Frontier Communications today announced it was keeping a commitment to use only American-based call centers to provide customer service.  That will be a welcome change for former Verizon customers who often found their customer service calls transferred to overseas help desks and representatives.

“In addition to voice customer service, our broadband Internet help desk jobs will continue to be staffed by a 100 percent U.S.-based workforce. This will include the creation of 500 new US-based jobs replacing work that Verizon sent overseas,” said Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier’s Chairman and CEO.

Many calls for assistance with Frontier’s Internet service end up in Henrietta, New York — near Rochester.  A good deal of Frontier’s general customer service assistance is provided from a large call center in DeLand, Florida — midway between Daytona Beach and Orlando.

Frontier is also pr0mising its customers appointment windows within two hour blocks, making it easier to know exactly when a technician will arrive.  If Frontier keeps its appointments, it means customers don’t have to take an entire day off from work waiting for someone to show up.

Hulu has announced a new premium service that will deliver entire seasons of network TV shows at 720p high definition resolution for $9.99 per month (plus applicable taxes).

The concept of Hulu Plus has been around for months now, as Hulu’s owners (Disney, NBC Universal, News Corp and Providence Equity Partners) contemplate the increasing cost of delivering video to millions of Americans during an advertising industry crisis.  Advertising revenue no longer covers the costs, so Hulu hopes paying subscribers will.

The free version of Hulu isn’t going anywhere — in fact the service has just signed agreements with CBS and Viacom to bring shows that formerly were seen on Joost over to Hulu.  Time Warner (the entertainment company, not the cable operator) is also bringing some of its shows to Hulu.

But free viewers will continue to find access to the latest shows limited, typically to the last four to five episodes.  If you want to catch up on an entire season, you’ll need to pony up ten bucks.

The prospect of watching nearly every network show from ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC over your home computer, television or other devices including the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and Blu-Ray players from Samsung, Sony, and Vizio would give you more than 3,000 viewing options to choose from.  But before getting too excited, there are some downsides to Hulu Plus:

1. You’re still going to watch commercials. Just like basic cable, you are going to pay to watch commercials on Hulu Plus.  That will be a deal-breaker for many who believe if you pay a monthly fee for it, you shouldn’t have to watch advertising.  Netflix offers online viewing as part of its $9.99 monthly service and there is no advertising.
2. You still have to wait to watch shows. There is no live streaming of network shows.  You’ll have to wait until the next day like everyone else on Hulu to catch the latest episode.
3. Don’t you dare watch on your smartphone. With Internet Overcharging schemes in place at AT&T and presumably on the way at Verizon, nothing eats your allowance faster than online video.  Paying $10 a month for Hulu Plus will be dirt cheap compared to the overlimit fees you’ll pay if you exceed your usage allowance.

The cable industry still thinks it could have a better product in the end.  TV Everywhere’s variations from Comcast and other cable operators are provided free of charge to existing cable subscribers (although the advertising load may end up being greater).  Many cable network shows are better received than some of the swill served up by the networks, and cable could be free to provide season passes right from the outset.

An introduction to Hulu Plus. (2 minutes)

Don't touch this -- Bridging the gap (circled) can drive your iPhone's signal bars into a ditch

The long lines are over.  The hype that drove some Apple fanboys to wait hours in line, even with an advance reservation for the phone, has died down.  The people in the office you irritated bragging about your conquest have moved on with their lives.  For a growing number of early iPhone 4 buyers, that exhilaration is now being replaced with a realization: you are a beta tester for a new product that has some nagging design problems and defects.  And you are still stuck with AT&T, the nation’s least favorite wireless carrier.  Only now, it’s not just AT&T dropping your calls — it’s the iPhone itself.

A growing number of buyers have discovered a flaw so obvious even the most rudimentary testing, even from the drunk guy who left his phone in that California bar, should have picked up — if you hold the phone in your hand a certain way to make a call, the iPhone has a tendency to drop it.  That problem has grown so significant, Apple had to lock the message thread discussing the matter because it was crashing the browsers of support forum visitors.

You didn’t buy the iPhone to actually make calls, did you?

Sorting out whether the dropped calls are Apple’s fault or just business as usual at AT&T is now underway.

Apple’s answer to this particular problem is to turn the potential marketing crisis into an opportunity — by selling you a $30 “bumper”-case to keep your hands from actually touching the phone’s side, which is part of the antenna system.  The case’s odd design, which only covers the sides of the phone, has some speculating Apple knew about this problem all along and designed a case to mitigate the problem, and pocket the proceeds.

A leaked memo from Apple includes talking points to calm customers who have concerns Apple thinks are non-issues.  Apple even insists its representatives take a moment to summon up the proper “tone” when dealing with customers:

1. Keep all of the positioning statements in the BN handy – your tone when delivering this information is important.

• The iPhone 4’s wireless performance is the best we have ever shipped. Our testing shows that iPhone 4’s overall antenna performance is better than iPhone 3GS.
• Gripping almost any mobile phone in certain places will reduce its reception. This is true of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, and many other phones we have tested. It is a fact of life in the wireless world.
• If you are experiencing this on your iPhone 3GS, avoid covering the bottom-right side with your hand.
• If you are experiencing this on your iPhone 4, avoid covering the black strip in the lower-left corner of the metal band.
• The use of a case or Bumper that is made out of rubber or plastic may improve wireless performance by keeping your hand from directly covering these areas.

2. Do not perform warranty service. Use the positioning above for any customer questions or concerns.

3. Don’t forget YOU STILL NEED to probe and troubleshoot. If a customer calls about their reception while the phone is sitting on a table (not being held) it is not the metal band.

4. ONLY escalate if the issue exists when the phone is not held AND you cannot resolve it.

5. We ARE NOT appeasing customers with free bumpers – DON’T promise a free bumper to customers.

The yellow blotch problem

This week, even more problems are showing up:

• The Glitchy Proximity Sensor: PC World covers the iPhone’s sudden activation of the menu screen while talking on the phone.  With one’s face next to the screen, customers are reporting calls suddenly switched to speakerphone mode, muted, or throwing blasts of touchtones at callers.
• AT&T “Still Sucks”: Customers in San Francisco and Los Angeles, among other large cities, report “Bermuda Triangle” reception zones where calls regularly drop and cannot be made.  Randomly dropped calls are also still a major problem, and some customers believe the latest iPhone is more prone to showing “no service” than earlier models.
• Yellow Screen Blotches: Yellow-tinted blotches are visible on several owners’ iPhone screens.  Apple claims this is residue from the manufacturing process to bind the glass to the screen and will disappear with use as the adhesive fully dries.  Gizmodo reports these phones were likely rushed through manufacturing and shipped in time for the iPhone release day.  While some customers confirm the blotches do seem to be fading, others have been instructed by Apple to return yellow-tinged phones for replacement.
• Easily-Scratchable: Despite the hype about breakthrough glass technology making the phone more scratch resistant than ever, folks on Engadget found it was quite easy to tear up the phone when placed in a pocket with keys or other scratchy things.

Engadget received photos of scratched iPods hours after being unboxed (click to enlarge)

A Sacramento law firm, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff has already started looking for customers experiencing poor reception quality and dropped calls, presumably to consider a class action lawsuit against Apple, AT&T, or both.  As of now, the law firm has received more than 400 complaints.

The signal loss problem has the prospect of becoming the most notorious — for both Apple and AT&T — especially when it is easily reproduced by reporters on the local evening news (see below).  But Steve Jobs thinks the complaints are overblown, writing back to one complainer, “Non issue. Just avoid holding it in that way.”

Despite that,  Gizmodo launched a petition urging Apple to give free cases to all iPhone 4 owners.

Every product launch has its bugs. We’ve seen a lot this time. Many issues, like the yellow screens, will go away as manufacturing fine tunes and adjusts to solve the problems. But the antenna issue is a fundamental one, a design flaw, that won’t go away as easily without adjusting the product in a deeper way.

So with all these great things, it’s terrible that buyers should have this excellent phone ruined for them because of a single, but serious, design problem. And even worse that Apple should suggest users use their phones in unnatural ways or shell out $30—for what is essentially a double wide livestrong armband—to fix it.

According to some Apple-watchers, the company plans a software fix, suggesting the signal meter displayed on the phone is the real issue, not the actual quality of reception from AT&T.  If the software fix only re-calibrates the signal meter and consumers still see dropped calls and reception problems, additional complaints are likely.

After a week of made-for-TV-lines outside of Apple stores across the country, reality has set in and several stations are now turning their attention to the iPhone 4′s pesky problems.

We have a number of videos for you to watch below the jump!

… Continue Reading

The bill is pending in the House Ways and Means Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Bill Faison, sees the moratorium as an attempt to protect the powerful cable monopoly. Faison, a Democrat who represents Orange and Caswell counties, is meeting Wednesday with representatives of the telecommunications industry and local government leaders to discuss options.

Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston) couldn’t get his Senate bill the time of day in the North Carolina House, so he attached it to a popular House bill to extend the e-NC Authority — North Carolina’s initiative to promote better broadband.  Now a good bill is infected, like a virus, by Hoyle’s tireless work on behalf of Time Warner Cable.

Hoyle, who has cashed checks from the cable and phone lobbies for years, is proud of sticking it to consumers in his state.

“I want my bill passed. They want their bill passed. So, if they want theirs, they’re going to have to take up mine,” Hoyle told WRAL-TV.

Hoyle, who plans to retire at the end of his term, faces no consequences from Gaston County voters, so he doesn’t care if his bill effectively protects incumbent cable companies who have raised their rates far above the rate of inflation for years.  Hoyle wants a one year moratorium to stop local communities from building their own broadband networks to improve service to residents and deliver lower pricing.

One community that escaped Time Warner’s relentless rate hiking is Wilson, where a municipal broadband project called Greenlight effectively forced a red light on Time Warner’s plans to increase rates in the community earlier this year.  Wilson was the only city we could find in the state where rates remained the same, and residents have Greenlight and city officials to thank for that.

Hoyle and his friends at the cable company are outraged at the thought of North Carolina communities stopping the rate hike gravy train.  After all, less money for Time Warner equals less money for campaign contributions to friendly politicians.

“Do we, as government, want to get in competition with private enterprise and my answer to that is no, and I am passionate about that,” Hoyle said.

If only his constituents could afford to pay him enough to be passionate about their interests.

Rep. Bill Faison, (D-Orange), is among the lawmakers sponsoring the broadband stimulus bill, which was a sure thing until Hoyle got his hands on it.  Faison called Hoyle’s amendments anti-competitive and pro-rate increase, both bad for North Carolina consumers.

“I decide what gets put on the agenda,” Faison told the Charlotte Observer. “It’s unlikely that any bill with a moratorium in it has a chance of getting through the House.”

Hoyle’s strenuous efforts to perform legislative gymnastics on behalf of cable and phone companies have not gone unnoticed by Faison.  He suggested Hoyle’s latest move represented an “interesting political maneuver,” but he doesn’t intend to sit still for it.  Faison and other pro-consumer legislators are meeting this week to consider how to strip Hoyle’s nonsense out of HB1840 and shove it in the nearest trash can.  For comparison purposes, here is the original bill.

Consumers show no love for Time Warner.  Charlotte residents had choice words for their cable company when they learned it was behind the push to stop municipal competition:

◊ Time Warner is about to pay for being jerks to their customers, and it’s high time.

◊ Time Warner cable: I hope they rot. It’s about dang time that municipal governments started providing free broadband to their citizens. The fact that multiple households need their own wireless routers, broadcast on different channels, is a totally inefficient use of technology. Companies like TW Cable want to keep citizens constrained, which runs totally opposite to the promise of the Internet. Find out which boneheads in the Senate are pushing for this and vote them out. They’re clearly more interested in money from the cable companies than in serving their constituents.

◊ For cable to argue unfair competition is laughable when they operate a virtual monopoly.

◊ Instead of fighting this legislation, why doesn’t Time-Warner Cable focus on making its service so reliable and reasonably priced that no city or county will seriously consider managing this themselves? I find it hard to believe any local government could actually run this type of technology more efficiently than a company with TWC’s resources can, but the threat of competition helps keep TWC on their toes. P.S. I lost my TWC signal for 90 minutes this past Sunday right in the middle of the US Open and Brazil-Ivory Coast World Cup game. Nice.

A vote on the House measure is imminent, so North Carolina consumers should be contacting the House Committee members listed below and urge them not to allow any part of Hoyle’s language to remain in HB1840.

WRAL-TV in Raleigh discusses Hoyle’s language and how it ended up in a broadband stimulus request bill.  (2 minutes)

House Ways and Means/Broadband Connectivity Committee

This article contains the following correction since original publication: Our original article did not fully explain the bill to which Sen. Hoyle attached his municipal broadband moratorium. For clarification purposes, that bill is HB1840, legislation to extend the authority of the e-NC Authority. Our original article carried WRAL-TV’s language that said the bill provided for “$5 million in federal stimulus to help provide high-speed Internet access in parts of the state.” While that would be nice, it wasn’t an accurate characterization the bill’s intent.  Our apologies for the error.

Seoul, the capital city of the Republic of Korea

Seoul, the capital of the Republic of Korea, is the world’s most wired city with some 95 percent of residents enthusiastic users of the world’s fastest broadband networks.

While Americans cope with a broadband duopoly that holds us back, the 100Mbps world of broadband has already arrived in Korea, at prices a fraction of what Americans pay for service — with no limits.

A full 95 percent of households in South Korea have broadband internet access – the highest in the world. Singapore is second to South Korea, with broadband connection in 88 percent of homes. The U.S. ranks 20th, with broadband connection in 60 percent of homes.

Although densely populated cities in Korea, where residents live in multi-dwelling units, makes wiring fiber optic broadband easy, that’s not the only reason why South Korea is so far ahead of the United States.

Koreans consider broadband an essential part of life, a representation of their sense of freedom, as well as a tool to help Korea’s development in a global economy.

ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ visited Seoul to learn how the world’s most wired city has been transformed by universal, inexpensive, super-fast broadband.  (5 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC News Why So Wired South Korea 6-25-10.mp4

ABC’s Juju Chang sat down for an interview with Yongmann Park, chairman of Doosan Corporation, one of Korea’s successful business conglomerates.  (2 minutes)

A $24 million federal grant proposal to install 600 miles of fiber optic cable across the southern tier of New York has advanced to the “Due Diligence Phase” of federal review, making it a serious contender for approval.

The application for the “middle mile” project was submitted jointly by the Southern Tier East and Southern Tier Central Planning Development Boards to create a fiber-based backbone to facilitate so-called “last mile” projects which deliver connections directly to consumers and businesses.  If built, the project will make connectivity available to all-comers, from wireless providers trying to reach the most rural homes to cable and telephone-based broadband providers delivering enhanced speeds and service.

The Shequaga Falls, visible from W. Main Street in Montour Falls, exemplifies the terrain of many Southern Tier communities in New York.

Broome, Delaware, Otsego, Chemung, Steuben and Schuyler counties would be served by the fiber network if constructed.

The southern tier of New York, mostly defined as west to Lake Erie and east to Binghamton, is particularly lacking in broadband, in part because of very difficult terrain.  Steep sloping hills rising 1,000 feet or more, created from glacial movements, combine with level hilltops representative of the Appalachian Plateau.  In most of these areas, fields and pastures crown the high points while cropland and communities locate on the level valley floor.  Getting broadband to residents and farms involves winding cables around the hills through communities like Bath, Corning, Elmira, Hornell, Watkins Glen-Montour Falls, and Wayland.  Even larger communities like Binghamton and Ithaca have plenty of landscape to navigate.

Inside immediate town and city centers, broadband is usually provided by Time Warner Cable, Frontier Communications, Verizon, or one of several independent phone companies.  Where 30mph speed limits predominate, broadband is likely available.  Once the speed limit returns to 55mph, service becomes more spotty.

Prior efforts to expand broadband availability included:

• Public/Private Partnerships: Cooperative efforts to ease the way for private providers to extend service into previously unserved areas.  This had limited success, particularly when sufficient return on investment could not be achieved within a set time frame.  Most private providers will not wire sparsely populated areas because of the time it takes to recoup wiring and pole costs.
• Aggregation of Demand: This technical-sounding term simply means bringing neighbors together and getting them to jointly commit to sign up for broadband service if a provider will agree to extend service to their neighborhood.  This can achieve success in areas where a provider is assured of getting his initial investment back.  A few of these efforts have even shared or split the financing of some construction costs.  Mike McNamara of Haefele Cable Television, an independent cable provider serving 4,700 residents in rural sections of Tioga County, noted “last mile” access can be expensive, costing about $12,000 for them to extend cable service per mile.

The blue color represents areas in this section of the Southern Tier where no broadband service is available. (click to enlarge)

A decision on the grant is expected by September.

WETM-TV in Elmira explains the plan to expand broadband service throughout the Southern Tier of New York, if a grant can be awarded.  (1 minute)

Obama

President Obama signed a memorandum this morning that will free up 500Mhz of government and privately-owned spectrum over the next decade to double the amount of wireless broadband capacity in the United States.

The Obama Administration claims the newly available spectrum will throw a rescue line to overburdened wireless networks that are facing a spectrum crunch.  The White House estimates wireless data usage will explode — growing between 20 and 45 times in the next five years.

President Obama:

Few technological developments hold as much potential to enhance America’s economic competitiveness, create jobs, and improve the quality of our lives as wireless high-speed access to the Internet.  Innovative new mobile technologies hold the promise for a virtuous cycle — millions of consumers gain faster access to more services at less cost, spurring innovation, and then a new round of consumers benefit from new services.  The wireless revolution has already begun with millions of Americans taking advantage of wireless access to the Internet.

Expanded wireless broadband access will trigger the creation of innovative new businesses, provide cost-effective connections in rural areas, increase productivity, improve public safety, and allow for the development of mobile telemedicine, telework, distance learning, and other new applications that will transform Americans’ lives.

In practical terms, the reallocation of spectrum could spark a battle between the current spectrum holders — often government agencies and private UHF television stations — and the government.  Parts of the plan will require Congressional approval, a sure-fire guarantee that wireless providers will have to write some more checks to their astroturf and sock puppet friends to help sell the benefits of the plan to a wary Congress.

Since most of the spectrum would likely be sold at auction, the proceeds could deliver the administration a tidy sum to either reduce the federal budget deficit and/or fund broadband initiatives.

But what might seem at first like a win-win might not turn out that way in the end.

We have the following concerns:

Past spectrum auctions have largely benefited incumbent wireless carriers, especially companies like AT&T and Verizon who have the deep pockets that guarantee successful bids at auctions.  Both wireless carriers are not actually using all of the spectrum they already acquired in earlier auctions and have essentially warehoused those frequencies, particularly in rural areas, to keep them out of the hands of other companies that could deliver service.  FCC requirements that auction winners actually utilize their acquired spectrum have been so lax as to be laughable.  Carriers can easily satisfy FCC requirements building only in urban areas and leaving large swaths of the countryside unserved. The FCC must set rules that auction winners use their allotments in both rural and urban areas, or face fines or forfeiture.

Setting aside some frequency blocks for smaller providers and would-be competitors is critical.  In today’s mobile wireless marketplace two companies are superpowers and then there is everyone else.  Both AT&T and Verizon have the resources to outbid virtually anyone.  Allowing blocks of frequencies to be reserved exclusively for new competitors would bolster competition and give consumers more choices.  Those frequencies must be sold in a block that is identical nationwide — not leftover spectrum running through several frequency bands.

Providing additional spectrum for wireless broadband isn’t a problem, but with complaints about wireless service providers growing, along with consumers’ bills, now is the time to reform wireless for the benefit of consumers.  Let’s make it a “win” for everyone.

Bloomberg News explains the controversy behind the transfer of spectrum from the government and broadcasters to the mobile broadband industry.  (2 minutes)

Mehlman

A telecom industry front group acknowledged today American broadband in the last decade has not won any awards for speed or price, but if you just give the industry ten more years of deregulation, there will be more competition than ever to change that.

For the Internet Innovation Alliance’s Bruce Mehlman, the cable and phone companies have done a fine job bringing broadband to Americans, especially considering the industry is only ten years old.  If you leave things the way they are today, the next decade will bring even more competition from phone and cable companies, he promises.

But consumer groups wonder exactly how a duopoly will ever deliver world class service in the next ten years when it has spent the last ten hiking prices on slow speed broadband and now wants to limit or throttle usage.

This afternoon, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered tried to referee the broadband debate, pondering whether America is a world leader in broadband or has just fallen behind Estonia.  Reporter Joel Rose was perplexed to find two widely diverging attitudes about broadband, each with their set of numbers to prove their case.

On one side, consumers and public interest groups like Consumers Union and Free Press who believe deregulation and industry consolidation has created a stagnant broadband duopoly that only innovates how it can get away with charging even higher prices.

On the other, the phone and cable companies, the groups they finance, and their friends on Capitol Hill who believe there isn’t a broadband problem in the United States to begin with and government oversight would ruin a good thing.

Compared with other nations, the United States has continued to see its standing fall in broadband rankings measuring speed, price, adoption rates, and quality.  When East European countries and former Soviet Republics now routinely deliver better broadband service than America’s cable and telephone companies, that story writes itself. Embarrassed industry defenders prefer to confine discussion of America’s broadband success story inside the U.S. borders, discounting comparisons with other countries around the world.

For Rep. Joe “I Apologize to BP” Barton (R-Texas), it’s even more simple than that.  Even questioning the free market is downright silly.

“As everybody knows, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Barton said at a March congressional hearing to discuss broadband matters. “And y’all are trying to fix something that in most cases isn’t broke. Ninety-five percent of America has broadband.”

Industry-financed astroturf and sock puppet groups readily agree, and dismiss industry critics.

Bruce Mehlman, co-chair of the industry-supported Internet Innovation Alliance, which opposes more regulation, acknowledges that the story of broadband in the U.S. is a classic glass-half-full, glass-half-empty predicament. Still, he says he thinks broadband adoption in the U.S. is going pretty well considering broadband has only been available for 10 years.

“For the optimist, you’d say within a decade we’ve seen greater broadband deployment than you saw for cell phones, than for cable TV, than for personal computers,” Mehlman says. “It’s one of the great technology success stories in history.”

Mehlman says Americans don’t need more government intervention to make broadband faster and cheaper. “We haven’t yet and that’s in the first decade,” he says. “In the second decade, the marketplace is only going to be that much more competitive.”

Kelsey

The problems go further than that, however.

Derek Turner, research director for the public interest group Free Press, told NPR broadband rankings tell an important story. “For the providers to try to say that there’s no problem, it’s merely just a smoke screen,” he says.

Providers would prefer to measure their performance against each other instead of comparing themselves with foreign providers now routinely providing better, faster, and cheaper service than what American consumers can find.  They have to, if only because of those pesky international rankings illustrating a wired United States in decline.

Joel Kelsey at Consumers Union tells NPR there is an even bigger question here — what role broadband plays in our lives.

Because 96 percent of Americans can only get broadband from a duopoly — the phone or cable company, the only people truly singing the praises of today’s broadband marketplace are the providers themselves and their shareholders.  Consumers see a bigger problem — high prices, and particularly for rural consumers, slow speeds.

“If you talk to [the] industry,” Kelsey says, “they think of broadband as a private commercial service akin to pay TV or cable TV.”

On the other hand, Kelsey says, “There’s a lot of folks who think it is an essential input into this nation’s economy — an essential infrastructure question.”

National Public Radio reporter Joel Rose dived into the battle over broadband numbers between consumer groups and industry representatives. Is America’s broadband glass half-full or half-empty? (June 28, 2010) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A California attorney has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against AT&T for fraud and misrepresentation over claims the company baited consumers to purchase Apple iPads with unlimited access and then subjected them to Internet Overcharging schemes after AT&T ended its unlimited data plan.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP claims AT&T knew it was going to break its promise to thousands of customers who were told they could switch between unlimited and limited data plans as their needs changed.  On June 7th, AT&T ended its unlimited data plan but grandfathered existing contract customers, permitting them to retain the plan indefinitely.  But if a customer changed to a limited usage plan or discontinued service, they lose the chance to get the unlimited plan back.

Apple and AT&T announced this policy change with less than one week’s notice to their customers and only about a month after Apple and AT&T began selling 3G-enabled iPads.  Apple and AT&T had promised consumers flexibility with their data plans, allowing them the ability switch back and forth between the limited data plan, the unlimited data plan, and no data plan.

No more.

“The availability of an unlimited data plan was a key reason why consumers paid the extra $130 charge to access the 3-G network, and their ability to switch in and out of the unlimited data plan was also an important consideration in the decision to purchase an iPad,” stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Michael W. Sobol. “The complaint alleges that Apple and AT&T should have known at the time they were promoting the availability of unlimited data plans, they were not going to keep that promise.”

“I originally purchased a standard iPad. Three weeks later, I returned it to the Apple store, paying an additional $130 plus sales tax to upgrade to an iPad with 3G capability. I thought the iPad 3G was worth the additional money because, with the unlimited data plan, I could work outside my office or home and access all the data I needed for a fixed, monthly price,” commented plaintiff Adam Weisblatt of Fulton, New York. “But I also knew that for several months each year, with my schedule, a lesser expensive, limited data plan was sufficient. I would have never purchased a 3G-capable iPad if I knew Apple and AT&T were planning on suddenly taking away from me the freedom to opt in and out of an unlimited data plan at my choice.”

The proposed class plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class consisting of all individuals and entities within the United States who purchased or ordered an Apple iPad 3G on or before June 6, 2010.

Consumers wishing to join the suit can contact the law firm for additional details.  There are no details on exactly what the attorneys will be seeking from AT&T.

Class action lawsuits have often delivered far more in benefits and compensation to the law firm that filed the lawsuit, with consumers usually left with discount coupons or less than $10 in compensation.  In this case, demanding AT&T deliver on its marketing promises or permitting customers to return their iPads for full refunds would seem appropriate.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Marcus for the news tip.

Shapiro

Yesterday, Stop the Cap! reviewed a report from Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin Hassett suggesting “heavy users” should pay 80 percent of the costs to upgrade and expand broadband service to help lower prices for Internet access among America’s poor.  But what might have read to some as a scholarly assessment of challenges confronting American broadband is, in reality, propaganda produced by Sonecon, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm hired by AT&T to sell their corporate agenda to the American public, interest groups, and Congress.

Beltway Economics – Buying Credentialed “Experts” to Back Discredited Policies

The dirty little secret of Washington power politics is that money buys attention, access, and all too often votes.  What began as a cottage industry to help facilitate communications between private business and political Washington has grown into a monstrosity that now largely controls the agenda, giving the upper hand to those who can outspend their rivals.  Since all too often those rivals are consumers who don’t bring money to play the game, they don’t even get a seat at the table.

Few people start a career thinking they’ll ultimately wind up prostituting their good name and resume to the highest bidder.  For many inside the beltway, what may have begun as a well-intentioned career in public service too often ends working for one of countless “public strategy firms” that help special interests get their way. Their impact on the debate is pervasive, especially when Congressional allies are on board: using suggested witnesses at Congressional hearings that lock out true consumer groups, reading lobbyist-provided talking points during floor debates, quoting from industry-sponsored reports sold as “independent research,” and gratefully accepting any accompanying campaign contribution checks along the way.

Most D.C. lobbying firms rely on recognized names who maintain a high profile in Washington power circles even years after leaving the public sector.  When selling an agenda, it helps if the person doing the sales pitch already knows the person being sold.  That’s why so many ex-Congressmen, deciding they’ve gotten used to living in Washington and want to stay, find new careers and a much bigger paycheck working as lobbyists.  But elected office isn’t a requirement.  Even those appointed to positions in the public sector can turn those lean government pay years into an income bonanza once that administration leaves office.

Robert J. Shapiro has come a long way from his early days in progressive politics found him in positions at several liberally-minded groups like the Progressive Policy Institute and the Progressive Foundation.  He advised several Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  Bill Clinton appointed Shapiro the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs during his second term in office.

Unfortunately, although that title looks great on a business card and future resume, the pay is downright lousy.  Besides, his temp job would end with the Clinton Administration’s departure.

Shapiro combined his credentials with years of networking into Sonecon, LLC — a D.C. lobbying firm that pays dividends from its grateful clients, including AT&T.  Sonecon describes itself as “an economic advisory firm that provides in-depth analyses and unique insights into changing economic conditions in the United States and around the world and the impact of government policies on those conditions….”

Sonecon Knows Its Place

But just a little digging reveals Sonecon is really just another cog in the wheel of corporate campaign strategy and messaging.  Among the services promised to its clients (underlined emphasis ours):

• [Sonecon] works extensively with a network of affiliated firms (read that other lobbyists, astroturf groups, and think tanks) to help design and execute message campaigns;
• Sonecon plays an influential role in shaping public policy debates. We identify economic risks and opportunities created by recently proposed or enacted laws and regulations. By outlining the risks and opportunities associated with these changes, Sonecon enables business and government decision makers to react in a timely and appropriate way.  One recent example: Our reports on proposed new FCC regulations effecting broadband providers focused on broadband access issues for lower income households.
• As part of our services, Sonecon principals and advisers take part in strategic public relations campaigns designed to promote the firm’s work in the media, Congress and Executive Branch.  Well-informed, credentialed, and highly credible spokespersons, our team members are available for special appearances as well as ongoing communication campaigns.

Sonecon’s involvement in this particular ongoing communications campaign was made considerably easier by CNET’s sloppy editorial policy which effectively handed free media to AT&T without adequate disclosure of Shapiro’s agenda.  A simple Google search would have given CNET ample evidence that Shapiro and his firm were performing work on behalf of its clients — the telecommunications industry, especially AT&T.  This is not CNET’s first lapse.  On June 3rd, they provided column space for Robert Hahn to bash the FCC for involving itself in data plan pricing.  Only they never disclosed the fact Hahn is associated with the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), a phone and cable industry-backed think tank.  Even Comcast managed to disclose that association in their company blog.

In March, Shapiro appeared on an industry-backed panel to oppose broadband reform (from left, Robert Crandall-Brookings Institution, Walter McCormick-USTelecom, Lee Rainie-Pew Internet and America Life Project, Robert Shapiro-Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, and Joseph Waz, Comcast)

The unfortunate part of this story is that Sonecon and Shapiro have also infested the current debate over the National Broadband Plan.  This past March, Shapiro joined forces with the aforementioned TPI and its benefactors AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and the cable lobbying group NCTA to appear at a half-day “event” at the National Press Club to whine about broadband reform’s impact on industry investment and broadband expansion.  To underscore the economic investment threat, the sponsors were only willing to provide a continental breakfast for participants.  Leave us deregulated or else American broadband will resemble this stale pastry and ersatz “orange juice”-flavored beverage.

Such events happen easily in Washington with a swipe of a corporate credit card.  If consumers still had money, they could hire firms like Sonecon to represent their interests in these beltway policy debates.  But then hard-hit Americans don’t even have credit cards to spare these days, thanks to earlier lobbying efforts that allowed banks to use the economy as their personal casino.  Shapiro played his part in this too, writing a January 2008 report, “American Jobs and the Impact of Private Equity Transactions” that advocated for big Wall Street private equity leveraged buyouts, playing down the typical wholesale job losses that followed:

The data strongly suggest that private equity operations have solid, positive effects on U.S. employment, a finding consistent with the general role that private equity transactions play in the American economy. Private equity funds identify inefficient companies or subsidiaries, leverage those companies’ assets to borrow much of the financing to purchase them outright or to purchase a controlling interest, reorganize their operations and management, and run the enterprises as privately-owned entities.

Friends Until the End… Of the Contract

True to word, Shapiro did work extensively with a network of affiliated firms.  Many of the sources in his report are other groups also working for the industry or dependent on it.

The challenge here is that industry and government experts now expect that broadband bandwidth demand will continue to rise rapidly with the fast-expanding use of video and audio applications, and that consequently broadband providers face an extended period of significantly higher investments to accommodate this growing bandwidth demand.

[...]Another estimate cited by David McClure, the head of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and John Ernhardt, Senior Manager of Policy Communications for Cisco Systems, projects that the long-term investments required to keep up with rising bandwidth demand could cost providers an additional $300 billion over 20 years, on top of their trend level investments.

Recently, the FCC broadband task force suggested that the additional investment requirements, including wiring every household with fiber, may well reach $350 billion.

The U.S. Internet Industry Association is a trade association for service providers like AT&T and Verizon.  A Verizon executive serves on its board.  Its mission includes working “to enhance your existing legislative and regulatory resources, giving your company a stronger voice over a wider range of issues — and at a reduced cost.”

Cisco Systems, principal advocate of the theory of the Internet traffic tsunami, makes its living selling equipment to manage the “exaflood” to the same industry that it pals around with in public policy debates.

Kevin Hassett co-authored the Sonecon report

And where does Shapiro’s estimated price tag of $350 billion come from?  His proclaimed source, the FCC broadband task force, is only half the story.  In fact, this cost estimate came from service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations/lobbyists, among others¹.  That part didn’t make it into Shapiro’s report  — maybe he ran out of room.

Therein lies the basic problem with sock puppet research.  The credibility of any industry-funded study is questionable before the first copy even gets published.  Common sense dictates that a firm’s longevity is directly tied to its performance for clients.  Producing research that questions the strategy a company hires you to push is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy.  It doesn’t matter what credentials one brings to the table, money always speaks louder, especially in Washington.

Shapiro’s co-author, Kevin Hassett, is a political polar opposite, having served as an economic adviser to John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and Director of Economic Studies at the very-business-friendly American Enterprise Institute.  The potential friction between the two was eased by the ultimate incentive: big piles of bipartisan telecom cash.

In the end, Sonecon has done its client’s bidding — fixing facts to subjectively argue that unlimited, flat-rate broadband has to go. Their evidence is as flimsy as can be — assumptions that overcharging some people for Internet service will guarantee upgrades and cheaper pricing for others.

If you believe that, you’ll also believe Shapiro and Hassett wrote this report for free.

¹Federal Communications Commission. FCC Task Force on the National Broadband Plan Presentation to the FCC: September Commission Meeting (Slide 45)