@jbtaylor on tech

A few weeks ago, Kevin Fitchard, a writer with GigaOm, interviewed Sprint's CEO, Dan Hesse, to ask him about 2012 and what to expect from Sprint in the new year. Kevin's story was published today.

Dan explained a lot about our strategy and focus at Sprint, but he also shared his observation that increasingly in the wireless industry, there really isn't a "Big Four" -- AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint -- but really a "Big Two".

Dan's right. That's why during our fight to stop AT&T from swallowing up T-Mobile, we called AT&T and Verizon, "Twin Bells".

You see, Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility, aren't really wireless companies at all, but arms of much larger descendants of the original Ma Bell phone system. And they are marching in lock step towards a duopoly which will harm consumers.

Take Verizon's recently proposed spectrum deal with the cable companies. The New York Times editorial board pronounced it, "worrisome".

The Times is right to be worried. Anyone who cares about competition in the wireless industry should be.

But being worried is useless.

What consumers need to do is speak up loudly and vocally. That played a huge role in defeating the T-Mobile takeover and, more recently, convincing Verizon to back off from instituting a new $2 fee.

I'm convinced that kind of consumer activism is essential to reign in the Twin Bells in 2012.

p.s. Remember, this is my personal blog and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

Well, that didn't take long.

After an avalanche of criticism, much of it unfair and inaccurate, in my view, Verizon Wireless announced that it would not implement plans to charge customers a $2 "Convenience Fee" for making certain kinds of payments.

What kind of payments were going to get the fee? Customers who phoned into Customer Care to make a one time payment via their credit card or debit card plus customers who made a one time payment at VerizonWireless.com.

According to the New York Times, customers could avoid the fee by, "using a check, automated bank transfer and credit or debit card, Verizon customers can also pay at a Verizon store, by money order, or by using a bank or other company’s online bill payment service. They may also use a Verizon gift or rebate card, or make a last-minute, one-time phone or Web payment by handing over their bank account number and their bank’s routing number."

Verizon's theory was a good one in my view. They were incurring extra costs to process the payments made by one time credit or debit card payments. Rather than force all of their customer base to pay for those costs, they decided to make those specific customers bear the cost by paying the "convenience fee."

What will Verizon do next? They will likely bake in that extra cost into higher prices for all customers.

That outcome may make consumers feel better, but in the end, Verizon will tighten their grip on a title they've had for a very long time: America's most expensive wireless carrier.

p.s. Please remember that this is my personal blog and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

From Viktor Hertz, a Swedish graphic designer, comes "Honest Logos". Hilarious.

If you thought AT&T was the only company spinning a revisionist history in the wake of AT&T's failed bid to takeover T-Mobile, think again. Deutsche Telekom is spinning like crazy today.

"There's no Plan B," a DT spokeswoman tells the New York Times today.

She must have forgotten what DT's CTO told Reuters in September which reported he said any rational company has a Plan B.

"It's not as if we have no other opportunity than to close T-Mobile USA if the deal doesn't work. We have other opportunities. (T-Mobile USA ) may not be an economical jewel, but it is a true asset that has many ways to be valued," the DT CTO said.

Of course, that was then. This is now.

I guess that the Plan B was thrown out in September and now DT is no longer the rational company its CTO described just 4 months ago.

On the afternoon of Dec. 19, AT&T announced that it was abandoning its bid to takeover T-Mobile from Deutsche Telekom.

The companies involved no doubt read what Judge Huvelle said about their arguments before her court. Just 10 days earlier, on Dec. 9, the judge eviscerated the lawyers representing AT&T, T-Mobile and Deutsche Telekom. On five separate instances, the judge called their arguments "presumptous" and she accused the attorneys of attempting to "use" the court. "The landscape has changed," Huvelle said.

It was a devastating day for AT&T and friends.

And AT&T would just as soon pretend it never happened.

So that's exactly what the company did. In its statement announcing the news of the failed merger, AT&T's CEO blamed the FCC and the Justice Department for a problem which Judge Huvelle said was "self-made". And then predictably, AT&T's friends at conservative think tanks and editorial pages chimed in to inject President Obama into the debate.

Nonsense.

AT&T, DT and T-Mobile could go back to court in January and argue that the DOJ and FCC were wrong on the law. But they knew that was a losing battle. Their own documents contradicted every claim in their endless press releases.

It was just easier to say that they were beat up by overzealous regulators appointed by a liberal President who disregards the law.

Give me break.

This was never about politics. It was about consumers, competition and antitrust law. That's why a bi-partisan group of state attorneys general joined with the Justice Department in filing suit to block the deal.

Not that AT&T didn't try to make it all about politics. They touted the political support of governors and members of Congress and civic groups, nearly all of whom had received cash from the company. And AT&T loved to tout the political support of state attorneys general who opted not to participate in the National Association of Attorneys General task force which investigated the deal.

Each of these AGs, who didn't investigate the proposed transaction, yet endorsed it, also were getting campaign cash from AT&T.

There is certainly an argument worth having about the role of regulators in telecom policy. But in this case, AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile was not stopped by the FCC or the Justice Department or state attorneys general, or rivals Sprint or C Spire, or the legions of consumer advocates or the tens of thousands of consumers who protested this stinker of a deal from day 1.

It was stopped by Deutsche Telekom and AT&T, who walked out of court, unwilling to face further scrutiny not from a regulator whom they rail against, but scrutiny from a Federal judge, who found their legal arguments unconvincing.

p.s. Please remember that this is my personal blog and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.