What a great way to introduce U-verse to Chattanooga — headline news that an AT&T technician pepper-sprayed three dogs owned by a Chattanooga woman with a repellent known to be stronger than police pepper spray.

The nightmare for Janelle Lawrence began last week when an AT&T technician came on her property unannounced and began working in her fenced-in yard.

Janelle greeted the technician and asked him if her dogs, who were sharing her yard with the AT&T employee bothered him.

“He said not anymore.  I pepper sprayed them,” Janelle told WRCB, a Chattanooga television station.

She also noticed her dogs reeling in pain.

“My pug had pepper spray all over her body and was having trouble breathing and it got all over my arms and I started burning,” Lawrence says.

Lawrence says the technician was rude to her and refused to show her I.D. or a work order.

She recorded his truck number off the back of his work truck and called the main office demanding to know why he was there when she doesn’t subscribe to any of the company’s services.

AT&T told WRCB they didn’t need Janelle’s permission to enter her property or spray her pets.

AT&T issued a statement to the station:

“An AT&T technician has been working on this street all week for this week’s U-verse launch in Chattanooga. This AT&T technician needed access to the easement area on this fenced-in property, which is in a public right of way.”

Janelle remains deeply upset at AT&T and the employee, who appears not to be suffering any ill-effects to his job from the incident.

“You can do something to me and I’ll take it all day, but if you touch my little angels,” Lawrence says that’s where she draws the line.

The pepper spray incident took a considerable amount of shine off AT&T’s U-verse launch event, particularly for potential customers who are also pet owners like Stop the Cap! reader Sam who pointed this incident out to us.

“The same quick-drawing AT&T technician that attacked this poor woman’s pets could be aiming for yours or mine next,” he writes. “As long as this guy is still employed by AT&T, I wouldn’t have U-verse in my house even if they gave it to me for free.”

As far as Sam as concerned, AT&T pepper sprays their customers with high bills and bad service on a daily basis anyway.

“These guys have no shame buying their way into Tennessee with another one of those statewide deregulation bills that brought lots of campaign cash for supporters and very little for consumers,” Sam writes. “I signed up for EPB Fiber service, which is owned by the city, costs me less than either the cable or phone company, and delivers real fiber optic service right to my house.”

Sam also notes the guy who installed it loved his two dogs and cat.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WRCB-TV was the only station in Chattanooga to spend more than a few seconds on U-verse’s introduction in the city this week, but it wasn’t the kind of PR AT&T was exactly hoping for.  [Warning-Content may upset sensitive viewers.]  (2 minutes)

All this during an underwhelming launch week for AT&T’s U-verse in the River City, which garnered almost no attention in the local broadcast media, except for the pepper spraying incident.  The local newspaper put the story in its Business section.

Chattanooga residents now enjoy a fifth choice for several traditional services offered by cable or satellite:

• Comcast — incumbent cable operator
• EPB — municipally owned power utility and fiber-to-the-home provider
• AT&T — U-verse brings better speeds and service than traditional DSL from the phone company
• DirecTV — Satellite TV
• DISH — Satellite TV

The biggest savings residents will find from Comcast and AT&T comes when bouncing back and forth between new customer promotions.  Or you can just stick with EPB, which seems to offer the same prices for new and old customers.  For broadband customers, EPB delivers (by far) the fastest Internet speeds — up to 100Mbps upstream and downstream.  Comcast comes in at second place, and AT&T U-verse tops out at around 24Mbps if you are lucky.

Once promotional pricing from Comcast and AT&T expire, savings are highly elusive.  Price comparisons are extremely difficult because of channel line-ups, bundled equipment, and different Internet speed tiers and phone calling plans.  Making the best choice means sitting down and exploring channel lineups, HD channel tiers, how much broadband speed you require, and what kind of phone service you want, if any.

Most of the triple-play bundled promotions including standard cable, Internet and phone service will run between $119-139 a month before taxes, fees, and equipment costs.  If you sign a contract, Comcast will throw in a free iPod Touch.  Providers will keep your package price-increase-free for the length of any contract you sign.  That could be important, because AT&T and Comcast have been increasing their rates at least annually.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Raw video from the Chattanooga Times Free Press captured the launch party for AT&T U-verse in the city.  (34 seconds)

McCormick - An AT&T Friend for Life

While AT&T was patting itself on the back for its wonderfulness, AT&T took special care to extend personal credit to Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-Hamilton County) for shepherding the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act of 2008 through the Tennessee General Assembly.  It helped deregulate the telecommunications industry in Tennessee and de-fang oversight agencies tasked with protecting consumer interests.  The result has been a myriad of customer service nightmares for Tennessee residents, particularly for those who are with AT&T and have faced repeatedly inaccurate bills and terrible customer service.

McCormick was right there in the press release to help celebrate the achievement:

“As Tennessee policymakers, our goal was to increase investment throughout the state and give consumers more choices and innovative new services, and I’m honored to help AT&T celebrate this launch,” Rep. McCormick said.

AT&T invested $180,000 in Tennessee lawmakers like McCormick to do the right thing by AT&T and pass the bill.  The Chattanooga Times Free Press delivered a breakdown in April 2009 summing up the spending as AT&T pushed forward its bill:

State Election Registry records show AT&T’s PAC gave almost $180,000 to candidates, usually incumbents, as well as PACs operated by legislative leaders and caucuses and parties in the two-year 2008 campaign cycle.

The PAC, funded by top executives, gave $2,000 to Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, R-Blountville, the Senate speaker, records show. The PAC gave another $8,000 to Mr. Ramsey’s leadership PAC, known as RAAMPAC, according to records.

The AT&T PAC contributed $5,000 to then-House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, D-Covington, and another $4,000 went to Mr. Naifeh’s leadership PAC, the Speaker’s Fund, records show.

Rep. Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga, who is sponsoring the AT&T-backed deregulation bill, reported receiving $1,250 from AT&T’s PAC in 2007, records show.

“I don’t know how much money I’ve gotten from them,” Rep. McCormick said Tuesday. It is “up to each individual legislator whether they let that kind of thing influence them. I would hope that nobody would. I certainly don’t. I don’t need the campaign money that bad, to be honest with you.”

Janelle Lawrence and her beloved pets enjoyed none of this AT&T largesse — just the literal sting of the results.

Share/Save

Hultquist

Hank Hultquist, AT&T’s federal regulatory vice president, is taking questions on broadband Internet policy in an upcoming Washington Post piece.

Here is your chance to question AT&T about broadband issues ranging from Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and rationing experiments, Net Neutrality, U-verse and DSL broadband expansion, and AT&T’s involvement in the public policy arena.

AT&T is currently seeking major changes to the $8 billion Universal Service Fund that helps subsidize phone service for rural Americans.  AT&T wants to see that fund expanded to subsidize broadband improvements, which will directly benefit AT&T as it is among the top recipients of USF funds.  With 16 million current broadband customers and a service area that extends into the often-rural midwest and southern parts of the country, AT&T could receive a windfall in federal funds to pay for broadband service it doesn’t provide many areas today.

But what kind of broadband service will AT&T offer?  The company recently concluded a trial limiting use of its AT&T DSL service to customers in Beaumont, Tex., and Reno, Nev.  AT&T claims it is currently analyzing the results of that trial, and could bring usage limits on all of its customers.  Feel free to pose your own questions in the comments section of the Washington Post article (reg required) or sending an e-mail to Cecilia Kang (kangc@washpost.com) no later than Friday morning.

Scott Cleland, who runs the dollar-a-holler, broadband-industry funded astroturf group Net Competition already has his question in:

Shouldn’t those broadband Internet users (consumers or big businesses), who use the most bandwidth and benefit the most from faster more ubiquitous broadband, contribute relatively more to the Universal Service fund than those consumers and businesses that use much less bandwidth? Isn’t that the basic fairness principle that has long undergirded the current Universal Service fund, which is based on long distance usage/minutes?

Scott Cleland
Chairman, NetCompetition.org an eforum supported by broadband interests

Do you want to pay the higher broadband bills that Cleland advocates?

Kang promises to include as many of your questions as possible and post the Q&A early next week.

Share/Save

AT&T’s idea of “unlimited service” has its limits.  Five gigabytes to be exact, as some customers are now learning.

Weeks after promising AT&T customers enrolled in unlimited smartphone data plans that they could keep them, AT&T is now calling some subscribers of an earlier unlimited plan, telling them they need to limit their use of the “unlimited service.”

AT&T’s Data Connect Unlimited plan was discontinued by AT&T back in 2008, but the company promised current customers they could keep their unlimited plan.  But now, the company has started calling customers when they exceed 5GB of usage during a month.

The Washington Post reports AT&T has been sending mixed messages to customers, and is cracking down on those customers exceeding the company’s arbitrary limits.

“We’ve had a small group of customers on a DataConnect 5GB plan who were not being charged for overage when they went beyond that limit,” she wrote. “We’re now working to bring their accounts in line with the policy for the other DataConnect 5GB plan subscribers.”

Clark added that users who had signed up for AT&T’s earlier Data Connect Unlimited plans (which it stopped selling in 2008) could keep using them, but if they made “certain changes to their account” — for instance, transferring it to a new line — they would have to sign up for a new $60 plan with a 5-gigabyte usage cap.

That comes as news to several AT&T customers who have been in touch with the Post, who were switched, without permission, to limited service plans when they made minor changes to their account or were told AT&T was going to end unlimited service for all AT&T customers.

Rob Pegoraro, who writes the Fast Forward column for the Post, notes AT&T’s customer-care staff seems a little confused about these matters. He advises users with old, unlimited-data plans should be prepared for lengthy calls to customer service — and keep careful records of their interactions with the company.

Share/Save

Craig E. Moffett joined Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. as the Senior Analyst for U.S. Cable and Satellite Broadcasting in 2002.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford Bernstein, is sounding the warning bells that if AT&T and Verizon assign usage caps to their forthcoming LTE wireless broadband services, they will never provide suitable competition for American consumers.

The implications of Internet Overcharging schemes in wireless broadband go well beyond the two companies’ broadband offerings.  Investors expect either AT&T or Verizon to attempt a buyout of DirecTV in the coming months, hoping to pair the satellite service with broadband packages delivered by DSL, fiber, or wireless broadband.  Because many DirecTV subscribers are located in rural areas where even DSL service is often not available, wireless broadband networks would be the most likely means of reaching customers, but not with onerous usage caps.

“If LTE networks are going to be usage-capped, then the last pretense that LTE networks can be positioned as a substitute for terrestrial broadband would seem to be gone,” Bernstein told his clients. “And if LTE can’t be offered as a replacement for wired broadband, then the notion of an out-of-region bundle of DirecTV and LTE is no more.”

Unlike earlier broadband technologies, WiMax, LTE, and other 4G broadband platforms can deliver far more data to subscribers at reduced costs.  With the increased efficiencies offered by the faster networks, carriers can provide customers with considerably more wireless broadband service, unlike heavily capped 3G networks, most of which are limited to 2-5GB of monthly usage before the penalty rates or speed throttles kick in.  While completely unlimited service is unlikely until capacity increases, there is plenty of room to allow customers to access 4G networks without thinking twice about everything they do on them.

Sprint is betting its comeback on its virtually-unlimited Clear WiMax 4G service, now becoming available in an increasing number of cities across the country.  Marketed as a replacement for wired broadband, Sprint is hoping customers will flock back to the carrier, especially if AT&T and Verizon’s 4G LTE offerings are capped.

But AT&T and Verizon have both made noises about usage capping their LTE offerings, if only to increase revenue.  These profit raising Internet Overcharging schemes come despite efforts by the Obama Administration to dramatically increase wireless spectrum available for wireless broadband services.  Dave Burstein from DSL Prime says Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski is betting the farm on wireless broadband being the best chance for increased broadband competition.

“The heart of the U.S. broadband plan is to release more spectrum – enough for 10-20 networks like Verizon’s LTE now building – and pray that will be enough competition in five to seven years to check price increases,” Burstein writes.

Making wireless an important substitute for DSL requires raising bandwidth caps from today’s typical 5-10 gigabytes to several times as high as LTE makes the cost reasonable. If Verizon follows AT&T with an abusively low cap of 2-5 gigabytes and Sprint etc. don’t clobber them, the whole broadband plan falls apart because that’s not enough for competition in the future.

I doubt Julius understands this, because he would be doing everything in his power to avoid low caps. It’s just one more strike against “affordable” broadband, like the recent Comcast and Verizon price increases. People need to laugh out loud when Genachowski says “affordable” while tolerating continuous price increases.

Dave Burstein, DSL Prime

While wireless broadband can deliver access to many Americans who have never had broadband service before, it’s not well-positioned to compete for customers seeking to use the next generation of high bandwidth Internet applications.

None of the current wireless services are suitable for high quality video streaming of HD TV shows and movies, a crucial application for many broadband users. Burstein also notes large uploads are painfully slow on Clear’s WiMax network because of limited upstream speeds, but he expects improvements in time, assuming carriers expand with demand.  If not, as more users pile on the next generation wireless networks, their suitability for high bandwidth services becomes even more questionable.

“How much wireless could compete with landlines, especially as all cable connections are moving to 50 meg, was a crucial question for the broadband plan,” Burstein writes. “The consensus of several good engineers is that 4G competes fine with DSL if not many people expect video or other high-bandwidth apps. Wireless certainly can’t keep up if many people want to watch their TV over the net, so it’s only a partial substitute.”

As for AT&T and Verizon, Moffett suspects both may have to take a pass on DirecTV, consumed with fighting against broadband reclassification and Net Neutrality policies in Washington.  Taking on a second battle to run another dog and pony circus to gain regulatory approval for a buyout of DirecTV may be more than they’re willing to deal with at the moment.

Share/Save

AT&T was sending 156 page cell phone bills in Linda Drussel's name to her son in Texas

All Linda Drussel tried to do was add her son and daughter-in-law to her AT&T FamilyTalk calling plan, adding a phone to Drussel’s account for $10 per month.  But instead of a $10 monthly fee added to her bill, Drussel got a past due notice from a collection agency demanding $1,182, threatening to ruin her credit if she didn’t pay.

Drussel told WDAF-TV she doesn’t pay her bills late, and had no idea what AT&T was talking about, having never received a past due bill from AT&T.  The collections agency was unimpressed, telling Drussel, “Oh come on, Ms. Dressel, you have to know about this — your name is on this.”

Drussel made multiple calls to AT&T trying to get someone to resolve this, but even company supervisors refused to provide any straight answers.  WDAF-TV felt Drussel’s pain when they got the AT&T runaround themselves.  At one point, a reporter was surprised when AT&T asked her for Drussel’s AT&T cell phone number.

It turns out AT&T didn’t establish service for her son under her own account — instead opening one under her name and charging full price for service, delivering the bill to her son’s home in Texas.  When her son and daughter-in-law divorced, nobody paid the bill and AT&T’s collections department decided to pursue Linda Drussel for the past due bill, claiming it was her responsibility.

With a local station’s newscast following the story, AT&T finally determined Linda didn’t ultimately owe the company a cent and has resumed pursuing her son for the past due balance.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WDAF-TV’s ‘Problem Solvers’ had to be called in to try and get through to AT&T that a Kansas City-area woman didn’t owe the company $1,182 it claimed she did.  (3 minutes)

Share/Save

AT&T U-verse customers may have to do without these shows if an agreement cannot be reached with Rainbow Media

AT&T U-verse customers may lose access to three basic cable networks in less than two days if a dispute over how much money AT&T should pay for the networks isn’t settled.

Rainbow Media’s AMC, We TV, and the Independent Film Channel are all threatened with removal from AT&T’s nationwide U-verse lineup as a two week extension of carriage negotiations appears to be going nowhere.

In an ironic “now the shoe is on the other foot” twist, Rainbow Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cablevision Industries — the cable system serving parts of downstate New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.  AT&T is using some of the same language Cablevision used earlier this year in a dispute over fees charged by Scripps’ Food Network and HGTV, as well as Disney-owned WABC-TV in New York.  Rainbow even borrowed a page from Scripps and launched an AT&T protest site, Facebook page and Twitter account.

“AT&T is acting in an aggressive manner that puts their corporate interests ahead of their customers,” AMC said in a statement. “We are negotiating in good faith with AT&T and are hopeful that we can reach an agreement as soon as possible so that our viewers don’t lose out.”

Meanwhile, AT&T is publicly insulting Rainbow’s cable networks.

“Based on aggregate data we obtained from third party industry sources and our own subscribers, some of the Rainbow channels are among the least-watched and most overpriced per viewer compared to other major programming providers,” an AT&T spokeswoman told Deadline. “They’re also trying to force the renegotiation of a contract for one of their other channels that is not yet expired and force us to carry a new channel that wasn’t even formally presented to us until after the recent July 1 contract extension. We want our customers to know that we can’t and won’t give in to unreasonable deals that unfairly disadvantage our customers.”

Despite AT&T’s bravado, Rainbow may have the upper hand with a more aggressive outreach campaign.  AT&T’s website for U-verse has not mentioned the dispute — a potential PR mistake if it wants to argue its position about programming costs.

Share/Save

We have received a copy of AT&T’s statement in response to yesterday’s report about slowed upload speeds impacting customers in several cities around the United States:

AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent jointly identified a software defect — triggered under certain conditions – that impacted uplink performance for Laptop Connect and smartphone customers using 3G HSUPA-capable wireless devices in markets with Alcatel-Lucent equipment. This impacts less than two percent of our wireless customer base. While Alcatel-Lucent develops the appropriate software fix, we are providing normal 3G uplink speeds and consistent performance for affected customers with HSUPA-capable devices.

That two percent figure seems low considering the sheer number of reports received, but it’s not unprecedented.  Equipment and software glitches can create major slowdowns and outages.  While the problem is being fixed, affected customers are falling back to older and slower upload protocols.  AT&T didn’t apologize for the slowed upload speed, nor provide an estimate for when repairs would be complete.  As of the time of writing (3pm ET), problems are still being noted by some customers.

Customers annoyed by the glitch might be able to obtain some credit for the reduced level of service by contacting AT&T customer service and asking for it.

Share/Save

A full page ad from Verizon mocks Apple's iPhone reception problems (click to enlarge)

Apple wants customers to believe it’s not a head-slapping design flaw that is bringing iPhone reception to its knees when holding the phone, it’s the software that is telling you AT&T’s reception quality is better than it really is. Change the formula to calculate how many bars of signal strength AT&T is not delivering to its customers, problem solved.

But just how will Apple make its fan base believe those dropped calls and lousy data transmission rates, made worse when holding the phone “the wrong way” are just the result of some software bug?

In a statement released Friday, Apple told worried customers the latest version of the phone remained the best it had ever produced, and the lack of signal shown on the display is a software problem (inferring AT&T’s usual network issues), not a fundamental design flaw:

Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2 bars. Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak signal strength, but they don’t know it because we are erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place.

To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area. We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see.

We will issue a free software update within a few weeks that incorporates the corrected formula. Since this mistake has been present since the original iPhone, this software update will also be available for the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G.

In other words, Apple is banking that its fans are so enamored with the company and its products that just making a software change will convince customers the phone isn’t the problem. Will AT&T’s already lousy customer rating take an even bigger hit when Apple passes the buck for its design flaws to the cell phone provider?

The ongoing revelations of the flaws in the latest iteration of the Apple iPhone are stunning, if only because they were completely missed during beta testing by company employees. As we learned several weeks ago from the Apple employee who left his phone behind in a California bar, some prototype phones didn’t use the “innovative” case design now implicated in the “grip of death.”  Perhaps other Bay Area testers just assumed the bouncing signal strength meter was simply AT&T-as-usual.

Now that the signal issue, among others, has been made the star of the iPhone show on YouTube, Apple has launched into damage control mode.  What Apple does to regain your trust depends on what type of customer you are:

Tech-minded, Informed Consumers: Apple will have the most trouble convincing these customers to sign-on the iPhone bandwagon, especially now.  Many have refused to hop on board all-along, unwilling to sacrifice their wireless phone service to AT&T.  While many of these customers would happily buy an iPhone… from Verizon, news of technical defects and design faults will not inspire confidence.

Tech-minded Early-Adopters: Apple will need to fix its problems with the iPhone to keep these customers happy.  They are the first to buy new products and are more forgiving of early manufacturing faults (and are among those who probably first documented and reported them), but they won’t forgive intransigence and PR nonsense.  These customers want honest answers, a schedule for a solution, and mitigation — a few free iPhone case bumpers as a consolation would probably make many of these customers happy.

Non-technical Apple Devotees: If it’s from Apple, these people will buy it.  They don’t have the first clue about the technical mumbo-jumbo that explains the design flawed antenna on the newest phone, and probably don’t care.  They are loyal Apple customers, but they’ll happily slam AT&T for dropping their calls.  Most of these customers are probably blaming any reception issues exclusively on AT&T already.

The Fanboys & Fashion-Minded: These are the folks who perennially set up the lawn chairs in front of Apple stores 15 hours before the launch of every version of the iPhone.  A criticism of Apple is a personal affront, and they’ve probably already bought the company explanation for the issue.  The fashion-minded treat the iPhone as a must-have personal accessory.  Nothing short of a total failure of the phone will pry them loose from grabbing the latest version of the phone they need to be seen with.

For those without (or who don’t care about) iPhones, watching customers wait in long lines, proclaiming all things from Apple to be good — quickly followed by torch-bearing complaints when they are not so good brings  rolling eyes and mutterings about why someone would punish themselves over a phone.

Potentially the most irritating of all is the fact Apple could make money from its design failure — by advocating consumers spend a ludicrous $30 on what is little more than a rubber band to protect the rim of the phone from your hand.  Apple is selling their “bumper” case one to a package in multiple colors.  For that amount of money, consumers should get one of every color.  A company memo underscored the fact Apple was not about to give these out for free to aggravated customers.  Why lose an opportunity to extract even more cash from devoted customers?

Click here to view the embedded video.

MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ was unimpressed with customers who first lauded and then “whined” about their iPhone purchases, after revelations of inherent design flaws and other quality control issues threaten to turn the product sensation into the Toyota of telephones. (3 minutes)

Class action law firms are salivating at the prospects, and attorneys claim no “software fix” is going to suddenly make the iPhone’s antenna design issues go away:

• One suit filed on behalf of Steve Tietze and others in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeks class action status. Tietze accuses Apple of unfair competition, false and misleading advertising, breach of warranty, and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
• A second was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of Kevin McCaffrey, Linda Wrinn, and others accusing Apple and AT&T of knowingly distributing a phone with a malfunctioning antenna. The suit charges general negligence, defect in design, manufacture, and assembly, breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and fraud by concealment.
• Two others: Alan Benvenisty v. Apple, 10-2885, and Christopher Dydyk v. Apple, 10-2897, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).  “Apple’s sale of the iPhone with this unannounced defect, assuming Apple’s prior knowledge of the defect, constitutes misrepresentation and fraud,” said Christopher Dydyk of Cambridge, Massachusetts in his complaint. “In omitting to disclose the defect in the iPhone 4, Apple perpetrated a massive fraud upon hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting customers.”  Dydyk wants Apple to hand out free “bumper” cases that cover the antenna in rubber to prevent signal issues.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WJZ-TV in Baltimore covers the Maryland lawsuit seeking class action status.  Baltimore area residents filed the suit against both AT&T and Apple.  (1 minute)

Other phone manufacturers are laughing themselves silly at Apple’s declaration that all smartphones lose reception and drop calls based on how you hold the phone. Nokia is having a field day at Apple’s expense, promoting the fact you can hold their phones anyway you like and won’t suffer signal degradation:

One of the main things we’ve found about the 1 billion plus Nokia devices that are in use today is that when making a phone call, people generally tend to hold their phone like a…. well, like a phone. Providing a wide range of methods and grips for people to hold their phones, without interfering with the antennae, has been an essential feature of every device Nokia has built.

Of course, feel free to ignore all of the above because realistically, you’re free to hold your Nokia device any way you like. And you won’t suffer any signal loss. Cool, huh?

Click here to view the embedded video.

WTTG-TV in Washington spoke with Washington Post Tech Reporter Rob Pegoraro who discussed the signal ‘death grip’ and characterized AT&T’s service quality: “we have terrible coverage and we were lying to you [about it] all along.” The report also seriously questions Apple’s claims of a “software glitch” asking why a software problem would cause calls to drop when holding the phone “the wrong way.”  (4 minutes)

Apple’s public relations problem continued to grow this week when it declared earlier reports of terse e-mails purporting to be from Steve Jobs as fakes.  Boy Genius Report, who compensated one recipient of the e-mails, posted e-mail headers that they represent proves the messages did, in fact, come from Apple.

Apple also was caught in a case of bad timing when blogs discovered the company posting help wanted ads seeking antenna engineers, which seemed ironic coming after the release of the much-anticipated iPhone 4.

One biochemist offered his advice for free:

Subject: HowToFix for minimal cost — hydrophobic organic thin film layer

Hi,

In truth, Apple’s explanation for iPhone 4 signal reception problem is inaccurate at best and disingenuous at worst. iPhone users are in some of the hottest and most humid parts of the country this summer and have salty, damp hands especially at events such as baseball games, barbecues, or other outdoor activities. having bare metal antennae purposely handled will absolutely short the signal. This problem will be difficult to reproduce in Apple’s labs because the engineers are required to wash their hands before touching devices, which also strips off the natural hand electrolytes that are ever-present in the field on a hot day.

Anyway, the solution is not a redesign of the phone, but rather an electrically insulating organic hydrophobic layer atop the bare metal. a variety of plastics will work, such as polyethers, polystyrenes, or nylons. you could even use the plastic labels ever-present on aluminum soda cans, which likewise have an electrically insulating effect when holding said cans. these plastic coatings can be very very thin films which do not ruin the aesthetics of the device, and would require a minimal change of your production line. More importantly, this coating in no way affects the ability to recycle the aluminum — the organic thin film layer will burn away cleanly during the aluminum remelt process. Phones that have already shipped could easily be coated with this new layer at any Apple retail store or with a simple kit you could send to your customers.

In summary, this is a problem of electrochemistry, and certainly NOT a problem of software design, nor one that can possibly be solved by a software update.

Apple needs to hire some chemists.

Best regards,
XXXXXXXXXX, Ph.D.

KWGN-TV in Denver noted job postings from Apple seeking the help of experienced antenna engineers to help with their iPhone product line.  (3 minutes)

Several additional videos detailing the saga of the iPhone 4′s bugs are included below the jump.

Click here to view the embedded video.

NBC News covered the reception problems, quoting one customer: “It’s a great phone when left on the table, but the moment you pick it up, it’s a paperweight.”  (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

CNBC covered Apple’s apology over the iPhone reception problems and starts asking questions about how this will impact the company and its sales.  (3 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

CNBC has watched the iPhone 4 issues develop since the day of its release.  In these three reports, the network examines initial complaints about reception and then takes a longer view about whether this will actually do any long term damage to Apple’s reputation. (10 minutes)

Share/Save

The classic one-two punch of Internet Overcharging is to limit your broadband usage -and- throttle speeds downwards.  AT&T wireless customers in several major cities across the United States are experiencing that for themselves over the long holiday weekend, reporting upload speeds have been throttled down to 100kbps or less (one-tenth of the speed most customers enjoyed as late as last week).

Speedtest.net has shown AT&T network throttling in many parts of Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Fairfax, Houston, Kansas City, Las Vegas, New York, Orlando, Phoenix, St. Paul,  Salt Lake City, and Washington, D.C.

The speeds are so noticeably slow, it has become a national story as irate customers find their wireless broadband service first usage capped at just 2GB per month, and now upload speed throttled to the point of unusability.  AT&T promised a statement explaining the issue, but one has not yet been forthcoming.  Some speculated the throttles were designed to reduce congestion on AT&T’s network over the holiday, while others suspect a technical fault.

Reducing your wireless speed reduces the impact on AT&T’s backhaul network, which in turn reduces congestion and the number of dropped wireless calls.

The introduction of speed throttles for “heavy users” is a favorite in countries where overcharging schemes predominate.  Most permit a preset amount of traffic to pass at normal speeds, but once customers exceed an arbitrary allowance, a temporary speed throttle gets applied to dramatically reduce speeds and discourage further use.  Some limit customers to a selected amount of traffic per day, others per month.  Once the window expires, the throttle is automatically removed.

While there is no indication AT&T is applying such a throttle at this point, the company has strongly opposed efforts to ban such schemes.  AT&T has a history of antagonizing its wireless customers with poor network performance, and has been judged the least favorite provider by Consumer Reports.

Share/Save

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!

Click here to view the embedded video.

ABC News encountered the signal reception problem themselves when they ran a test.  (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here is a much more involved demonstration of the iPhone’s antenna design flaw.  After a false start, the second attempt dramatically shows the results of “bridging the gap” on the side of the phone.  (4 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

KOCO-TV in Oklahoma City covers the launch event, the reception issue, and the yellow screen.  Was waiting in line really worth it?  (1 minute)

Click here to view the embedded video.

WPTV-TV in West Palm Beach shows not everyone is impressed with the iPhone.  (1 minute)

Click here to view the embedded video.

WCPO-TV’s ‘Don’t Waste Your Money’ segment zeroed in on the iPhone’s reception problems, leaving Cincinnati residents considering their options.  (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Shelly Palmer, an industry analyst, calls the signal reception issue a manufacturer’s defect, but downplays whether the problems will mar Apple’s reputation overall.  (WNYW-TV New York — 2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Finally, AP wonders if all of the complaints about the phone so early on will ultimately make the iPhone 4 a dud.  (1 minute)

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

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

Share/Save

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.

Share/Save

AT&T's Activity Chart ignores the realities of today's higher-definition streaming videos, which will really eat into your allowance.

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.”

Share/Save

AT&T: 'If you don't do what we say, we're taking U-verse away!'

AT&T is threatening to pick up its toys and go home if the Federal Communications Commission tries to bring back its oversight powers over broadband.

CEO Randall Stephenson threw a major hissyfit in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, annoyed the company doesn’t have free rein to do whatever it wants.

“I’m a 3-2 vote away from the next guy coming in and [trying to regulate us], [and] I take it away,” Stephenson said, referring to it’s U-verse IPTV service.

AT&T has threatened to cut spending on U-verse deployment if AT&T faces regulations like Net Neutrality in its broadband business.

“If this Title 2 regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels in the ground,” Stephenson said, claiming the company planned to spend a “couple billion” dollars a year on the service… until now.

But AT&T has already cut spending on U-verse, slashing $2 billion in U-verse investments in 2009 alone — news trumpeted to shareholders.  Additionally, AT&T has laid off thousands of employees.  In short, the threats the company made this week have already come to pass… more than a year ago.

Many analysts claim AT&T is bluffing.  Like most landline providers, AT&T is losing traditional phone customers who are disconnecting their wired phone lines.  Its wireless division has been pummeled for inadequate 3G coverage, poor customer service, and lousy reception in many areas.  AT&T can’t afford -not- to upgrade their services if they wish to retain customers.

The cable television industry certainly hopes AT&T isn’t bluffing.  They are enjoying AT&T’s disconnect business as customers dump inadequate DSL service and overpriced phone lines for cable-provided alternatives.

Share/Save

A Huntsville AT&T sub-contractor trying to install new telephone cable is safe after a resident started shooting in his direction, forcing Marcus Kyle to make a mad dash down a nearby highway to safety.

Questioned by police, the homeowner claimed he thought he was firing his shotgun at a possum.  WHNT-TV spoke with police officials and witnesses who are not convinced by the man’s story, suggesting the homeowner may have felt the AT&T worker was trespassing on his property.  Several witnesses claim the man took direct aim at the AT&T lineman before beginning to fire.

As shots rang out, the worker hightailed it out of range, thankfully unharmed.

The Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office offered to charge the homeowner with misdemeanor reckless endangerment, but Kyle refused to press charges.

Kyle and his fellow workers added they were working within a recognized utility easement and did not stray onto anyone’s property, and weren’t sure why the resident started shooting.

Utility company employees usually have the right of reasonable access to their respective easements to perform work on the company’s infrastructure.  Many workers may inform residents of their presence as a courtesy, but it is not required.  It is never responsible to confront such workers with weapons.  If a homeowner has concerns about the legitimacy of the work being done, they should contact local police and let them handle it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WHNT-TV in Huntsville ran this story about a local homeowner who let his shotgun do the talking, firing at a telephone company subcontractor he claims he mistook for a possum.  (2 minutes)

Share/Save

Belinda Horton, Clarksville, Tenn. speaks with AT&T customer service

Back in April, Stop the Cap! covered the story of Clarksville, Tenn., resident Belinda Horton, who found herself besieged by endless billing errors from AT&T.

She was not alone.  More than 15,000 customers in Tennessee alone have been suffering with an AT&T “unlimited” long distance calling plan that has billed every long distance call at non-plan rates.  At one point, Horton found herself staring at a bill for $1,350.

As of late April, more than three thousand dollars in erroneous charges had appeared on her phone bill over several months, when she was only supposed to have paid a flat rate amount of $25 a month for unlimited long distance.

Horton did secure credits from AT&T, but only after repeatedly calling their customer service department after every inaccurate bill arrived.

For her and other Tennessee customers in the same boat, appeals to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority were supposed to fix the problem.  AT&T’s legal counsel, Guy Hicks, apologized on behalf of the company and promised to make things right.

That lip service was apparently good enough for the TRA, which as we wrote at the time was just a bit premature:

It was disappointing to see the TRA praising AT&T at the end of Monday’s meeting.  This is an ongoing nightmare for some customers, and TRA officials seemed all too ready to applaud the company for its promises to fix the problem while Tennessee residents continue to be overbilled.  The time for praise comes after the company resolves the issue and every customer has been credited for every error.  AT&T has promised it would resolve these billing problems for nearly a month, with complaints still arriving even as the Authority met.

Long time readers can guess what happened next.

Belinda dropped a note to Stop the Cap! informing us she had enough with AT&T and decided to switch to Charter Communications.  But in one last indignity, her final bill from AT&T was loaded with inaccurate charges running over $100.

Now that Horton is a former AT&T customer, the company has been even less responsive than ever.  The TRA is reportedly involving itself in the matter once again, although it’s clear AT&T doesn’t exactly feel threatened by the Authority.

Had AT&T done the right thing, they would have not only credited back the inaccurately billed long distance calls, they also would credit back the $25 a month Belinda paid for a long distance plan she had to fight every step of the way to actually receive.  It’s the least the company could do for a customer who was forced to flee AT&T because they couldn’t resolve their own billing problems.

Belinda writes she has better things to do than spend endless hours fighting with the phone company.  She has been devoting as much free time as possible caring for an ailing friend.  Many people would have simply paid AT&T’s final bill just to be rid of them, but it was Belinda’s friend who encouraged her to stay in the fight and not pay AT&T one penny more than they deserve.

Stop the Cap! is attempting to get Horton in touch with the executive office customer service department at AT&T to get this resolved once and for all.

Share/Save

AT&T 3G MicroCell

If you are an AT&T customer with a 3G MicroCell, AT&T’s home-based “cell tower”, take note: your 3G data usage, even while at home, counts against your monthly usage cap.

AT&T’s MicroCell ($150) does not use AT&T’s mobile network — it instead relies on your home broadband connection — but AT&T charges customers as if they were.

For customers who assume MicroCell traffic should be exempt because they provide and pay for the connectivity, AT&T’s overlimit fees await.

The company’s pricing and policies make owning a MicroCell increasingly pointless, particularly for data applications.  That’s because AT&T does not meter Wi-Fi usage, even when using AT&T’s own Wi-Fi network.

The disparity between femtocell traffic (the industry name for devices like the MicroCell) and Wi-Fi doesn’t make much sense to Dean Bubley, writing for his Disruptive Wireless-Disruptive Analysis blog:

Given that the RAN generally costs much more than the core network for most operators, there should clearly be differential (or zero-rated) pricing for traffic using femtocell offload. Either that, or there should be a mechanism for customers to charge AT&T for using THE USER’S broadband pipes for backhaul.

It is critical that any policy management and charging infrastruture is capable of discerning bearer type (which could also be UMA WiFi tunneled via the core on some other networks). Otherwise it makes a total mockery of the concept that policy is intended to align pricing with the underlying costs of service delivery.

It also makes a mockery of the femtocell concept as a mass proposition, if the end-user has to pay more than using their own WiFi. If I was a femto vendor today, I’d be spitting feathers about this, as it completely undermines the positioning vs. WiFi as an offload tool.

AT&T doesn’t care.

“The 3G MicroCell complements Wi-Fi by providing enhanced in-home voice coverage and reliable data when Wi-Fi may not be available — but it is primarily intended for voice calls,” an AT&T spokeswoman wrote in an email to Light Reading Mobile.

As the website notes, for consumers, the femto price model means that they will pay AT&T for the Microcell to get better indoor 3G coverage, pay for the backhaul connection to AT&T’s core network, and pay AT&T to use that indoor 3G base station.  What a great deal — for AT&T.

Share/Save

Before: Auernheimer waves a gun while delivering a "sermon" on his iProphet Blip.tv channel

AT&T’s iPad security breach saga turned into an episode of COPS and the X-Files yesterday with the arrest of a key member of the group that exposed the security flaw.

Andrew Auernheimer, 24, a key member of Goatse Security, was arrested Tuesday after Fayetteville (Ark.) police uncovered drugs while executing a search warrant in his home.  Auernheimer was charged with four felony counts of drug possession and one misdemeanor charge for prescription medication inappropriately in his possession.  Police found cocaine, ecstasy, and LSD, along with controlled substance-designated prescription medication.

Auernheimer is a key figure in Goatse Security’s revelation of a security flaw in AT&T’s systems that allowed more than one hundred thousand e-mail addresses of iPad owners to be disclosed.

He remains in the Washington County Detention Center pending a bail hearing this afternoon.

His arrest came days after AT&T officials said they would pursue prosecution of the hacking group to the fullest extent of the law.  The FBI is reportedly involved in an investigation over the security breach.

Auernheimer is a controversial figure.  The self-styled “prophet” records anti-Semitic video sermons for his iProphet channel on Blip.tv.  A quick and mind-numbing review of the contents included “revelations,” perhaps drug-fueled, that the Jews represent vermin, Christians should be armed, everyone needs to use mescaline, and a consideration of the essential need to obtain temporary tattoos of dogs named Rocket.  On one of his more recent videos, Auernheimer announced he was “fleeing” the Los Angeles area due to “attacks by the Jews.”

After: Auernheimer is now a guest at the Washington County (Ark.) Detention Center, charged with drug offenses

Ironically, one year ago this month, Auernheimer was detained by Portland FBI officials and questioned about threatening phone messages left on the voicemail of Congregation Beth Israel in Portland, Oregon on the night of June 16, 2009.

Before uncovering AT&T’s security lapses, Auernheimer’s online aliases –  “Escher” and “Weev,” made appearances in the media, especially in an August 2008 piece in the NY Times, “The Trolls Among Us.”

Meanwhile, speculation about how AT&T allowed an obvious security flaw to remain open is now narrowing in on recent company layoffs.

Gawker reports AT&T slashed up to 200 employees in its Security Office in March, nearly 20 percent of its staff.  The group kept its layoffs quiet, Gawker’s tipster said, to avoid damaging the image of deep security expertise its sells to businesses.

That a company as profitable as AT&T was willing to slash employees willy-nilly was a point of confusion for Gawker:

The layoffs seem puzzling given that AT&T had just posted profits up 25 percent to $3.1 billion. The profits rose on strong performance in the wireless division, whose association with the iPhone helped it surpass Verizon Wireless in new customer additions. The wireless division continued to add customers and revenue the next quarter, even as a health care charge ate into its profits.

Simple greed could be one explanation. Our source was told upper management intentionally cut CSO payroll and accepted “greater risk in operations” to fatten up company profits and even their own bonuses.

But even more problems cropped up at AT&T when an untested ordering system crashed when customers tried to reserve the latest iPhone.  CNET covered that story:

As the iPhone 4 preorder disaster worsens by the minute, the blame looks to fall squarely on AT&T’s shoulders as we learn more about what went wrong. The most damaging of these may be an source close to the carrier which now claims the system which AT&T was not tested before the launch.

The source works at a third party facility that processes the orders for AT&T. Apparently, the reports of users being able to login to others accounts even though they were attempting to log into their own could be related to a botched update on AT&T’s side related to fraud.

Share/Save

An Associated Press report gave credit to Stop the Cap! for getting first official word that AT&T ended its Internet Overcharging experiment in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.

Stop the Cap! reader Scott Eslinger managed to get an AT&T customer service representative to read aloud a confidential memo distributed by the company terminating the experiment effective April 1st.  Because AT&T never disclosed the end of the experiment to impacted customers, the coverage by the wire service should help spread the word to residents that the rationing is over:

The phone company confirmed Tuesday that it is no longer holding DSL subscribers in Reno, Nev., and Beaumont, Texas, to data consumption limits and charging them extra if they go over.

With AT&T’s retreat, no major Internet service provider is championing the idea of charging subscribers for their data usage. Time Warner Cable Inc. was a major proponent of the idea and also conducted a trial in Beaumont, but backed away last summer after its plan to expand metered billing to other cities met fierce resistance from consumers and legislators.

AT&T’s trial started in November 2008 in Reno, and was later extended to Beaumont. It ended on April 1 this year, said AT&T spokeswoman Dawn Benton.

“We’re reviewing data from the trial, and this feedback will guide us as we evaluate our next steps,” Benton said.

AT&T should carefully review feedback from customers who despise usage limits and overlimit fees.  Studies show the overwhelming majority of customers do not like their broadband usage artificially limited with arbitrary allowances and overlimit fees, and customers will dump providers who ignore their wishes.

AT&T’s experiment never saved consumers a penny — the company simply slapped allowances as low as 20 GB per month on existing speed-based tiers.  Customers already face practical usage limits from Internet providers.  Those purchasing slower speed tiers are usage limited by those speeds.  Those who pay for higher priced, faster tiers benefit from naturally greater allowances those speeds provide.  Adding a new layer of limits only discourages customers from using the service they already pay good money to receive.  Besides, as profits explode in the broadband sector, the costs (and investment) to provide the service have declined, wiping out the justification for these schemes.

Stop the Cap! opposes all of these Internet Overcharging schemes.  While many providers seek to demagogue some broadband users as “data hogs” or “pirates,” the fact is today’s “heavy user” is tomorrow’s average consumer.  High speed broadband has the potential to revolutionize education, health care, private business, and entertainment, but not if a handful of major providers decide to end innovation by rationing the service to its customers.

Share/Save

Beaumont, Texas

AT&T has distributed an internal memo to customer service representatives that informs them AT&T’s Internet Overcharging experiment in Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas has ended.  Stop the Cap! reader Scott Eslinger was able to get an AT&T representative to read from the official memo that many AT&T customers have yet to hear about themselves.  Stop the Cap! had word in February the usage limit test was set to end April 1st, but actually getting official word that declared it dead and buried took much longer.

With no official notification to customers in the two impacted cities, many may be under the impression that usage limits remain.

AT&T representatives notoriously provided inaccurate information to customers about the experiment, with several customers signing up for “unlimited” service only to be notified days later they were actually facing limits ranging from 20-150 GB per month depending on their service plan.

Eslinger, who lives in Beaumont, notes representatives regularly mislead him into believing his service was unlimited even during the trial, except it was not.

“Every time I talked to AT&T no matter what I called about I always asked if the rep knew the status of the ‘broadband usage trial’ as I wanted to know when it would be over. No one ever had any idea what I was talking about,” Scott writes.  “They regularly told me that my AT&T broadband account included ‘unlimited’ use.”

But when Scott ran over his allowance, a nasty letter arrived in the mail saying otherwise.  Even then, AT&T customer service representatives kept telling him the letter must be a mistake.

“The first time I got the letter stating that I had gone over and would be charged the next time I went over I called AT&T and the rep actually had me fax in the letter so they could ‘fix’ it as that just ‘didn’t seem right.’”

We agree.  Internet Overcharging schemes are not right.  They represent little more than transparent rationing of broadband usage to reduce their costs while potentially earning $1.00 per gigabyte in overlimit fees for those who broke their allowance.

Although AT&T told Scott he couldn’t get a copy of the memo officially terminating the usage limit experiment, because it was a confidential, “proprietary AT&T document,” the rep read it out loud to Eslinger over the phone anyway.

“Reminder, the broadband usage trial in the Reno, Nevada and Beaumont, Texas market areas ended on April 1, 2010. Remember customers outside of the Reno and Beaumont are not impacted.”

Reno, Nevada: One of the communities chosen for AT&T's Internet Overcharging experiment

Scott noted it was news to him.

“I never recall receiving this via email or snail mail; you would think they would have told everyone they ended it,” he writes. “Hopefully it will NEVER come back!”

One can hope.  Unfortunately, AT&T is the company that ended its unlimited wireless data plan for smartphone customers, now limiting them to just 2 GB of wireless usage per month, with a steep overlimit penalty for those that exceed it.

For millions of AT&T DSL and U-verse customers, an Internet rationing plan that limits consumption could prove costly, especially for those in rural areas where alternative providers simply are not available.

The best ways to deliver the message AT&T’s usage limits are not acceptable:

• Inform the company you are not happy with usage limits or so-called consumption billing that seeks to consume all of the money in your wallet;
• Don’t buy service from AT&T and tell them why.  Existing customers can be grandfathered on their existing unlimited plans, but new customers should shop elsewhere for service.

For many AT&T representatives, complaints about usage limits will be news to them, too.  Scott closes his note with word that even AT&T’s executive office customer service department, the one reserved for customers complaining to senior management, had never heard of the usage cap trials either.

Share/Save

AT&T has made it a whole lot easier to learn who has bought Apple’s transformative iPad.  An AT&T security lapse permitted a third party to access and obtain the e-mail addresses and individual iPad ID’s of all 114,000 current owners of the device.  That third party, Goatse Security, then promptly handed over the entire list — some 2,000 pages long, to Gawker — who exposed some big name iPad owners last week.

More importantly, several high officials in government and the military were also identified as iPad owners, even as the security lapse could have given access to the exact location of any of them.

In the media and entertainment industries, affected accounts belonged to top executives at the New York Times Company, Dow Jones, Condé Nast, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corporation, HBO and Hearst.

Within the tech industry, accounts were compromised at Google, Amazon, Microsoft and AOL, among others. In finance, accounts belonged to companies from Goldman Sachs to JP Morgan to Citigroup to Morgan Stanley, along with dozens of venture capital and private equity firms.

Some of the movers and shakers exposed (Image: Gawker)

In government, affected accounts included a GMail user who appears to be Rahm Emanuel and staffers in the Senate, House of Representatives, Department of Justice, NASA, Department of Homeland Security, FAA, FCC, and National Institute of Health, among others. Dozens of employees of the federal court system also appeared on the list.

While Gawker considers the implications of a widespread security breach and whether Apple or AT&T is to blame, others are focusing more intently on AT&T’s role in the misadventure.

AT&T e-mailed every iPad owner notification of the security breach only after it became public news:

“On June 7 we learned that unauthorized computer ‘hackers’ maliciously exploited a function designed to make your iPad log-in process faster by pre-populating an AT&T authentication page with the email address you used to register your iPad for 3G service. The self-described hackers wrote software code to randomly generate numbers that mimicked serial numbers of the AT&T SIM card for iPad – called the integrated circuit card identification (ICC-ID) – and repeatedly queried an AT&T web address. When a number generated by the hackers matched an actual ICC-ID, the authentication page log-in screen was returned to the hackers with the email address associated with the ICC-ID already populated on the log-in screen.

The hackers deliberately went to great efforts with a random program to extract possible ICC-IDs and capture customer email addresses. They then put together a list of these emails and distributed it for their own publicity.

As soon as we became aware of this situation, we took swift action to prevent any further unauthorized exposure of customer email addresses. Within hours, AT&T disabled the mechanism that automatically populated the email address. Now, the authentication page log-in screen requires the user to enter both their email address and their password.”

AT&T’s damage control has been one-part victim, two-parts minimize the impact, sprinkled with “attack the messenger” all over the top.

AT&T’s characterization of the security team that exposed the security flaw as malicious hackers brought a swift response from Goatse:

AT&T had plenty of time to inform the public before our disclosure. It was not done. Post-patch, disclosure should be immediate– within the hour. Days afterward is not acceptable.

[...] The potential for this sort of attack and the number of iPad users on the list we saw who were stewards of major public and commercial infrastructure necessitated our public disclosure. People in critical positions have a right to completely understand the scope of vulnerability immediately. Not days or weeks or months after potential intrusion.

In addition AT&T says the person responsible for this went “to great efforts”. I’ll tell you this, the finder of the AT&T email leak spent just over a single hour of labor total (not counting the time the script ran with no human intervention) to scrape the 114,000 emails. If you see this as “great efforts”, so be it.

AT&T’s mistakes just keep on coming, ranging from ongoing billing errors amounting to hundreds of dollars to threatening customers with cease and desist orders just for e-mailing concerns to the company.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Bloomberg News ran this interview with a representative from Goatse Security that got a bit over-technical for the average Bloomberg viewer.  (4 minutes)

Share/Save

AT&T is a paid sponsor of the eightWest program, which may have had something to do with those eight minutes of positive coverage.

Last month, a Rochester, N.Y., morning television news show handed over five minutes of airtime in a thinly-disguised advertisement for local phone company Frontier Communications.

WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids took shilling to a whole new level this morning on its hour-long morning lifestyle program eightWest when it handed over nearly eight minutes to promote AT&T’s U-verse service, infomercial-style.

Essentially handing the microphone over to AT&T area marketing manager Dan Wells, the show’s hosts fell all over themselves talking about how wonderful the service was.  Channel 8′s Terry DeBoer had her original AT&T installation personally supervised by Wells, a service ordinary Grand Rapids consumers probably won’t receive.

As the “Cutting Edge” segment progressed, the station ran a chyron including AT&T’s logo and slogan, “Rethink Possible” as Wells talked about all of the service’s claimed benefits.  DeBoer just thought it was all awesome, gushing this sampler of reactions as a technobeat soundtrack pounded away in the background:

• “An exciting new adventure in television!”
• “It really is quite remarkable!”
• “The super-sized DVR is awesome!”
• “What are the other services and features that take U-verse to the next level?”
• “It’s exclusively offered to you by our friends at AT&T.”
• “Thanks to the power of AT&T and all of their services, you can save money.”

After eight minutes of enthusiasm, there was no time left to inform viewers of a slightly relevant fact only visitors to their website might have noticed: AT&T is a sponsor of the eightWest program.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Spend eight minutes in AT&T’s marketing Universe on WOOD-TV’s morning lifestyle program, eightWest.  (8 minutes)

Share/Save

Spangler

While the mainstream media and some of AT&T’s apologists tell consumers AT&T’s 2 GB monthly usage limit will impact only a handful of “abusers,” the cable trade press is telling its readers the industry insider’s secret — consumers will blow right through those caps.

Todd Spangler, who is an Internet Overcharging advocate and columnist for Multichannel News, a cable industry trade magazine, writes the implications of AT&T’s usage cap couldn’t be clearer to him.

The new iPhone 4, introduced yesterday to the predictable media crush, provides 10 hours of battery life for playing video, among other features.

But now that AT&T has eliminated its all-you-can-eat plan for smartphones, you will blow through the maximum 3G usage for the entry-level 200 MB plan if you watched just 4 minutes of streaming video per day. That would include commercials.

Even AT&T’s more generous DataPro 2-GB plan would allow just 35 minutes per day of streaming video (assuming you used your iPhone for nothing else), according to the carrier’s online data calculator.

Like a stopped watch, at least he’s right twice a day.

Spangler celebrates the opportunity AT&T’s overcharging scheme provides the cable industry to “grease the skids” for data caps and overpriced consumption billing on cable modem service.

In Spangler’s “Cable companies pay my salary”-world-view, it wasn’t that Time Warner Cable did the wrong thing when it tried to triple broadband pricing — to $150 a month — for the exact same level of service customers previously enjoyed.  It was all about its execution.

Spangler characterizes Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt as a victim, burned over the company’s failed overcharging experiment in 2009.  When one plays with matches, is it any surprise there are consequences?

Consumers will respond to more overcharging schemes the same way they did a year before — with overwhelming condemnation and opposition.  It’s hard to convince consumers to pay a higher price for limits on usage while telling shareholders you’ve invested less to expand your network, charged more to access it, all while the costs to provide the service have dropped dramatically.  Consumers call that out for what it is: greed.

Make no mistake, consumers hate usage caps and overpriced consumption billing and Time Warner Cable has no justification to introduce either.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Normally business-friendly CNBC covers the introduction of the 2 GB usage cap on AT&T smartphone data usage.  Then the CNBC anchor got skeptical about AT&T’s claims this was good news for consumers, admitting she hates overcharging schemes that deliver a surprise on the bill at the end of the month.  Lance Ulanoff, editor of PC Magazine expressed some doubts himself.  (8 minutes)

Share/Save

Apple's iPhone 4

As expected, Steve Jobs introduced America to the new Apple iPhone 4 today at Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco.  Karl Bode at Broadband Reports did a great summary on what’s new, so I won’t reinvent the wheel:

As everyone had expected, Apple just announced the long-awaited iPhone 4. According to his Jobsness, the phone is 24% thinner than the iPhone 3GS and as expected has a more powerful primary 5MP camera with flash — and a new camera on the front that will be used primarily for video chat. The phone’s stainless steel frame (sandwiched by glass) is being partially used as an antenna, something that may prove helpful for connectivity issues.

Other specs: Dual mics, 802.11n WiFi, GPS, compass, accelerometer, Quad band HSDPA (7.2Mbps), gyroscope (perfect for gaming, insists Jobs). The company says they’ve also improved the device’s battery. It can now handle 7 hours of 3G talk, 6 hours of 3G browsing, 10 hours of Wi-Fi browsing, 10 hours of video, or 40 hours of music. The phone also records HD video (720p at 30fps, insists Steve), and the new flash will stay on during video recording.

Amusingly, Apple ran into network connectivity issues while trying to demonstrate the phone’s higher resolution screen (join the club, Jobs). According to Apple, the phone comes in white or black, with the 16GB version costing $199 and the 32GB version costing $299. The phone will be available on June 24, with pre-orders beginning on June 15.

Karl also notes, as others have confirmed with us, AT&T is so eager to get this new phone into your hands (along with a new two-year contract), they are waiving the usual two-year waiting period before customers can upgrade their phones.  If your contract expires anytime this year, you can obtain the phone at the subsidized price.

But should you?

For many, the iPhone 4 will represent an incremental upgrade, especially if you aren’t a power user.  In this economy, is it worth $200-300 for a new phone and a new service commitment?

The upgrade for current customers, who can keep their unlimited data plan, may make sense -if- you receive tolerable service from AT&T and feel the latest phone would directly benefit you.  You should consider, however, that signing a new contract will lock you into another two year marriage with the company that drove more Americans crazy with bad service, dropped calls, slow data, and irritating customer service than any other.  A divorce will cost you up to $325 per phone. Their 3G coverage isn’t all that, either.

It also gives the company that loves to cap more of your money.

Unfortunately, waiting for the iPhone to arrive at Verizon Wireless is increasingly less likely to be a panacea for AT&T’s Internet Overchargitis.  That’s because AT&T and Verizon are the Mary Had a Little Lamb of big telecom:

Everywhere that AT&T went,
AT&T went, AT&T went,
Everywhere that AT&T went
Verizon was sure to go.

It’s a safe bet that by the time Verizon brings forth the coveted iPhone, it will have an Internet Overcharging scheme matching AT&T’s.

If you are seeking to upgrade to a smartphone, it’s increasingly likely you’ll find a better deal with Sprint or T-Mobile, both of which have no plans for AT&T’s pricing schemes.

The best way to get a company like Verizon or AT&T to pay attention is to avoid their products when they charge too much.  A dramatic reduction in demand for AT&T’s iPhone among new customers, for example, would send a clear message to Wall Street that their love of usage caps is hurting shareholder value in a big way.  They follow the money.  If existing customers hang on to their $30 unlimited plans while other customers head elsewhere to avoid AT&T’s Internet rationing, you’ll see an overnight conversion among many industry players suddenly demanding a return to the unlimited buffet.

Or better yet, how about giving every customer a choice of both types of plans — pay less for limited service or pay today’s prices for unlimited.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Apple proclaims the arrival of iPhone 4, calling it a revolutionary upgrade.  Apple released this video showcasing iPhone 4′s video capabilities that AT&T has now effectively hobbled with a wireless Internet rationing plan that punishes customers who try to use the phone’s new features.  (6 minutes)

Share/Save