Ordinarily, General Communication Inc., or GCI, and Alaska Communications Systems Group Inc. (ACS) compete with one-another for a share of Alaska’s television, broadband, phone, and wireless marketplace. But when Verizon Wireless unveiled plans to build and operate its own network in the state, GCI and ACS set aside some of that rivalry to pool resources for construction of what they claim will be Alaska’s fastest wireless network.

The two companies have agreed to form The Alaska Wireless Network LLC, a jointly-funded statewide wireless network to be used by customers of both companies. GCI will own two-thirds of the network and manage its daily operations, while ACS maintains a one-third interest.  The companies claim they needed to join forces because of the enormous construction costs required to build next generation wireless technology across Alaska.

Both companies will continue to market their own cell phone plans, but since both companies will share the same cell towers, coverage will be identical while accessing the new wireless network.

“By combining our respective wireless assets, GCI and Alaska Communications can provide a state-of-the-art Alaska wireless network owned and operated by Alaskans for Alaskans,” said Alaska Communications president and CEO Anand Vadapalli and GCI president and CEO Ron Duncan.  “We believe that The Alaska Wireless Network will provide the fastest, most geographically extensive, and most reasonably priced wireless services for Alaska subscribers, allowing us each to compete more effectively in the retail market.”

Verizon Wireless believes otherwise. Demian Voiles, vice president for Verizon Wireless Alaska, took a minor shot at the combined network stating Verizon planned to construct an Alaskan network that would rival the kind of coverage Verizon Wireless is recognized for in the lower 48 states.  Voiles said Verizon’s arrival in 2013 will provide Alaskans “the choice they need” in wireless phone companies.

The deal between GCS and ACS requires federal regulatory approval before it can proceed.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTUU Anchorage Alaska Wireless Network 6-5-12.mp4[/flv]

KTUU in Anchorage investigates how GCI is teaming up with its biggest rival — Alaska Communications — to jointly construct a new statewide wireless network to compete with Verizon and AT&T.  (2 minutes)

While cell phone companies tell you the only fair way to price wireless data is to charge you for what you use, these same companies are now considering how to reverse that argument and force you to buy more expensive “unlimited voice calling” plans you may not want or need.

The Wall Street Journal reports that AT&T is the most vocal proponent of ditching “tiered minute plans” for voice calls, which let consumers pick cheaper plans with fewer calling minutes. With Americans talking less and less on their cell phones, customers have been downgrading voice plans to less expensive options.

Industry trade group CTIA-The Wireless Association notes the average cell phone call dropped from 3.03 minutes in 2006 to just 1.78 minutes in 2011. Customers who rely entirely on their cell phone and no longer have a landline used to talk an average of 826 minutes per month in 2007.  Last year, that number dropped to 681 minutes, according to CTIA.

Verizon Wireless sells customers 900 minutes for $59.99. But the company does not count minutes used during nights and weekends or when placing/receiving calls to or from other Verizon Wireless phones. If a customer now talking less still pays $60 for a 900 minute plan, they could shave $20 a month off their monthly bill if they kept their daytime calling to 450 minutes a month. Many do. In fact, younger customers use their smartphones for talking even less, with some not even reaching one hour of voice calling a month.

Verizon's cattle call? Will the company herd all of its wireless customers to unlimited voice calling at a higher price?

Given the option to downgrade, customers are jumping at the chance. With voice revenue declining 2-4% in the first quarter, Wall Street has been pressuring carriers to act.

The answer that works for them, although probably not for you, is forcing all customers to purchase an unlimited voice calling plan at contract renewal time. At today’s prices, that could add an extra $30 a month for customers used to paying $40 for a basic 450-minute calling plan.

“The industry’s definitely moving towards unlimited,” AT&T Mobility Chief Executive Ralph de la Vega said in a recent interview. “Especially as more people adopt smartphones that have voice capabilities over the Internet, segmented voice plans will become less relevant.”

Ironically, cell phone companies that have spent the last year or two defending the end of unlimited mobile data as “fair” because customers can “choose exactly the plan they need,” are adopting a completely different strategy to push for unlimited voice calling.

“It’s more important to offer a complete solution to consumers which is really, truly unlimited,” said T-Mobile USA Chief Executive Philipp Humm in a recent interview. “The new world is a completely unlimited, worry-free world.”

Sprint agrees, although its insistence on preserving an unlimited data experience for its customers protects the company from charges of hypocrisy.

Fared Adib, head of product development for Sprint, told the Journal eliminating tiered voice options makes sense because it simplifies choices for customers. “People like the freedom of not having to worry about either data or voice,” he said.

No cell phone company would go on the record as the first to discard tiered voice plans, but AT&T led the way to ending unlimited data, and the company is increasingly vocal about ending tiered voice calling as well.

At current prices, consumers could pay substantially higher cell phone bills as a result.

Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless currently charge $70 a month for unlimited calling. Sprint charges $99.99 for its combined unlimited calling and data plan. T-Mobile charges $60 for unlimited talking and texting. Compelling customers to adopt unlimited calling plans will likely bring smartphone monthly charges well above $100 a month when factoring mandatory data plan add-ons, taxes, surcharges, and fees.

Customers who find this pricing intolerable will likely gravitate to prepaid calling plans, which is where an increasing number of occasional and light cell phone users have already ended up.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Voice Calling Plan Changes 6-5-12.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal explores why cell phone companies want to compel customers to choose unlimited voice calling plans.  (4 minutes)

The cable industry is moving in on the phone companies' best customers: commercial enterprises

The growing competitiveness of the cable industry in the commercial services sector could spell trouble for some of the nation’s smaller telecommunications companies.

A new report from Moody’s Investor Service declares the cable industry is spoiling the business plans of telephone companies to grow revenue selling service to business customers.

With cable companies now investing in wiring office parks and downtown buildings to sell packages of voice and data services to corporate customers, traditional phone company revenue will suffer, declares Moody, which predicts traditional wireline revenue will be flat or decrease this year into next.

“Cable Companies Quash Telecom Business-Revenue Rebound,” warns the companies at the greatest risk of revenue declines include EarthLink, Inc., Integra Telecom, Inc., U.S. TelePacific Corp., and CCGI Holding Corp. Among familiar independent phone companies, Frontier Communications, FairPoint Communications, and Hawaiian Telcom are at the biggest risk of losing customers, primarily because all three lack strong business products, according to the Moody’s report.

AT&T, CenturyLink, and Verizon are at a lower risk of losing customers, because all three focus investments on commercial services. CenturyLink’s acquisition of Qwest, a  former Baby Bell, strengthened its business services position, especially in the Pacific Northwest.

The cable companies best positioned to steal away telephone company customers are Comcast and Time Warner Cable, both of which have invested heavily in wiring commercial businesses for service. In the past, cable operators charged thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of dollars to install service in unwired commercial buildings, but now that initial wiring investment is increasingly being covered by cable operators.

Moody’s declares the business service sector a growth industry for cable. The report notes business revenues only account for $5 billion — just six percent — of the cable industry’s total business in 2011. In contrast, phone companies earn 40 percent of their revenue from business customers.

The report also states individual cable companies are now collaborating to deliver business service to companies with multiple service locations, which used to present a problem when offices were located in territories served by different operators.

If the cable industry continues to erode traditional telephone company revenue, it could eventually threaten the viability of some companies, especially those heavily-laden with acquisition-related debt.

The arrival of the LTE/4G wireless standard in the United States, and its adoption by the country’s two largest super-carriers AT&T and Verizon was supposed to open the door for true equipment interoperability, allowing customers to take devices purchased from one carrier to another. In the past, incompatible network standards (GSM – AT&T and CDMA – Verizon Wireless) made device portability a practical impossibility. The arrival of LTE could have changed everything, with device manufacturers using chipsets that would allow an iPad owner to switch from Verizon to AT&T without having to purchase a brand new tablet.

A new lawsuit filed by a small regional cell phone company alleges AT&T conspired to create their own wireless fiefdom that would not only discourage their own customers from considering a switch to a new carrier, but also locked out smaller competitors from getting roaming access.

C-Spire, formerly Cellular South, filed suit in U.S. federal court accusing AT&T and two of their biggest equipment vendors — Qualcomm and Motorola, of conspiring to keep the southern U.S. carrier from selling the newest and hottest devices and hampering their planned upgrade to LTE. The company also accuses AT&T of blocking access to roaming service for the benefit of C-Spire customers traveling outside of the company’s limited coverage area.

According to the lawsuit, the interoperability benefits of LTE have been artificially blocked by some of America’s largest carriers that force consumers to only use devices specifically approved for a single company’s network.

Divide Your Frequencies to Conquer and Hold Market Share

The Federal Communications Commission licenses wireless phone companies to use specific frequencies for phone calls and data communications. An industry standard group, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), is largely responsible for defining the standards of operation for wireless technology networks like LTE. In the United States, the group is dominated by the two largest cell phone companies and the technology vendors that make their living selling chipsets and phones to those major carriers.

Smaller carriers specifically bought spectrum near frequencies used by larger companies AT&T and Verizon with the plan to sign roaming agreements with them. But now Verizon is selling off its "Lower A, B and C" spectrum and intends to focus its LTE network on Upper C "Band 13," which it occupies almost exclusively. Meanwhile, AT&T has carved out its own exclusive "Band 17" for its Lower B and C frequencies where it will be able to effectively lock out other carriers. (Cellular South is now known as C-Spire).

It is 3GPP that elected to organize wireless spectrum into a series of frequency “blocks” and “bands” that different companies utilize to reach customers. Verizon Wireless, for example, has its 4G LTE network on a large chunk of the 700MHz band known as the “Upper C-block” or “Band 13.” Verizon earlier won control of some frequencies on the lower “A and B blocks,” which gave smaller companies the confidence to invest in adjacent frequencies, believing they would be able to negotiate roaming deals with Verizon.

Verizon has since elected to mass its 4G LTE operations on its “Upper C block,” and is selling off its lower “A and B block” frequencies. That leaves Verizon with overwhelming control of “Band 13.” The companies manufacturing equipment sold by Verizon are manufacturing phones that only work on Verizon’s frequencies, not those used by Verizon’s competitors. This effectively stops a Verizon customer from taking their device (and their business) to a competitor’s network.

This limitation comes not from the LTE network technology standard, but from the wireless companies themselves and equipment manufacturers who design phones to their specifications.

It would be like buying a television set from your local NBC station and discovering that was the only station the set could receive.

Verizon effectively created its own wireless “gated community” comprised of itself and a single tiny competitor still sharing a small portion of “Band 13.” AT&T was stuck in a considerably more crowded neighborhood, sharing space with more than a dozen smaller players, some who have a clear interest in being there to coordinate roaming agreements with AT&T to extend their coverage.

Regional cell phone companies could not exist without a roaming agreement that lets customers maintain coverage outside of their home service area. Without it, customers would gravitate to larger companies who do provide that coverage.

But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also have a vested interest not selling access to the crown jewels of their network, giving up a competitive advantage.

AT&T noticed its larger competitor Verizon Wireless had effectively segregated its operations onto its own band, and if that worked for them, why can’t AT&T have its own band, too?

Using a controversial argument that AT&T needed protection from potential interference coming from television signals operating on UHF Channel 51, located near the “A Block,” AT&T managed to convince 3GPP to carve out brand new “Band 17” from pieces of “Band 12.” Coincidentally, “Band 17” happens to comprise frequencies controlled by AT&T.

C-Spire alleges AT&T has since asked manufacturers to create devices that only support “Band 17,” not the much larger “Band 12,” effectively locking out small regional phone companies from LTE roaming agreements and the latest phones and devices.

Not surprisingly, Qualcomm and Motorola, who depend on AT&T for a considerable amount of revenue, fully supported the wireless company’s plan to create a new band just for itself. C-Spire’s lawsuit claims the resulting anti-competitive conspiracy has now graduated to foot-dragging by those manufacturers, reluctant to release new phones and devices that support the greater “Band 12” on which C-Spire and other smaller carriers’ 4G LTE networks reside. That is particularly suspicious to C-Spire, which notes companies manufacturing devices supporting all of “Band 12” would have automatically worked with AT&T’s new “Band 17.” Instead, manufacturers chose to create equipment that only worked on AT&T’s frequencies.

C-Spire says both AT&T and Verizon have once again managed to lock customers to their individual networks, have created artificial barriers to block roaming agreements, and have pressured manufacturers to “go slow” on new phones and devices for smaller competitors.

Driving the Competition Out of Business

LTE: Required for future competition.

Smaller carriers have always been disadvantaged by manufacturers’ exclusive marketing agreements with AT&T and Verizon that bring the hottest new devices to one or the other, leaving smaller players with older technology or smartphones with fewer features. Even worse, both AT&T and Verizon have forced manufacturers to enforce proprietary standards that make it difficult for consumers to leave one company for another and take their phones with them. C-Spire and other regional companies have primarily managed to compete because they often sell service at lower prices. They have also survived because roaming agreements allow companies to sell functionally equivalent service to customers who do not always remain within the local coverage area.

But recent developments may soon make smaller competitors less viable than ever:

1. AT&T’s spectrum plans make it difficult for smaller companies to use their valuable 700MHz spectrum, the most robust available, for LTE 4G service. Instead, companies like C-Spire will have to use less advantageous higher frequencies at an added cost to remain competitive in their own local markets.
2. Equipment manufacturers, who answer to the billion-dollar contracts they have with both Verizon and AT&T, remain slow to release devices that work on smaller networks, leaving companies like C-Spire without attractive technology to sell to customers.
3. The ultimate refusal by AT&T and Verizon to allow LTE roaming or make it prohibitively expensive or technologically difficult to access could be the final blow. Why sign up for C-Spire if you can’t get 4G service outside of your home service area? C-Spire admits in its lawsuit it cannot survive if it cannot sign reasonable roaming agreements with AT&T or Verizon.

Cspire complaint filed against AT&T, Qualcomm and Motorola