The three companies that control 90 percent of Canada’s cell phone marketplace have set what they argue is ‘cut-throat’ competition aside to team up in a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to discourage Verizon Wireless from entering the country.

Bell, Rogers, and Telus have maintained what critics charge is a “three-headed oligopoly” in the wireless business for years, leading to findings from the OECD that Canada is among the ten most expensive countries in the world for wireless service in almost every category and has among the highest roaming rates in the world.

Americans also pay high cell phone prices, and customers of both countries will find somewhat comparable pricing when comparing prices north or south of Lake Ontario. A shopper in Niagara Falls, N.Y. can find the Samsung Galaxy S4 from a Verizon reseller for $120 with a two-year contract. A shared data service plan runs as little as $80 a month for 500MB of data and unlimited domestic calling and global texting. Travel across the Rainbow Bridge to Niagara Falls, Ontario, walk into a Rogers store and the same phone runs $199 with a two-year contract (most Canadian carriers used to offer three-year contracts until the government banned them earlier this year) and a service plan running $80 a month offering the same 500MB of data and unlimited domestic calling and texting. Rogers charges extra if customers want to text a customer outside of Canada, however.

Verizon is no discount carrier. Verizon management has repeatedly stressed it offers premium service and coverage and can charge commensurately higher prices for access to that network. So the idea that Verizon’s interest in entering Canada is to launch a vicious price war is suspect, according to many telecommunications analysts.

Keep Verizon out of Canada at all costs!

In June, the Globe and Mail reported Verizon had shown serious interest in acquiring Canadian cellular upstart Wind Mobile with an early bid of $700 million. Wind Mobile, one of the three significant new “no-contract” entrants vying for a piece of the country’s cell phone market, has limped along since opening for business in 2009, unable to attract much interest from customers concerned about coverage gaps and the poor choice of mobile devices.

More recently, Wind Mobile’s new owner — the Russian mobile giant Vimpelcom — has expressed an interest in selling off the carrier because it cannot gain traction against the biggest three, which also control 85 percent of mobile wireless spectrum.

News that Verizon had taken an interest in the carrier leveled shock waves across the Canadian financial markets. Shares in the three largest telecom giants fell sharply on the news. Earlier this month, Bell CEO George Cope reported that Bell, Telus and Rogers have taken a $15-billion cumulative hit on the capital markets since Verizon hinted interest in Wind Mobile.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Verizon takes aim at telecom Big 3 with possible Wind Mobile bid 8-19-13.flv[/flv]

The CBC reported earlier this summer that Verizon Wireless was interested in acquiring the 600,000 customers of independent wireless provider Wind Mobile, which has an insignificant share of the Canadian wireless market. (2 minutes)

Spending a few million, or even a billion dollars, to keep Verizon south of the Canadian-U.S. border is well worth it to the three big players who have launched an expensive campaign to block the proposed transaction and are willing to pay premium prices to keep struggling carriers from being sold to deep-pocketed American telecom companies.

Telus had already done its part, attempting to scoop up another scrappy upstart carrier that wanted out of the wireless business. But the Canadian government rejected Telus’ proposed acquisition of Mobilicity, claiming it would harm efforts to expand Canadian wireless competition. Not to be deterred, Rogers is now attempting a cleverly structured deal to acquire Wind Mobile out from under Verizon with a proposed buyout worth more than $1 billion.

To avoid the anticipated rejection of the deal by Canadian regulators on competition grounds, Rogers has reportedly joined forces with Toronto-based private equity firm Birch Hill Partners that would make that firm the owners-in-name. Although Rogers wouldn’t get a direct equity stake in Wind, it would finance a good part of the deal and win access and control of Wind’s mobile spectrum for its own network. More importantly, it could keep Verizon out of Canada.

“The government is handing out loopholes to Verizon to beg them into Canada”

Cell phone companies in Canada are particularly angry that the government has set aside certain spectrum and guaranteed access for upstart providers to successfully establish themselves without having to outbid the cash-rich big three for wireless frequencies or have to build a nationwide network from scratch. Bell, Rogers and Telus have consistently opposed spectrum set-asides for small carriers, deeming them “unfair.” They argue Canadians’ voracious needs for more wireless service are unending, and it would be unfair not to sell the spectrum to benefit their larger customer bases. But hearing that Verizon, a company larger than Bell, Rogers, and Telus combined, could get preferential treatment and spectrum to enter the country has them boiling mad.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Telecom debate 8-19-13.flv[/flv]

Bell’s CEO George Cope appeared on “The Lang and O’Leary Exchange” to debate the fairness of Verizon’s possible entry into Canada’s wireless market. Cope argues Verizon is getting special favors. (9 minutes)

The idea of luring a company to move or begin offering service in a barely competitive marketplace is hardly new. Cities have offered preferential policies to airlines to fly in and out of particular cities, local governments have offered tax abatements to get companies to set up shop, and providing exemptions for zoning and infrastructure have been familiar to telecommunications companies for decades.

In 1880, the National Bell Telephone Company had incorporated, through an Act of Parliament, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada (today also known as BCE), which was given the right to build telephone lines over and along all public property and rights-of-way without compensation to the public or former owners. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, Bell would later become the dominant monopoly provider of telephone service across much of eastern Canada.

When the phone companies were handed wireless spectrum to launch their wireless businesses in the 1980s, they didn’t have anything to complain about either.

None of that history impressed Bell’s current CEO George Cope, who took to the airwaves to complain Verizon was being given preferential treatment:

• Verizon could bid on two blocks of Canadian spectrum set aside for new entrants to the market in auction later this year. Because the big three Canadian firms are not permitted to bid on these blocks, they are likely to be sold at a lower price.
• Verizon would not have to build its own networks to remote or rural communities, but would be able to piggyback on existing networks.
• Verizon can bid to acquire small Canadian companies such as Mobilicity or Wind, but Bell, Telus and Rogers are forbidden from bidding on them.

“A company of this size certainly doesn’t need handouts from Canadians or special regulatory advantages over Canadian companies,” Bell said in a full-page newspaper ad. “But that is exactly what they get in the new federal wireless regulations. We’re ready to compete head to head, but it has to be a level playing field,” Cope said in a TV interview, echoing Rogers CEO who also called for a “level playing field.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Is Verizon really the bogeyman Canada’s telecom giants claim 8-19-13.flv[/flv]

Bell, Telus, and Rogers have launched a lobbying campaign designed to make life difficult for Verizon Wireless if it chooses to enter Canada. The CBC reports Verizon will be able to bid on more spectrum than Canadian carriers and will have the right to roam on Canada’s incumbent wireless networks. (2 minutes)

Telus went further, claiming Verizon’s entry into Canada would result in a “bloodbath” for Canadian workers, laid off by the three largest Canadian providers to cut costs to better compete with Verizon.

But Cope said at least one Canadian carrier won’t be able to compete at all, because preferential treatment for wireless spectrum will result in at least one of the big three to lose at a forthcoming spectrum auction, guaranteeing degraded wireless broadband speeds and worse service.

The three companies have found little sympathy in Ottawa, particularly from Industry Minister James Moore, now on a road tour across Canada to promote the government’s wireless competition policies. He called the big three’s loud campaign self-serving and announced a new website sponsored by the Conservative Party of Canada to prove it.

“I think that the public instinctively knows that when they have more choices that prices go down and more competition they’re well served by that,” he told CBC News in Vancouver on Monday. “The noise that we’re hearing is about you know companies trying to protect their company’s interest. Our job as a government is larger than that, our job is to serve the public interest and make sure that the public is served in this so that’s one of the reasons why I’m pushing back a little bit.”

Industry Minister James Moore appeared on CBC Radio this morning to contest the wireless industry’s claims that Verizon is getting special treatment and will bring unfair competition to the Canadian wireless market. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Oppose Verizon Wireless. Do it for Canada!

But the wireless companies show no signs of backing down and have turned towards appealing to Canadian nationalism and fairness.

“The U.S. government is not giving Canadian wireless carriers any special access to the U.S. market,” says a website launched by the big three cell providers to drum up support for a “level playing field.” “Then why is it that our own government is giving American companies preferential treatment over our own companies?”

This week, a Reuters report citing unnamed sources suggests Bell, Telus, and Rogers are about to target Verizon directly with a new campaign warning Canadians the American giant has been implicated in allowing the U.S. government open access to network and customer data, which would represent a profound privacy threat to Canadian customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell Rogers Telus Ad 8-13.flv[/flv]

Bell, Telus, and Rogers paid to produce this ad calling on Canadians to protest unfair competition from an American wireless company.  (1 minute)

So far, Canadians’ hatred of their telecommunications providers has trumped the companies’ public relations and scare tactics. The Conservative government in Ottawa is winning support for its wireless competition war, even from unlikely places.

“Someone mark the date,” Tweeted one Halifax woman not inclined to vote Conservative. “Stephen Harper has done something I mostly support.”

“Eat it Telus/Bell/Rogers,” wrote a Calgary man fed up with the lack of competition in Canadian wireless.

John Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa, says opposition from the big three telecom companies is obvious because they don’t want to face a fourth, powerful competitor.

“They should be scared because chances are they’re going to have more competition in the Canadian market if Verizon comes in and they are going to have to lower their prices and compete harder,” Lawford told CBC News. “It’s pretty rich of them to be talking about unfairness” when they already control 90 per cent of Canadian spectrum, he added.

Iain Grant of the SeaBoard Group, a telecommunications consultancy, said government policies to open up more competition are designed to shake things up.

“[The new rules weren’t] meant to be a level playing field,” said Grant. “[They were] meant to give a leg up [to new competitors].”

“To talk of loopholes, as some do, is to not understand that the same companies who complain most loudly about loopholes in 2013 were the recipients of even greater public largesse in 1985 when the government gifted their initial spectrum as an incentive to build a wireless business in Canada,” said Grant.

Few companies have taken on the Canadian big three telecom providers because of their enormous market share, at least inside Canada.

Nine out of ten Canadian wireless users are subscribed to Bell, Telus or Rogers. Trying to convince a banker to extend capital loans to effectively confront a wireless oligopoly in a country with an enormous expanse of land but not people and find enough airwaves among the 15% not controlled by the big three is an uphill battle.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Wireless war heats up 8-19-13.flv[/flv]

CBC reports Industry Minister Moore believes increasing competition is the best way to cut Canadian cell phone bills. Regardless of whether Verizon enters Canada, the current government will continue to push for more competition. Even the threat of Verizon coming to Canada has already reduced prices. (2 minutes)

Why does Verizon want to enter Canada?

Analysts suspect Verizon’s interest in Canada has little to do with wooing Canadians to Big Red. Many suspect Verizon’s true interest is to make life easier for its traveling American customers who head north for business or pleasure.

Chief among the possible benefits is the elimination of roaming charges for Verizon customers.

“Verizon’s customers come into the country every day through all the bridges and ports of entries and they want to roam where they want to roam, whether that’s fishing in Saskatchewan or hunting in northern Ontario or wherever,” said Grant.

There are other apparent impediments that could limit the usefulness of Wind’s mobile network to Verizon. In addition to only operating in the largest Canadian cities, Wind’s infrastructure is built by Chinese firm Huawei and is not compatible with Verizon’s technology.

Huawei has been the subject of significant controversy because of its reported ties to the Chinese military. Fears that data could be intercepted by the Chinese government have kept many North American firms from doing business with the company.

Verizon also lacks bundling options for Canadian customers. The biggest three Canadian providers can offer telephone, television, and wired broadband service to their customers. Verizon can only offer wireless service.

Verizon has second thoughts

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Verizon doubts 8-15-13.flv[/flv]

CBC reports Verizon may be having second thoughts about entering Canada. Verizon may not be interested in entering a political battle to win licenses to provide service and may want to acquire its own spectrum before considering buying either Wind Mobile or another competitor like Mobilicity. (2 minutes)

Waiting for Comcast and Verizon to offer cutting edge broadband to 620,000 Baltimore city residents and businesses appears to be going nowhere, so the city is hiring an Internet consultant to consider whether to sell access to its existing fiber network.

Baltimore officials spent at least a year trying to convince Google to launch its fiber network in the city only to be bypassed in favor of Kansas City, Austin, and Provo, Utah. Local unions and community groups have also attempted to embarrass the local phone company by publicly protesting Verizon’s lack of interest in expanding its fiber optic network FiOS in Baltimore. Comcast has proved a disappointment for many, with the latest technology going to other cities well before Baltimore gets improved service.

Baltimore’s Board of Estimates voted to spend $157,000 to hire Magellan Advisors to produce a cost-benefit analysis of expanding the city’s current fiber infrastructure to deliver better Internet access.

“I’m paying more here for lesser service, so I think one of the things we want to try to do is look at that, look at what [current companies] offer and try to incentivize people to offer more,” Baltimore’s chief information officer Chris Tonjes told the Baltimore Business Journal. “In the short term, we’re going to do a study. In the medium run, we’re going to try to renegotiate the cable franchise agreement. In the longer run we want to make it more profitable for providers to come in here and offer the expanded service.”

Like many cities, Baltimore already owns and operates its own fiber ring, built with public funds to support the city’s public safety radio system. Like many municipal institutional fiber networks, Baltimore’s fiber ring is underutilized. Public safety and other institutional users often use just a fraction of available capacity. Despite the fact such networks are often oversized, they are rarely controversial because they do not typically compete with commercial providers and are usually off-limits to the public.

As Baltimore prepares to update their existing fiber infrastructure, Magellan will study the implications of leasing excess capacity to third-party providers that can sell broadband access to private businesses and individuals. Even Comcast and Verizon would be welcome to lease capacity.

Neither company has shown much interest, and the proposal received a strong rebuke from Maryland Sen. Catherine Pugh (D-Baltimore City):

Pugh

For the most part, municipally-built broadband networks have the economic chips stacked against them and, where tried, have saddled local taxpayers with a mountain of debt and half-built networks that are then sold at fire-sale prices to vulture investors. Taxpayers in Provo, Utah, for instance, spent $40 million to build a relatively small and modest network only to sell it for $1 a few years later because they underestimated the massive costs of operating, upgrading and maintaining it.

But Provo is just the latest exhibit in a long pantheon of such failed initiatives that include Groton, Conn., ($38 million taxpayer loss) and Marietta, Ga., ($35 million taxpayer loss). Cities as large as Philadelphia, New York and Chicago and as small as Lompoc, Calif., and Acworth, Ga., have also tried and failed to launch their own broadband networks — or simply gave up.

Pugh’s editorial, published in both the Wall Street Journal and The Baltimore Sun, failed to disclose Pugh has received political campaign contributions from both Comcast and Verizon. More importantly, Pugh did not bother to mention she is the president-elect of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, a group with close ties to both Comcast and Verizon Communications.

Among the “member corporations” of the NBCSL — companies who “weigh in” on the policies promoted by the group: AT&T, Comcast, CTIA – The Wireless Association, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.

Justice Samuel Alito was forced to recuse himself from nearly six dozen cases brought to the Supreme Court in the last 10 months because the Alito family owns stock in many of the corporations involved in litigation.

When Alito’s wife Martha Ann’s father died last year, the Alito family inherited a wealth of stock worth up to $1.25 million in some of America’s largest companies, including AT&T and Verizon Communications.

The Associated Press reports Alito’s tardy financial disclosure for 2012 revealed the justice’s reasons for recusal: his sudden ownership of shares in large telecom, pharmaceutical, oil and gas, and tobacco companies.

Federal law requires justices to step away from cases where there is a financial conflict of interest. Alito’s inherited stock represents just such a conflict.

In one case, however, Alito found himself holding Comcast Corp. stock after hearing arguments in a massive class action antitrust case representing two million customers the plaintiffs argued were being overcharged by an illegitimate cable monopoly.

Alito’s Comcast stock was purchased and sold last December. The Court’s 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was announced March 27. Alito’s deciding vote fundamentally raised the bar on future lawsuits, making it much more difficult for class action cases to be brought before the courts.

The Comcast suit, in the courts since 2003, argued that cable subscribers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware were overcharged at least $875 million because of Comcast’s efforts to monopolize cable service in the Philadelphia area. Comcast amassed its dominant position by buying or swapping cable systems in the region to create a single large cable provider serving the majority of southern New Jersey, Delaware, and southeastern Pennsylvania. By 2002, the lawsuit claimed, Comcast had achieved a 77.8 percent market share.

Comcast argued the lawsuit was too complicated and its proposed method of calculating damages was faulty. The Court’s conservative justices agreed with Comcast, finding the lawsuit fell “far short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement.”

• Voting for Comcast’s position: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
• Voting against Comcast: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

A study recently published in the Minnesota Law Review found the current Supreme Court is by far the most corporate-friendly of any court in at least 65 years, noting “the Roberts court is indeed highly pro-business — the conservatives extremely so and the liberals only moderately liberal.”

The top two most likely to vote in favor of big business among all justices seated since 1946 are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

“There was a time when being ‘business-friendly’ meant giving corporations a leg-up and a level playing field because doing so creates jobs and bolsters the economy,” wrote Supreme Court reporter Jonathan Valania. “Today, ‘business-friendly’ means letting corporations socialize their costs while privatizing their profits. It means letting corporation literally write the laws that govern them. It means rolling back regulations and de-fanging oversight [….] What we are really talking about is corporatism.”

Verizon Wireless sees enormous new revenue opportunities in the “machine to machine” applications business, using its LTE 4G wireless network to exchange data between you and the companies you do business with.

Fran Shammo, Verizon’s chief financial officer, noted that State Farm Insurance is just one example where your wireless carrier and insurance company will quietly collect data about your driving habits based on the car seat law in california and share the information for marketing purposes and to micromanage your driving insurance rates based on your real driving habits.

State Farm Insurance recently signed an agreement with Verizon subsidiary Hughes Telematics, which today embeds microchips into vehicles that can communicate over Verizon’s nationwide wireless network. In the near future, State Farm Insurance customers’ driving habits will be automatically tracked by Verizon Wireless with certain data shared with the insurance company to personalize your auto insurance rates.

“If you know the car insurance industry today, they do everything based on actuarial studies and make you pay based on your driving habits, charging a premium specific to your driving,” Shammo told investors at the Oppenheimer 16th Annual Technology, Internet & Communications Conference. “We will accumulate that data, analyze that, and send that off to State Farm.”

Visit Car’s Cash For Junk Clunkers at 314 S Union Ave #230, Springfield, MO 65802 (417) 263-6523 to avail their cash for cars.

With the contracts signed, State Farm hopes to expand its Drive Safe & Save program nationwide later this year. It will be voluntary, for now, for customers driving OnStar-equipped vehicles from General Motors and Ford’s Sync system. Others can take part with Hughes’ In-Drive tracking device, installed by the customer. Customers choosing In-Drive will have to pay a monthly fee for the device ranging from $5-15 a month.

Verizon Wireless will benefit from tracking information about where customers are, have been, and are likely to go in the future. State Farm will not benefit from that level of precision, however. Verizon will purposely “fuzz” up those details, depicting vehicles only within a 40-mile radius. But State Farm will still know a great deal about your personal driving habits, which can directly affect your insurance premium.

State Farm says its program is primarily intended to deliver discounts to safe drivers (sometimes up to 50 percent off the highest risk category drivers, such as teens), not penalize unsafe ones. But the insurance company does disclose it will increase rates of policyholders caught driving over their selected mileage category or if they are ever tracked driving 80mph or over for any reason, regardless of the posted speed limit.

The amount of the discount is dependent on a number of factors, mostly based on mileage driven, the time of day the vehicle is on the road, and the rate which one accelerates and brakes while driving. But State Farm agents admit other factors can also penalize you. Making a lot of left turns will cut your discount — more accidents occur during those. When that unfortunately happens, you can go to this web-site. How hard of a turn you make also matters – squealing tires and a fast turn will earn a spanking for aggressive driving. Do you often pass other vehicles? That can hurt your discount as well.

If you don’t drive the car at all, State Farm will, not surprisingly, praise your driving habits and boost your discount. A car driven under 500 miles a year may get a 30% discount. Drive it close to the annual average of 11,000 miles and your discount plummets to 11%. Long commutes hurt the most. A policyholder driving 16,000 miles a year will only receive 1% off.

Wherever you go, Verizon Wireless and State Farm, among other insurers, will be watching and that bothers some privacy experts.

“It’s a slippery slope,” Paul Stephens, an official with the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, told the Wall Street Journal. While insurers say they don’t track routes driven, Mr. Stephens fears that as programs expand and get more commonplace, insurers may wind up with “a very detailed log of your whereabouts throughout the day.”

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter joined over 1.4 million other Progressive insurance customers driving with Snapshot — a competing drive tracking system. He concluded it felt like driving with a nanny.

It beeped at me when I braked too hard or floored it up the ramp to Highway 40. Each beep, I knew, was a demerit that could mean a higher insurance quote.

Like some other programs, Progressive lets you keep track of your performance on its website, measuring your braking, acceleration and mileage. It grades you as excellent, good or “opportunity,” which is a nice way of saying “no discount for you, bub.” It also awards little online merit badges. I got one for “alien abduction,” since I left town and didn’t drive for a week. When I finished the tryout, the system offered me an initial 12 percent discount from Progressive’s normal rate. I’m considering this device.

Privacy experts also caution that those refusing to install the currently voluntary drive tracking systems may eventually be lumped into high risk driving pools because insurers may conclude those drivers have something to hide.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Progressive Snapshot 8-13.flv[/flv]

Progressive’s omnipresent spokesperson “Flo” introduces drivers to Snapshot, the insurance company’s driver tracking system. (1 minute)

“You can see who is defensive and who is aggressive,” said Richard Hutchinson, Progressive’s general manager for usage-based insurance. “It gives us very powerful data from an insurance standpoint.”

“If people choose to (sign up for the program), that’s up to them,” said Wisconsin state Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton), a longtime privacy advocate. “But I would just caution people to know exactly what they’re getting into.  I have huge privacy concerns (about the program). They are offering a 5 percent discount and I would assume somebody’s rates are going up somewhere else to pay for that.”

Wisconsin-based American Family Insurance takes driver tracking to an even more personal level with its Teen Safe Driver system, which uses DriveCam technology to maintain a comprehensive video and data record of driving habits. If the system detects unsafe driving, a professional driving coach will automatically receive a video file showing the incident, leading to a personal follow-up to discuss the dangerous driving.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TeenSafe Drivecam 8-13.flv[/flv]

American Family Insurance’s TeenSafe Driver Program uses an in-car camera to watch teen drivers and automatically sends video of incidents to a professional driving coach if an infraction or unsafe driving is detected. Could insurance companies adopt similar technology for adult drivers for on-the-spot rate adjustments in the future? (3 minutes)

“Armed with this kind of data, an insurance company could eventually theoretically adjust a driver’s insurance rates on the spot, or even notify the policyholder they intend to cancel their insurance,” says Sam Underwood, who feels the insurance industry will soon police more driving infractions than local traffic cops. “While a safe driver may feel they have nothing to hide, their driving details could be subject to disclosure under a criminal or civil subpoena as part of any legal action, driving related or not.”

Ten years ago, privacy experts worried about automated toll collection devices like E-Z Pass being used to track driving habits. Underwood says insurance companies will take that to a whole different level.

“They have a vested interest in reducing insurance claims and payouts and there is probably nothing wrong with that because who wants to be in an accident,” Underwood says. “But under current laws, they are the judge, jury and executioner and can subjectively use this data to set rates as they please. It starts with a tantalizing discount but ends with a compulsory system that will make cell companies like Verizon Wireless a lot of money and let them keep a copy of collected data for who knows what purpose.”

The Wall Street Journal calls the programs “usage based insurance,” priced according to how customers actually drive. But there have been some familiar arguments and “family discussions” that have followed the regular report cards and insurance renewal premiums that arrive after enrolling into the tracking programs:

One day recently, Mr. Scharlau logged onto his State Farm account to learn he so far had earned “A+” grades for left-hand turns and for not topping 80 miles per hour, but only “B+” for braking, acceleration and time of day his Expedition was on the road. Mr. Scharlau said he and his wife now find themselves chatting “about our own driving and what we see around us: ‘Oops, did we just lose points?'”

Shammo says Verizon Wireless is just beginning to profit from this type of machine to machine application. It has well-positioned itself with the acquisition of Hughes Telematics, which develops chipsets that makes it simple to move data over Verizon’s wireless network. Shammo admits it costs just pennies on the dollar to transport information from applications like drive tracking devices. But Verizon isn’t satisfied just charging for data traffic. The real earnings come from processing the data Verizon collects, analyzes and transmits back to clients like State Farm.

“If you then take the next step, though, the value is really in the data in the cloud and how you can utilize data to do the analytics behind that,” Shammo said. “If you look at Hughes Telematics and what they are doing […], it’s not the transport through Verizon Wireless that really creates the average revenue per user increment on that machine to machine [traffic]. It’s all the other analytics behind that. The ARPU on that is $20 to $30 higher than what it would be on a machine-to-machine type application for just transport.”

Verizon Wireless considers machine to machine traffic still in its infancy and primed for more profits. That worries people like Sen. Erpenbach who wonders where it will all end.

“If I’m State Farm, sure, I want to know about any driving habit of my policyholders,” he said. “I would also love to know, if I’m State Farm, what everybody does in their houses (for home insurance purposes). And I’m sure health companies would love to see people’s grocery lists.”

AT&T is unhappy with a proposal from a wireless competitor it originally tried to buy in 2011 that would offer smaller competitors a more realistic chance of winning favored 600MHz spectrum vacated by UHF television stations at a forthcoming FCC auction.

T-Mobile’s “Dynamic Market Rule” proposal would establish a cap on the amount of spectrum market leaders AT&T and Verizon Wireless, flush with financial resources for the auction, could win.

“Imposing modest constraints on excessive low-band spectrum aggregation will promote competition, increase consumer choice, encourage innovation, and accelerate broadband deployment,” T-Mobile offered in its proposal to the FCC.

Without some limits, wireless competitors Sprint and T-Mobile, among other smaller carriers, could find themselves outbid for the prime spectrum, well-suited for penetrating buildings and requiring a smaller network of cell towers to deliver blanket coverage.

In a public policy blog post today, AT&T argues T-Mobile is behind the times and its proposal is unfair and unworkable:

First, the purported advantage of low band spectrum – that it allows more coverage and better building penetration with fewer cell sites – has been overtaken by marketplace realities under which capacity not coverage drives network deployment.  Carriers deploying low band and high band spectrum alike must squeeze as many cell sites as they can into their networks to meet exploding demand for data services.  Second, to the extent this is less the case in rural areas, those areas are not spectrum-constrained and the lower cost of building out low band spectrum in such areas is offset by the higher cost of the spectrum itself.

[…] But this is not the only point that should concern policymakers.  Such caps will also suppress auction revenues, potentially to the point of auction failure, ultimately reducing the amount of spectrum freed up for mobile broadband use and undermining the auction’s ability to meet critical statutory goals.

[…] Even if T-Mobile’s proposal did not result in complete auction failure, its proposed caps would suppress auction revenues, reducing the amount of spectrum freed up for mobile broadband use as well as funds generated for FirstNet and to pay down the national debt.  That is because strict limits on participation by otherwise qualified bidders will make the auction less competitive and will yield less revenue.  Indeed, if T-Mobile’s proposed spectrum cap was strictly enforced, Verizon estimates it would be barred from bidding in 7 of the top 10 markets.  AT&T would face similar bidding limitations, as noted in our filing.

AT&T suggests the last major auction in 2008 attracted 214 qualified bidders and 101 bidders won licenses, including carriers of all sizes and new entrants.

But an analysis by Stop the Cap! shows the breakaway winners of the 2008 auction were none other than AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which paid a combined $16.3 billion of the total $19.592 billion raised. For that money, they acquired:

• Block A – Verizon Wireless and U.S. Cellular both bought 25 licenses each. In this block, Verizon targeted urban areas, while U.S. Cellular bought licenses primarily in the northern part of the U.S., where it provides regional cellular service. Cavalier Telephone and CenturyTel also bought 23 and 21 licenses, respectively. Cavalier Telephone is now wholly owned by Windstream, which does not provide cell service and was selling its 700MHz spectrum to none other than AT&T. So is CenturyLink (formerly CenturyTel).

• Block B – AT&T Mobility was the biggest buyer in the B block, with 227 licenses totaling $6.6 billion. U.S. Cellular and Verizon bought 127 and 77 licenses, respectively. AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless bought licenses around the country, while U.S. Cellular continued with its strategy to buy licenses in its home network northern regions.

• Block C – Of the 10 licenses in the C Block, Verizon Wireless bought the 7 that cover the contiguous 48 states (and Hawaii). Those seven licenses cost Verizon roughly $4.7 billion. Of the other three, Triad Communications — a wireless spectrum speculator — bought the two covering Alaska, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands through its Triad 700, LLC investor partnership, while Small Ventures USA, L.P. bought the one covering the Gulf of Mexico. Triad 700, LLC sold its spectrum last fall to AT&T while Small Ventures USA sold theirs to Verizon Wireless.

• Block E – EchoStar spent $711 million to buy 168 of the 176 available Block E licenses. This block, made up of unpaired spectrum, will likely be used to stream television shows. Qualcomm also bought 5 licenses. Neither company has used its spectrum to offer any services five years after the auction ended.

So much for improving the competitive landscape of wireless. Other than U.S. Cellular, which is rumored to be on AT&T and Verizon Wireless’ acquisitions wish list, every auction winner has either sold its spectrum to the wireless giants or has done nothing with it.

If “highest bidder wins”-rules apply at the forthcoming auction, expect more of the same.

AT&T and Verizon Wireless have significant financial resources to outbid Sprint, T-Mobile and smaller carriers and will likely win the bulk of the available spectrum whether they actually need it or not. Smaller victories may be won by smaller competitors, but only in rural areas and sections of the country disfavored by the largest two.