Satellite television provider Dish Network today offered $25.5 billion for Sprint Nextel Corp., in an unsolicited bid that surprised the wireless industry.

The bid, announced by CEO Charles Ergen, is $5.5 billion higher than that offered by Japan’s Softbank, which already had a pending deal to take a 70 percent stake in the third largest wireless carrier.

The bidding may not yet be over if Softbank decides to counter with a higher offer or if other bidders emerge in the coming weeks.

Ergen has signaled his interest in entering wireless markets to compensate for slowing earnings in the satellite television business.

“He is trying to transform his own business,” Vijay Jayant, an analyst at International Strategy & Investment Group in New York told Bloomberg News. “He’s trying to reinvent himself, moving from satellite to wireless.”

Ergen’s vision would include a bundled package of satellite television, broadband wireless Internet and cellular telephone service. Providing suitable wireless broadband Internet in rural areas may be the biggest challenge because of Sprint’s more limited network coverage, but a marketing deal combining satellite television from Dish and Sprint cell phone service would be easier to carry out.

Ergen’s offer includes $8.2 billion in stock and $17.3 billion in cash. Ergen’s company has stockpiled at least $10 billion from selling bonds over the last year. He intends to borrow the rest.

Ergen earlier had attempted to disrupt a deal that would have consolidated Clearwire into Sprint. Ergen offered $3.30 a share for Clearwire, 33 cents higher than the $2.97 per share offer from Sprint. Ergen also reportedly approached both MetroPCS and Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA looking for a deal to no avail.

Some analysts question whether Ergen has enough experience to manage a major wireless company with only his past involvement selling satellite TV subscriptions. But he arrives with more than just cash and stock options. Ergen has acquired mobile spectrum from bankrupt TerreStar Networks and DBSD North America. Ergen says he has no interest in building his own wireless network, but a combined Sprint/Dish could manage the spectrum through Sprint’s existing operations.

Ergen told Bloomberg News combining the spectrum Dish owns with the spectrum owned by Sprint and Clearwire would assure Americans of a robust wireless data platform that will not have capacity constraints or require individual device fees. That is in keeping with Sprint’s existing marketing as a provider of truly unlimited wireless data plans.

Several Wall Street analysts told CNBC and Bloomberg News the deal with Softbank may be more ideal for shareholders and consumers, because it would strengthen Sprint’s leverage with equipment manufacturers to offer cheaper and more robust devices.

Consumer advocates have mixed feelings. Dish has no prior association to the wireless industry so the deal does not represent direct, competitive consolidation. It also would boost Sprint as a more formidable competitor to AT&T and Verizon Wireless. But it could also further orphan T-Mobile USA.

“Right now, we have two giants and two also-rans, and now you’re getting potentially three giants dividing up the American market place, with T-Mobile lagging far behind,” Susan Crawford told the New York Times.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg What Does Dish See in Sprint Thats Worth 25B 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explores what Dish sees in Sprint that is worth a bid of $25.5 billion to acquire the country’s third largest mobile company.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Dish Bids 25-5 Billion for Sprint to Challenge Softbank 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg says Dish has been stockpiling $10 billion in cash for new acquisitions to transform its business away from a satellite TV-only company.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg All Things Are on the Table for Sprint 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Christopher Marangi, of Gabelli Asset Fund talks with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker about Dish Network’s unsolicited $25.5 billion offer for Sprint and what options are available to Sprint with the offers it has on the table. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Dish Bid for Sprint Lacks Capital Chaplin Says 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst with New Street Research LLP, thinks Softbank’s original offer is superior to the one from Dish.  (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bidding for Sprint Is Not Over Fritzshe 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Jennifer Fritzsche, Managing Director of Equity Research at Wells Fargo Securities, discusses the likelihood of other players making bids. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg What Did Dish CEO Ergen Say About Sprint Bid 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

A Bloomberg News reporter interviewed Charlie Ergen about why he wants to enter the wireless business.  Ergen’s vision includes no nickel and diming customers with monthly device fees and usage charges. (4 minutes)

Canada’s effort to expand mobile competition has likely failed with news that three of the most significant new independent entrants have put themselves up for sale, with one likely to be acquired by Telus, western Canada’s largest phone company.

With Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, and Telus dominating at least 90 percent of Canada’s wireless marketplace, breaking up the triopoly was unlikely to be easy, but three of Canada’s newest players that acquired spectrum just five years ago are already looking for exit strategies.

Bloomberg News reported Friday that Mobilicity is in talks to be imminently acquired by Telus for between $350-400 million. Public Mobile has hired investment bankers to find a buyer. Vimpelcom, Ltd., which owns Wind Mobile, announced it was “exploring its options, including divestment.”

The three companies have competed with the dominant players for about three years with little success. Combined, the three have not managed to achieve even a combined 10 percent market share. Most sell unlimited talk and text plans to customers that would normally buy prepaid service.

Potentially slowing any sale is a requirement that none of the independent companies can transfer their spectrum licenses until 2014, a condition of the 2008 special spectrum auction that reserved prime frequencies for new competitors and put them off-limits to larger mobile companies.

Telus remains the most likely suitor of independent providers because the company lacks the spectrum assets of its larger competitors Bell and Rogers.

Mobilicity operates its HSPA+ “4G” network on Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) frequencies in the 1,700MHz range. Although Telus has considerable spectrum in British Columbia and Alberta — its home territory — the provider has considerably less in eastern Canada, particularly in large metropolitan cities. Mobilicity has a tiny market share in the Greater Toronto Area, yet its AWS spectrum equals that of Telus in the city. Telus could find an acquisition of Mobilicity the easiest way to bolster its available spectrum for future 4G deployment and expansion.

Three small independent wireless providers hold almost as much combined spectrum as Telus holds today.

Any exit of a combination of Canada’s newest wireless players will likely be seen as a failure of the government’s efforts to bolster competition. The dominance among the three largest providers has left Canadians with high-cost plans and a wireless service contract that lasts one year longer than America’s standard two-year service agreement.

Industry Canada, the economic regulator fostering a growing, competitive and knowledge-based Canadian economy, had little to say about the news.

“Any transaction that requires regulatory approval will be considered accordingly,” said Alexandra Fortier, a spokeswoman for Industry Minister Christian Paradis. “We cannot comment on speculation.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BNN Canadas newest wireless players seek buyers 4-12-13.flv[/flv]

BNN reports industry consolidation is likely forthcoming in Canada’s wireless marketplace as Telus seeks to acquire independent provider Mobilicity. A financial analyst says the move is designed to curb budget-priced wireless service in Canada. Mobilicity would likely eventually be merged into Telus-owned Koodo Mobile, the company’s prepaid mobile division.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Globe and Mail Feds aim to open up wireless market 3-13.flv[/flv]

Too little, too late? Industry Minister Christian Paradis says the Harper government wants to open up the wireless market to more players with another wireless spectrum auction. But now several of Canada’s newest independent providers are all up for sale, and the country’s dominant three may end up owning one or more of them.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Globe and Mail Market View Why we love to hate our wireless companies 3-13.flv[/flv]

The Toronto Globe & Mail explores why Canadians hate their cell phone and mobile broadband providers so much.  (2 minutes)

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal’s not-living-in-the-real-world editorial page strikes again.

The commentary pages have always been the weakest part of the Journal, primarily because they screech pro-corporate talking points in contrast to the more balanced reporting in the rest of the newspaper.

Mr. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. decided to distort broadband reality (again) in yesterday’s edition with a glowing commentary on how wonderful broadband providers are in his piece, “Springtime for Broadband.” The only thing missing was a border in fine print labeled, “Sponsored by Verizon, AT&T, and your cable company.”

While your Internet bill is being hiked at the same time your provider is slapping usage limits on your connection, Jenkins dismisses consumer-fueled complaints about broadband price gouging, assaulting Net Neutrality, and overall poor customer service as part of Washington’s “broadband policy circus.”

Charges fly hourly that Google or some other company is guilty of gross insult to net neutrality (that sacred principle nobody can define). Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has introduced legislation to regulate data caps and Internet pricing. Law professor Susan Crawford, until recently a White House technology adviser, clearly craves to be America’s next go-to talking head on broadband. Lately she’s been everywhere calling for a crackdown on the competing “monopolists” who supply Internet access.

How dare they complain, decries Jenkins in a robust defense of the 21st century version of the railway robber barons.

Comfortably playing patty cake with provider-fed talking points from the industry echo chamber, Jenkins is ready for battle, facts or not.

But wireless providers have invested big money to deploy high-speed mobile networks, and fixed and mobile are inevitably beginning to compete. The latest evidence: Australia recently predicted that up to 30% of households will go the all-wireless route and won’t be customers for its vaunted national broadband project.

Jenkins

Not exactly. The basis for this 30% figure is the National Broadband Network’s own business plan, which warns –if– the company raised prices to a maximum theoretical level, up to 30 percent of its customers would rely on wireless instead… by the year 2039. That is 26 years from now. You have nothing better to do in the meantime, right?

In fact, conservative critics of the fiber network, some defending the big wireless cell phone industry in Australia, have suggested fiber optics is a big waste of money because “wireless is the future.”

That old chestnut again.

“Now you can present a bulletin without touching a typewriter … it’s just there on the computer system, you don’t need a reel to reel tape recorder. I’ve got a touchscreen in front of me. Back then I had a big cartridge deck,” said Ray Hadley on 2GB radio. “Can you imagine the advances in technology in the next 26 years? I can’t. I can’t comprehend it. By the time they finish the NBN, it could be superseded by something we don’t even know about.”

NBN Myths, a website set up to tackle the disinformation campaign from political and industry opponents has one simple fact to convey: “Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the world that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.”

Which would you rather have?

Even Telstra, the biggest telecom company in Australia scoffs at such a notion, noting a growing number of its customers have both wired and wireless service, and they do not depend on one over the other.

Research firm Telsyte found that 85 per cent of Australians want speeds of 50Mbps or higher, speeds impossible for wireless to offer. In fact, when the NBN fiber network became available to Australians, almost half the current users as of October last year had chosen an even-faster 100Mbps plan option. But Australians also want mobile broadband, and they are signing up for that as well.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics notes the number of mobile broadband Internet connections also grew by around 40% in Australia between 2009 and 2010. But here is the Achilles heel of wireless: it cannot deliver the same speeds or capacity, and providers charge high prices and deliver low usage caps. As a result, the wireless industry has pulled off a coup: they earn enormous revenues from networks they have successfully rationed. The total amount of data downloaded over Australia’s wireless networks actually fell on a per user basis, despite the growth in customers.

Much of Jenkins’ commentary is spoon-fed by the industry-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which produces industry-sponsored studies designed to tell America all is well in our broadband duopoly.

In the latest federal survey, the average broadband speed in America is up to 15.6 megabits per second, from 14.3 a year earlier. Nearly half of customers who six months ago made do with one megabit or less have now moved up to higher speeds. Since 2009, the U.S. has gone from 22nd fastest Internet to the eighth fastest.

The 15.6Mbps figure comes from the Federal Communications Commission. The statistics about our global speed ranking come from Akamai’s voluntary speed test program. Other studies rate America much lower. More importantly, while providers in the U.S. try to squeeze out more performance from their copper networks, other countries are laying speedier fiber networks that are destined to once again leapfrog over the United States. Most charge less for their broadband connections as well.

Jenkins also quotes the ITIF which touts 20 million miles of fiber were laid in America last year. But the ITIF, when pressed, will admit the majority of that fiber was “middle mile” connections, institutional or business network fiber you cannot access, or fiber to cell towers. Fiber to the home expansion has stalled, primarily because Verizon has suspended expansion of its FiOS network to new areas after Wall Street loudly complained about the cost.

Jenkins argues that if we leave providers alone and stop criticizing their growing prices, declining competition, and fat profits, the marketplace will suddenly decide to invest in network upgrades yet again.

“The day may come when even Verizon, which visibly soured on its $23 billion FiOS bet, rediscovers an urge to invest in fixed broadband infrastructure to meet growing consumer lust for hi-def services,” writes Jenkins.

Would Wall Street rather see providers invest in network upgrades or return profits to shareholders? Investment expansion in the broadband industry comes when a company senses if they do not spend the money, their business will be swept away by others that will. Cable broadband threatens telephone company DSL, so AT&T cherry-picked communities for investment in its half-measure U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network. Google Fiber, should it choose to expand, will be an even bigger threat to both cable and phone companies. Municipal fiber to the home networks upset the incumbent players so much, they spend millions of ratepayer dollars in efforts to legislate them out of existence.

Jenkins’ view that giving the industry carte blanche to do and charge as it pleases to stimulate a better broadband future is as fanciful as NBN critics in Australia suggesting fiber upgrades should be canceled in favor of waiting 20+ years for improved wireless to come along.

He even approves of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, calling it proper price discrimination in a “fiercely competitive” environment to defray a network’s fixed costs.

Do you think there is fierce competition for your broadband dollar?

Broadband’s fixed costs are so low and predictable, it literally calls out consumption pricing as just the latest overreach for enhanced profits. As Suddenlink’s CEO himself admitted, the era of big expensive cable upgrades are over. Incremental upgrades are cheap, the costs to offer broadband are declining, so it is time to reap the profits.

Jenkins closes with one recommendation we can agree with: “A low-tech way to stir up broadband competition would be to relax the regulatory obstacles to the actual physical provision of broadband.”

We can start by scrapping all the state laws the industry lobbied to enact that prohibit community-owned broadband competition. If big cable and phone companies won’t provide communities with the quality of broadband service they need to compete for 21st century jobs, let those communities do it themselves.

T-Mobile has scrapped the traditional two-year cell phone contract.

T-Mobile’s shift away from subsidized smartphones and standard two-year contracts could be a game-changer for American wireless consumers, but does the scrappy carrier have a good deal for you or mostly for itself?

T-Mobile is and has been America’s fourth largest carrier — the smallest among those offering nationwide home coverage. The provider has lost contract customers for years. T-Mobile’s coverage has been less than great in many areas and it often did not offer the latest and most popular smartphones. After its merger effort with AT&T was shot down by the Department of Justice for anti-competitive reasons, T-Mobile has attempted to remake itself by changing the rules under which most of us buy mobile service.

The biggest change of all is the end of the subsidized phone. For years, cell phone companies have offered free or low-cost phones to customers, earning back that subsidy by charging higher monthly rates and locking customers to two-year contracts with early termination fees. T-Mobile will still give you an affordable phone, only now you will pay it off in small installments over a two-year financing agreement.

What difference does this make? Customers who bounce from one two-year contract to the next may not see much difference. But if you keep your phone longer than two years or buy one elsewhere, your monthly rate with T-Mobile will no longer include an artificially higher price designed to recover the phone subsidy you no longer receive.

It also means nothing traps you with T-Mobile. If after six months you find their service unbecoming, you can leave without hundreds of dollars in termination fees. But customers on financing agreements will continue to make their payments for equipment purchases, and those phones will not be unlocked for use on another carrier until the remaining balance is paid off.

A typical T-Mobile customer looking for the latest iPhone will pay a $100 down payment and then finance the remaining balance, paying $20 a month for 24 months. Your monthly rate will start at $50 a month, which includes unlimited talk and texting, and a 500MB data allowance. If that is insufficient, an extra $10 a month will buy you an extra 2GB of data. If you want unlimited data, that plan is available for an extra $20 a month.

T-Mobile says their plans will save you $1,000 over the life of a two-year contract with AT&T or Verizon. We think they are exaggerating a bit.

Like their competition, T-Mobile is moving away from budget-minded “minute plans” that bundle calling, text and data. Instead, T-Mobile charges at least $50 a month for unlimited talk/text and a small data plan whether you want those features or not.

The Associated Press found that although T-Mobile ends up being the cheapest, the savings over its rivals is closer to $700 on average. The price over two years for a 16-gigabyte iPhone 5 with unlimited calling, unlimited texting and 2.5 gigabytes of data usage per month, excluding taxes, is:

• T-Mobile: $2,020
• AT&T/Verizon: $2,635 (2-3GB data plan)
• Sprint: $2,840 (unlimited data plan included)

Some other things to consider:

• Once your phone is paid off, your ongoing T-Mobile bill will no longer show a phone subsidy payback built into prices charged by other carriers;
• You can pay your phone off early, with no penalty;
• T-Mobile’s 4G network is a mix of HSPA+ and LTE. The more commonly encountered HSPA+ network gets good marks for speed, but a number of densely populated T-Mobile coverage areas surprisingly often default to their older 2G network, which is painfully slow. LTE is only available in about seven cities at the moment, so it is still a rarity;
• T-Mobile’s unlimited service is free from tricks and traps like soft caps and speed throttles. It also performs better than Sprint’s unlimited service on its overloaded 3G and spotty Clearwire 4G WiMAX network. Sprint’s LTE network is on the way… slowly. It seems to be rolling out first in small cities you have never heard of;
• T-Mobile’s coverage in rural and exurban areas is frankly terrible. Travelers on main highways may not encounter many signal gaps, but those living in small towns or off the beaten path may get a roaming signal or poor or no reception from T-Mobile’s own towers at all. The frequencies used for its data service also do not work as well indoors as its larger rivals.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/T-Mobile Ad 4-2-13.flv[/flv]

T-Mobile channels Oprah in this new ad as the big four wireless cowboys get in touch with their feelings. But only one is ready to don a pink hat and ride off on his own. (1 minute)

A Financial Times blog post has started a buying frenzy for Vodafone Group Plc on news AT&T and Verizon Communications are about to bid for the British mobile phone giant, despite denials from Verizon it is involved in any deal to acquire the British mobile phone company.

The Times Alphaville blog quotes unnamed sources deemed “usually reliable people” who claim Verizon and AT&T are working together on a blockbuster $245 billion takeover deal for one of the world’s largest wireless carriers. After the story appeared, Vodafone shares were up 6.1 percent.

Verizon is interested in buying out Vodafone’s part ownership in its Verizon Wireless venture and AT&T is looking to overseas markets for future wireless revenue opportunities that are harder to find in the United States.

The sources told the Times they expect the deal will initially merge Vodafone and Verizon into a single entity, but only briefly. Verizon would promptly sell Vodafone’s extensive international assets to AT&T at a premium. Verizon would end up the sole owner of Verizon Wireless, and AT&T would acquire Vodafone’s enormous wireless operations in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Barclays Plc is working on putting together the potential transaction, Alphaville said today.

Informal talks have reportedly been underway between AT&T, Verizon and Vodafone since December according to Bloomberg News. The biggest impediments seem to be among the company’s top executives arguing over who ends up in the leadership and where the combined companies will be located — in the UK or the USA.

Vodafone has been a tolerated partner in Verizon Wireless since 1999 when Bell Atlantic and Vodafone merged their respective mobile ventures into Verizon Wireless. Vodafone has held tightly to their part-ownership of Verizon’s wireless network, which has proven an enormous earner in an American wireless marketplace considered less competitive than in Europe. The talks indicate Verizon is willing to pay a premium price to disconnect the British wireless company from its American operations. Allowing AT&T to help finance the largest wireless takeover in years makes it more likely a deal can be done, assuming regulators on both sides of the Atlantic agree.