Verizon Wireless is expected to enter the Alaskan mobile market sometime in 2013-2014, according to incumbent competitors, who expect Verizon’s largest impact will be to bleed AT&T of customers.

Alaska’s two primary local providers — Alaska Communications, Inc. (ACS) and General Communications, Inc. (GCI), are telling shareholders to relax because they don’t expect to see Big Red in the Alaskan market for at least 2-3 years.  Both companies reported net losses for the quarter, and GCI lost 2,400 subscribers recently when more than 4,000 soldiers at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks were deployed to Afghanistan.

Both ACS and GCI have been using the current poor economic climate and their respective stockpiles of cash-on-hand to retire debt or reissue long-term-debt at more favorable low interest rates.  Both companies are also hurrying to outdo each other’s 4G wireless network deployments before Verizon Wireless shows up, making use of spectrum it acquired last August to enter the Alaskan market.  Government rules require Verizon to sign-on its new network by June 13, 2013.  But Verizon admits it will take up to five years after that to completely build a new network from scratch.

Right now, Verizon Wireless customers taking their phones to Alaska roam on ACS’ network, for which the company is compensated with an increasing amount of extra revenue.  ACS boosted earnings in part on that roaming revenue, even as it lost more of its own customers.  When Verizon switches on its own network, that roaming revenue will rapidly decline, but ACS executives reassured shareholders their knowledge and experience of construction seasons in Alaska guarantee Verizon won’t be able to get its network together until 2013 at the earliest.

But when Verizon opens their doors, Ron Duncan, CEO of GCI expects a hard fight on his hands.

“We recognize ultimately they’ll be a significant competitor, although I see AT&T share more at risk because Verizon’s main claim to fame when they get to Alaska is going to be devices. We’ll still outpace them on coverage. We’ll continue to be the only ones with statewide coverage,” Duncan said. “People who want to buy the coverage buy from us today; people who want devices buy from AT&T because AT&T gets much better devices than we do.”

Just months after Verizon announced they were headed north, both ACS and GCI accelerated plans to roll out respective “4G” networks for wireless customers, although each company is deploying different standards.

GCI

GCI’s cell phone network is a combination of some of its own infrastructure, the acquisition of Alaska Digitel, and a resale agreement to use parts of AT&T Wireless’ coverage it acquired from Dobson Communications Systems.  In and around Fairbanks, Anchorage, Glennallen, Valdez, Prudhoe Bay, Wasilla, and Kenai, GCI offers CDMA service.  In those communities and many other rural regions in western Alaska, GCI relies on AT&T Alascom GSM networks.  GCI pitches its CDMA network’s 3G wireless data capabilities, which offer faster wireless data speeds, if you can get coverage.  For wider coverage in Alaska’s smaller communities, GCI markets GSM phones, which currently only offer 2G EDGE/GPRS data speeds.  If you use a cell phone mostly for voice calls, the wider coverage afforded by GCI’s GSM network is a popular choice.  But if you want faster data, CDMA 3G data speeds are required.

Eventually, GCI’s 4G network may help deliver coverage and faster speeds in both urban and rural areas, particularly as GCI plans to invest up to $100 million to construct more of its own network, instead of relying on resale agreements and acquisitions.

GCI has chosen HSPA+ for 4G service on the GSM network, and will introduce the service in Anchorage later this month.  That’s the same standard used by AT&T and T-Mobile in some areas.  It’s not as fast as LTE service from Verizon Wireless, but is much cheaper to deploy because cell sites need not be linked with fiber optic cables — an expensive proposition.

ACS

Alaska Communications has a large 3G CDMA network in Alaska all its own.  Its coverage is primarily in eastern Alaska adjacent to major cities like Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks, and where it does provide 3G data coverage, the company claims it extends further out than GCI.  ACS doesn’t offer much coverage in small villages and communities in western Alaska, however.

ACS expects to skip incremental upgrades and launch its own 4G LTE service in the future.  It may help the company regain its second place standing, lost to GCI last year, and protect it from Verizon Wireless poaching its customers.

Don’t like the prospects of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and worried your AT&T bill will increase as a result?  If you are an AT&T on-contract customer, the New York law firm of Bursor & Fisher wants to talk to you.

Scott A. Bursor, the founding partner of the firm, says he wants to represent AT&T customers to help stop the proposed merger, or win significant financial concessions on behalf of those who could face skyrocketing cell phone bills as a result of reduced competition in the marketplace:

AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile would turn back the clock to the era of the Ma Bell monopoly. The deal would give AT&T and Verizon control over 80% of the wireless market, would stifle the competitive market forces that would otherwise help to keep prices down, and would stifle new products and innovation.

AT&T’s claim that the takeover will help improve network quality makes no sense. T-Mobile’s network overlaps almost entirely AT&T’s. And AT&T already has more spectrum than any other company. In most areas, AT&T already holds at least 40 MHz of spectrum it is not even using. AT&T is keeping that spectrum off the market, which prevents competitors from using it to provide better service at lower prices.

Turning back the clock to the Ma Bell monopoly era will allow AT&T and Verizon to dictate what type of phone you can use, how you can use it, and what you will pay. It will destroy competition, leading to higher prices and worse service.

Since AT&T’s wireless contracts specifically prohibit customers from suing the company for any reason, the law firm seeks to pursue the alternative “mandatory arbitration” specified by AT&T in an effort to either derail the merger or force the price much higher.

Customers who retain the law firm on their website can expect the firm to follow four steps that could bring arbitration awards as high as $10,000 per customer:

First, when you sign up, you will receive a confirmation email with a copy of our retainer agreement. We will also provide you with the an email address where you can contact us if you have any questions or concerns about the process.

Second, shortly after you sign up, we will send a letter on your behalf by certified mail to AT&T giving them notice that you intend to file an arbitration seeking to enjoin the takeover of T-Mobile. This is the first hoop you have to jump through to bring an arbitration under the fine print of AT&T’s Arbitration Agreement. We will send you a copy of that letter by email.

Third, if AT&T does not agree to cease and desist from completing the merger within 30 days, we will file a demand for arbitration on your behalf with the American Arbitration Association. The demand will include extensive evidence and legal authority we have gathered to prove that AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile will harm competition in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act. We will email you a copy arbitration demand when it is filed.

Fourth, our team of lawyers will litigate your arbitration case aggressively to make sure that your arbitration rights, and your rights under the antitrust laws, are protected. If we are successful, we may seek a $10,000 payment for you.

Bursor

AT&T scoffs at the effort, releasing a statement calling Bursor & Fisher’s actions “completely without merit.” Company officials also claimed arbitrators have no standing to block a corporate merger, hinting the endeavor may be more about winning the law firm a substantial payout than representing the interests of consumers.

Bursor & Fisher are not pursuing AT&T for free.  The attorneys will deduct 50 percent of any award as their contingency fee — a percentage considerably higher than the more common 33-40 percent attorneys usually deduct, and this does not include further reductions to cover any “costs” advanced by the firm.

We found this somewhat curious, considering AT&T’s own arbitration legalese already provides for an attorney premium in their award — twice the amount of any legal fees and reimbursement of expenses.  So deducting an additional 50 percent and taking fees from any consumer awards seems like a case of unfair double-dipping.

But since you are not obligated to pay a cent in fees, anything you might manage to walk away with is more than you started with.

Verizon Wireless customers who subscribed to the company’s legacy America’s Choice wireless plans are receiving notification of a pending class action settlement between Verizon Wireless and two law firms that will bring a handful of free calling minutes to impacted customers while netting up to $6 million for the attorneys bringing the suit.

At issue was a dispute over whether Verizon Wireless properly provided roaming service for customers under America’s Choice I and II calling plans.  The plaintiffs claimed the company charged roaming rates for calls that should have been covered by the wireless plans at no additional charge.  Verizon Wireless denies the claims, but has agreed to settle the case.

Unfortunately for average consumers, the proposed award is a pittance — 25 additional wireless calling minutes that you can use for a period of one year if you go over your monthly minutes allowance.  Former Verizon Wireless customers, and those who don’t want that award, can alternatively select a Verizon calling card good for “40 units” of domestic or international long distance, good for two years.  That amounts to around 40 minutes of calling in North America, considerably less for international calls.  The only cash being handed out goes to three Ohio plaintiffs, who will receive up to $20,000 each.  But the real prize goes to two Cincinnati law firms — Strauss & Troy and Statman, Harris & Eyrich LLC, who are seeking a payout of up to $6 million.

The firms defend their request claiming they spent more than five years in litigation with Verizon Wireless, which has long since discontinued signing up new customers to either calling plan.  While a judge reviews the proposed settlement, Verizon has taken to e-mailing most impacted customers.  If you missed yours, you can track the progress of the suit on the official website for the Cowit v. Cellco Proposed Class Action Settlement.  You can also claim your minutes starting now, before the deadline of November 8, 2011.

The impact of the last minute stampede by Verizon Wireless customers (new or otherwise) to lock in the company’s unlimited data plans before they were retired last week has reached Wall Street, but the ripples extend far beyond Verizon Wireless itself.

Macquarie USA analyst Kevin Smithen this morning downgraded AT&T stock to “neutral,” expressing concern about AT&T’s slowed growth in wireless revenues.

“We see increased headwinds to wireless revenue growth, limited improvement in enterprise and a lack of clarity on the status of the [pending acquisition of T-Mobile],” he writes. “We view projected organic revenue growth of 0.5% in 2012 as uninspiring. At current levels, we believe absolute and relative risk-reward to roughly balanced given these issues.”

Customers concerned about Internet Overcharging schemes being implemented by Verizon Wireless began fleeing other providers to “lock in” unlimited data service with Verizon before it was nigh.  One big victim of that was AT&T.

“We were waiting for the next iPhone to finally jump to Verizon, even if it meant paying a termination fee to AT&T, just to escape the dreadful service,” says Shai Lee, who was among several dozen readers contacting Stop the Cap! for assistance securing unlimited data plans with Big Red.  “When Verizon announced $30 for 2GB, there was no way we were going to be locked into paying that, so we jumped early.”

Many followed.

Smithen believes customers are also fleeing other carriers, especially T-Mobile, which he believes will lose two million customers before AT&T closes the deal or faces ultimate rejection for its merger by Washington regulators.

Some analysts believe T-Mobile customers are leaving over a combination of the company’s inherent weakness as a provider-now-in-limbo while others dread the reality of being ultimately stuck with AT&T.

“It’s like fleeing a country before the invading army reaches your town,” shares Samuel, a T-Mobile customer leaving for Verizon. “I won’t live under AT&T’s regime.”

Smithen sees even greater challenges for AT&T with the arrival of iPhone 5, which will either cost the company to subsidize or start another wave of AT&T emigration.

Verizon has already managed to secure 32 percent of the U.S. iPhone 4 market, according to a study by the mobile analytics company Localytics.  Since rumors about Verizon imminently ending unlimited data plans began in May of this year, Localytics has tracked a spike in Verizon iPhone purchases, one explained by existing customers upgrading to smartphones, and new customers arriving from other carriers.

For AT&T, customers on contract with smartphones are not adding additional services and those with data plans are trying to stay within plan limits, robbing AT&T of extra revenue.

Smithen says with this track record, average revenue per customer is “stalling.”

Is this a T-Mobile priority coverage zone?

One of the “benefits” AT&T’s lobbying team claims will come with a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is improved wireless service for rural America.

But an investigation into T-Mobile’s urban-focused coverage, and AT&T’s own recent rural past prove those claimed benefits simply don’t make any sense.

Although rural and small town America is increasingly aware of AT&T, that comes mostly from the company’s recent acquisitions, not from mass expansion projects to blanket rural America with AT&T iPhones.  AT&T has been on a shopping spree for smaller regional wireless carriers for the last five years, picking up resources through acquisition, not from independent investment.  But a buyout of T-Mobile will bring no new assets for AT&T’s presence in rural America.  It will simply reduce competition in larger communities the same way AT&T cut out competitors in rural markets.

Just ask customers of Dobson Cellular.  In 2007, AT&T bought the rural provider, doing business as Cellular One, for $2.8 billion dollars and converted customers to AT&T.  Dobson was the largest cell phone company around in Alaska and rural Michigan.  In fact, the company provided roaming capability to customers of AT&T and T-Mobile who ventured into the rural areas Dobson specialized in serving.

After the conversion, did service improve for the newly acquired AT&T customers?

“No way,” says ex-Cellular One customer Jim Duncan who lives in a former Dobson service area in Michigan. “AT&T ruined cell phone service when they got here with dropped calls and phantom busy signals, turning a friendly local-focused company into one where you are just an account number reaching some national call center.”

Acquired by AT&T in 2007

Duncan says AT&T never cared one bit about rural Michigan before buying Dobson, and in his view, still doesn’t.

“Smaller markets are an afterthought for AT&T and T-Mobile has zero impact (and customers) in my area, so I have no idea what great improvements a merger will bring to our part of Michigan that neither company paid much attention to,” Duncan says.

That same year, AT&T also grabbed spectrum worth $2.5 billion with its acquisition of Aloha Partners, which spent time at FCC auctions buying up 700Mhz spectrum and then eventually reselling it at a profit to wireless carriers.  AT&T didn’t just buy some of Aloha’s spectrum, it acquired the whole partnership.

Acquired by AT&T in 2008.

In April 2008, Edge Wireless customers in southern Oregon, northern California, southeastern Idaho and Jackson, Wyoming discovered they were well on their way to becoming AT&T customers, too.  AT&T acquired Edge and rebranded it AT&T. That hardly represents investment and dedicated expansion into rural Rocky Mountain states — AT&T simply bought up another company that did.

Also in 2008, AT&T snapped up Centennial Communications, a considerable-sized regional player in the central United States.  Centennial delivered service in less urban areas in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan in the north, and Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi in the south.  One million customers, Centennial’s spectrum and name all became part of AT&T.  Did service improve for Centennial customers with that merger?

“Overall, it stayed the same when it was Centennial and switched to AT&T,” says our reader Kevin, who now lives in Ft. Wayne, Ind.  “We did get access to the iPhone, but along with it came AT&T’s infamous dropped calls and lousy customer service.”

Acquired by AT&T in late 2008.

Kevin switched to Verizon Wireless earlier this year.

“If I was the FCC, I wouldn’t approve this merger because it promises nothing for rural America or anyone else,” says Kevin. “AT&T had a presence in Indiana before they bought Centennial, so all the deal did was reduce competition in this state.”

Centennial’s service areas were not exactly among T-Mobile’s priority coverage areas, either.

Acquired by AT&T in 2011?

“T-Who?,” Kevin asks.  “We’re aware of them now, but I don’t know anyone who has service with them.”

The real unanswered question is what AT&T is doing with all of the rural spectrum it already owns, controls, or has acquired.  How will an acquisition of an urban-focused carrier help deliver improved service in the rural markets both companies have traditionally ignored?

Answer: It won’t.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Centennial Joins ATT 10-09 and 02-10.flv[/flv]

WANE-TV in Ft. Wayne, Ind., covered the merger of Centennial and AT&T back in 2009 and early 2010.  Fort Wayne was the home of a major regional office for Centennial.  (4 minutes)