Happy Days Are Always Here for Top Telecom Execs

Our friends at Fierce Cable put together a list of the top-paid telecommunications executives, and they’re in the money. Your money. While your rates keep going up, their take-home pay often is, too.

Remarkably, actual performance as executives (or lack, thereof) often had no relationship to their ultimate pay package, with a handful of exceptions:

Cable & Satellite

Brian L. Roberts, Comcast — $26.9 million: The Roberts family has dominated Comcast since the 1980s, so it is no surprise their pay packages are as colossal as the company itself.

Michael J. Lovett, Charter Communications — $20.54 million: He resigned in Feb. 2012 but got a great golden parachute: nearly double the compensation he earned the year before. Charter is one of America’s least-distinguished cable companies, usually scoring just above “pond scum” in popularity with customers. But you can take that trash talk when you walk $20 million to the bank.

Glenn A. Britt, Time Warner Cable — $16.43 million: His pay went down slightly (well, by a million dollars but with that kind of money, does it really matter?) in 2011. Britt has been around at some iteration of Time since 1972… when Nixon was still president, so he worked his way to the top. But some of his best accomplishments are irritating his customers with talk of overcharging them for Internet access.

James L. Dolan, Cablevision — $11.45 million: The Dolan family and Cablevision go together like cookies and milk, but Wall Street can’t help but bet when the family will finally cash out of cable and sell the company to Time Warner or Comcast. With $11 million in salary, stock awards, and bonuses, what’s the hurry?

Joseph Clayton, Dish Network — $9.84 million: Clayton is a Dish freshman, only coming on board 11 months ago. His salary was a paltry $467,000 in 2011. Thank goodness for the $9 mil in stock and bonus pay!

Michael D. White, DirecTV — $5.94 million: Ouch… a pay cut. White made $32.93 million the year before. Now he’ll have to clip coupons from the Sunday newspaper like the rest of us.

Rodger L. Johnson, Knology — $3.13 million: Not bad for running a company almost nobody has heard of and will soon no longer exist.  WideOpenWest bought them out last month.

The Wireline Companies & Their Friends

Stephenson: Blew a $39 billion dollar merger deal with T-Mobile, but walks away with $22 million in pay anyway.

Lowell McAdam, Verizon — $23.1 million: McAdam’s promotion paid handsomely. As former chief operating officer, he only walked home with a little more than $7 million last year. Now he’s earning every penny conjuring up ways he can do away with your cell phone subsidy -and- keep Verizon Wireless’ rates as high as ever.

Randall Stephenson, AT&T — $22.01 million: If you blew a multi-billion dollar merger deal at your company, do you think the only punishment you’d receive is a $5 million pay cut? Stephenson is the cat that fell out of the wireless merger window, and landed on his feet unharmed. Unfortunately the same isn’t true for his customers.

Dan Hesse, Sprint — $11.88 million: His pay is down about $2 million from 2010, and he recently announced he was going to take another pay cut for the team. If anyone deserves hazard pay, Hesse is the man. Wall Street hates him for not following his competitors gouging customers with higher prices and more restrictive service plans and policies. The big money crowd in New York’s financial district already has his going away party well-planned.

Jeff Gardner, Windstream — $9.78 million: His pay is up around $2 million. Windstream can afford it, acquiring companies later stripped clean of employees. PAETEC workers will learn this lesson soon enough. At Windstream, all the money rises to the top… management that is.

George A. Cope, Bell Canada — $9.6 million: His salary more than doubled over 2010 and why not. Bell is the first telecommunications company in North America to be audacious enough to demand an entire country be stripped of flat rate Internet service. That move managed to organize 500,000 Canadians that normally are resigned to the fact the revolving door at the Canadian Radio-tv and Telecommunications Commission has locked them out for years. Thanks Bell!

Glen F. Post III, CenturyLink — $8.55 million: Post saw his pay slashed from $14.5 million the year before, but merger deals like Qwest (with the corresponding huge bonus for pulling it off) only come once or twice in a career.

Hesse: Wall Street's least-wanted.

Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier — $6.72 million: No, we don’t understand it either. Her pay is down from $8.58 million, but considering Frontier’s current stock price and bottom-rated service, wouldn’t half of this money be better spent on improving broadband in states like West Virginia?

John F. Cassidy, Cincinnati Bell — $6.06 million: Cassidy earned more than two million more the year before. Cincinnati Bell is an aberration in an industry that is convinced the only good thing telecom companies can do is merge with each other to get bigger and bigger.

Paul H. Sunu, FairPoint — $4.25 million: The company that couldn’t find one customer’s business on a service call despite being literally right next door to FairPoint itself, is clawing its way back from bankruptcy and Sunu’s pay package reflects that. He only earned $775,000 the year earlier.

Ian Paul Livingston, BT — $3.8 million: British Telecom’s chief got a modest salary hike in 2011, and the U.K. phone company has done modestly better recognizing better broadband in the key to its future. BT is the AT&T of the United Kingdom, but British salaries are downright frugal compared to the high flyers on this side of the Atlantic.

David A. Wittwer, TDS Telecom — $2.29 million: You can’t complain about a cool $2 million in salary for a company with only around 1.1 million customers.

Ben Verwaayen, Alcatel-Lucent — $2.25 million: His salary dropped slightly from 2010. Alcatel-Lucent could do considerably better if they can win the public policy debate that fiber optic broadband is the wave of the future. Alcatel-Lucent is a major player.

Your contract with Sprint ends in June, but why wait, beckons the cell phone company, when you can upgrade your phone today (with a new two-year service agreement).

Two years earlier, providers wheeled and dealed upgrade-reluctant customers, particularly those considering their first smartphone, thanks to the bill shock that results when customers see a $30 mandatory data plan added to their monthly bill.  Sprint went one step further, handing 4G-capable customers Clearwire WiMAX — a technology even Russian cell phone companies can’t wait to abandon — and added a $10 premium data surcharge for the privilege.

In Sprint’s favor: their willingness to deal discounts on phone upgrades and their truly unlimited data plans. But while Sprint continues to bank on unlimited data, the bill on cheap phone upgrades may now be coming due.

The American wireless industry is increasingly taking a page from the airlines, adopting irritating fees and surcharges while curtailing the perks and rewards that used to come with customer loyalty and family plans that routinely run into the hundreds of dollars.

Equipment Upgrade Fees

Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile all have a nasty surprise in store for customers who have not upgraded their smartphones in the last year or so: the equipment upgrade fee.  Sprint and AT&T both charge $36 per phone, Verizon Wireless now charges $30, T-Mobile $18.

Verizon customers are especially peeved because that wireless company used to reward loyal customers with a $50 credit off any new phone at contract renewal time. Today, instead of getting “New Every Two” discounts, Big Red will charge you $30 for every new phone when you renew your contract.

Verizon’s excuse is that the new fee will be used to offer customer “wireless workshops” and “online educational tools,” according to Verizon spokeswoman Brenda Rayney. The company also claims the fees will cover more sophisticated consultations with “company experts” that are trained to provide advice and guidance on today’s sophisticated smartphones. In other words, these fees are supposed to compensate Verizon’s store and kiosk employees.

For people like my cousin, upgrading to a new Sprint phone at contract renewal time is an exercise in frustration. In addition to the $149-199 subsidized equipment price, Sprint now tacks on a $36 upgrade fee (per phone).  What miffs him is that Sprint is treating new customers better than existing ones, willing to waive one-time activation fees (coincidentally the same $36) for new customers, but steadfastly refusing to credit equipment upgrade fees for existing loyal customers.

Sprint will tell you they are not alone charging upgrade fees, and they would be right. All four major national carriers now charge the fees, effectively a penalty when customers decide to upgrade their phones.

Many also find it nearly impossible to get companies like Verizon Wireless to waive the fees, even when some of their best customers ask.

“Verizon Wireless was willing to throw away my 12 year account, earning them more than $500 a month in revenue, over the upgrade fee issue,” reports Stan Dershau. “Our contract expired this month and it was time for new phones, and Verizon absolutely insisted that we pay $150 in upgrade fees for new equipment on our account, even after the $600 they’ll collect from the smartphones we intended to buy.”

Dershau found absolutely nobody willing to relent on Verizon’s upgrade fees. Even supervisors told him the company has a no-waiver policy that is strictly enforced, and they could do little more than offer a token service credit even if Dershau threatened to take his business somewhere else.

“I haven’t decided what to do yet, but I canceled my upgrade plans for now,” he reports.

Dershau was always able to get Verizon to waive earlier fees because of the monthly business he brings them, but those days are over.

“It’s a whole different attitude with them now,” Dershau says. “They just want money.”

AT&T's fine print.

Ben Popken recently wrote about his efforts to avoid Verizon’s $30 upgrade fee, with mixed results.

Verizon’s suggested solution is to sell your old phones back to the company through their trade-in program, using the money to offset the equipment upgrade fee. But unless you own an iPhone, Verizon’s trade-in offers are strictly low-ball, often under $30 on non-Apple phones. That leaves you with a slightly lower upgrade fee and the loss of your old phone, which Verizon may recycle or resell refurbished to someone else.

Popken explains he found one convoluted way around Verizon’s fees:

First, start a new line of service with the new phone you want. Then, port your old phone number to a 3rd party service, like Google Voice (here’s a guide from Lifehacker on doing so). Lastly, cancel the line with the old phone and port the old phone number back onto the new phone, thus keeping the new phone, the old number, and dodging the fee. But there’s a catch. It only works if you wait three months to port the number back. If you do it before then, Verizon’s system treats it like you’re continuing the same service, and they hit you with the $30 upgrade fee. Curses.

Popken forgets, however, that Google itself charges a $20 fee to port cell phone numbers to Google Voice, eliminating 2/3rds of your potential savings.

In fact, outside of purchasing a phone at the full, unsubsidized price from a third party, Verizon’s $30 fee will be visiting your phone bill sooner or later, if you decide to upgrade.

The Phone Subsidy: Slaying North America’s Sacred Cow Wireless Business Model

Consumers who crave the newest smartphones should thank their lucky stars they live in Canada or the United States, where the wireless industry heavily discounts the upfront cost of the phone when customers sign a service contract. But phone companies like AT&T and Verizon are not giving you a gift. In return for fronting a discount of as much as $400, companies set their monthly rates higher to recoup that subsidy over the life of your two-year contract.

That worked fine when cell phone companies only paid a few hundred dollars for basic phones. But today’s most popular smartphones can cost companies $400 each, and that upfront revenue hit has annoyed Wall Street for years. Even worse, while providers hand you a discounted phone, they’ve already paid the asking price to companies like Apple and Samsung, who book that revenue immediately and never have to worry about a customer skipping out on their contract.

Wall Street has been putting pressure on companies to do something about the expensive phone subsidies, and companies are responding. The equipment upgrade fee, increased activation fees, and rising monthly service charges are all a part of a greater plan to discourage customers from upgrading their phones and increase profits.

Wall Street analysts love every part of it, especially if companies can do away with equipment subsidies -and- maintain today’s pricing:

“Optimism has increased that we are witnessing the leading edge of a more disciplined, and more profitable, future,” Craig Moffett, a telecom analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a recent research note. The question now, he wrote, is how much carriers can increase their profits thanks to “increased discipline and pricing power.”

The answer could be quite a lot. A marketplace experiment in Spain is being closely watched by wireless phone companies worldwide and could be coming to Canada and the United States before your next two-year contract is up for renewal.

In March, Telefónica SA, Spain’s largest cell phone company, stopped subsidizing smartphones for new customers. Vodafone, which co-owns Verizon Wireless, quickly followed.

As a result, Spanish customers looking for an iPhone will now pay $800 to purchase the phone at full price, or they can sign up for an “installment plan” that will add $45 a month to their cell phone bill for the next 18 months. Both companies say the new policy won’t apply to existing customers, in an effort to discourage them from switching companies.

Telefónica anticipates the changes will slash as least 25% off of their spending. Instead of fronting subsidies to attract new customers, the phone company will increase subsidies for existing customers who agree to stay. Unfortunately for Telefónica, early results are not promising. More than 500,000 customers left the same month the new policy was announced.

A handful of smaller Spanish players see the move by both major companies as a competitive opportunity to win over new customers. Orange, for example, has not stopped offering subsidies and as a result Telefónica has lost potential new customers who signed with Orange instead. The “churn rate” of customers coming and going remains a concern for company executives. But so far, Telefónica considers getting rid of phone subsidies more important than the customers they have forfeit over the new policy.

“We are pretty firm on our strategy of trying to change the paradigm of the sector, […] devoting the bulk of our efforts to our existing customers and, therefore, trying to move away from incentivizing churn of our customers either from us or from the others,” said company CEO Cesareo Alierta Izuel. “We are very firm on this new handset strategy. We need to fight to see if the trend is going to the right direction. And again, we think it is.”

The Wall Street Journal reports Telefónica’s bold plan has caught the attention of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, who sees it as a potential profit booster, and McAdam expects Verizon may cautiously follow the Spanish company’s lead.

“We’ll probably offer some things like that, and then we’ll see what the adoption is like,” McAdam said. “You can’t push this on customers before customers are ready for it.”

For now, some customers are not even ready for equipment upgrade fees. My cousin’s upgrade plans remain on hold for now, as are those of the Dershau family.

“I am not going to be browbeaten into paying these unjustified fees,” Dershau said. “Where does it stop?”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Dodging Verizon’s New 30 Upgrade Fee 5-9-12.flv[/flv]

Ben Popken talks about trying to avoid Verizon’s $30 equipment upgrade fee.  (3 minutes)

Phillip "An Ex-Frontier Customer" Dampier

The other week while sitting in the dentist’s office waiting for my wallet to be drilled, I overheard a conversation at the reception desk over the latest effort by Frontier Communications to shoot itself in the proverbial foot.

“I decided to get rid of my phone line the other day and when I called Frontier to disconnect, I was told I would owe them more than $150 in disconnection fees for a contract I never knew I had with them,” opened the conversation.

“That happened to my sister as well, and she couldn’t believe it because nobody ever told her she was on a contract,” came the reply.

“I never knew I was either, and I told the representative they needed to show me where I signed up for anything like that or else I’m not paying it,” insisted the latest victim of Frontier’s phantom service contracts.

Within a minute or two, all had decided they were done doing business with the phone company that got its start more than 100 years ago as the well-regarded Rochester Telephone Corporation.  In 2012, there was no turning back after $150 “disconnect” penalties and other insults.  They were intent on being rid of Frontier once and for all.

With customer unfriendly policies like that, it comes as no surprise Frontier has been losing customers in the Rochester market for years, mostly to cell phone providers or Time Warner Cable — the latter which delivers more value and far superior broadband speed in western New York communities not served by Verizon FiOS.

Surprise... you're on a contract with a $150 cancellation penalty.

Twenty years ago, Rochester Telephone delivered excellent value, charging about half what then-NYNEX customers in Buffalo and Syracuse paid for telephone service. But as Frontier has increasingly disengaged from being an aggressive contender for telecommunications services in Rochester, people in this region of one million noticed, especially when Verizon’s fiber to the home service arrived in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and beyond.

What did Frontier offer? Not much. Frontier’s local general manager Ann Burr, who used to be in charge at Time Warner Cable locally, told local media Rochester didn’t need faster broadband speeds. That’s a fitting argument for a company that doesn’t deliver them and believes 3Mbps broadband is plenty fast enough.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave, so long as you aren’t trapped with that long-term service contract you never knew you had. (The New York Attorney General’s office has already spanked Frontier once for the practice, forcing them to issue refunds, and judging from last week’s conversation, it appears the problem has not abated.)

The fact is, Frontier offers little compelling to the landline customers they have left.

Rochester’s experience with Frontier seems apropos when contemplating the phone company’s latest quarterly results, which one analyst called “ugly.” Having listened to at least a dozen of Frontier’s quarterly conference calls with investors over the past three years, there seems to be no shortage of promises of better days to come.  Frontier is among the few companies I have heard call customer losses of 5-11% every quarter “an improvement.”

As one investor put it, the management at Frontier should win an Academy Award for feigned optimism.

This week, the company announced first-quarter earnings fell 51% thanks to lower revenue earned from the dwindling number of residential and business customers. But better days are ahead, really.

Road to nowhere?

Frontier has spent the last year treating their “system conversion” for ex-Verizon territories as the telecom equivalent of the Holy Grail.  Once achieved, the company can do anything. The reorganization underway internally at the company is supposed to improve its lackluster customer service, generate more marketing opportunities, save the company money, and open the door to a new chapter of a unified Frontier family, with ex-Verizon and always-Frontier employees coming together to do things “the Frontier way.”

How much longer investors will stick around waiting for the promised land remains an open question. The stock has already achieved a 52-week low, and if the company cuts its dividend — the primary point of attraction for investors — it will drop much lower.

Frontier’s management decisions have effectively left the company between a rock (Wall Street) and a hard place (its dwindling customers).  Much of the company’s success is predicated on rural broadband/landline service, where the company expects to face little competition.  But Verizon, the company that sold them much of their inherited network, has a little surprise for them.  After selling off the “junk” (a deteriorating copper landline network they no longer care much about), the company’s wireless division is coming back to town to poach Frontier’s customers.

Verizon’s grand plan is to pitch two products:

1. Home Phone Connect: Verizon’s landline replacement works with the customer’s home phones over Verizon Wireless’ network. Customers can share minutes on an existing Verizon Wireless plan for $9.99 a month or get unlimited calling for $19.99 a month. It comes with most popular calling features included.
2. Verizon HomeFusion Broadband: Verizon Wireless has excess capacity in rural areas, especially on 4G LTE-equipped towers, so why not put it to use? While commanding a premium at $60 a month for just 10GB of usage, customers who value speed over money may tolerate that diamond price.  If Verizon finds a way to relax that usage limit and lower prices, it could present a real competitive threat to phone companies delivering lower end DSL service.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Home Phone Connect – Home Phone Transfer Verizon Wireless.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless introduces Home Phone Connect, a product designed to tell landline companies like Frontier to take a hike.  (2 minutes)

While Verizon isn’t likely to immediately grab major market share with either product, it foreshadows an intent to leverage their rural wireless network to remain a player, even in places where they have abandoned selling landline service.

How to Stop the Erosion

Turning things around? Frontier contemplates licensing U-verse from AT&T

Even in a barely-competitive marketplace, companies must invest to keep up. But that investment annoys Wall Street, which can depress the stock (and the all-important dividend). But improved service retains customers (and may even win a few ex-customers back). So news that Frontier was considering licensing U-verse technology to upgrade their major markets is a logical first step to stop the bleeding. Frontier is irrelevant delivering broadband at speeds of 3Mbps at out the door prices that meet or exceed what the much-faster cable competition charges. U-verse would allow Frontier to deliver faster broadband (up to 24Mbps is plenty fast for a lot of consumers), build its own IPTV offering instead of relying on satellite dish reseller agreements, and maintain landline customers, assuming the company prices its bundle correctly.

While we are big proponents of fiber-to-the-home service, it is clear Frontier will never spend the money to deliver it, even to their largest service areas. They will prefer the cheaper route of fiber to the neighborhood, relying on existing copper infrastructure to connect individual homes to the service. It represents a reasonable first step.

Frontier also must continue aggressive investments in their broadband network in more rural areas. Some of the company’s regional backbones remain woefully congested, and the company just doesn’t deliver the speeds it markets on its website in too many areas.

High speed should really mean "high speed"

Jameson, a Stop the Cap! reader, is a good example. He signed up for “Frontier Max DSL” which claims it can deliver up to 6Mbps in his part of east-central Indiana.  He ended up with 1.6Mbps instead, in part of because Frontier’s records were inaccurate.

I called Frontier tech support after reading some stuff on Stop the Cap! and another site, learning that since I live under 5000 feet from the DSL termination point (the Frontier building down the road) that I shouldn’t have any problems getting their highest speeds. I got lucky and got a customer support agent who understood my problem, and a tech support guy who genuinely seemed concerned about my issue. The tech guy checked Frontier’s records and I was labeled as being 30,000 feet from the building, but I’m really only around 4200 feet away, and my speeds were provisioned at 1.6mbps down and around 450kbps up. He put in a support ticket to have my speeds automatically raised up to the max I’m paying for.

Jameson ended up with around 7Mbps — a little better than the advertised speed, but only because he thought to ask and reached the right people at Frontier to follow through.

Some of our readers in West Virginia are not so lucky, having the mediocre speeds they fought to receive reduced further when a technician suddenly remotely adjusts speed provisioning on customer equipment to reduce their maximum broadband speed.

Frontier’s DSL problems don’t just exist in rural areas. We experienced it first-hand in 2009 when the company advertised up to 10Mbps speeds in Rochester, and delivered 3.1Mbps to us instead.

Consumer Reports documents this is not an isolated problem, with only two-thirds of Frontier customers getting the broadband speeds they pay to receive. If and when a competitor does better, Frontier loses another customer.

Finally, Frontier must improve its customer service. The company is notorious for giving inconsistent answers to customer questions, doesn’t always follow through on commitments, and maintains far too many “gotcha” terms and conditions on contracts that leave customers exposed to unjustified early termination fees.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNET Verizon HomeFusion Broadband May 2012.flv[/flv]

CNET shows off the equipment used with Verizon’s new HomeFusion wireless broadband service.  (2 minutes)

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson is kicking himself over his decision to allow “unlimited use” plans on AT&T’s wireless network.

Speaking at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference last Wednesday, Stephenson took the audience on a journey through AT&T’s transformation from a landline provider into a company that today sees wireless as the source of the majority of its revenue and future growth.  But the company left a lot of revenue on the table when it offered “unlimited data” for smartphone customers, particularly those using Apple’s iPhone.  It’s a mistake Stephenson wishes he never made.

“My only regret was how we introduced pricing in the beginning… thirty dollars and you get all you can eat and it’s a variable cost model,” Stephenson complained. “Every additional megabyte you use in this network, I have to invest capital. So get the pricing right. Our average revenue [per customer] has been increasing every single quarter since we started down this path.”

Stephenson admitted AT&T’s problems were created by the company itself when it embraced its transformation into a wireless power player.

Years earlier, the current CEO green-lit a new “smartphone” after a visit from Apple proposing a new device that used a touch screen to make calls, launch applications, and surf the wireless web.  It was called the iPhone.

AT&T’s first iPhone, Stephenson said, was not a major problem for AT&T and did not even launch on the company’s growing 3G network. In 2007, the Apple iPhone came pre-loaded with a selection of apps and used AT&T 2G network to move data.  Stephenson said Apple’s launch of a new iPhone in 2008 that worked on AT&T’s 3G network, along with a new App Store that allowed customers to do more with their phones, changed everything.  By 2009, AT&T’s network was overloaded with data traffic in many areas.

“[There] were volumes [of traffic] that nobody had ever anticipated and we had anticipated big volumes of growth,” Stephenson said.

In Stephenson’s view, AT&T’s solution to the traffic problem early on should have been a change to the pricing model, eliminating flat rate service at the first sign of network congestion.

“I wish we had moved quicker to change the pricing model to make sure that people that were consuming the bandwidth were paying for the bandwidth and [instead] we had a model where the high end users were being subsidized by the low end users,” he said.

Stephenson acknowledged the company has service issues in large American cities like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and blames them on a combination of voracious wireless data usage and spectrum shortages.  However, industry observers also note that many of AT&T’s service woes may have come from an unwillingness to invest in sufficient network upgrades as aggressively as other carriers, which have not experienced the same level of network congestion and the resulting steep declines in customer satisfaction AT&T has endured for the last three years.

But the ongoing congestion problems have not hurt AT&T’s revenue and profits.  Stephenson admitted that in 2006, AT&T earned almost nothing from wireless data and made between 30-32% margin selling voice and texting service.

“Today, we’re a $20 billion data revenue company and we’re operating at 41-42% margins,” Stephenson said.

Despite that improved revenue, AT&T says if they don’t get spectrum relief soon, they are going to keep raising prices on consumers. Stephenson said the company has been increasing prices across the board on data plans, new smartphone ownership, those upgrading phones, as well as reducing certain benefits for long-term customers. Stephenson said these actions were taken because spectrum has become a precious resource and bandwidth scarcity requires the company to tamp down on demand.  But that’s not a message he delivers to Wall Street, telling investors AT&T’s key earnings and increased revenue come from price adjustments and metering data usage.

Stephenson also fretted there is too much competition in America’s wireless marketplace.  That competition is eating up all of the available wireless spectrum, threatening to create a spectrum crisis if the federal government does not rethink spectrum allocation policies, he argued.  Stephenson believes additional industry consolidation is inevitable because of the capital costs associated with network construction and upgrades. He said he was uncertain whether AT&T will be able to participate in that consolidation after failing to win approval of its buyout of T-Mobile USA.

Stephenson believes the days of heavy investment in wired networks are over. Stephenson has systematically sought to transition AT&T away from prioritizing wired services in favor of wireless, a position he has maintained since his earliest days as AT&T’s CEO. The company’s decision to end expansion of U-verse — AT&T’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service, and concentrate investment on wireless is part of Stephenson’s grand vision of a wireless America.  Stephenson noted the real fiber revolution isn’t provisioning fiber to the home, it’s wiring fiber to cell towers to support higher data traffic.

But that traffic doesn’t come to users free. Instead, Stephenson believes leaving the meter on guarantees lower rates of congestion because it makes customers think about what they are doing with their phones. It also brings higher profits for AT&T by charging customers for network traffic.  Stephenson believes that assures the returns Wall Street investors demand, attracting capital to front network investments.

With that in mind, Stephenson still believes AT&T can help solve the data digital divide, where poor families cannot afford to participate in the online revolution. Stephenson said it can be managed by handing the disadvantaged sub-$100 smartphones and $20 data plans, assuming they can afford those prices.

What keeps Stephenson up nights?  Worrying about business model busters that manage end-runs around AT&T’s profitable wireless services.

“Apple iMessage is a classic example,” Stephenson noted. “If you’re using iMessage, you’re not using one of our messaging services, right? That’s disruptive to our messaging revenue stream.”

Stephenson remains fearful its network upgrades will improve wireless data service enough to allow customers to switch to Skype for voice and video calling, depriving AT&T of voice revenue.

But the CEO seems less concerned than some of his predecessors that content producers are enjoying “free rides” on AT&T’s network.

“We in this industry have spent more time bemoaning the thought that Google or Facebook may use our network for free, and it just hasn’t played out that way,” Stephenson said. “I mean they do use it for free, they’re getting a bargain, and that is fine.”

“I believe what will play itself out over time, is that the demand model will change this behavior,” he said. “We’re already at a place where some companies that deliver content are coming to us and saying ‘we would like to do a deal with you where you would give us a class of service to deliver our content to your customers.'”

“The content guys that have been so loud about these issues [Net Neutrality] are now the ones coming to us saying we want these models,” Stephenson argued. “I’ve always believed that is what would play out.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Global Conference 2012 A Conversation With ATT’s Randall Stephenson 5-1-12.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! edited down Randall Stephenson’s appearance at last Wednesday’s conference.  Stephenson faces few challenges as he presents his world-view about AT&T pricing, spectrum allocation policies, network investments vs. data traffic growth, his vision for AT&T’s future, and how much customers will be forced to pay for today’s “spectrum crisis.”  (28 minutes)

Wall Street analysts are predicting the end of free video streaming in the near-term as media and cable companies regain control over online content for themselves.

Cable companies are partnering with content producers to move a growing amount of streamed video content behind paywalls in an effort to protect their core business profits.

The trend is evolving so rapidly, analysts like Laura Martin with Needham & Co. predict the end of free streaming is imminent.  Either customers will pay upfront or use TV Everywhere “authentication platforms” that require evidence of a pay television subscription before being able to watch.

Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford Bernstein, perennially sees cable operators as the most likely winners in the billion-dollar entertainment battle.

“They’re winning the broadband wars,” Moffett says of the cable industry. “Broadband is increasingly the flagship product, not the video distribution business.”

Cable networks and program producers are growing increasingly alarmed at the impact video streaming services like Hulu and Netflix are having on their bottom lines.

Case in point: the fall of Nickelodeon, a popular children’s cable network that used to guarantee high ratings and lucrative ad revenue.  Recently the network has fallen off the ratings cliff.  Some careful analysis found the reason why: Netflix.  Nickelodeon, along with many other cable networks, licensed a number of their series to Netflix for on-demand viewing. In households with young children, parents increasingly choose the on-demand Netflix experience for family viewing over the traditional cable channel.

Moffett

That’s a major problem for content producers and networks, and Moffett quotes industry insiders who predict licensing deals for Netflix streaming will increasingly not be renewed (perhaps at any price) as networks retrench to protect their core business.  What is left will soon be behind paywalls, limited to customers who already subscribe to a pay television service.

That line of thinking is already apparent at Time Warner (Entertainment), Inc., where CEO Jeff Bewkes rarely has a good thing to say about Netflix.  His company refuses to license a significant amount of their content for online streaming because it erodes more profitable viewing elsewhere.

Time Warner only licenses older content and certain “serialized dramas” that have proven difficult to syndicate on traditional broadcast television or cable outlets.  But the company keeps kid shows to itself and its own distribution platforms, like Cartoon Network.

When it does let shows go online, it wants them behind paywalls.

Bewkes applauded Hulu’s recently announced plans to move its service away from free viewing.  Authenticating viewers as pay TV subscribers before they can watch “makes sense” to Bewkes.

“Hulu is moving in the right direction now,” Bewkes said.

Big media companies do not want significant changes to the viewing landscape, where major networks front the costs for the most expensive series, and cable networks commission lower budget programs and repurpose off-network content.  Pay television providers bundle the entire lineup into an enormous package consumers pay to receive. That is the way it will stay if they have their say.

“Just because consumers would rather get individual channels a-la-carte, on-demand, and streamed — only what they want to pay for — [if they think] that is inevitably the way the world if going to evolve, not so fast,” Moffett said. “It may be the way consumers want it and it may be the way technologists want it, but the media companies have a say here.”

“There is no way they are going to voluntarily unbundle themselves,” Moffett said.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Moffett on Cable Operators 4-30-12.mp4[/flv]

Craig Moffett talks about the current state of the media business on Bloomberg News.  He sees trouble ahead for online video streaming, as powerful media and entertainment content distribution companies reposition themselves to better control their content… and the revenue it earns.  The big winners: Cable operators, Hollywood, and major cable networks.  The losers: Consumers, Netflix, Hulu, and free video streaming. (11 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Martin Sees End of Free Streaming TV Content 5-4-12.mp4[/flv]

Laura Martin with Needham & Co. predicts the imminent demise of free video streaming. Media companies can’t handle the loss of control over their programming, and the erosion of viewers (and ad revenue) it brings.  Martin tells Bloomberg News she sees a future of paywalls blocking access to an increasing amount of online video content.  (5 minutes)