AT&T seems to have suddenly discovered it has millions of rural customers who are making due with the company’s poorly-rated, slow speed DSL service AT&T pondered selling off to somebody else.

In a sudden turnaround, CEO Randall Stephenson has decided it might be better to upgrade the company’s service instead of ditching it altogether.

Stephenson’s apparent decision not to jettison rural AT&T landlines on the open market may have more to do with the current regulatory climate than what’s best for shareholders in the short term. AT&T may also find few buyers for the millions of rural landlines the company has no plans to upgrade to its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood platform. The most likely would-be buyers are preoccupied with their current operations:

• Frontier Communications, which purchased rural assets from Verizon Communications, is facing an enormous debt payment in 2013 and a declining stock price;
• FairPoint Communications, which owns former Verizon landlines in northern New England, is still trying to make its business plan work after an earlier bankruptcy filing;
• CenturyLink is still attempting to absorb former-Baby Bell Qwest into its network;
• Windstream may be too small to buy the millions of customers in multiple states AT&T seemed to no longer want until recently.

Stephenson told investors at a Sanford C. Bernstein conference that the company is now considering keeping its rural customers and upgrading DSL technology to better serve them.

A DSLAM reduces the amount of speed-slowing traditional copper phone wiring between the telephone company's "central office" (CO) and your home's DSL modem.

With 15 million AT&T customers having no prospect of getting AT&T’s U-verse service, and 5 million without any AT&T broadband options at all, Stephenson says investment in Internet Protocol Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers, better-known as IP DSLAMs, could extend service and also improve speeds for existing DSL customers, and not cost the company a fortune.

Stephenson noted the cost of the equipment needed to extend service has dropped considerably, in part because demand for DSL has been in decline as customers seek faster broadband, often from cable operators. The two largest phone companies in the country — AT&T and Verizon — had also shown little interest in further expanding their DSL networks.

For a reasonable investment on service upgrades, AT&T could bring speeds of 10Mbps or more to certain customers who now live with 6Mbps or less.

The challenge AT&T faces is reducing the amount of legacy copper telephone wiring between the phone company’s switching office and the customer. Customers who live more than 10,000 feet from a central office make due with very slow DSL speeds. Replacing some of that copper wiring with fiber optics can dramatically increase speeds.

AT&T U-verse works on a similar concept, except AT&T’s most advanced service needs as little copper phone wiring as possible. AT&T’s newest proposal for its rural customers would represent a middle ground — extending fiber to a handful of DSLAMs at distant points from the central exchange, with copper phone wiring carrying the signal the rest of the way to the subscriber’s home. This would open the door to DSL for customers who could not purchase the service before. It would also boost speeds for existing customers.

The decision marks a departure from AT&T’s interest in “solving” the rural broadband problem with heavily usage-limited wireless Internet access over its 4G network. Verizon Wireless is currently testing its own wireless broadband service designed for home users, but it costs $60 and only provides 10GB per month of usage.

While Stephenson has not backed away completely from selling off rural customers outside of U-verse service areas, he told investors he now has a more optimistic view of AT&T’s rural folk in light of marketplace changes.

“We are giving this a hard look,” Stephenson told investors on a recent JPMorgan conference call. Already-available DSLAM technology “brings broadband capability in a more cost-effective manner, with a better revenue profile than perhaps we would have thought two years ago.”

Rogers Communications has mailed letters to rural Canadians announcing it will cease operation of its Portable Internet wireless broadband service effective March 1, 2012.

The service, which uses the Inukshuk Wireless network, delivers Internet access to over 150 communities across mostly rural-northern Canada, where DSL and cable broadband is simply unavailable.  Customers were paying $45 a month for up to 3Mbps service with a 30GB usage cap.

Rogers’ decision will now force most of those customers to use the company’s far more expensive 3G wireless network, which runs far slower and has substantially lower usage allowances.  How much more expensive?  Rogers’ 3G customers choosing the company’s 3G Flex data plan will pay between $94-104 a month (depending on speed), for a plan with a 15GB usage allowance.  Overlimit fees run $10/GB. Customers using 20GB on Rogers’ 3G Flex will pay the company $144-154 a month for slower service.

“The price disparity is absolutely enormous,” says Stop the Cap! reader Ted who uses Rogers Portable Internet service in Val Caron, Ont., located north of Sudbury.  “You might as well not bother using the Internet at all at these prices.”

Ted says Rogers Portable Internet was never a perfect solution, but it was priced similarly to what larger city residents pay for broadband.

“It’s not really WiMax, which came after Rogers introduced the service, and the speeds and ping times can be appalling if you don’t have good reception, but it was affordable,” Ted says.  “Using 3G service means even slower speeds and lower caps at double the price, which is typical for Rogers.”

Ted points out the 30GB one receives on the Portable Internet service for $45 would correspond to a bill for $25o on 3G — five times the price for worse service.

“I am talking to my wife about buying the Rocket Hub [Roger’s device for mobile broadband] so we have something, because Bell has told us not to expect DSL anytime soon,” Ted notes. “Rural Canada cannot catch a break.”

The other option rural Canadians have is satellite Internet access, but providers like Xplornet have faced withering criticism from customers for poor speeds, network speed throttling, and usage caps.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks sold AWS spectrum in areas shown here to Verizon Wireless, virtually guaranteeing the cable industry will not compete in the wireless phone business.

Two years ago, Cox Communications was hungry to get into the wireless phone business.  It announced it was launching “unbelievably fair” wireless — an oasis in a wireless desert of tricks and traps on offer from competing wireless companies.  No more expiring minutes, the option of affordable flat rate service, and no hidden fees or surcharges were all supposed to be part of the deal.

“Our research found that value and transparency are very important to consumers when choosing a wireless service plan, but they are not finding these qualities in the wireless plans offered today,” Stephen Bye, vice president of wireless said back in 2010, introducing the service. “Total loss of unused minutes as well as unforeseen overage charges on bills are just two examples of what our customers have told us is just unfair.”

Those same issues still exist for wireless customers today, but Cox won’t be a part of the solution.  The company announced this past May it was exiting the competitive arena of wireless and would simply resell Sprint service instead.  Last month, it announced it wouldn’t even bother with that, and will transition its remaining wireless customers directly to Sprint.

What changed Cox’s mind?  The cost of building and operating a wireless network to compete with much larger national companies.  It simply no longer made sense to build a small regional wireless carrier and rent the rest of your national coverage area from other providers, who set wholesale prices at a level high enough to protect them from would-be competitors.

The lesson Cox learned first has now been taught to America’s largest cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable (and its sidekick Bright House Networks).

All three cable operators have effectively signed a non-aggression treaty with Verizon Wireless, agreeing to sell their unused wireless spectrum acquired by auction in 2006 at a 50% markup to Big Red.  In return, Verizon will market cable service to wireless customers.  It’s the ultimate non-compete clause so wide-reaching, Verizon stores will soon be selling Time Warner Cable right next to Verizon FiOS, something unheard of in the telecommunications marketplace.

It’s a win for Verizon Wireless, which accumulates additional wireless spectrum and peace of mind knowing the cable industry will not enter the wireless communications business.  Cable companies get to profit from their purchase of the public airwaves and see the potential of a dramatic reduction in customer poaching, as cable and phone companies stop fighting each other for customers.  Ultimately, it means customers could eventually pay the cable or phone company for all of their telecommunications services from television and broadband to wired and wireless phone service.  What consumers enjoy in one-bill-convenience may eventually come with higher rates made possible from reduced competition.

Verizon Wireless' currently unused AWS spectrum favor the east coast, but not for long.

Verizon will pay $3.6 billion to Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House Networks for the spectrum.  The deal has stockholders cheering because that payment represents a tidy profit for cable operators who did absolutely nothing with the spectrum they purchased five years ago.  It also makes AT&T even more intent on completing its own spectrum merger with T-Mobile USA.

The agreement has concerned consumer advocates because it seems to signal Verizon is content making money primarily from its wireless business, and will repay the favor from the cable industry by pitching phone customers on cable service.  That could ultimately spell big trouble for Verizon’s stalled FiOS fiber-to-the-home network.  Verizon may find it easier and cheaper to end its aggressive entry into Big Cable’s territory by simply reselling traditional cable television products.  It can still market wireless products and services to cable subscribers and not endanger the new atmosphere of goodwill.  Rural broadband, where cable never competes, could be served through wireless spectrum, for example.

For now, Verizon says it intends to continue competing with its FiOS network, but the company stopped deploying the service in new areas nearly two years ago.

The deal will go before regulators at the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission for review.  What will likely concern them the most is the appearance of collusion between the cable companies and Verizon.

“A flag is raised when two rival networks move to start selling each other’s services,” a person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials told the Washington Post. “They lose their desire, impetus, to compete. That is a big antitrust flag.”

Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, expressed serious concern as well.

“Verizon was supposed to be the great competitor for Comcast in the video space, while Comcast has been looking for a wireless play to match the Verizon bundle,” he said. “The deal signals bad news for consumers, who can expect higher prices for video, fewer choices and higher prices for wireless.”

Who owns what

Four years into the deal, consumers may not know what company they are dealing with, as cable operators will be able to market Verizon Wireless service under their own respective cable brand names.

The deal is also trouble for lagging Clearwire, which had been providing wireless broadband service to both Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  Under the agreement, both cable companies will end their relationship with Clearwire, which is particularly bad news for the wireless company because of its ongoing financial distress.  Sprint, which has heavily invested in Clearwire, may ultimately find itself with an investment gone sour, troubling news for the third largest wireless company manning the barricades against a nearly-complete duopoly in wireless service between AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Cable stock cheerleader Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein seems thrilled with the prospect.  In a research note to his Wall Street clients, Moffett says AT&T could benefit from the Verizon pact with Big Cable by ending up in a “more duopolistic industry structure without paying for it.” If the FCC approves the non-aggression pact, the deal “would amount to an unmistakable step towards the duopolization of the U.S. wireless market, inasmuch it would leave T-Mobile, once again, stranded without a 4G strategy.”

Cable investors, he adds, are likely to be excited the cable industry won’t spend billions of dollars in capital building a wireless venture, and instead has agreed to work with competitors to cross-sell products and services.  With little competitive pressure, prices won’t be falling anytime soon.

That’s great news for investors, even if it is “unbelievably unfair” for consumers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Verizon to Buy Wireless Spectrum for 3-6 Billion 12-2-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explains the deal and its implications in the wireless industry spectrum battle.  (2 minutes)

Stop the Cap! reader Davey in Arizona was displeased to receive notification his Internet Service Provider, CommSpeed, suddenly announced an Internet Overcharging scheme that limits customers to two levels of service: a basic $40 plan with a ridiculously stingy 10GB monthly usage allowance, or a more generous (and double the price) $60 plan that comes with a 200GB usage cap.

Davey is particularly upset the company plans to punish customers who exceed the allowance with a stinging $2/GB overlimit fee.  It will not be difficult for customers to blow past  CommSpeed’s standard 10GB plan limit if they discover file backup, online video, or downloading.  If they do, CommSpeed’s overlimit fee will be coming soon to a bill in their mailbox. For those who use the Internet to watch television and movies, the only real options are to watch less or upgrade to a more expensive plan with a more realistic usage allowance that can accommodate high bandwidth applications.

CommSpeed claims their “advanced 4G network combines the best features of cellular, cable modem & DSL, and Wi-Fi networks, without the inherent limitations associated with these legacy systems.”  The company brands itself as “Tomorrow’s Internet Today.”

What they don’t mention is today’s wireless ISP’s are increasingly challenged by the growing usage demands consumers place on providers.  CommSpeed’s claim that their network “was designed and built, from inception, to deliver a full range of broadband content and applications” flies in the face of their 10GB usage limit. Fiber, cable broadband and even telephone company DSL has a better track record handling increasing usage demands, as long as providers maintain investments in their respective networks.

CommSpeed’s usage cap tells the real story — their network may not be able to handle the growing traffic from customers in their northern Arizona service area.

“The Internet has seen tremendous growth in total usage over the last year. New applications are being developed everyday and these applications are causing an ever increasing demand for bandwidth. Quite simply, the content of the Internet has evolved,” CommSpeed explains on a page dedicated to explaining their new caps.

Unfortunately for wireless, until more spectrum and better technology is available, usage limitations are an increasing reality for customers stuck using these networks. It’s why Stop the Cap! rarely recommends wireless broadband as a primary Internet service except as a last resort, when other choices simply are not available.

Still, we’ve seen much worse from other Wireless ISPs.  CommSpeed’s 200GB limit on their $60 tier is more generous than average.  Plus, the company takes the limits off during the overnight hours of midnight to 6AM.

We also think the company’s usage guestimates are a more honest approximation of real-world usage, not the ridiculous “send 10,000,000 e-mails and download 500,000 songs” reassurances we usually see from Internet Overcharging ISPs:

CommSpeed’s old plans ranged in price from $34.95 for basic 768kbps-1.5Mbps service to $54.90 for 1.5-6Mbps service, depending on the technology in use in the area. The new plans bring a $5 rate hike and usage caps — just two reasons why customers like Davey are so upset. They’ll be even more upset if their bill also include overlimit fees. Stay tuned.

[flv width=”608″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CommSpeed 4G – Tomorrow’s Internet Today.flv[/flv]

CommSpeed heavily promotes its newer 4G wireless broadband service, claiming its great for online video, downloading, gaming, and more, as long as you don’t use it too much.  In 2012, CommSpeed throws up limits on their wireless experience.  (3 minutes)

South Africa’s largest Internet Service Provider, the former state-owned telephone company Telkom, has introduced uncapped broadband service across the country.

Telkom’s Do Uncapped offering removes usage limits after “intensive market research” and “data usage trials” concluded South African consumers absolutely despise usage limits on their Internet access.

In fact, in overwhelming numbers, consumers preferred unlimited access over faster broadband speed packages.  Even throttled “fair use” policies which slightly reduce speeds during peak usage periods are more tolerable than restricted usage allowances, overlimit fees, and punishing “dial-up” speeds when customers exceed their usage limit.

“To feed the hunger for data, Telkom has tailored its Do Uncapped range according to consumer usage patterns derived from findings of the Company’s broadband trials on higher cap trials conducted earlier this year,” the company said in a statement.

Inexpensive, lower speed offerings are available at 384kbps and 1Mbps, but do come with certain daytime speed restrictions, especially on peer to peer traffic.  The premium 4Mbps package is truly unlimited.

South Africa’s challenged telephone network has resulted in relatively low broadband speeds when compared against Asia, North America, and Europe, but the unlimited offerings are being welcomed by Telkom customers across the country.

Because DSL service from the phone company has traditionally been slow and, until recently, expensive, many South Africans rely primarily on wireless mobile services, which can be more reliable in some parts of the country.  Some purchase wireless broadband service from providers like MTN instead of DSL from the phone company.

As a home broadband replacement, wireless mobile broadband has always meant compromising on usage, because most plans are heavily capped and some block access to certain web content.  But MTN is responding to Telkom’s move away from usage caps by removing them from its own wireless network, at least during a promotion.

MTN is kicking off the South African summer with its newest promotion, unlimited speed and uncapped wireless data access on the company’s HSPA+ network, effective Oct. 1.

The limits stay off until the end of summer — Jan 2012.

“We have seen a significant number of our customers taking up latest smartphones, tablet PCs, wireless routers and laptop deals that MTN is offering,” said Serame Taukobong, MTN South Africa Chief Marketing Officer. “This promotion is a response to the increased data appetite that comes with the usage of these devices.”

That’s an attitude foreign to North American mobile operators, who see those devices as enemies of their wireless network (or the basis for future profits).  In South Africa, consumers adopting new wireless devices and increased usage has triggered a marketplace response that eases or ends usage caps.  In North America, the opposite is happening.

MTN has slashed its mobile broadband prices over the course of 2011 for the highest speed, unlimited access package from a budget-busting $248 a month to $111 a month.  A slower speed unlimited package now sells for $37 a month.  That becomes very affordable for Internet users who use their mobile devices exclusively for access.  Even a package selling over $100 a month may be comparably affordable to an American who is required to maintain a home broadband and mobile broadband account.

MTN even allows wireless peer to peer traffic, but the company asks subscribers to be reasonable and not leave it running 24/7.