Looking for new revenue opportunities

More than half (52 percent) of all U.S. consumers say Internet service is their home’s most important utility, according to a survey conducted by Verizon Communications as part of their Verizon FiOS Innovation Index project.

But Verizon’s research surveys go well beyond simply identifying who loves Internet access. Verizon’s real interest is identifying so-called “borderless consumers,” — customers who are seeking a seamless online experience and connectivity both inside and out of the home.

The convergence of wired and wireless broadband networks is a potentially enormous money-maker for Verizon, especially if you happen to be a Verizon Wireless customer.

“As the borderless consumer segment continues to grow, so will the need to identify, understand and anticipate what consumers truly want in their increasingly connected lives – today and in the future,” said Eric Bruno, vice president of FiOS strategy and development for Verizon.

Fran Shammo, Verizon’s chief financial officer, has previously told investors that monetizing data usage goes beyond text messaging and web browsing. The next frontier for enhanced revenue will come from the machine-to-machine segment. As consumers strive for a more connected future, enabling wireless connectivity for home appliances, automobiles, medical equipment, and other devices will create new revenue streams for the company.

Verizon’s new research surveys help the company target its future marketing to consumers most likely to be living the “borderless lifestyle.” Are you? Here are some key attributes:

• Above average income: Most are college educated, own their home, and nearly half earn $75,000 or more annually, so they can afford higher broadband bills;
• They are 18-34: Generation X and Millenials grew up in an increasingly connected world. Baby boomers are not far behind, but seniors are;
• Women somewhat outnumber men in their need to remain connected;
• You already have a computer, smartphone, or tablet and are connected to high speed Internet. Most of you want faster speed, if you can get it.

Verizon’s study becomes murkier over the issue of cord cutting. Verizon found that video streaming continues to drive Internet traffic growth, but at least 89% still prefer watching shows on their televisions. Verizon defines that as live TV, DVR, or on-demand from “TV/Cable service.”

But they did not ask whether consumers are watching more or less television provided by their cable, satellite, or phone company or if a larger proportion of viewing now comes from Netflix or other streamed content. That is a key indicator of whether a customer is gradually shifting viewing habits, which could ultimately make it easier to dump cable television.

With 90 percent of those surveyed looking forward to the day when every connectable device in their house can seamlessly interconnect and work together, Verizon’s potential revenue opportunities are enormous, if customers use Verizon Wireless for connectivity and not free Wi-Fi. Machine-to-machine wireless traffic can boost profits without costing the company much, especially under Verizon Wireless’ new Share Everything pricing. The impact of short data exchanges likely from home appliances and other similar devices is expected to be negligible. The profits from charging at least $10 a month to add each of those devices to a Verizon Wireless account are not.

Despite a pledge to run this year’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., without a penny of corporate money, a new filing with the Federal Election Commission reveals Democrats raised millions from AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and several big banks and energy companies.

Convention officials originally promised the convention would be self-sustained without corporate money, but that promise was long gone with last week’s quiet report to the FEC. Millions arrived courtesy of a convention civic committee that openly welcomed corporate cash.

The Los Angeles Times reports New American City, which paid for hospitality and administrative costs, raised $19 million — nearly all from corporations.

Digging deeper into the FEC filings, Stop the Cap! reveals where some of the Democrat’s money came from and where some of it went:

• AT&T spent $175,475 on “delegate bags” decked out with AT&T’s logo and $123,087 on “catering for suites.” That was in addition to a straight $1 million cash contribution;
• Time Warner Cable handed over $600,000 . The cable company was also the premier sponsor of the host committee’s media welcome party;
• CenturyLink handed over $10,500 to the DNC via New American City;
• Google Foundation contributed $100,000;
• National Cable Satellite Corporation (parent company of cable-industry financed C-SPAN): $2,500
• Turner Broadcasting System (now owned by Time Warner (Entertainment)): $25,000
• Verizon Wireless handed over $50,000

While accepting the contributions violates the Democrats’ commitment not to accept corporate money, election observers concerned with the pervasive influence of corporate cash are not giving Republicans a free pass. With no restrictions on fundraising, the GOP raised nearly $56 million from AT&T and other telecommunications entities, big oil and gas companies, hedge fund managers, big banks, and wealthy individuals.

AT&T says this deal was no problem, but ponders whether Sprint-Clearwire is.

AT&T, the company that tried and failed to buy Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA, is sounding the alarm, urging regulators to carefully review any deal between Sprint, Softbank, and Clearwire.

“Softbank’s acquisition of Sprint and the control it gains over Clearwire will give one of Japan’s largest wireless companies control of significantly more U.S. wireless spectrum than any other company,” Brad Burns, an AT&T vice president said in a statement released late Wednesday. “We expect that fact and others will be fully explored in the regulatory review process. This is one more example of a very dynamic and competitive U.S. wireless marketplace, which is an important fact for U.S. regulators to recognize.”

AT&T claims its primary concern is the growing foreign control of America’s wireless carriers. That did not seem to bother AT&T from doing business with Germany-based Deutsche Telekom. Verizon Wireless has not been the recipient of any AT&T complaints either, and it is jointly owned by Verizon Communications and London-based Vodafone Group Plc.

Sprint bankrolled an opposition campaign against AT&T’s 2011 attempt to buy T-Mobile in a $39 billion dollar deal that failed after regulators objected to its impact on marketplace competition.

AT&T’s concerns about spectrum control may be an attempt to lobby the FCC for more leniency in approving future spectrum acquisitions. But industry analysts note that while a combined Sprint-Clearwire network may control more spectrum than others, much of it occupies less-favorable, very high frequencies that have trouble delivering robust service indoors. AT&T maintains a considerable amount of prime spectrum most sought by carriers, some of it yet to be used.

Plateau Wireless customers can expect to be eventually herded to Verizon Wireless’ all or nothing plans as early as 2013.

Verizon Wireless this week announced the acquisition of another regional wireless carrier — Plateau Wireless — formerly owned by the Eastern New Mexico Rural Telephone Cooperative. At risk are the co-op’s innovative and inexpensive calling and unlimited smartphone data plans for customers in communities like Roswell, Carlsbad, Artesia, and Hobbs.

Verizon’s purchase includes the co-op’s cellular, PCS, and AWS wireless spectrum that covers more than 26,000 square miles in eastern New Mexico.

“We are excited to expand our presence and coverage in rural New Mexico and to welcome Plateau Wireless’ customers to the nation’s most reliable network. We believe the strength of our network enables people to live better and stronger lives,” said Andres Irlando, president of Verizon Wireless’ southwest region.

Customers’ bank accounts may not have the strength to withstand the pricing and technology changes Verizon has in store as early as 2013. Plateau’s current GSM network will be dismantled as Verizon converts the network to CDMA for voice service and EV-DO (3G) and LTE (4G) for data services, leaving customers’ current smartphones and handsets useless. Verizon has not said whether it will provide free replacement equipment to Plateau customers at the time of the network conversion.

More importantly, Plateau Wireless’ current service plans, which include numerous options for customers on tight budgets — are destined for the scrap heap as the company unleashes its all-or-nothing contract service plans.

Plateau Wireless was a co-op owned regional wireless provider serving southeastern New Mexico.

The most important service at risk is Plateau’s unlimited data plan. The company charges customers $29.99 a month for unlimited smartphone data when inside Plateau’s home coverage area. Customers on family plans have an even better deal. They can extend unlimited data to every other phone on the account for a flat additional fee of $10/month. For just under $40 a month total, four family members each with their own smartphones or other wireless devices can have unlimited data when bundled with a calling plan starting at $19.99 a month ($9.99 for each additional line).

The same data plan under Verizon Wireless’ Share Everything Plan costs $220 a month for four phones, but it is not unlimited. All four users have to share a collective allowance of just 2GB of data per month.

Remember when your cell phone company offered you calling plans that fit your budget instead of their desired bottom line? Plateau Wireless still does, for the moment:

All Plateau Wireless Plans are eligible for the Family Plan and Data Features. Unlimited text messaging is $4.95 a month. Carryover of unused minutes to future months and free loyal customer minutes available. 

Plateau Wireless’ customers will have to decide for themselves whether Verizon’s acquisition is good or bad news for them.

Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission awarded nearly $9.5 million to Plateau to expand 3G and 4G service in central and southeastern New Mexico over the next three years. Verizon Wireless can use the funds to effectively expand their network in the area at taxpayer expense.

Phillip “I can see the duopoly from my house — why can’t the FCC?” Dampier

The New York Times is pondering whether Americans are paying too much for wireless broadband based on Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology. A new study now offers proof, noting U.S. customers pay three times as much, on average, for each gigabyte of data in contrast to European consumers.

The UK-based mobile industry group GSM Association offers evidence Americans are not getting the lower wireless broadband prices promised by the more advanced, cost-efficient LTE technology, although customers in other parts of the world are seeing savings.

According to the group’s findings, Verizon Wireless customers effectively pay $7.50 per gigabyte of data over the company’s 4G LTE network. That is three times more expensive than the European average of $2.50/GB, and more than 10 times higher than what Swedes pay: $0.63/GB, cheaper than many wired broadband providers’ overlimit fees.

Verizon Wireless’ Brenda Raney tried to defend the discrepancy, claiming that Verizon offers enhanced value bundles with unlimited voice, text, and mobile hotspot service. Having a data-only plan, Raney told the newspaper, would reduce the cost to $5.50/GB.

That is still more than twice as much as what Europeans pay.

So what is the real reason for the enormous price difference?

The wireless industry regularly claims that the vast expanse of the United States means a much larger investment in wireless technology and infrastructure, notably cell towers, to reach customers in suburban and rural areas. European countries, in contract, are much more compact and urban-focused, making infrastructure less costly.

But that has proven to be nonsense for Sweden’s Tele2, which not only operates a nationwide 4G cellular network in Sweden — a country with its own vast rural regions — but promises to deliver service to 99% of the country by the end of the year and already covers more than 100 Swedish municipalities. They deliver service at a fraction of the cost charged by Verizon. Tele2 remains undeterred by the “rural cost argument,” taking on the world’s largest country — the Russian Federation. It has already acquired 12 regional mobile operators in Russia, expanding service to more than 43 regions with over 22 million customers, and plans additional investments.

The real reason for the inflated price of service, unsurprisingly, is America’s lack of robust wireless competition, according to GSMA.

Europe has the largest number of competing providers — 38 of 88 operators with LTE technology are in Europe. Even the smallest countries have at least three major competitors. The U.S. has two major competitors, two smaller national carriers, and a dozen or more regional or prepaid operators totally dependent on the larger four to deliver national roaming service.

Until recently, Verizon Wireless had a veritable monopoly on LTE service as AT&T tries to catch up — one of the very rare moments Verizon directly challenged AT&T in advertising that distinguished the coverage differences between the two. These days, AT&T and Verizon mimic one another, often offering identically priced service plans. Customers who want to pay less have to reduce their expectations with smaller competitors that offer reduced coverage.

If you don’t want access to premium wireless broadband, American carriers will also gouge you for lesser 3G service.

U.S. consumers on two year contract plans spend an average of $115 a month for 3G service, according to a survey conducted by Ernst & Young. In the Netherlands, the average was $51; in Britain, $59 — about half the price.

The growing mobile phone bill has now reached the point where Ernst & Young’s Jonathan Dharmapalan suggests it is literally interfering with smartphone adoption and causing others to shut off the devices permanently after an experience with bill shock.

“The No. 1 reason for customers’ discontinuing their use of a smartphone service or not taking the option is the fear of overspending,” Dharmapalan said.

A former FCC senior Internet technology adviser attempted to explain away the vast discrepancies in pricing, offering this bit of analysis: Europeans talk and surf  less.