For the 15th time, Verizon Wireless has topped J.D. Power & Associates’ U.S. Wireless Network Quality ratings for best service.  Verizon Wireless consistently achieved fewer customer-reported problems with dropped calls, initial connections, transmission failures and late text messages, compared with other carriers, with one exception — U.S. Cellular, and only in the north-central part of the country.

J.D. Power found variations in network performance regionally, with carriers changing rankings depending on their infrastructure in different areas of the country.  For instance, AT&T came in second in most regions of the country, except in the north-central region where they landed third, and in the western U.S. where they ranked dead last.

T-Mobile and Sprint traded last place positions in different parts of the country as well.  Sprint performed more poorly in the northeast, north-central, and southeast, while T-Mobile did worse in the southwest and mid-Atlantic regions.  But the German-owned carrier achieved second place in the western states.

J.D. Power reports problems with wireless carrier quality were on the increase in 2011, driven primarily by issues with data services including mobile Web and email.

The increase in data-related problems may be attributable to shifts in where wireless customers are using their devices and in the types of services they are accessing.

“The ways and places wireless customers use their devices have changed considerably during the past several years,” said Kirk Parsons, senior director of wireless services at J.D. Power and Associates.  “For instance, in 2012, 58 percent of all wireless calls are made indoors – where wireless connections can be harder to establish and maintain – compared with only 40 percent in 2003.  In addition, the rapid expansion of smartphone usage has also changed the ways in which wireless customers use their devices, which also impacts network quality.”

“Based on varying degrees of consistency with overall network performance, it’s critical that wireless carriers continue to invest in improving both the voice quality and data connection-related issues that customers continue to experience,” said Parsons.

Cuomo

New York’s telecommunications providers are up in arms over Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to yank permanent deregulation for the “digital phone” industry (otherwise known as “Voice Over IP/VoIP”) from his budget, even though the phone service is already deregulated in New York.

Now Verizon Communications and Time Warner Cable are claiming that without the deregulation they already enjoy, innovation, investment, and competition will be stifled.

“Verizon is very disappointed that New York’s lawmakers, who want the public to believe that New York is open for business, will not be acting on this important measure to modernize the state’s outdated telecommunications laws in this year’s budget,” Verizon spokesman John Bonomo told the Albany Times-Union.

“It’s about new technologies, it’s about new services,” echoed Rory Whelan, regional vice president of government relations for Time Warner Cable. “We want New York to be at the forefront of where we roll out our new products and services.”

That notion has left consumer groups and telecommunications unions scratching their heads.

“They are saying that this is going to open the flood gates to more investment,” said Bob Master, political director for one chapter of the Communications Workers of America, which represents Verizon workers. “It’s ridiculous.”

Master says Verizon has been abandoning and ignoring their landline network for years, preferring to invest in Verizon Wireless and its limited FiOS fiber-to-the-home service which is available in only selected areas of the state.

New York’s Public Service Commission has largely not regulated competing phone service since Time Warner Cable first introduced the service as an experiment in Rochester.  As part of then-Rochester Telephone Corporation’s (now Frontier Communications) “Open Market” Plan, competing telephone companies could offer landline service in the company’s service area, so long as Rochester Telephone received the same deregulation benefits.  Only the cable company showed serious interest in providing home phone service, which it first delivered using traditional digital phone switches phone companies like Verizon and Rochester Telephone use.  Time Warner later abandoned that service for a VoIP alternative it branded as “digital phone.”

Time Warner’s “digital phone,” as well as Verizon’s own VoIP service sold with FiOS, have co-existed regulation-free.  Consumer advocates suspect the push to deregulate could eventually benefit Verizon more than cable operators, because it gives the phone company the right to question why any of its telephone services are regulated.  Verizon’s FiOS fiber-based phone lines do not operate on the same network its still-regulated landlines do.  Verizon, along with all traditional phone companies in New York, are subject to “universal service” guidelines which assure even the most rural New Yorkers have access to reliable telephone service.

But Verizon, like most traditional phone companies, sees substantial investment in “modernizing” legacy copper-based networks as an anachronism, especially as they continue to lose customers switching to cheaper cable providers or wireless phones.  The company recently declared its fiber optic replacement network, FiOS, at the end of its expansion phase.  That leaves the majority of New Yorkers with a copper-based telephone network companies only invest enough in to keep functioning.

Diaz

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., joined many New York Assembly Democrats in strong opposition to the bill, which Diaz thinks undercuts New York consumers:

If this proposal were to become law, all consumers would lose out. For starters, customers would not be able to bring service complaints to the Public Service Commission, as they currently can with traditional service. Additionally, there would be no way for the state to set standards for quality or for service in underserved regions — meaning that customers could get stuck with exorbitantly high rates or be unable to obtain service at all in some areas of the state.

Verizon FiOS, one of the main options for VoIP coverage, has now been installed in many regions of the state, including most of downstate. However, Verizon has chosen not offer the service in upstate cities like Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Utica. The result is both a virtual monopoly for the cable companies in those areas and another blow to lower-income working families who live in cities. That’s precisely why the state should be able to guarantee common sense regulations for VoIP service.

The problems with deregulating VoIP service are multifold. While traditional phone companies pay into a fund that supports “lifeline” phone access for elderly and disadvantaged New Yorkers, VoIP providers would not have to. We do not have to guess at how things would look if the state gives up its right to regulate internet phone service — we can just look at the states where traditional land line service has been deregulated. According to a recent survey of 20 states that have seen land line deregulation, 17 of those states have seen rate increases. We simply cannot afford that, particularly when our fragile national recovery is just beginning to take hold.

Verizon appears undeterred by the governor’s decision to pull the deregulation measure from consideration in his budget measure.  Bills to deregulate continue to float through the Republican-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled Assembly, but New York’s legislature is notoriously indecisive and slow to act.  Time Warner’s Whelan believes the best chances for the deregulatory measure will be in the GOP-controlled Senate where a similar bill passed last year.  Verizon says it will continue to push for the bill in both chambers.

“We intend to continue pushing for this important measure, and for other measures that will benefit the state’s consumers and businesses to keep up with technological change and help the state thrive and succeed,” Bonomo said.

Courtesy: CQ Press

Lobbyists for AT&T and Verizon are an integral part of Mitt Romney’s campaign for president, reveals a new report exposing K Street involvement in presidential politics.

“K Street Lines Up for Romney,” produced by CQ’s First Street Intelligence, shows one candidate above all others with an open door policy to money and assistance from some of the nation’s largest corporations: Mitt Romney.

Romney has never been a registered lobbyist, but he seeks advice and contributions from more lobbyists than any of the other candidates, and has a long list of lobbyist supporters, advisers, and contributors.  This select group of Washington insiders is quietly positioning themselves to benefit from a Romney presidency. With their dollars, advice, and endorsements, K Street definitively lined up in support of one candidate – Mitt Romney.

Among those corporations are both AT&T and Verizon, who either employed lobbyists now working directly with the Romney campaign or work with corporate-connected money bundlers, who raise enormous campaign contributions on behalf of the Romney campaign.

“The two biggest telephone companies, Verizon and AT&T, also stand to gain from a President Romney,” according to the report.

For example, money bundlers at Ogilvy, DLA Piper, and Ernst & Young are all directly connected to Verizon Wireless.

AT&T hired Romney Campaign Adviser Lobbyists Ronald Kaufman (working for Dutko) and Vin Weber (Clark & Weinstock).

Some of the reports highlights:

• Ten current and former lobbyists are directly affiliated with the Mitt Romney campaign as advisers and staffers.  These lobbyists have represented 256 clients who paid their firms over $88 million since 2004. (Lobbyist Campaign Officials)
• 16 registered lobbyists are acting as bundlers to Romney’s campaign.  These lobbyists have represented 324 organizations and a combined $196.9 million in lobbying expenses since 2008. (Lobbyist Bundlers)
• In 2011 bundlers and advisers to the Romney campaign represented 174 organizations and $54.7 million in lobbying expenses.
• 332 lobbyists have donated to a current GOP candidate in 2011.  Romney dominates the field, receiving 304 contributions. (Lobbyist Contributors)
• Two lobbying firms are positioned to gain from a Romney presidency: (Scorecard)
  • Dutko employs lobbyists that are Romney advisers, bundlers, and contributors
  • DLA Piper has multiple lobbyists that have contributed heavily to the Romney campaign.

Verizilla

The Communications Workers of America has a new, decidedly low-budget video decrying a spectrum swap between America’s largest cable companies and Verizon Communications that will leave Verizon Wireless stores pitching cable television service from one of Verizon’s cable company competitors.

To the CWA, this is nothing less than the birth of Verizilla, a new monster of a telecommunications company that has capitulated on competing with Big Cable and will instead devour the wireless communications marketplace for itself.  The CWA interest is obvious: many of its employees are responsible for constructing and maintaining Verizon’s now-stalled FiOS fiber to the home network.

From the CWA:

The deal, struck behind the closed doors of America’s corporate boardrooms, poses a threat to consumers and workers. If it goes through, it will be the death knell for competition between cable and telecom companies. Verizon Wireless, Time Warner, Comcast, and other cable companies will become a giant, unregulated quasi-monopoly. Verizon will have no incentive to challenge cable by building FiOS into new areas — meaning less competition, consumer choice, and higher prices for consumers.

Less FiOS also means fewer jobs building, maintaining, servicing, and installing the network. This deal will create a corporate behemoth that will use exclusive quad-play market power to shrink its future workforce.

Worst of all, Verizon Wireless and the cable companies are refusing to come clean about the details of the deal. Even as the FCC and Department of Justice review it, we still don’t know what it means for consumers or workers.

The CWA has so far collected more than 135,000 signatures on its petition opposing the current form of the deal. 

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizilla.flv[/flv]

America, say hello to Verizilla, wreaking reduced investment havoc on Verizon service areas across the northeastern United States.  (2 minutes)

Walden

When lawmakers talk about “unleashing” anything for “innovation,” it’s a safe bet we’re about to be treated to an anti-regulatory rant about how government rules are ruining everything for big business.  Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) does not disappoint.

Walden is chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an important place to be if you want to influence telecommunications policy in the United States.  Walden slammed the Federal Communications Commission this morning in an editorial piece in Politico, accusing the agency of regulating communications companies before they have a chance to engage in bad behavior:

Sometimes the FCC acts before thoroughly examining whether regulation is needed. It’s now time to stop putting the regulatory cart before the horse. That’s why this bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace, identify a failure and conduct a cost-benefit analysis before imposing rules.

[…] When the FCC reviews a merger, it now often imposes unrelated conditions. These extraneous agreements may not correspond to any harm presented by the transaction, may not be justified industry-wide and, in some cases, are outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

Such bootstrapping is unfair to the singled-out parties. It also results in poor policy. Imposing extraneous conditions on a transaction that is not otherwise harmful is inappropriate. And if a transaction is harmful, imposing extraneous conditions cannot cure it. Merger conditions should be directly related to transaction-specific harms, and within the FCC’s general authority.

Walden’s concerns coincide with the corporate agendas of some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies he oversees as chairman.  That may not be surprising, considering seven of the top 10 corporate contributors to his campaign fund are all telecommunications companies.

Walden's top campaign contributors (Source: Opensecrets.org)

Walden’s record on “innovation” is open to interpretation.  He is on record opposing Net Neutrality, has sought to “streamline” the FCC by hamstringing its authority, and has favored a variety of mergers and acquisitions that have effectively reduced competition for American consumers.

The FCC’s zeal for increased competition appears occasionally in its rulemakings, although the agency under Chairman Julius Genachowski can hardly be considered aggressive and out of control when it comes to some of the most contentious telecom issues that have arisen during the Obama Administration.  It only followed the Justice Department’s lead opposing the AT&T/T-Mobile USA merger.  It punted on Net Neutrality enforcement, doesn’t oppose Internet Overcharging, and has granted more mergers and acquisitions than it has sought to block.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has not always successfully stared down industry efforts to consolidate and deregulate.

Some examples of “unrelated conditions” the FCC has imposed on mergers include no price hikes for consumers for a limited time (Sirius-XM), a discounted Internet service for poor families (Comcast-NBC Universal), and spinoffs of acquired cellular network assets in barely competitive markets (Verizon Wireless-Alltel).

Sirius-XM mostly kept to their agreement, but promptly raised prices when it expired, Comcast followed the FCC’s agreement to the letter but found ways to limit the number of qualified families, and Verizon Wireless sold some of their acquired Alltel assets to AT&T, which at least provided improved AT&T reception in certain markets they largely ignored earlier.

Consumer advocates would argue the FCC should never have approved these transactions in the first place, and the conditions the FCC imposed were so mild, they faced little opposition from the companies involved. But apparently even that is too much for Walden, who we have a hard time seeing opposing any of these mergers.  Besides, some of the largest companies donating to Walden’s campaign fund are already adept at working around the FCC, suing their way past the regulations they oppose.

Walden advocates the FCC only perform its oversight functions after the industry is proven to have imposed unfair, anti-competitive, and discriminatory policies against consumers, not to act to prevent those abuses in the first place.  In short, he wants the FCC to regulate only after the damage has been done. That would be akin to calling the fire department after your house burned to the ground. Companies would be free to walk away with their ill-gotten gains with little threat the FCC would punish bad behavior and fine the bad actors.

If you are Comcast, that is innovation.  If you are a consumer, it’s something else.