More dollar-a-holler advocacy for AT&T in the pages of CNET. AT&T brings the money, lobbyists ride their former credentials to deliver exactly the "facts" AT&T wants to read.

CNET last week shamefully handed over column space to a barely-disclosed AT&T lobbyist trotting out the latest unfounded, anti-consumer nonsense: tiered data plans help bring broadband to the poor.

It’s all part of AT&T’s Re-education campaign to sucker convince Americans that paying more for less service is a good thing:

New analysis shows that as Internet providers ramp up their investments to accommodate the surge in bandwidth demand, the old, one-price-for-everybody model would slow our progress toward universal adoption, especially by lower-income Americans.

The first reaction of many Internet users to this news may well be disbelief. How can it be that a pricing approach that has worked so well for so many years can suddenly become obsolete and even counterproductive? The answer is that technological advances have changed what many of us do online, which, in turn, has changed the economics.

A techno-ecosystem once dominated by e-mail and text now is increasingly characterized by high-definition video that claims up to 1,000 times as much network capacity and bandwidth as simple text. The way we currently pay for the infrastructure required to keep the network humming also will have to change.

The only humming we hear is AT&T’s dollar bill-counting machines.

When at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  Robert J. Shapiro and his co-author Kevin Hassett’s latest work, “A New Analysis of Broadband Adoption Rates By Minority Households,” is simply a rehash — spoiled leftover bologna — of their last bought-and-paid-for-study we analyzed last fall.  Both reports are tailor-made to appeal to the minority-interest groups that are part of AT&T’s Rainbow Coalition of Cash — groups that engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy of AT&T’s agenda while quietly depositing their substantial contribution checks.

The report assumes quite a lot:

• That broadband service adoption rates in minority communities are too low because heavy users are artificially keeping broadband prices too high;
• That without tiered data plans, AT&T can never afford to expand broadband service;
• That unlimited broadband tiers can never co-exist with tiered plans — it’s one-size-fits-all under today’s bad pricing model;
• That a grand exaflood is coming to swamp broadband users of all kinds, and without tiered pricing to finance upgrades, we could all drown.

For the second time, Shapiro and Hassett try to stick the bill for upgrades on so-called “heavy users,” who they suggest should pay 80 percent of the upgrade costs through higher priced broadband service.  They also want content producers to cough up — the “they can’t use my pipes for free”-argument AT&T loves.

How will customers react to paying huge surcharges on their broadband bills?  According to the report’s authors, heavy users won’t mind because they are “price-insensitive.”

Ask Time Warner Cable customers in New York, Texas, and North Carolina if they minded the prospect of paying $150 a month for broadband service they used to pay $50 a month to receive.  How about Frontier’s customers in Mound, Minnesota asked to pony up $250 a month for up to 3Mbps DSL service because they exceeded Frontier’s 5GB monthly usage allowance?

The report has several other glaring fact-gaps:

• Tiered service plans are already available industry-wide, based on broadband speed, not usage.  Low income customers can obtain cheaper broadband today, if companies decide to advertise it;
• The wounds from high broadband pricing are industry self-inflicted.  They charge $40 or more for a service their financial reports suggest costs less than $10 a month to provide;
• Providers can achieve universal broadband first by extending existing networks to rural America, upgrading them to fiber as the economy of scale from urban and suburban upgrades forces prices down;
• The authors strenuously avoid reviewing providers’ financial reports which show enormous profits even as costs continue their rapid decline;
• Many of the footnotes used to back their arguments turn out to quote self-interested parties like service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations.

None of this is surprising or new in bought-and-paid-for-reports commissioned by companies to cheerlead their corporate agenda.  The last thing AT&T wants to read is a recitation of facts that disprove their arguments.

In essence, Shapiro and Hassett are arguing (with a straight face) that if providers are allowed to charge some consumers dramatically higher prices for broadband service, it will somehow convince them to upgrade their networks -and- trickle down lower prices for economically-challenged consumers.

Maybe if we let BP drill more oil wells in the Gulf, the extra profits they earn will somehow lead to better safety records for drilling and lower gas prices.  After all, with those record-busting profits earned over the past three years, the safety record for the industry is better than ever and gas is sold at fire sale prices, benefiting economically disadvantaged Americans, right?

If you or I argued this theory, we’d be drug tested.  For corporate lobbyists, it’s just another day at the office.

Here’s just how silly this really is:  You just discovered your hard drive is nearly full.  You’ve gone shopping for an upgrade, planning to spend around $100 for a new drive.  Just a few years ago, you spent around that much for a 120GB model.  Today, that same $99 would today buy you a 1.5 terabyte drive, unless you bought it from AT&T.  They want $1,500.

Newegg's price: $99.95 -- AT&T's price: $1,500

You: “Why is this drive so expensive?”

AT&T: “Over 90 percent of our customers never need a drive bigger than 120 gigabytes.  Developing a 1.5 terabyte drive costs plenty, and we feel that because you are a heavy user, you should bear the brunt of the development and manufacturing costs of all hard drives.”

You: “Sure, but this same 1.5TB drive is available in Korea for $99 dollars.  You want $1,500.  Why is there such a price difference and when does your price come down?”

AT&T: “Poor people in Korea and America can’t afford even a 60 gigabyte drive.  We are trying to make smaller drives more affordable  so in turn you should pay a higher price.  This isn’t about when AT&T will lower our price, it’s about when you will see our grand charitable vision and lower your selfish expectation of a lower price.”

You: “Wow, a corporation with socially-conscious pricing to benefit the poor?  So you are telling me that when I spend $1,500 on this hard drive, it is going to subsidize the cost of their 60 gigabyte drive, right?”

AT&T: “No, not exactly.  See, if we didn’t charge you $1,500, we’d have to raise the price on their 60 gigabyte drive and that’s not fair because they don’t need to store as much as you do.”

You: “But wait, your ‘subsidized’ 60GB drive costs three times more than what Koreans spend for a drive at least three times larger.”

AT&T: “That’s because the standard of living is different there.  Besides, why do you want to make the poor pay for your hard drive?”

You: “You aren’t making any sense.”

AT&T: “But we are about to make a whole lot of dollars!”

Dumping unlimited usage pricing only sets the profit expectations-bar higher for the broadband industry on Wall Street, regardless of what the true costs are to provide the service.  Wall Street never argues that excess profits should be spent on network upgrades and price subsidies to the poor — they want those profits paid to shareholders instead.

When the telecom industry is paying for your study, real facts never matter.  If you want them to do future business with your lobbying firm, the only acceptable conclusion is the one AT&T wants you to reach.

Tomorrow: Down the Sonecon rabbit hole

Brian is integrally involved in Greenlight, the highly-recommended municipal fiber to the home broadband service in Wilson, North Carolina

Because of our Internet disruption late this morning and into this afternoon, and the time considerations in the ongoing fight against anti-consumer nonsense from the likes of Senator Hoyle, I am going to re-post an article from Brian Bowman, who is one of the hardest fighters we have for the municipal broadband option in North Carolina.  He has an excellent round-up of the latest events.  We’ll launch another Call to Action shortly once we coordinate our response to this latest attempt to throw North Carolina residents under the bus.

Paper: Muni Broadband Bill Quietly Tucked Into Another Bill

by: Brian Bowman, Save North Carolina Broadband

Okay, I know there’s a lot to keep up with in this ongoing battle, but there’s a new development you need to know about. According to the Greensboro News and Record’s Mark Binker, the municipal broadband moratorium from Senate bill 1209 has been moved to another bill, House bill 1840; apparently to get around a committee that the sponsor, Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston), considered unfriendly.

Here’s today’s story, courtesy of the News and Record:

For those watching the municipal broadband moratorium bill (background from me here and from the N+O here) you have another bill to keep track of.

The Senate Rules Committee attached the broadband study and moratorium as constructed in S 1209 and dumped it into H 1840, which has to do with extending E-NC authority.

Sen. David Hoyle (D-NC)

I asked Sen. David Hoyle, chairman of the Rules Committee, why he was sending over a bill that has already passed the Senate.

“I’m sending it over with something the House likes,” Hoyle said. “I can’t get a committee hearing on the broadband.”

Rep. Bill Faison, the House committee chairman holding onto the bill, attended Senate Rules to watch the proceedings but did not comment to the committee.

This is the legislative version of trading paint. If the House fails to concur on H 1840, the measure will be sent to a conference committee. At that point, if no senator signs off on a conference report, the bill goes nowhere. So Hoyle can say, give me a hearing on the muni broadband bill or I lock up you E-NC bill.

“All I’m asking for is a hearing, an up or down vote,” he said. “It’s not fair for someone just to hold my bill and not hear it.”

That collective coffee spit you just heard was Senate Republicans thinking to themselves about all the bills they can’t get heard in their own chamber.

The License Fee pays for the BBC's television, radio, and online operations, but now the British government wants a portion of it to be directed towards broadband as well.

Britain’s new coalition government announced Wednesday it was scrapping a proposed £6 a year phone tax to help expand rural broadband in the country.

“We need investment in our digital infrastructure,” said George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. “But the previous government’s landline duty is an archaic way of achieving this, hitting 30 million households who happen to have a fixed telephone line. I am happy to be able to abolish this new duty before it is even introduced.”

“Instead, we will support private broadband investment, including to rural areas, in part with funding from the digital switchover under-spend within the TV licence fee.”

Osborne is referring to the average £11.63 monthly fee British citizens pay to help fund the operations of the BBC’s radio, television and online operations.  A surplus of up to up to £300 million is anticipated to remain after the UK completes its transition to digital television in the next two years.  That money would be diverted to expanding rural broadband under the government plan.

But campaigners for better rural broadband service complain that will not raise nearly enough to provide broadband across the countryside.  The 50p monthly telephone tax proposed by the former Labour government would have raised nearly £1 billion per year.

Charles Trotman, of the Country Land and Business Association, told The Telegraph it will not be enough money to connect all rural areas. He said remote communities risk being left behind in ‘broadband deserts’ unless more is done to help villages set up connections themselves.

Other critics contend the surplus from the digital TV transition may not exist two years from now.  Thus far, mostly rural regions in England have made the transition to digital, costing the government publicity campaign less than expected.

Rather than the tax, Osborne claims the government can spur investment from the private sector by “making regulatory changes to reduce the cost of roll-out.”  He did not specify what those changes might be.

The government claims it is committed to providing up to 2Mbps broadband service across the entire country, but the lack of action in many areas have forced small towns and villages to launch their own municipal broadband services, sometimes funded by residents themselves.

The BBC covers two British communities doing it themselves — providing enhanced broadband because private providers wouldn’t.  One in Highworth offers free Wi-Fi for up to two hours daily, while in Lyddington residents raised £37,000 to obtain enhanced DSL service.  (5 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Signal -- Connectivity on the move 6-10.mp4

Highworth (Swindon) relies on Signal, a high speed WISP/Wi-Fi network that offers up to 20/2 Mbps unlimited access with no Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or overage fees for £5.99 per month, or up to two hours daily access for free.  (4 minutes)

Gilbert

Only in Texas.

Less than a day after the Texas Department of Agriculture unveiled its statewide broadband map, an opposition candidate running for the office of Agriculture Commissioner dismissed it as a re-election scheme that will never benefit rural Texas.

Hank Gilbert, the Democratic agriculture commissioner candidate, criticized the incumbent commissioner’s efforts as a cheap stunt that took four years to deliver and wasted taxpayer money.

“This is yet another stupid, sleazy, ‘look-at-me’ political trick designed to cover up the fact that he’s one of the best at wasting tax money in the history of the state,” Gilbert said. “That map will do nothing for people without broadband access.  I’m sure people on landline modems will be grateful to Todd—after the 45 minutes it takes them to actually view the map to determine, sure enough, that their area isn’t served by broadband,” Gilbert continued.

Gilbert is referring to a joint broadband mapping project by the Texas Department of Agriculture and telecom industry front group Connected Nation, which is stacked to the rafters with telecom industry executives with a vested interest in making sure those maps reflect the industry’s interests.

Current commissioner Todd Staples released the map with great fanfare, claiming 97 percent of Texas already had access to broadband service, with just three percent, representing 250,000 Texans without.  Those numbers were debatable, considering Connected Nation was involved.  In earlier mapping efforts, the group claimed ubiquitous broadband was already available over large sections of several communities, even though it turned out many of those homes could not qualify to receive the DSL service the group said was available.

Gilbert put a less fine point on it:

Texas Broadband Map (click to enlarge)

“Aside from the fact that he considers the federal stimulus dollars for broadband an excuse to gain further name recognition, what has Todd Staples really done to increase broadband connectivity in Texas,” Gilbert asked. He also questioned why TDA officials have said publicly, in the weeks prior to the map’s unveiling, that they didn’t know what areas of Texas were not served by broadband or high-speed internet access.

“It is a sad day when the agency and commissioner in charge of making sure rural areas get broadband don’t know which areas are underserved. It’s even more sad that the TDA had to depend on a public-private partnership with a non-profit agency to figure it out. I don’t think it will come as a surprise to anyone that telecom companies have far more granular information on existing service areas,” Gilbert said.

“Based on the information available on the website Staples is touting, anyone with a pulse, vocal chords, and the ability to dial the keys on a telephone could have collected this information from providers. I don’t see why it has taken Todd Staples nearly four years to do this,” Gilbert said.

Gilbert is apparently new to the broadband availability debate.  Telecom companies treat specifics about their broadband service areas and speeds as proprietary business information and will not disclose it to the government or any other third party, claiming it needs to protect the information for competitive reasons.  Earlier efforts to collect this information in other states met with stonewalling from providers.  Even the federal government has been unable to gather street-level statistics on broadband service from some providers.

But Gilbert has a point that a map project, especially with an industry front group in the mix, does not actually bring broadband to anyone.  Too often, such maps are used to block would-be competitors from getting federal broadband grant money, with nearby providers claiming the maps show the funding would help a community already served by broadband, even if it was not.  They also help paint a helpful picture for an industry seeking funding for middle-mile projects that divert broadband stimulus funding to help incumbent providers enhance their networks at the public expense.  In short, Texas cable and phone companies get to argue the stimulus program is a waste of money (unless they are recipients) because Texas doesn’t have a broadband problem.

Cue the Texas Cable Association:

“The map shows that less than 1 percent of all Texans cannot access some form of broadband, whether, wired, wireless or mobile. Yet – without this information – the federal government awarded more than $200 million in grants and loans to projects in Texas. Some of these projects propose to duplicate service in an area already served by multiple broadband providers.

“In addition, the federal government set a deadline for second-round funding applications that forced the Texas Department of Agriculture to again make recommendations without the benefit of the mapping data.

“As the federal government considers these new applications, the Texas Cable Association urges it to make its decisions based on the new Texas broadband availability map.

“Taxpayer dollars – in the form of government grants – should not be used to duplicate services or to provide free capital that allows grant winners to gain market advantage over private companies that have invested millions of dollars of their own money to make broadband available.”

The state cable lobby even has a 30 second ad running, thanks to the help of the mother-of-all-astroturf groups, Broadband for America — a front group for big cable and phone companies.

The Texas Cable Association has this not-too-subtle ad promoting private investment in broadband, suggesting Texas telecoms are helping, not hurting consumers and businesses.  (30 seconds)

The Staples campaign responded to Gilbert’s accusations Texas-style — by accusing their opponent of being a crook.

Staples’ campaign manager Cody McGregor said:

“Our opponent has a criminal conviction for theft, unpaid taxes, current tax liens, and allegedly accepted a bribe for $150,000. I hope all Texans will gain access to the Internet and have the ability to view www.guiltyguiltygilbert.com and get the facts about our opponent and his campaign’s trouble with telling the truth.”

Staples’ website is way over the top, accusing Gilbert of being a “villainous Obama Democrat” who is guilty of not wearing his seatbelt and being stupid.

Todd Staples owns stock in at least two telecom companies, AT&T and Fairpoint Communications, the latter of which is probably not helping his portfolio too much considering it declared bankruptcy.

Read Gilbert’s “fact sheet” on Todd Staples’ broadband mapping project below the jump.

And you thought your state’s campaign ads were too negative.  The Staples campaign goes back to the old west to drive home a message about their opponent.  (1 minute)

… Continue Reading

This man could be one of five helping to guide the future of your broadband service. Kyle McSlarrow is the head of the cable industry lobby.

Free Press, the pro-consumer advocacy group, spent $42,000 to alert the public the fix was in at the Federal Communications Commission.

The agency has been holding secret meetings with four (now five) contenders in the battle for consumer broadband reform: Verizon, AT&T, Google, and Skype.  The Washington Post reports this morning the lack of cable industry participation we reported last night has apparently not been a problem after all.  The cable industry lobbying group NCTA is also invited.

Consumers aren’t invited.  Neither is the press.

Josh Silver from Free Press:

“It looks like yet another federal agency is catering to big business behind closed doors and ignoring the American public. It’s inexcusable that the FCC is brokering backroom deals with industry lobbyists, while pretending to run a transparent process. After the financial crisis and the oil spill, you would think the Obama administration would have learned a lesson. But we won’t stand by and watch the Internet go the way of Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico.”

“Despite the chairman’s campaign to be transparent, it’s doing the same things as the previous administration,” added Silver.

A source at the meeting said the sides were far apart on the issues — telecommunications companies oppose Net Neutrality, content producers favor it.  Telecom companies don’t want broadband oversight, some content producers do.

Oklahoma residents — your state government needs you… to test your broadband speeds.

Mapping the state’s broadband access will require the participation of all levels of state, county, and local government as well as Oklahoma citizens. A new website makes it easy for any Oklahoman to contribute some results of their own.

All Oklahomans are invited to test their Internet connection speed at the broadband mapping website. Visitors can then select their location (work, home, or other), street address, zip code, and what Internet provider they utilize. All the data collected will be consolidated onto a map of Oklahoma depicting what areas of the state are served, underserved, and unserved by broadband.

The Oklahoma Broadband Mapping Initiative is being conducted under the direction of the Secretary of State and a partnership of several state agencies.

Mark Lowenstein was a vice president of strategy at Verizon Wireless, where helped set pricing for the carrier.

The key to turning America into a haven for Internet Overcharging schemes is Re-educating customers to accept that unlimited ‘isn’t fair,’ especially in wireless mobile broadband.

Mark Lowenstein, an industry analyst and commentator, has given his prescription to Internet providers just itching to slap usage limits and overlimit fees on consumers enjoying unlimited broadband service:  you have to Re-educate consumers to accept Internet Overcharging schemes as a “positive” rather than a “punitive” development.

Fierce Wireless, where Lowenstein’s ideas were published, left out the fact he was also a senior executive at Verizon Wireless.

Despite the billions in profits earned from today’s broadband marketplace, some in the industry want to banish “unlimited” from subscribers’ lexicons.  Sure it’s true that many companies’ investments in broadband expansion and upgrades have actually declined in the last few years, right along with the costs to provide the service.  But in a world where revenues in other parts of the business are drying up, someone has to make up the difference — you.

For AT&T, the decision was easy.  If you want the raging-popular iPhone, you’re going to need a two-year service contract and a data plan limited to 2 GB of usage per month.  Exceed that at your financial peril (or use a Wi-Fi hotspot and stay off our 3G network).  Don’t like it?  Too bad for you.  Where else will you find a subsidized iPhone?

Now that AT&T has thrown down the smartphone cap gauntlet, Lowenstein is ready to offer carriers advice on how to make their abusive pricing schemes go down better with consumers.  He wants everyone to take a crash course in computer science. Grandparents everywhere will come to understand the meaning of megabyte and get into the habit of contemplating how many of those will be eaten from usage allowances everytime they use their phones.

A key part of the transition to usage-based pricing is going to be educating users and the app development community about what a “megabyte” is, as well as developing more advanced tools and the right early warning systems to ensure wireless operators don’t end up testifying before Congress for Bill Shock, Part 2. U.S. consumers are accustomed to flat-rate pricing in all other aspects of their connected life: landline phone, wireless voice (increasingly), cable, broadband and so on.

Lowenstein considers AT&T Usage Estimator to be “nifty,” missing the irony of his own declaration that AT&T’s nasty cap means “moderate usage of anything multimedia gets you to 2 GB pretty fast.”  AT&T, he notes, also helpfully notifies customers they are about to bust through AT&T’s subjective definition of an appropriate usage allowance.

He concedes there are some “gray areas” — mere minutiae in AT&T’s greater scheme for fatter profits:

• New generation multitasking smartphones can run apps and other bandwidth-consuming features in the background, sometimes simultaneously, leading to exponential increases in data usage;
• The model of the “constant connection” means apps in the background exchanging data over the mobile network 24/7 could consume plenty of data, or perhaps not.  Few know for sure;
• Consumers are forced to pay for spam, advertising, unwanted file transfers and attachments, and other data not specifically requested;
• Family plan users now need to track something else on AT&T’s website — how much data their kids are using.  Remember the wars over cell phone voice calling plan overages and text messaging?  Wait.

In Lowenstein’s world-view, this all represents opportunity.

Among his suggestions:

1. Add special ratings to apps that are highly consumptive of content.
2. Provide notification before certain content downloads or heavy usage apps.
3. Provide a view into other family plan users.
4. Provide the option for sponsored content and value exchange.

That last one may prove to be the most controversial at all.  It assumes the Kindle model — where the content producer builds in the price of network consumption.  That would make AT&T’s day — forcing content producers to cough up money to deliver content over the same network AT&T already charges customers to access.  Who would turn down being paid twice for the same thing?  Lowenstein’s model allows for advertisers to defray part of the costs:

An advertiser or sponsor could pick up some of the network cost. Or the content publisher could bundle the price of data into the app. Users are comfortable with the “choice” model in the TV world: view it for free on broadcast or Hulu, with commercials; pay a monthly fee for the DVR service and skip the ads; or pay a premium to view that content on-demand, commercial-free.

That suggestion benefits AT&T enormously, but does nothing for content producers who can’t even sustain themselves with advertising.  Lowenstein suggests they should now seek out advertisers to remunerate AT&T?  The implications of wireless carriers deciding who gets the usage-cap-exempt content deal and who doesn’t opens a whole new Pandora’s Box.  It effectively allows a handful of companies to pick the winners and losers in the mobile broadband marketplace.  After all, if AT&T offered free videos on its own video portal but didn’t exempt other websites with the same video content, guess where users will choose to watch.

Lowenstein believes taking these kinds of steps will somehow insulate the wireless industry from charges it’s barely competitive, restricts too much, and charges even more.  Yet usage limits like AT&T’s, coming even as carriers enrich themselves with gotcha add-on plans and extra fees will speak far louder than AT&T providing customers a guide on how to be abused by the wireless carrier just a little less.

I also think how usage-based pricing is handled in wireless will be closely watched in the wired broadband world. Consumers have become accustomed to flat-rate pricing for unlimited data from their broadband provider. But with the exponential growth of video consumption, and the notion of more TV and movie programming being downloaded from or streamed via the Internet, usage-based pricing for certain types of content or highly consumptive customers might be coming to a broadband neighborhood near you.

The “unlimited” ride might be coming to an end, but there’s an opportunity to implement it in a positive, rather than a punitive, manner.

In spite of Lowenstein’s love of telecom industry talking points (hardly a surprise considering he works for that industry), his notions that consumers will accept increasing broadband bills even as the level of service provided is reduced makes him not only wrong, but hopelessly out of touch.

Frenzied stock trading of shares of Frontier Communications began Tuesday as bearish investors placed a record number of bets the company would lose more than a third of its value by August.

Nearly 87,000 “puts” on Frontier changed hands, which is 66 times the monthly average.  This form of derivative trading lets an investor sell stock at a pre-specified, fixed price within a limited time frame, even if the stock price crashes.  These “puts” are comparable to insurance policies, usually sought by investors who believe a stock is about to rapidly decline in value.

Almost all of the volume was generated in two major trades yesterday.  Investors bought July and August puts at the $7.50 level, which suggests at least some investors are betting Frontier stock will decline below that amount.  If it does, they can still sell shares at $7.50.  Frontier fell 17 cents to $7.69 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading Tuesday. It has dropped 1.5 percent so far this year.

Speculation about why the sudden pessimism about Frontier Communications was sprinkled throughout the financial press.

“The motivation for the trades could be outright bearish,” Caitlin Duffy, an equity options analyst at Greenwich, Connecticut-based Interactive Brokers Group told Bloomberg News. “But it could also be someone buying downside protection if they’re long with a large position in Frontier.”

One factor they may be forgetting is the recent completion of Frontier’s acquisition of Verizon landlines in more than a dozen states.  On July 1st, Verizon will spin off its entity New Communications Holdings Inc., created specifically for the tax-free sale, to Frontier.  In effect, Verizon shareholders will suddenly own between 66 and 71 percent of the shares of Frontier and Frontier stockholders will be left with the remaining 29-34 percent.

Should Verizon shareholders decide that Frontier could follow earlier Verizon spinoffs into financial disaster, they’ll want to dump their shares of Frontier stock as fast as possible, causing the share price to plummet.  Those investors buying “puts” may be guessing that is precisely what is about to happen, and they’re hedging their bets.

AT&T offers up the common practice of boasting about how much you can do with a usage-limited account, based on the thousands of e-mails you'll never send, the 500 pictures you'll never take, or the one minute YouTube clips you'll never watch. Notice they never seem to include figures for streaming multimedia applications like music, movies, and TV shows or playing more bandwidth-intensive games. To do so would only upset customers further.

AT&T claims that 98 percent of its customers will save money under its new lower-priced usage-limited data plans, but an analyst predicts those savings will vanish for half of AT&T’s customers by 2013, exposing them to steep overlimit penalties.

Independent analyst Chetan Sharma crunched the numbers:

The average customer will consume more than 2 gigabytes of data a month within three years, up from 150 megabytes in 2009. Though AT&T could change its rates in the future, the cost of such data use at current rates is $35 a month. That would make it more costly than the $30 AT&T previously charged for unlimited data use.

“The devices are getting much, much better so the opportunities to multitask are more attractive,” said Sharma, who has written five books on mobile technologies and consulted for companies such as Motorola Inc. and Qualcomm Inc.

It’s not only heavy data users who may be affected, Sharma said. By year’s end, the average AT&T customer will have doubled their data consumption from 2009 to 320 megabytes, according to his estimates. Only 35 percent of AT&T’s smartphone customers use 200 megabytes of data or more, the company said.

Sharma’s forecast that half of AT&T’s smartphone customers will use more than 2 gigabytes of data is “not unreasonable,” said Christopher King, a Stifel Nicolaus & Co. analyst in Baltimore, though he said it’s difficult to predict such trends because they depend on the introduction of new phones, applications and wireless technologies.

AT&T’s new Internet Overcharging scheme has built-in profits as customers increasingly bump into the subjective limits the company imposes on its wireless customers.  Many customers have complained the 200 megabyte plan is too small to accommodate anyone but the most casual data user, while others find 2 GB too small to make video viewing more than an occasional treat.  Customers who exceed either limit face higher bills:

• Customers exceeding 200 MB in a monthly billing cycle face a $15 overlimit penalty, which nets them another 200 megabytes of service;
• Users who exceed the 2-gigabyte level will be forced to pay an additional $10 per month for an additional 1 gigabyte of service.

Even King believes AT&T’s limits are too low.

“There’s no way that AT&T is going to maintain their tiered pricing as they do today,” he said. “They’ll have to raise the caps on data usage.”

Frontier Communications filed suit Tuesday against Google claiming the search giant stole its patent for giving users one phone number connecting their home, work and cell phones, the core feature of Google Voice.

Frontier, the independent phone company based in Stamford, Connecticut, claims it holds the patent for allowing a subscriber to “be reached on multiple telephone lines from a single dial-in number.”

“Google’s deliberate infringement of the patent has greatly and irreparably damaged Frontier,” the lawsuit charges.  Frontier is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction to stop the use of the technology.

The lawsuit distracted from Google’s announcement that Google Voice was out of beta and now available to anyone in the United States.  Google Voice lets users obtain a free phone number that will ring multiple telephones and screen calls.

The one number follow-me feature is hardly new to either Google or Frontier.  Phone companies have offered similar features to businesses through telephone products like Centrex since the 1960s.

Frontier filed its lawsuit hours after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Frontier’s requested patent.

“We believe these claims are entirely without merit, and we’ll defend against them vigorously,” said Google spokesman Andrew Pederson.

Frontier will likely face an uphill battle in its lawsuit, because the company’s patent request from 2007 comes two years after Google Voice’s predecessor, GrandCentral launched service in 2005.  Google acquired GrandCentral in 2007, rebranding it as Google Voice. GrandCentral offered the same “one number” feature Frontier is complaining about two years before the phone company applied for its patent.

Perhaps Frontier’s lawyers might acquaint themselves with the concepts of “prior art” and “first-to-invent.”