AT&T and Verizon Wireless have the largest share of wireless customers. (Wall Street Journal)

The Department of Justice has recommended the Federal Communications Commission promote competition by setting aside certain future low-frequency wireless spectrum for auctions open exclusively to smaller wireless carriers including Sprint and T-Mobile USA.

“Today, the two leading carriers have the vast majority of low-frequency spectrum whereas the two other nationwide carriers have virtually none,” the Department of Justice wrote in comments to the FCC. “This results in the two smaller nationwide carriers having a somewhat diminished ability to compete, particularly in rural areas where the cost to build out coverage is higher with high-frequency spectrum.”

The Justice Department’s antitrust division has monitored the wireless industry with increasing concern consumers are not getting benefits from a robustly competitive marketplace increasingly concentrated in the hands of two wireless giants: AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

That dominance is made possible, in part, from the control of lower frequency spectrum, particularly in the 600-800MHz range that easily penetrates buildings and delivers a more reliable signal over longer distances than frequencies counted in the gigahertz. Verizon and AT&T control large swaths of these lower frequencies that work well indoors and provide longer distance coverage in rural areas. Conversely, Sprint and T-Mobile, among other smaller carriers, rely heavily on higher frequencies that need a larger network of cell towers to support good signal levels.

It often means rural customers may find reception with AT&T or Verizon Wireless but end up with a roaming indicator or no service at all with smaller providers.

The Justice Department worries that auctioning off future prime 600MHz spectrum carved out of the UHF television band reallocated for wireless services will end up in the hands of the deepest pocketed providers — AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and further hamper the ability of Sprint, T-Mobile and other small carriers to compete.

“Due to the scarcity of spectrum, the Department is concerned that carriers may have incentives to acquire spectrum for purposes other than efficiently expanding their own capacity or services,” writes the DoJ. “Namely, the more concentrated a wireless market is, the more likely a carrier will find it profitable to acquire spectrum with the aim of raising competitors’ costs. This could take the shape, for example, of pursuing spectrum in order to prevent its use by a competitor, independent of how efficiently the carrier uses the spectrum. Indeed, a carrier may even have incentives to acquire spectrum and not use it at all.”

The Justice Department echoes critics’ contentions that given a chance, large wireless carriers will “warehouse” acquired spectrum, unused, denying it from the competition. Carriers object to that claim, calling it baseless. But incentives remain for providers to drag their feet: spectrum warehousing forces competitors to pay even higher prices for other scarce spectrum, the necessity of constructing a larger network of costly cell towers to offer robust coverage, and fighting customers’ perceptions of inferior quality indoor phone reception.

In response, AT&T sent a multi-page, thinly veiled threat to sue if the Commission adopted the recommendations of the Justice Department.

“The Department is quite candid about its motive for this blatant favoritism: it hopes that reducing competition for the spectrum may enable Sprint and T-Mobile ‘to mount stronger challenges’ to AT&T and Verizon,” AT&T wrote in response. “Picking winners and losers in this fashion would be patently unlawful.”

AT&T also claimed the Justice Department’s recommendations were specifically tailored to help the two competitors, despite the fact neither company has shown much interest in acquiring low-frequency wireless spectrum, much less further expand the reach of their wireless networks:

“It is especially puzzling that the Department feels the need to help Sprint and T-Mobile in particular. Sprint already has by far the largest nationwide portfolio of spectrum, and holds vastly more spectrum than either AT&T or Verizon. It will also have ample financial resources at its disposal, as the Department has already approved Sprint’s purchase by Softbank, a financially strong Japanese company, and Dish Network has now made a competing offer for Sprint, citing the financial and strategic advantages of its own proposed combination.

Regardless of how this bidding war turns out, Sprint will receive a sizable infusion of cash, spectrum or both. T-Mobile, which is owned by Deutsche Telekom, one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world, just recently acquired substantial amounts of spectrum from both AT&T and Verizon, and is on the verge of completing a merger with MetroPCS that will add another trove of spectrum. So it is surely not for a lack of spectrum resources or financial backing that the Department needs to propose a financial giveaway to these companies.

Moreover, neither company even chose to bid at the Commission’s last auction of low-frequency spectrum, nor have they availed themselves of opportunities to acquire such spectrum in secondary markets. If low-frequency spectrum was critical to their business plans, as the Department simply assumes, someone should have informed their management, which has, instead chosen to acquire deep holdings in [higher frequency] PCS, AWS, and BRS/EBS spectrum.”

The Justice Department filing did not name Sprint or T-Mobile directly, but both companies are the only remaining national competitors to both AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Spectrum set-asides are not unusual in telecommunications regulation. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission set aside significant wireless spectrum exclusively for new entrants to promote competition. Ultimately, the new competitors had little impact with less than a 10 percent market share and all three are now considered up for sale. That spectrum may eventually end up in the hands of the largest Canadian wireless companies regardless of the CRTC’s original intentions when license transfer restrictions expire in 2014. All three could be acquired by one or more of the major providers.

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.”

Verizon Communications has filed separate requests with the New York State Public Service Commission that would report customers’ payment histories to credit reporting agencies, share your payment history with competing providers, and increase phone bills statewide to recoup expenses related to construction costs.

Verizon Wants to Influence Your Credit Score

One of the most substantial changes proposed by Verizon is the deregulation of privacy requirements that limit the amount of information the phone company can share with credit reporting agencies about your past payment history and whether you could represent a credit risk to the next telecommunications company you choose to do business with.

New York regulators originally enforced limits on how much information Verizon could share and with whom. Generally, the rules now state the phone company can only share your payment history with other telephone companies, such as in the case of moving to an area served by a different provider or if you choose to sign up with a competitor. Providers use this information to decide if they will require a deposit before connecting service.

Verizon claims the current rules do not go far enough to protect the company from deadbeats who bounce between unregulated telecom providers (wireless, Voice over IP, and cable telephone service) and Verizon. The company is asking the PSC to:

• to report final unpaid undisputed accounts of its local exchange customers to credit reporting agencies,
• to engage in full file reporting with the NCTUE, a special credit reporting service created by and for cable, telephone, and other utility companies to track customer payment histories (i.e., reporting monthly on all payment history for all customers), and
• to engage in full file reporting with Equifax, Experian and TransUnion should Verizon choose to do so in the future.

Late phone company payments appearing on a consumer’s credit report can be devastating to a consumer’s general credit score, which can affect credit lending decisions, home purchases, apartment leases, insurance rates, and employment prospects. Disconnected, unpaid accounts turned over to an independent collection agency may already appear on credit reports, but Verizon late-payers who still have service with the company might be affected much sooner.

Verizon hopes the change will convince customers to pay Verizon first instead of last or not at all:

“Consumer reporting agencies serve an important function by enabling businesses to avoid bad-debt costs and by preventing consumers, in a competitive market, from hopping with impunity from one company to another, accumulating unpaid debts at each step of the way,” Verizon argues in its regulatory filing. “In that way, information obtained from consumer reporting agencies reduces bad-debt costs that would otherwise have to be passed on to consumers who do pay their bills. Further, consumers who know that their credit scores will be reported will be less likely to default on payments; conversely, consumers who feel secure that such data will not be reported will be more likely to believe that moving to another provider is an acceptable alternative to paying bills.”

Verizon Seeks New Fees, Rate Increases

Verizon customers in New York will soon see higher phone bills if Verizon’s appeal to raise certain rates and tack on a new monthly service fee is approved:

Municipal Construction Surcharge: To cope with a declining number of landline customers, Verizon is seeking the imposition of a new $0.99 surcharge on all residential and business customers (except Lifeline) to help recoup the costs of relocating Verizon lines in public rights-of-way to prevent interference with street maintenance, repairs, or public construction projects. Verizon is also mandated to remove lines or other equipment that present a potential danger to public safety or health. Because Verizon has lost half of their landline customers in New York since 2006, the costs incurred by Verizon per remaining customer have increased dramatically, Verizon argues. In 2006, the company claims the average cost for line relocation was $10.79 per customer. Today, the company says the cost has risen to $31.01 annually.

Verizon seemed unconcerned about the impact the new fee might have on customers who could use it as an excuse to abandon landline service.

“Verizon needs to recoup its losses where it can,” said Verizon’s general counsel Keefe B. Clemons. “Moreover, customers have competitive alternatives and can choose other providers if they are dissatisfied.”

Other Service Charges and Rate Hikes:

• Verizon is seeking increases in the non-recurring Service Charge and the Central Office Line or Port Charge for business customers;
• Verizon seeks a $3 rate increase for its legacy ISDN service, which still serves a declining number of business customers;
• Verizon also seeks a 50 cent a month increase for maintaining a non-published number. The current rate ($2.50) has remained unchanged since 2005 and Verizon claims the increase is required to “keep up with inflation.” The company said its new rate would still be lower than AT&T in Connecticut ($4.99/month) or Time Warner Cable ($3.75/month);
• Verizon is discontinuing its Busy Verification and Interruption Service, primarily because it does not work with most of its competitors.

Verizon says these rate changes are necessitated by a marked decrease in the number of customers keeping their Verizon landlines. Since New York still requires Verizon to serve every part of its designated service area, the current financial situation for the company’s landline service division is untenable. The company argues its investment in FiOS and other network upgrades more than outweigh the amount of revenue the company is earning from the declining number of landline customers. Verizon did not mention the far brighter financial performance of its wireless division Verizon Wireless, not subject to the PSC’s regulatory requirements.

Another reason to keep your landline. During major events, cell phone networks are quickly overwhelmed while wired phone lines still work.

The Associated Press is reporting minutes ago that a law enforcement official has ordered all cellphone service in the Boston area temporarily suspended to prevent any possibility of remote detonations of any other improvised explosive devices. But we have our doubts and in fact was able to reach one of our Boston readers by cell phone in downtown Boston just a moment ago.

“I can’t make calls on Verizon without getting a fast busy signal, but I am getting calls regularly at the moment,” reports Jim, one of our regular readers. “The cell networks are totally jammed with everyone on the phone in this city.”

Jim says a number of his co-workers had no idea there were two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon this afternoon, but word-of-mouth office gossip spread the news over the last hour or so.

“Landlines are working fine, which is another reason you cannot and should not rely on cell phones alone during a major news event or disaster, because they are highly vulnerable to capacity crushes,” Jim said. “Our Internet access at work has also slowed to an absolute crawl and you cannot access a lot of local news websites, so we’ve watched the coverage on over the air television.”

Numerous press reports speculate the two explosions that killed two and injured at least two dozen were the result of some type of explosive device, but law enforcement officials have refused to confirm those reports so far.

As of 5:15pm EDT, Sprint and Verizon Wireless reported they were attempting to maintain service as best as possible despite the flood of wireless calls, and no carrier has confirmed they have been asked to switch off service.

“We are experiencing call blocking due to what’s happening,” Mark Elliott, a Sprint spokesman told the Boston Globe. “The network is blocking calls because the number of calls coming in exceeds the capacity. There’s no way the network can handle that kind of traffic.”

Elliott is asking cell phone users to text messages to friends and loved ones and avoid voice calling until capacity improves. This can keep lines open and clear for emergency and law enforcement officials.

Verizon Wireless, meanwhile, issued a statement, saying: “Verizon Wireless has been enhancing network voice capacity to enable additional calling in the Copley Square area of Boston. Customers are advised to use text or email to free up voice capacity for public safety officials at the scene. There was no damage to the Verizon Wireless network, which is seeing elevated calling and data usage throughout the region since the explosions occurred.”

Update 5:54pm EDT: The Associated Press has officially retracted their earlier story. There has been no request to suspend cell phone service, but carriers are impacted by heavy call volumes.

Satellite television provider Dish Network today offered $25.5 billion for Sprint Nextel Corp., in an unsolicited bid that surprised the wireless industry.

The bid, announced by CEO Charles Ergen, is $5.5 billion higher than that offered by Japan’s Softbank, which already had a pending deal to take a 70 percent stake in the third largest wireless carrier.

The bidding may not yet be over if Softbank decides to counter with a higher offer or if other bidders emerge in the coming weeks.

Ergen has signaled his interest in entering wireless markets to compensate for slowing earnings in the satellite television business.

“He is trying to transform his own business,” Vijay Jayant, an analyst at International Strategy & Investment Group in New York told Bloomberg News. “He’s trying to reinvent himself, moving from satellite to wireless.”

Ergen’s vision would include a bundled package of satellite television, broadband wireless Internet and cellular telephone service. Providing suitable wireless broadband Internet in rural areas may be the biggest challenge because of Sprint’s more limited network coverage, but a marketing deal combining satellite television from Dish and Sprint cell phone service would be easier to carry out.

Ergen’s offer includes $8.2 billion in stock and $17.3 billion in cash. Ergen’s company has stockpiled at least $10 billion from selling bonds over the last year. He intends to borrow the rest.

Ergen earlier had attempted to disrupt a deal that would have consolidated Clearwire into Sprint. Ergen offered $3.30 a share for Clearwire, 33 cents higher than the $2.97 per share offer from Sprint. Ergen also reportedly approached both MetroPCS and Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA looking for a deal to no avail.

Some analysts question whether Ergen has enough experience to manage a major wireless company with only his past involvement selling satellite TV subscriptions. But he arrives with more than just cash and stock options. Ergen has acquired mobile spectrum from bankrupt TerreStar Networks and DBSD North America. Ergen says he has no interest in building his own wireless network, but a combined Sprint/Dish could manage the spectrum through Sprint’s existing operations.

Ergen told Bloomberg News combining the spectrum Dish owns with the spectrum owned by Sprint and Clearwire would assure Americans of a robust wireless data platform that will not have capacity constraints or require individual device fees. That is in keeping with Sprint’s existing marketing as a provider of truly unlimited wireless data plans.

Several Wall Street analysts told CNBC and Bloomberg News the deal with Softbank may be more ideal for shareholders and consumers, because it would strengthen Sprint’s leverage with equipment manufacturers to offer cheaper and more robust devices.

Consumer advocates have mixed feelings. Dish has no prior association to the wireless industry so the deal does not represent direct, competitive consolidation. It also would boost Sprint as a more formidable competitor to AT&T and Verizon Wireless. But it could also further orphan T-Mobile USA.

“Right now, we have two giants and two also-rans, and now you’re getting potentially three giants dividing up the American market place, with T-Mobile lagging far behind,” Susan Crawford told the New York Times.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg What Does Dish See in Sprint Thats Worth 25B 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explores what Dish sees in Sprint that is worth a bid of $25.5 billion to acquire the country’s third largest mobile company.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Dish Bids 25-5 Billion for Sprint to Challenge Softbank 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg says Dish has been stockpiling $10 billion in cash for new acquisitions to transform its business away from a satellite TV-only company.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg All Things Are on the Table for Sprint 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Christopher Marangi, of Gabelli Asset Fund talks with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker about Dish Network’s unsolicited $25.5 billion offer for Sprint and what options are available to Sprint with the offers it has on the table. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Dish Bid for Sprint Lacks Capital Chaplin Says 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst with New Street Research LLP, thinks Softbank’s original offer is superior to the one from Dish.  (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bidding for Sprint Is Not Over Fritzshe 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Jennifer Fritzsche, Managing Director of Equity Research at Wells Fargo Securities, discusses the likelihood of other players making bids. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg What Did Dish CEO Ergen Say About Sprint Bid 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

A Bloomberg News reporter interviewed Charlie Ergen about why he wants to enter the wireless business.  Ergen’s vision includes no nickel and diming customers with monthly device fees and usage charges. (4 minutes)