Rumors are swirling Sprint will begin selling Apple’s iconic iPhone this October, bringing the number of carriers supporting the wildly popular phone to three.  Sprint shares soared 10 percent on the news.  But while Sprint customers and shareholders are celebrating the potential imminent arrival of iPhone, launching the phone on the Sprint network is no simple matter, especially for the last remaining carrier delivering truly unlimited data.

On the Plus Side

Apple’s iPhone has become a must-have for a significant number of consumers.  They won’t leave the phone behind to switch carriers, not even for Verizon Wireless, until they introduced the phone earlier this year.  Now Sprint can win its own share of iPhone devotees.

Sprint’s iPhone promotions could draw customers away from larger carriers, especially enticed by Sprint’s worry-free unlimited data plan that has become extinct at other wireless companies.

The iPhone locks customers into new two-year contracts with Sprint, helpful security at a time when AT&T threatens to further consolidate the wireless industry in its efforts to acquire T-Mobile.

On the Down Side

Sprint’s phone subsidy expenses will skyrocket with Apple’s iPhone, which commands the highest subsidies in the industry.  Analysts suspect AT&T currently shells out up to $425 for iPhone 4 and $375 for iPhone 3GS.  Then AT&T sells the phone to consumers for $200 or less, making the subsidy back over the life of the two year contract.  That hits AT&T’s cash on hand hard.  For Sprint, regularly accused by Wall Street of spending too much on customer promotions, it will only increase those costs.  Sprint pays less than $150 for its top of the line Evo phones in comparison.

One guarantee the iPhone always delivers: Lots of data hungry users.  The introduction of the iPhone may ultimately threaten Sprint’s unlimited usage experience because of demand placed on an already burdened 3G network.  There is also no guarantee the first Sprint iPhone will support Sprint’s 4G network.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KMBC Kansas City Sprint May Sell iPhone in October 8-24-11.mp4[/flv]

KMBC in Kansas City talked with customers looking forward to Sprint’s iPhone.  Sprint is a major employer in Kansas City.  (2 minutes)

Frontier Communications is adding a new $1.50 monthly surcharge for broadband customers not currently enrolled in a “price protection agreement.”  Labeled the HSI Surcharge, the new fee started showing up on customer bills this month, with only a vague explanation buried inside the bill:

Courtesy: Manmaniac

Frontier's Fast One.

Customers attempting to get an explanation of what this charge was all about got a myriad of answers from Frontier customer service representatives:

• It’s a broadband tax;
• It’s a surcharge to help pay for network improvements;
• It’s a charge for customers who refuse to take a price protection plan;
• It’s a rate increase.

Stop the Cap! called Frontier this afternoon and was told it was designed to collect additional revenue to fund network expansion and was, effectively a rate increase.  Even customers on 1-3 year price protection agreements will eventually pay the “surcharge” as their agreements expire.  It is not a government-mandated charge or tax.

Effectively, this rate increase allows the company to advertise their Internet service at a deceptively low price, until customers discover Frontier’s modem rental fees and surcharges.  In 2009, during Stop the Cap!‘s flirtation with Frontier DSL, we found the “out the door” price for their 3.1Mbps service was actually higher than that charged by Time Warner Cable’s 10Mbps Road Runner service.

A 5.9 magnitude earthquake centered near Richmond, Va., felt as far north as Ontario, Canada, caused millions of North Americans to reach for their cellphones and call friends and family asking “did you just feel that?”  The result: cellular networks faced severe congestion for approximately 30 minutes just after the earthquake hit at 1:51pm EDT.

The earthquake, which lasted as long as 45 seconds, has been irresistible catnip for television media, as stations up and down the east cost interrupt regular programming in a breathless, hyped hunt for damage.  In the nation’s capitol, hundreds of thousands of workers decided to call it a day, and are currently clogging highways in an effort to get home.  They are talking on their cell phones, too.

WUSA-TV in Washington is covering building damage, mostly to older structures that have spewed bricks and concrete onto the sidewalks below.  Injuries so far appear to be minor.

Sprint is calling today’s earthquake the spark for a “temporary mass calling event,” causing a number of calls to fail.  But little, if any, permanent damage has been done to wireless infrastructure.

But it is another example of what happens to America’s communications infrastructure during any significant event, major or not: wireless clogs that only subside when customers get off their phones.

[For the record, at Stop the Cap! HQ in suburban Rochester, N.Y., we did not feel a thing.]

Their prices are sky high.

Back in May 2010, Stop the Cap! launched a debate with a few Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) that provide largely rural America with wireless access to the Internet over long range Wi-Fi networks.  The debate got started when Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, announced the arrival of an Internet Overcharging scheme at his WISP — Vistabeam, which serves residents in rural Wyoming and Nebraska.

WISPs are being increasingly challenged by the changing tastes of Internet customers, who are gravitating towards broadband multimedia content, saturating limited capacity networks and forcing regular infrastructure upgrades to keep up with increasing usage demands.  Unlike larger providers, many WISPs are independent, family-run businesses that lack easy access to capital and resources to rapidly respond to demand, especially when most have a rural customer base that numbers in the hundreds or thousands.

That’s one of the reasons why Stop the Cap! has not been as harsh on these providers when they implement usage limit schemes on their customers.  Because WISPs provide service where cable and phone companies usually don’t bother to serve, these wireless providers are the only option beyond satellite Internet, which we regularly label “fraudband” for claims of broadband speeds that are rarely delivered.  Still, we were not impressed last year with some of Larsen’s language about what his usage caps were intended to do (underlining ours):

I feel that these caps are more than generous, and should have a minimal effect on the majority of our customers.   With our backbone consumption per customer increasing, implementing caps of some kind became a necessity.    I am not looking at the caps as a new “profit center” – they are a deterrent as much as anything.    It will provide an incentive for customers to upgrade to a faster plan with a higher cap, or take their download habits to a competitor and chew up someone else’s bandwidth.

Ouch.

It’s been over a year, and Larsen is back with an editorial patting himself on the back for an Internet Overcharging success story well-implemented:

We have never raised prices on our services.    We still have a customer note on the wall that reads “Your bill was the only one I got this month that DIDN’T go up.   Thank you!”     I would have a hard time raising prices on this person because of their neighbors that are downloading 20x as much.   Usage Based Billing is a much fairer way to go, especially when the provider faces so much reinvestment cost to accommodate the heavier users.   After the first year of implementation, I am very glad that we took the time to implement it and intend to use the revenue to build a better network for all of our customers.

Larsen is also upset with those who believe in the concept of unlimited Internet:

Operating a broadband network is not free, and it is not a low-maintenance business.   I have a group of dedicated employees and subcontractors that have spent a lot of late nights and early mornings away from their families to build and maintain our network.   Anyone who thinks that unlimited broadband is a God given right should be forced to spend a few days in my lead tech’s shoes, getting a good look at what a broadband provider has to do to build a network and keep it running.

Larsen, like other WISPs are confronting the reality that Internet usage is on the upswing, and while we sympathize with the challenges faced by Vistabeam and other WISPs, his statements do not apply to every broadband network around.  And frankly, an increasing number of customers simply aren’t interested in Larsen’s challenges, especially if another provider can deliver service more cheaply and efficiently.  Vistabeam better hope nobody does, because their prices are simply not competitive if just about any other provider manages to work their way into his territory.

Vistabeam prices start at $29.95 a month for 384kbps/128kbps service with a monthly usage limit of 10GB.  Exceed that and you will pay an additional $1 per gigabyte.  Customers who need more speed pay dearly for it.  A tier providing 4/2Mbps service will run you $99.95 a month with a 60GB monthly usage allowance.

As of late, Larsen has been railing against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over recent broadband stimulus awards designed to improve coverage of broadband Internet in the same rural regions of the country Vistabeam serves.  He’s upset the USDA has awarded a $10.2 million infrastructure loan to the Hemingford Cooperative Telephone Company, which provides service in western Nebraska under the name Mobius Communications.

Larsen speaks highly of the fact Vistabeam delivers service in the absence of government funding or stimulus. But average consumers are not likely to care when they compare prices and consider the fact Mobius doesn’t appear to limit customers’ usage.

Mobius DSL Prices:

• 500kbps – $35.00
• 1.5Mbps – $40.00
• 3Mbps – $50.00
• 5Mbps – $60.00 (Currently available in Alliance and Chadron.)

Mobius charges effectively half the price Vistabeam charges, and offers faster tiers of service in some areas, without fear of overlimit fees.  It’s also important to recognize the “award” was actually a “loan,” which must be repaid.  Larsen seems less upset with the fact there are broadband stimulus programs than with the reality industry lobbying has effectively cut out many Wireless ISPs from standing any chance of winning one.

I get especially frustrated by loan awards like this one because I have operated two ISPs that have had to compete directly with Mobius and did not have access to any federal grant or loan programs.   The USDA Broadband and Loan programs are essentially only available to [regional phone companies].   When I made inquiries into the programs several years ago, I found that they would only loan to a single recipient in a region so that they were not funding competing projects.

Phillip Dampier

For Stop the Cap!, our constituents are consumers interested in obtaining the best possible broadband service at the best price.  Larsen’s views, understandable from the perspective of a business owner, would leave a number of consumers paying effectively double the price for usage-limited broadband. That would, however, satisfy a business argument that self-funded private providers should not face competition from other providers that can extend faster, unlimited DSL, cable, or fiber service with low interest loans.

Wouldn’t a better solution be to form a coalition to force open the same beneficial loan programs to Wireless ISPs who can more readily and affordably build up their networks and ease the Internet Overcharging that too often comes along for the ride?  We’re not accusing Larsen of gouging his customers for fun and profit, but we would like to see WISPs like Vistabeam develop win-win strategies that deliver success for their innovative efforts and lower priced, faster service for their customers.

The alternative may be the eventual arrival of those rural phone companies, increasingly equipped to deliver faster and cheaper service to Vistabeam’s current customers, eventually spelling disaster to that company’s business plan.  It has happened before.  Anyone remember the “wireless cable” industry that delivered a few dozen cable channels over microwave signals?  That’s a service whose time came and went, largely replaced with satellite television and rural telephone cable TV, better equipped to provide the kind of service consumers actually wanted, but wireless cable was ill-equipped to provide.

Accidents can be forgiven, but when AT&T’s repair crews take nearly a week to fix them, they are rarely forgotten.

More than 350 residents of Burbank, Calif., learned that first hand when they lost their AT&T landlines for six days, after an unrelated construction crew accidentally cut a telephone cable.

For more than a few impacted residents, AT&T took their sweet time fixing the problem, costing area businesses thousands of dollars and leaving hundreds of customers mystified.

The accidental cable cut on Front Street Aug. 13 left consumers reaching for their cellphones and local businesses trying to convince their own customers they had not gone out of business.

The Glendale News-Press shared the misery:

Brian Schneider of Schneider & Associates Claim Services said he has been without phone service since Monday morning.

“It’s really destroying my business, I feel very helpless,” Schneider said. “I feel like I’m living in a Third World country with no telephone.”

He estimated a loss of $6,000 to $7,000 a day because customers cannot reach him.

“Customers are sending emails asking if we’re still in business,” Schneider said. “I have 25 employees who are going to be adversely affected by this.”

Compounding matters is the fact that he just rolled out a marketing campaign to attract new customers.

“It’s not easy to get new clients in this environment, and then they call and the phone just rings and we don’t pick it up — bye-bye new client.”

AT&T claims they had to dig down at least 12 feet to reach and repair the affected cable, and told the newspaper it would take up to a week to restore service, and it did.  But many customers were infuriated they were kept in the dark on the company’s progress, and others had trouble convincing AT&T to forward affected calls to unaffected cellphones and other working numbers.

AT&T said reimbursements for lost service, finally restored six days after the cable cut, were not automatic.  Customers seeking a refund have to call the company’s customer service line and request one.