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?

Wall Street pans AT&T’s plans to spend billions to upgrade and expand its U-verse service.

Wall Street credit ratings agencies are unhappy with AT&T’s plans to increase spending on its broadband network to upgrade U-verse speeds and provide the fiber to the neighborhood service to more customers.

First, Moody’s placed AT&T’s “ratings on review for downgrade,” because AT&T’s plan to spend $22 billion to upgrade service and repurchase its own shares would throw AT&T’s debt level too high. Now Fitch Ratings has gone further, telling clients it has “downgraded” AT&T with a “negative outlook” because the phone company will spend money to provide U-verse to customers not profitable quickly enough to make the spending worthwhile.

Several Wall Street firms question the return on investment providing Internet service in rural areas where capital costs are higher. But many investment analysts are more positive about AT&T’s wireless service, which delivers substantial profits in much shorter time periods. Fitch called AT&T’s investments in LTE 4G service positive and important as Verizon Wireless continues to build and expand its own 4G LTE network.

With Verizon Wireless poised to launch 4G LTE service in Alaska for the first time, Alaska Communications (ACS) and AT&T are hurrying wireless broadband expansions to protect their market turf. But Wall Street investors are unhappy, especially with ACS’ investments in its landline network and the recently announced suspension of its dividend payout. Some are now asking whether ACS’ lucrative wireless business should be up for sale, primed for a buyout by AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

Alaska Communications has soft launched its LTE 4G service in 10 cities: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Homer, Juneau, Kenai, Palmer, Seward, Soldotna, Wasilla and Whittier.

AT&T operates a mix of LTE and slower HSPA+ networks in Alaska and is expanding 4G service to Prudhoe Bay and Deadhorse for the benefit of short-term oil company employees working on the North Slope. But the company is also still expanding its existing 3G network along more remote Alaskan highways.

They are coming.

The investment frenzy is seen by many as a defensive maneuver to keep existing customers happy before Verizon Wireless arrives in Alaska sometime next year.

ACS and GCI, Alaska’s homegrown phone and cable companies now jointly operate their wireless operation together. AT&T is their principle competitor. But Verizon Wireless’ impending arrival in Alaska has shown it is no shrinking violet. There are persistent rumors Verizon is trying to acquire ACS’ wireless operations. Verizon has also announced partnerships with Copper Valley Telecom and Matanuska Telephone Association to potentially expand LTE service in those communities as well.

Investors hope ACS considers any Verizon offer carefully. Wireless is a revenue center for the landline phone company, which continues to see declines in home phone and business customers.

Since June, ACS lost just shy of 2,000 residential landlines and 753 business lines. The company still has 57,000 residential customers and 81,000 business customers.

ACS faces the same problems other phone companies do: network upgrades require significant investments, and investors question whether it will ultimately pay off. Many are also unhappy ACS suspended its dividend payout, refocusing $8 million on debt payments.

Verizon Wireless announced Monday it will pay a dividend of $8.5 billion to owners Verizon Communications and Britain’s Vodafone Group PLC, by the end of the year.

Together with an earlier dividend paid in January, an extremely profitable Verizon Wireless will return a combined $18.5 billion to investors in 2012.

Verizon Communications, owner of Verizon landlines and fiber optic network FiOS, owns 55 percent of the wireless operation. Britain-based Vodafone Group owns a 45 percent minority interest. Verizon Wireless, like many U.S. corporations, has used excess cash to pay down or refinance debt at historically low interest rates, reacquire stock, or pay dividends to shareholders in lieu of major infrastructure and hiring expansion.

Verizon Communications needs its share of the wireless dividend to help cover dividend payouts to its own wired shareholders. Verizon Communications has been unable to command the kind of high profit margins its wireless counterpart has succeeded in delivering to investors.

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.