falcone’s LightSquared venture, the biggest threat to GPS navigation around. But Genachowski’s controversial early boosting of the venture, including support for expedited special permission to launch the network without the usual scrutiny, resulted in an embarrassing about-face after long-standing critics’ fears of navigation interference were vindicated;
• In 2012, Genachowski’s cozy relationship with the industry reached whole new levels with unabashed support for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, despite no evidence justifying them. The FCC has continued to ignore repeated requests for a review of these pricing schemes.

Phillip “Do you want to depend on AT&T for phone service that could be gone with the wind for weeks?” Dampier

Superstorm Sandy is getting credit for exposing the thin veneer of the “wireless future” some phone companies want to give their most rural customers after disconnecting their home phone lines in favor of wireless service.

Unfortunately for the providers selling you on the wireless revolution, reality intruded last month when Category 1 Hurricane Sandy arrived. In its wake, the storm obliterated a significant amount of wireless phone service for weeks in some of the most urbanized sections of the country, while leaving underground, traditional wired phone service largely untouched.

The storm that blew into the northeastern U.S. Oct. 29 left a legacy of interrupted or inadequate cell service that lasted more than two weeks. AT&T and Verizon Wireless reported their networks were not fully restored until Nov. 15. Sprint and T-Mobile are still addressing some issues with their networks as of today.

Although the storm was enormous in scope, it was only a Category 1 hurricane. It could have been much worse.

So where did things go wrong?

Although some sites lost their wired backhaul connection which connects the tower to the provider, the biggest problem was commercial power interruption. Without power, many providers were caught flat-footed with inadequate on-site backup plans to keep cell towers up and running until regular power could be restored.

The wireless industry fought tooth and nail against common sense regulations proposed by the Federal Communications Commission after Hurricane Katrina devastated infrastructure and power facilities in southern Louisiana and Mississippi.

The FCC proposed that every cell tower be equipped with on site battery backup equipment that could sustain service for a minimum of eight hours — sufficient time for power to be restored or company engineers to arrive with more robust generators.

Providers howled about the cost of outfitting the nation’s 200,000 cell sites with even a conservative amount of backup power. The cellular industry lobbying group and Sprint sued, calling it a wasteful and unnecessary mandate. The Bush Administration eventually dropped the whole matter in November 2008 as part of its war on “burdensome” regulation.

Since then, providers have been free to design their own emergency backup plans, or have none at all. Few have made those detailed plans public, giving customers information about how likely their cell phone will work in the event of a disaster.

Verizon Wireless has been the most aggressive, voluntarily adopting the proposed FCC standards and outfitting all of their cell sites with a minimum of eight hours of battery backup power. Other providers have backup facilities at some sites, often with lower capacity batteries that won’t last as long.

Sandy illustrated that even eight hours might be inadequate. Many cell sites were on generator power for more than a week, assuming engineers could regularly reach each tower with equipment and fuel.

Other cell sites could not be returned to service immediately because of major wind damage or flooding. Those that were in service were often overburdened by enormous call volumes.

Meanwhile, unless your landline provider’s central office was flooded, your phone line kept working during and after the storm, especially if your neighborhood wiring is buried underground.

In many cases, it was the only thing working, because traditional phone lines are independently powered and not dependent on electric service in your home to operate. That is what kept your dial tone humming even as your smartphone’s battery ran out.

Ironically, the network that performed the best through the storm is the same one AT&T and Verizon would like to phase out, starting in rural areas. AT&T wants to completely abandon wired service in its most rural service areas, where calling and waiting for emergency assistance is already a hindrance. AT&T plans to spend billions to bolster its rural cell tower network to cover the landline areas it wants to abandon, but those communities would be entirely dependent on the reliability of that network, because AT&T’s competitors are unlikely to build additional infrastructure to compete.

As Sandy just demonstrated, if high-profit Manhattan customers could not be assured of reliable cell phone service from any company that provide service there, how likely is it that a customer in rural Kansas will be in real trouble summoning help over AT&T’s wireless infrastructure in the event of a cell tower failure, wiping out the only telecommunications service available in nearby towns?

AT&T has announced it has launched its new stolen phone database that offers customers a chance to report and block stolen wireless equipment, with the hope it will deter would-be thieves.

AT&T has been criticized in the past for allowing stolen phones back onto its network, but now customers can add their stolen or missing equipment to a national database that will prevent the phones from being reactivated with other GSM carriers (primarily T-Mobile).

AT&T said customers can report stolen phones and suspend service via att.com/stolenphone, at an AT&T store, or by contacting customer service. AT&T will block the device within 24 hours, the carrier said.

Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile activated their databases earlier.