Verizon Wireless is continuing its efforts to pull back on customer promotions that lower the price of your next phone. After eliminating discounts for loyal customers renewing their contracts, introducing a $30 “upgrade fee” for each new phone activated on an account, and eliminating one-year contracts, the wireless carrier is ending its 20-month upgrade policy, requiring customers to complete a full two-years of service before they can get their next subsidized phone.

The change was a point of contention on Verizon’s quarterly earnings conference call, as investors fretted about dissatisfied customers already upset that the wireless industry relies on two-year contracts while phone manufacturers release coveted device upgrades at least annually.

The wireless industry is already under pressure from Wall Street, prepaid providers and T-Mobile to abandon the traditional ‘subsidized phone for a two-year contract’-business model in favor of no-contract, carrier-financed phones.

In response to that pressure, Verizon Wireless has also introduced a 12-month optional financing plan targeting early upgraders, those who have lost or damaged their phones, or customers trying to hang on to their grandfathered unlimited data plans.

Verizon Wireless introduces its 12-month financing plan for devices.

Under the plan, credit-qualified customers can finance devices starting at $349.99 for 12 equal installments (and a $2 monthly finance charge) charged to your Verizon Wireless bill (first payment due at time of purchase).

Customers can prepay a portion of their purchase upfront to cut the monthly payment — an important option for premiere smartphones like the Apple iPhone 5 ($650) and the Samsung Galaxy S3 ($600). Finance that iPhone and your Verizon Wireless bill will increase by $56.25 a month, including the finance charge, for the next year. You will still pay Verizon’s regular plan prices, which are artificially inflated to recoup a device subsidy customers are not getting under Verizon’s finance plan.

Verizon Wireless says the total owed balance cannot exceed $1,000 per customer, which makes it less useful for families (and even for those two-person households who want the latest and greatest). There is also a limit of two financed devices at any one time. But customers can pay off the plan balance early, which stops the $2 monthly finance charge and opens the door to finance something else.

Shammo

Verizon confirmed customers grandfathered on discontinued unlimited data plans can also take advantage of the financing offer and not lose their unlimited data service. Verizon earlier announced it would allow customers to keep those plans indefinitely, as long as they paid the full price for subsequent device upgrades.

A $30 upgrade fee still applies for each new device activated on your account.

Revenues at Verizon Wireless rose 8.6 percent to $16.7 billion in the last quarter, accounting for more than half of Verizon’s overall revenue. The company has received accolades from Wall Street for implementing its revenue-enhancing Share Everything plans, which have turned into a major money-maker for the wireless carrier, even though only 30 percent of existing Verizon Wireless customers have been enrolled in the new plans to date. Verizon expects to shepherd an increasing number of existing customers to the Share Everything plans in future quarters.

Verizon chief financial officer Fran Shammo said he does not expect much pushback from Verizon Wireless customers upset about the promotional cutbacks.

“We don’t anticipate a lot of dissatisfaction,” Shammo told investors. “We’re not seeing a lot of resistance here.”

Wheeler

Note to Readers: Tom Wheeler’s blog (mobilemusings.net) was taken offline in late November, 2014. You might still find it archived at archive.org. Because the blog has been taken down, we have removed all of the original links that were originally contained in this piece.

Tom Wheeler has had a blog.

The presumptive leading candidate for America’s next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission also has a major conflict of interest problem, with at least 30 years of working directly for the business interests of the cable and telephone companies he may soon be asked to oversee in the public interest. Wheeler is the former president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) — the nation’s largest cable industry lobbying group and past CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) — the AT&T and Verizon-dominated wireless trade association. Today Wheeler serves as a managing director at Core Capital Partners, a Washington, D.C.-based venture capital firm that invests in these and other industries.

In more than 60 articles in the last six years, Wheeler has written of his trials and tribulations with federal regulators who simply refuse to see telecom industry wisdom on spectrum management, the legacy telephone network, obstinate broadcasters, outdated regulations, mergers and acquisitions, and the amazing story of private Wall Street investment and its wisdom to naturally shape America’s telecommunications landscape by “letting the marketplace work” unfettered by oversight and consumer protection laws.

Almost entirely absent in Wheeler’s writings is any interest in the plight of ordinary consumers that do business, often unhappily, with the companies Wheeler used to represent. America’s love of many-things Apple and Google, two runaway success stories heavily invested in the digital economy and well-regarded by more than a few consumers, are scorned by Wheeler as part of the “Silicon Valley mafia.”

Wheeler is the consummate Washington beltway insider, a lifelong lobbyist well-positioned to walk through the perpetually revolving door between the public and private sector. Even worse, he has maintained warm regards for not one, but two telecom industry lobbying giants — the cable and wireless industry trade associations that have daily business before the FCC. Whether Wheeler can stand up to his former best friends is open for debate. Wheeler wrote in one blog entry he remains in awe of AT&T’s chief lobbyist, Jim Ciccioni, who he called “one of the smartest and shrewdest policy mavens in the capital.”

Wheeler’s blog makes it clear he would have supported the 2011 attempted merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, with a few temporary token pre-conditions. He heaped scorn on antitrust regulators for missing an opportunity the merger approval could have had on reshaping the American wireless marketplace. Less is more in Wheeler World.

D.C.’s perpetually revolving door keeps on spinning.

Like outgoing FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, Wheeler is a longtime Obama loyalist and was involved in Obama’s 2008 election campaign.

Wheeler relays to C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb in a 2009 interview that who you know in Washington can mean a lot. After Obama entered the 2008 race, Wheeler connected to Obama through a friend — Peter Rouse, who had recently accepted the position of Obama’s chief of staff.

“I picked up the phone one day and there was a message from Barack Obama that he wanted to talk about some issues related to technology,” Wheeler described. “Things began to develop. We got really interested in the potential of this person and the opportunity that he represented for a transformational moment in American history, and we decided that Iowa was the place.”

Wheeler and his wife Carol (employed by the National Association of Broadcasters, itself a lobbying group) had the financial resources in place to put their D.C. jobs on hold and spend six weeks in the Region 2 Obama election office in Ames, Iowa.

After Obama won the election, Lamb predicted Wheeler might find himself at the FCC. Instead, Obama’s college friend and money-bundler Julius Genachowski won the position.

Wheeler’s chances of succeeding Genachowski improved dramatically in mid-April after receiving the written support of several public policy advocates. One of them was Susan Crawford, whose recent book, Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, railed against many of the policies supported by the largest telecommunications companies Wheeler professionally represented in his roles at the NCTA and CTIA. Some consumer groups wrote President Obama directly, strongly recommended a change from the ‘business as usual’ revolving door:

During his election campaign, President Obama pledged “to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.” Yet the president is reportedly considering a candidate for the next FCC chair who was the head of not one but two major industry lobbying groups. After decades of industry-backed chairmen, we need a strong consumer advocate and public interest representative at the helm. It’s time to end regulatory capture at the FCC and restore balance to government oversight.

Those consumer groups have plenty to worry about if Tom Wheeler becomes the next head of the FCC. Stop the Cap! has found several quotes from his blog which paint a picture of a potential FCC chairman devoted to industry interests:

Close Wireless Retail Stores to Save Money and Kill Jobs: “Sprint announced plans to close eight percent of its over 1,500 company-owned retail outlets. Why stop there? Why does it make sense for wireless carriers to operate more stores than Sears and Macy’s combined?”

Wireless network redundancy is a waste of money — an interesting sentiment in light of major wireless network failures during Hurricane Sandy and insufficient capacity during the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon last week: “The history of the U.S. wireless industry is a network-centric history that wasted untold billions of dollars building duplicative networks and advertising ‘mine is better than yours.’”

The failed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile represented a missed opportunity in Wheeler’s view.

WiMAX is King of the World?: “Back in the mid-1990s new digital technology called Personal Communications Service (PCS) was forecast to be the death knell of the cellular industry. It seemed all anyone could talk about was the “smaller, cheaper, lighter” handsets that would perform feats beyond the capabilities of analog cellular. Now in the mid-2000s the differentiator is speed and throughput and WiMAX is the new hot technology.”

Who needs free over the air television when only 10-15 percent of the country watches?: “What is the purpose of continuing the local TV broadcasting model when between 85 and 90 percent of American homes are connected to cable or satellite services?”

AT&T and Verizon will save us from the Great Recession, except for the fact they laid off “redundant” workers: “In the midst of the first shrinking of global economic growth in almost 70 years, the wireless industry represents what must be the largest non-governmental stimulus program in the world. Wireless is an economic recovery triple play.”

Those mooching broadcasters got their spectrum for free when Verizon and AT&T had to pay real money: “The setting for these theatrics is the digital conversion for which broadcasters lobbied so hard for. Yes, they won new spectrum – which they got for free while all other were paying billions – but getting what they asked for also brought something no one ever imagined. Broadcasting ceased to be broadcasting. Going digital meant that what used to be about moving atoms is now about moving bits.”

We need to verify broadcasters use their spectrum the way we define it or we might take it away: “But threatening a shootout at the OK Corral in order to ‘hang on to every last hertz of spectrum’ is an invitation to irrelevance and proof that the spectrum needs to be assigned to parties that think digitally and see themselves as a part of the solution to the spectrum crisis. Opportunity is knocking for the broadcasters; we’ll see if anyone is at home.”

Cicconi

Reduced quality of service is worth it, even if it means shutting down wired telephone service or increasing interference for wireless users: “It is time to abandon the concept of perfection in spectrum allocation. The rules for 21st century spectrum allocation need to evolve from the avoidance of interference to interference tolerance. We’ve seen this evolution in the wired network; it’s now time to bring the chaotic efficiency of Internet Protocol to wireless spectrum policy. What the FCC’s TAC is proposing is that we officially wean ourselves from the old wireline switched circuit world to embrace the reality of IP and its benefits. It’s time to start down the same road with spectrum allocation.”

Did you know your mobile bill is lower than ever and sending data wirelessly costs next to nothing? How much is your limited data plan costing you again?: “As wireless rates have plunged for both voice and data such regulation has less impact than it did in the wireline era anyway. When each connection required an analog circuit, the cost of such a connection, and the return on that investment was a more logical nexus than today’s digital networks where the incremental cost of a packet of information approaches zero.”

AT&T’s propaganda supporting its attempted merger with T-Mobile was brilliant. Those pesky consumer groups and their meddling, truth-telling agenda ruined everything. When Americans think of rural wireless broadband, the first company that comes to mind is T-Mobile, right?: “The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler sends a Hallmark card to AT&T’s most powerful lobbyist: “AT&T’s recent negotiations with the FCC on the Net Neutrality/Open Internet issue provide an insight into how the company deals with such a complex issue. Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President, is one of the smartest and shrewdest policy mavens in the capital.”

What do they know about it?

AT&T’s Jim Cicconi is the go-to-guy for determining future wireless policy, not the FCC: “Randall Stephenson may be channeling Theodore Vail, but Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

The Justice Department just proved it does not understand regulatory concepts governing relentless corporate telecom mergers because it decided Americans should have at least four wireless companies to choose from, not three: “Thus, the long-term impact of the Justice Department’s decision would appear to be the growing irrelevance of traditional telecommunications regulatory concepts on mobile broadband providers.”

Wheeler lacks the realization wireless providers are moving to usage pricing for fun and profit, not because of spectrum shortages: “Having walked away from taking the easy money, will the Congress remain as committed as they were to selling spectrum? What will be the light at the end of the tunnel for wireless carriers who see their spectrum capacity being consumed by huge increases in demand? Will the resulting shortage mean that usage based mobile pricing becomes a demand dampening and profit increasing tool?”

We don’t need free over the air television. Just tell free viewers to subscribe to cable like everyone else: “I’ve been mystified why broadcasters have declared jihad against the voluntary spectrum auction. Getting big dollars for an asset for which you paid nothing while still being able to run your traditional business over cable (the vast majority of its reach anyway) and maintain a broadcast signal at another point on the dial seems a pretty good business proposition – unless you really are serious about providing new and innovative services and need all that spectrum.”

You don’t deserve free Internet access either, because it hurts the corporate business plans of other providers: “Competition among networks for customers has put the consumer in the enviable position of being told they won’t have to pay for access to Internet services. “Free It,” the advertisements of British network operator “3” proclaim to promote their unlimited data plan, for instance. The policies that created wireless network competition have trapped operators between holding market share and giving away capacity for ever-increasing data demands. So long as there is one carrier willing to offer its capacity at a low price (or for free), the other carriers must play along thus bringing those who run networks to loggerheads with those who use the networks.”

(Image courtesy: FCC.com)

Google and Apple are privacy invaders that collect your personal data as part of a great Silicon Valley mafia: “If wireless carriers are truly going to become “operators” participating in the broader ecosystem their focus needs to shift from running networks to managing the information created by the 21^st Century’s digital networks. The Silicon Valley mafia hijacked that information, but they could quite possibly be in the process of blowing their escape with the goods by exposing what they were really up to.”

We need a “voluntary” auction of the public airwaves with a subjective standard for what represents their “best use” (ie. the way the wireless industry defines it): “For almost four decades I have listened to businesspeople tell government policy makers to “let the marketplace work.” There is no more effective marketplace than a voluntary auction where everyone is free to decide whether to sell, how much to sell, and at what price to sell. The marketplace for wireless spectrum has spoken through its explosion; now it’s time for the marketplace to be able to decide the best use of spectrum. There is no doubt that some broadcasters will opt to use their spectrum in innovative ways [my firm, Core Capital Partners, has invested in such a belief]. Bully for the broadcast entrepreneurs! The FCC should be encouraging and rewarding of entrepreneurial initiative. Just as clearly, however, some broadcasters will choose other options. It is essential that we get on with offering that option quickly so we can nip the spectrum crunch in the bud, spur innovation, stimulate investment, create jobs, and continue American leadership in wireless services.”

Coming Clean: Wheeler ran astroturf operations that pretended to represent the interests of consumers but actually were little more than corporate sock-puppetry: “In the early days of cable television a cabal of Hollywood and broadcast interests combined to convince the Federal government to deny cable its competitive advantage of more channel choices for consumers. Corporate lobbyists told Congressmen and Senators how cable would mean the end of “free TV” unless it was stopped or controlled. Then these same groups recruited real people – the so-called “grassroots” – to back up their claims. Such lobbyist-organized grassroots efforts were the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of political organizing – I know because I used to do it.”

The alliance between Verizon and a cabal of cable companies selling each others’ products is pro-competition: “A TV subscription service like the one Apple is proposing is the heart of what cable is all about. And whatever Google is doing, they aren’t in every TV just for the heck of it. The Mongols of Silicon Valley have been behaving just like their 13^th and 14^th century predecessors. Using new technology to their advantage, the Mongols of the Middle Ages sent invasions in every direction. Soon they had the largest contiguous empire the world has ever seen.  Sound familiar? It may be a case of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” but a cable-wireless alliance is an exceedingly logical response to the impending attack. Cable operators have program distribution rights (or leveraged access to them) and Verizon has the high-speed wireless network to deliver to the growing number of mobile devices. Both these players can help each other confront the coming onslaught.”

T-Mobile has scrapped the traditional two-year cell phone contract.

T-Mobile’s shift away from subsidized smartphones and standard two-year contracts could be a game-changer for American wireless consumers, but does the scrappy carrier have a good deal for you or mostly for itself?

T-Mobile is and has been America’s fourth largest carrier — the smallest among those offering nationwide home coverage. The provider has lost contract customers for years. T-Mobile’s coverage has been less than great in many areas and it often did not offer the latest and most popular smartphones. After its merger effort with AT&T was shot down by the Department of Justice for anti-competitive reasons, T-Mobile has attempted to remake itself by changing the rules under which most of us buy mobile service.

The biggest change of all is the end of the subsidized phone. For years, cell phone companies have offered free or low-cost phones to customers, earning back that subsidy by charging higher monthly rates and locking customers to two-year contracts with early termination fees. T-Mobile will still give you an affordable phone, only now you will pay it off in small installments over a two-year financing agreement.

What difference does this make? Customers who bounce from one two-year contract to the next may not see much difference. But if you keep your phone longer than two years or buy one elsewhere, your monthly rate with T-Mobile will no longer include an artificially higher price designed to recover the phone subsidy you no longer receive.

It also means nothing traps you with T-Mobile. If after six months you find their service unbecoming, you can leave without hundreds of dollars in termination fees. But customers on financing agreements will continue to make their payments for equipment purchases, and those phones will not be unlocked for use on another carrier until the remaining balance is paid off.

A typical T-Mobile customer looking for the latest iPhone will pay a $100 down payment and then finance the remaining balance, paying $20 a month for 24 months. Your monthly rate will start at $50 a month, which includes unlimited talk and texting, and a 500MB data allowance. If that is insufficient, an extra $10 a month will buy you an extra 2GB of data. If you want unlimited data, that plan is available for an extra $20 a month.

T-Mobile says their plans will save you $1,000 over the life of a two-year contract with AT&T or Verizon. We think they are exaggerating a bit.

Like their competition, T-Mobile is moving away from budget-minded “minute plans” that bundle calling, text and data. Instead, T-Mobile charges at least $50 a month for unlimited talk/text and a small data plan whether you want those features or not.

The Associated Press found that although T-Mobile ends up being the cheapest, the savings over its rivals is closer to $700 on average. The price over two years for a 16-gigabyte iPhone 5 with unlimited calling, unlimited texting and 2.5 gigabytes of data usage per month, excluding taxes, is:

• T-Mobile: $2,020
• AT&T/Verizon: $2,635 (2-3GB data plan)
• Sprint: $2,840 (unlimited data plan included)

Some other things to consider:

• Once your phone is paid off, your ongoing T-Mobile bill will no longer show a phone subsidy payback built into prices charged by other carriers;
• You can pay your phone off early, with no penalty;
• T-Mobile’s 4G network is a mix of HSPA+ and LTE. The more commonly encountered HSPA+ network gets good marks for speed, but a number of densely populated T-Mobile coverage areas surprisingly often default to their older 2G network, which is painfully slow. LTE is only available in about seven cities at the moment, so it is still a rarity;
• T-Mobile’s unlimited service is free from tricks and traps like soft caps and speed throttles. It also performs better than Sprint’s unlimited service on its overloaded 3G and spotty Clearwire 4G WiMAX network. Sprint’s LTE network is on the way… slowly. It seems to be rolling out first in small cities you have never heard of;
• T-Mobile’s coverage in rural and exurban areas is frankly terrible. Travelers on main highways may not encounter many signal gaps, but those living in small towns or off the beaten path may get a roaming signal or poor or no reception from T-Mobile’s own towers at all. The frequencies used for its data service also do not work as well indoors as its larger rivals.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/T-Mobile Ad 4-2-13.flv[/flv]

T-Mobile channels Oprah in this new ad as the big four wireless cowboys get in touch with their feelings. But only one is ready to don a pink hat and ride off on his own. (1 minute)

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.

With a declining number of Americans willing to pay AT&T’s prices for smartphones and wireless service plans, AT&T’s future revenue growth will increasingly depend on getting the company’s current customers to pay more for data and adopt new types of wireless communications services.

After a quarterly earnings report found AT&T subscriber growth falling far behind its larger rival Verizon Wireless, AT&T appears ready to concede there is a finite number of new customers to be won from endless battles for market share.

AT&T was expected to add 358,000 new customers in the previous quarter, but only managed to attract 151,000. Demand for the latest Apple iPhone has yet to meet available supply, with most iPhones obtained by AT&T allocated to existing customers. AT&T exclusively launched the iPhone in the United States in 2007 and retains the largest share of iPhone owners, even after the phone became available from other carriers. Verizon Wireless had fewer problems adding new customers because it is not nearly as dependent on Apple.

de la Vega

Despite lackluster subscriber growth, AT&T reported stellar revenue during the quarter, partly from rate increases and the launch of usage-limited, family share plans. AT&T also continued to benefit from  tax savings, share buybacks, and refinancing debt at lower interest rates. With fewer customers adding subsidized phones, AT&T also paid fewer subsidies.

AT&T’s profit rose to $3.64 billion, or 63 cents per share, up from $3.62 billion, or 61 cents per share — $.03 ahead of Wall Street expectations.

AT&T can thank its wireless data services for a significant chunk of their earnings, with more to come.

The company reported more than 2/3rd’s of their customers (28+ million) are now on usage-based pricing plans. That is 10 million more than a year ago. The company’s new mobile share plans have attracted almost two million subscribers during the first five weeks they were on offer. More than one-third of those customers are choosing the company’s 10GB data allowance, which costs the customer $150 a month with unlimited talk and texting ($30 a month for each additional smartphone on the account.) Around 15% of new mobile share customers are choosing to abandon their grandfathered unlimited data plans.

AT&T’s forthcoming strategic redirection, to be announced Nov. 7, is likely to center around increasing revenue from the company’s wireless data network.

The average AT&T customer’s wireless broadband data bill is on the increase.

Ralph de la Vega, president and CEO of AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets, told investors it is taking “this massive data growth and building products and services on top of that.”

“One of the best examples I can give you is our launch of Digitize that will happen next year,” de la Vega said. “It leverages this huge smartphone database and adds services on top of it and not just data access, but services that differentiate us from the competition. So you’re talking about connecting the home with service automation and security monitoring. We’re talking about connecting your car with all kinds of entertainment services.”

That means AT&T sees its future revenue coming mostly from existing customers paying more.

“Those services are not dependent on adding more customers per se, but connecting more houses, connecting more cars and connecting more things that drive significant revenue streams with good margins for us,” de la Vega said. “In terms of what we see happening with others in the industry, I don’t think anything we have seen changes our plan. We’re going to execute [and] let others react to our plan, instead of us reacting to them.”

AT&T seemed unconcerned by competition in the current marketplace, especially from those offering cheaper plans. de la Vega predicted other carriers will come around to AT&T and Verizon’s way of thinking about mobile plan pricing.

“I think these mobile share plans are very compelling to customers,” de la Vega told investors. “And I think those that don’t put them in, in the industry will probably have to rethink down the road because I think the reception has been exceptional.”

John Stephens, AT&T’s chief financial officer, called AT&T’s data growth important, as long as those customers are on tiered data plans. With three-quarters of their customers buying “higher-priced plans,” AT&T can grow revenue by encouraging data usage that forces customers into ever-higher allowance plans that deliver revenue boosts indefinitely.

“I think some of the things driving our pricing and the price moves we made almost a year ago where we increased our data pricing are driving our revenue growth,” de la Vega admitted. “But we’re also seeing people sign up for more data. And the fact is, as you sell more smartphones or more tablets, people need more data. Usage-based data pricing means as usage goes up, we can see some of that lift also coming from additional average revenue per customer. So not only do we feel good where we are, but I feel really good about where we’re going, because you have to have that base of usage base in order to be able to monetize the data growth that we foresee in the future.”

AT&T continues to depend primarily on its wireless division for most of its revenue, but as growth slows, the demand for ever-increasing average revenue from each customer will have to come from increasing prices or finding new services to sell that customers want.

Applications that wireless carriers seek to monetize

Some other highlights:

• AT&T was questioned by Wall Street about its decision to voluntarily contribute a $9.5 billion preferred equity interest in AT&T Mobility into the Pension Plan Trust. Some analysts consider that amount unnecessary and above the amount required by law, despite the company’s assertion this would help protect the long-term health of AT&T’s pension fund. But some retirees note AT&T’s generosity benefits itself — the company’s contribution to the pension plan is invested entirely in AT&T’s wireless business;
• AT&T now has 7.4 million U-verse subscribers, driving wireline revenue growth to levels not seen in more than four years. But AT&T still only averages less than a 15% market share in the cities where U-verse is available, suggesting cable operators are maintaining their market dominance;
• AT&T’s new upgrade policy, which curtails early upgrades and imposes new upgrade fees, is having a dramatic impact on discouraging customers from upgrading their phones. That has kept AT&T’s upgrade rate at a steady 7%, even with the introduction of the wildly popular new iPhone. AT&T has effectively cut their subsidy costs and took a 28% increase in equipment revenue from new upgrade fees to the bank;
• Capital expenditures are on target at $13.8 billion, with more than half of that invested in the wireless business. Landlines and U-verse upgrades took a back seat.
• AT&T receives enough iPhones to activate 5,000-10,000 new iPhone customers a day and still that is insufficient to meet demand;

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Quarterly Earnings 10-24-12.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s Ralph de la Vega explores the company’s latest quarterly earnings, focused on its profitable wireless business.  (3 minutes)