Sen. Paul Hornback (R-AT&T)

A Kentucky state senate panel on Tuesday approved a bill admittedly-authored by AT&T that could allow the company to abandon providing basic telephone service in areas deemed not sufficiently profitable.

Senate Bill 12 is just the latest effort by AT&T to end “Universal Service,” the basic principal that all Americans should have equal access to basic landline telephone service.

The proposed legislation would allow the three largest phone companies in Kentucky — AT&T, Windstream, and Cincinnati Bell to abandon customers who, in one possible scenario, do not agree to a more deluxe feature package that includes long distance calling, wireless service, and/or broadband.

“This bill represents a grave threat to continued, stand-alone, basic telephone service for many Kentuckians who don’t have the luxury of access to Twitter and all the things that we in urban areas tend to take for granted,” Tom FitzGerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

AT&T says allowing it the right to terminate rural landline service would “spur innovation and create jobs.” It would also strip Kentucky of its power to investigate and force resolutions of consumer complaints.

The optics of the bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Paul Hornback (R-Shelbyville/AT&T), sitting next to the two AT&T executives who authored the bill as he testified before the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Tourism and Labor was not lost on the bill’s opponents.

“It’s obvious who he is really working for,” said our regular Kentucky reader Paul in Louisville.

Daniel, the Stop the Cap! reader who first shared the story with us, is not happy either.

“This infuriates me,” he writes. “If AT&T gets their way, they will have less reason to invest in areas that are underserved or not served at all, and allow them to further push people to their horrific cell service.”

Daniel barely gets DSL from AT&T — 3Mbps if he’s lucky, and most of his neighbors cannot get any broadband from the company because they don’t officially service the area with broadband.  Daniel suspects once AT&T is deregulated further, they will have even fewer reasons to focus on less-populated regions of the state.

Hornback: "Nobody knows better than AT&T what the company needs the legislature to do for it."

“AT&T is my only reliable option – and if I can’t keep their Internet service then I will lose my job,” he says.

In 2006, AT&T helped push through a deregulation measure that stripped the Kentucky Public Service Commission of its ability to oversee prices for telecommunications services in the state. Customers of both AT&T and Cincinnati Bell soon saw price increases after the legislation passed with arguably no improvement in service.

Hornback argues S.12 will help “modernize telecommunications in the state of Kentucky,” without explaining exactly how abandoning customers enhances their level of service.

AT&T says they will not completely exit rural Kentucky if given the power to disconnect its landline network.  It can sell rural customers AT&T cell phone service instead. Critics say that comes at a substantially higher price and offers only limited broadband.

Hornback defended that, suggesting the company is wasting money and resources keeping its current antiquated landline facilities when it might be better spending that money on wireless services.

But customers would face charges starting at nearly $40 a month after taxes and fees for a basic AT&T wireless plan with as few as 200 calling minutes a month.

Hornback got around initial opposition to an earlier measure he introduced — SB 135, by reintroducing essentially the same measure inside another unrelated bill.  Hornback said that was an effort to give the legislation “a fresh start” in light of heated criticism from consumer groups, the AARP, and even Kentucky businesses.

The committee voted 9-1 for Hornback/AT&T’s measure and sent the bill forward to the Senate floor.  The single “no” vote came from Sen. Denise Harper Angel (D-Louisville).

Phone companies in Kentucky

AT&T’s clout in the state capital is unparalleled according to the newspaper:

It employs 31 legislative lobbyists, including a former PSC vice chairwoman and past chairs of the state Democratic and Republican parties, spending about $80,000 last year on legislative lobbying. Its political action committee has given at least $91,000 in state political donations since 2007.

Remarkably, Hornback defended AT&T’s authorship of his bill that would directly benefit the company’s interests.

Nobody knows better than AT&T what the company needs the legislature to do for it, Hornback said.

AT&T’s march towards monetizing data usage has just gotten a twist with a new idea from the company to develop “a toll-free wireless Internet” where app makers foot the bill for your data usage.

First appearing in a Wall Street Journal article, John Donovan, AT&T’s executive for network and technology, suggested the new “app maker pays”-option will ease consumers’ fears about using high bandwidth apps that eat into AT&T’s data allowances.

“A feature that we’re hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage,” Donovan said at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. “It’d be like freight included.”

Critics of the idea pounced immediately, calling AT&T’s latest plan the realization of former CEO Ed Whitacre’s dream that content producers “can’t use [AT&T’s] pipes for free.”

Harold Feld, legal director at consumer group Public Knowledge thinks he’s got AT&T’s number:

Just to be clear, here is what AT&T Wireless is doing:

1. Create an artificial scarcity with an arbitrary bandwidth cap for its wireless services;

2. Charge users who exceed this arbitrary bandwidth cap;

3. Claim to do consumers a favor by letting the ap developer pay for exceeding the arbitrary bandwidth cap.

Which cuts to the heart of the problem in wireless, IMO. The argument in favor of a wireless capacity cap is, in a nutshell, “wireless is different from wireline because the physics imposes bandwidth limitations.” In the presence of these bandwidth limitations, we need a rationing scheme of some kind. Bandwidth caps are a neutral way of rationing and encourage app developers to write more efficient applications — thus improving the system overall.

The problem with this argument is it is impossible at present to determine just how true or false it actually is. I referred above to AT&T’s bandwidth cap as arbitrary. As far as I (or any outside observer) can tell, AT&T just selected a number and said “this is where we impose a cap.” You can buy a higher cap on a monthly basis, or can pay as you go above the cap in the form of overages.

AT&T has no worries about data tsunamis and "exafloods" when app makers or consumers are willing to pay more.

In fact, AT&T’s journey away from unlimited access to their wireless network is well underway.  Just two years ago, customers paid $30 a month for unlimited data on a smartphone.  Then AT&T ended “unlimited” access, imposing a 2GB usage cap on their most popular wireless data plan.  Now AT&T is looking to monetize its wireless traffic even further as customers grow more reticent about using high volume applications that could threaten one’s usage allowance.

Despite AT&T’s ongoing drumbeat America is in the midst of a wireless bandwidth crisis, the ‘national emergency’ is over as soon as someone — anyone other than AT&T — opens their wallet and agrees to pay more for data traffic.  Then the sky is the limit.

The logical inconsistencies of a company crying for more mobile spectrum concurrently envisioning new ways to monetize high volume wireless traffic (eg. large file downloads, online video, etc.) exposes the hollow center of  Internet Overcharging.  The “exaflood”/data tsunami only seems to threaten AT&T’s network when content producers and/or consumers are not paying extra for every kilobyte.

As Stop the Cap! has argued before, AT&T is increasingly  in the bandwidth shortage/rationing business.

The company underspent on its network, balked at the price tag to upgrade capacity (but had no trouble planning to pay substantially more to acquire T-Mobile), and now complains it has to charge higher prices because the federal government blocked its merger and the FCC won’t hand over additional spectrum.

There are two approaches to fat profits in the broadband business these days:

1. 

   A Proud Member of: Team Rationing for Profit

   Team Innovation: Believe in your product and nurture its growth with upgrades, innovation, and pricing that guarantees an enthusiastic and loyal customer base;

2. Team Rationing for Profit: Leverage your dominant market power by rationing your product, charging higher prices for less service.  Monetizing usage controls traffic growth, reducing the expense of upgrading your network. With limited competition, even alienated customers face few alternative choices and a steep early termination exit fee.

Based on statements from AT&T’s Donovan, AT&T is a firm believer in the latter.

“There’s a view of an entitlement that says that any impediment to riding over the top of our network is inherently wrong, is un-American,” Donovan said, adding AT&T needed to find creative ways to deal with and profit from surging mobile-data use.

Feld thinks it says something else.

“This new plan is unfortunate because it shows how fraudulent the AT&T data cap is, and calls into question the whole rationale of the data caps,” Feld said. “Apparently it has nothing to do with network management.  It’s a tool to get more revenue from developers and customers.”

An aborted takeover attempt of MetroPCS by America’s third largest cell phone company — Sprint Nextel has some on Wall Street calling for the hide of Sprint CEO Dan Hesse.

The proposed multibillion dollar takeover of prepaid provider MetroPCS, which offers mostly urban service in select cities, was vetoed late last week by Sprint’s own board of directors.

The deal would have delivered a 30 percent premium to MetroPCS shareholders, and further consolidate America’s wireless marketplace. It would have also further complicated Sprint’s financial position — already heavily indebted as it commits to a major 4G wireless service upgrade and deals with an even more expensive commitment to Apple to pitch the iPhone on Sprint’s network.

Reuters reports some investors considered the deal a mistake and are glad it was aborted.

A 30 percent premium seemed “irrational” and would have hurt Sprint shareholders, Roe Equity Research Kevin Roe told the news service.

“He’s on a short leash,” Roe said. “The board did the right thing, thank God. It’s remarkable this deal got this far.”

MetroPCS competes with Sprint’s prepaid services in several regions including metropolitan New York City, northeastern Texas, southern California, southern Michigan and central/southern Florida.  MetroPCS operates its own 4G LTE network.

Now that MetroPCS is considered “in play,” it is likely other suitors may consider buying the company out.  Among the most likely — Leap Wireless, which owns Cricket and operates a comparable service.

Craig Moffett of Bernstein Research has told investors the wireless industry continues to be “crying out for consolidation.”  The most important players in that consolidation story are T-Mobile and Sprint, which remain potential partners if the two companies can overcome their technology differences.  T-Mobile operates a GSM network incompatible with Sprint-Nextel.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Sprint Walks Away from MetroPCS Deal 2-24-12.flv[/flv]

CNBC reports Sprint walked away from a takeover attempt of MetroPCS on Friday.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTKR Norfolk ATT to raise prices on smartphone users 1-19-12.mp4[/flv]

A Virginia television station is warning customers planning to switch their wireless service to AT&T to think twice.  The company recently announced it was increasing prices on data plans for new customers, although existing ones can keep their current plans.  Virginians considering leaving Sprint, Verizon Wireless, or T-Mobile will find themselves locked into the new, higher prices if they move to AT&T, WTKR in Norfolk reports.  The “grandfathered” service plan, exempted from price hikes and service restrictions, is increasingly becoming a customer retention tool.  (1 minute)

Ebenezer Scrooge could successfully serve as the CEO of any large telecommunications company these days, and the New York Times knows a Christmas tale of woe when it sees one.  That is why the venerable newspaper printed a Christmas Eve editorial blasting Verizon’s new “non-aggression treaty” with America’s largest cable companies that puts coal in the stocking for any Verizon customer waiting for FiOS fiber-to-the-home service.  The newspaper believes the days of FiOS are numbered:

Verizon — Verizon Wireless’s main shareholder — relieved itself of the need to expand FiOS, its high-speed, fiber optic network, beyond the 18 million homes it set out to reach six years ago, a rollout that cost $23 billion. For the other 114 million homes in the country, it can simply bundle its wireless service with the cable and wireline broadband services of its partners. The agreement between Verizon and the cable carriers includes a joint venture to develop technology to integrate the wireline and wireless platforms.

Verizon’s cable deals squashed hopes that cable carriers’ purchases of wireless spectrum would lead to more competition against the dominant players, AT&T and Verizon Wireless. And it puts in doubt whether FiOS will ever be a serious competitor to cable, reducing the likelihood that video transmitted over broadband could break up cable’s regional oligopolies.

[…] Verizon’s deals suggest a future in which cable carriers will get uncontested control of high-speed broadband into the home while AT&T and Verizon will get uncontested control over wireless. For consumers with expensive wireless plans, pricey bundles of cable channels and costly, slow broadband, this does not look like good news.

Verizon’s economic future lies in the lucrative world of wireless.  Its FiOS network was an expensive gamble to reinvent its antiquated telephone network to drive customers to keep their landlines and spent a hundred dollars more on video entertainment and super fast broadband.  Wall Street hated the price and loathed the potential for costly competition that would force earnings down through aggressive price-cutting.  In some markets, Verizon FiOS has forced Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable to be a little more generous with broadband speed and lighten up a little on the annual rate increases.

But convincing cable customers to switch remains a difficult proposition even when Verizon offers the superior service.  Verizon has not achieved the level of penetration it expected in many markets.  In short, people just don’t want to wait around for installers.  Besides, cable companies slash prices for customers threatening to depart.

Verizon’s deal with Time Warner and Comcast delivers Verizon Wireless desirable spectrum.  But the agreement to cross-market and cross-bundle product lines smacks of collusion, and is exactly the kind of turf protection that has kept cable companies from competing head-to-head with each other for more than three decades.  Is it more lucrative for Verizon to build out its FiOS network to compete or simply refer people to Time Warner or Cablevision for cable TV.  So long as cable doesn’t offer a competing wireless product, Verizon seems to think there is little harm done.

But for consumers, the absence of competition brings rate increases, reduced innovation, and declining customer service.

The one thing the telecom marketplace needs less of is the “take it or leave it” attitude that earned the scorn of cable customers everywhere.