It’s alive.

After a day or so of stumbling, Sprint-owned Virgin Mobile’s prepaid, unlimited Broadband2Go service went live early this morning, and Stop the Cap! gave it a try and has some tips to share to save you time and money.

More importantly, a “hidden soft usage cap” of 400GB a month, visible early this morning, disappeared by this afternoon after we made inquiries about whether “400GB” actually meant “unlimited.”  More on that below.

Buying Advice

Virgin Mobile keeps it simple with two mobile broadband devices — the Ovation MC760 ($79.99), about the size of a USB flash drive and the MiFi 2200 ($149.99), a portable “hotspot” that connects to Virgin Mobile’s wireless broadband 3G network and then converts the signal into standard Wi-Fi to share with up to five nearby computers.

We tested Broadband2Go using the Ovation MC760.

Virgin Mobile's USB modems are about the size of a typical USB Flash Memory device

Our first recommendation is to hurry on down to Radio Shack if you intend to purchase Broadband2Go service.  Best Buy, the other retailer selling the service, inexplicably sells the Ovation MC760 for $99.99, twenty dollars more than Virgin Mobile charges itself.  We didn’t bother to check Best Buy’s in-store price which might be lower because we put together a far better deal at Radio Shack.

You can manage to grab the MC760 for as low as $59.99 by following these steps:

1. If you are new to Radio Shack’s website, your first visit to their homepage should bring a “pop-up” offering $10 off your next purchase of $40 or more (if it doesn’t try clearing out your cookies or launching the site from a different web browser).  Simply supply an e-mail address new to Radio Shack and in a few minutes the coupon will arrive in your inbox.  It can be printed and redeemed in-store or used online.  This cuts the price of the MC760 to $69.99.  But wait, there’s more.
2. Until August 28th, Radio Shack is running a sale offering a $10 instant discount off the MC760.  We first saw this online, but when we visited a local Radio Shack store, we found the same savings in-store.  That brings the price down further to $59.99 because you can combine the coupon with the instant savings, until it expires Saturday night.
3. Many Radio Shack stores insist that you buy at least $10 in “top-up” funds when buying the MC760.  Although this increases your out-the-door price, it’s money you would spend anyway for the $40 a month service.  An incredibly long receipt will print at the register, including your PIN activation number to redeem your “top-up” funds on Virgin Mobile’s website.

Radio Shack offers up to $20 off the Ovation MC760 - $10 off for responding to this pop-up on their website and another $10 instant discount good until Saturday night.

Radio Shack stores stock both the old box-format packaging for the MC760, and a newer plastic security-sealed “clamshell” package (the one you’ll slice your fingers on when trying to get the thing open.)  There is no real difference between the two other than the packaging.

Getting It Activated

Although Virgin Mobile claims the Ovation MC760 works with Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7 and Mac OS X, 10.3 & higher, we found advice for Mac owners using older versions of the OS.  Check out this information for how to bootstrap the MC760 to work with your older Mac computer (your results may vary and don’t expect Virgin Mobile technical support to provide assistance.)  Linux users using Ubuntu found some success installing the MC760 as well from this website and this blog.  Let Google be your friend if you are running an unsupported operating system.

For new Virgin Mobile customers, the activation process is very simple.  You just plug in the device and the included software will automatically load and prompt you for installation.  After the process is complete, you will see a connection manager pop up.  Your first indication of signal strength will also be apparent, but do not be alarmed by the indicator showing only a connection to Sprint’s 1xRTT network.  Users do not access Sprint’s faster 3G EV-DO Revision A network until activation is complete.

Several slowly loading screens will appear during activation asking for your contact information, the zip code of where you intend to use the service the most, and payment details.  At the end, you are assigned a broadband “phone number” which serves as your account number, based on the zip code you provided earlier.

Things get complicated, however, for existing Virgin Mobile customers.  Many of those who anticipated the arrival of the service and pre-loaded their voice accounts with additional “top up” funds will discover there is no way for Virgin Mobile to activate your Broadband2Go service under your existing Virgin Mobile account.  A separate, new account must be established for the broadband service.

However, with the help of a customer service representative, you can transfer funds between your existing voice account and your new Broadband2Go account.  You’ll need to call a special toll-free number which will take you directly to Broadband2Go’s customer service department — 1-877-877-8443.  At the voice prompts, indicate you are a new customer and that you want “tech support.”  Expect at least 10 minutes of hold time and an overseas call center representative to answer.  There is no elevator music on hold with Virgin Mobile either.  You’ll hear plenty of rap and alternative music mixed with greetings from current hit artists.

The tech support representative will handle your Broadband2Go activation over the phone.  Have the device and a pen and paper handy.  Allow 10-15 minutes minimum for the representative to gather information or transfer details from your existing account to the new account.  The tech support rep will then transfer your call to the business office to handle the transfer of funds between accounts.

Our Experience

Phonenews also discovered Virgin Mobile's "unlimited" service had a 400GB usage cap this morning...

After activation, the device reset and we found ourselves suddenly connected to Sprint’s EV-DO network with an average of three bars of signal strength.  Sprint’s nearest tower is about 0.75 miles away from our home in a flat terrain residential area.  Still, we found indoors the signal level could decline to the point the connection fell back to the far slower 1xRTT connection.  Outdoors, the connection manager’s signal level spiked to full strength.

Although Virgin Mobile sells the service as “unlimited,” the website included a usage counter this morning that stated we had just over 400GB of usage remaining.  While extraordinarily generous, that’s still not “unlimited” in our book and we asked Virgin Mobile about it.  Their explanation? It was a “soft usage cap,” and although they didn’t expect anyone to actually hit that level of usage on a relatively slow broadband connection, if they did, customer service would reset it to zero upon request.  We asked why it was included at all on an unlimited service?  We were told it was a software issue — the website was designed for usage-limited broadband measurement.  Considering the performance of 3G wireless networks, it’s not likely many would ever hit it, especially because you would need to be running traffic almost continuously across the connection to reach it.

Nevertheless, we’re pleased to report that as of this afternoon, the 400GB limit is gone, replaced by a usage counter that plainly states “unlimited.”  We applaud Virgin Mobile for rapidly responding to concerns that “unlimited” didn’t actually mean “unlimited.”

...but not for long. As of this afternoon, even that generous usage cap was gone.

One concerned reader dropped a note to Stop the Cap! wondering about something seen in the terms and conditions about “unlimited mobile Internet (but not unlimited downloaded content).”  We couldn’t find those terms and conditions, and if they were included as part of the online activation process, that’s something we missed as we had to activate by phone.  We can only think that may have something to do with the company’s Acceptable Use Policy for data products.  Like other wireless providers, Virgin Mobile does not want customers using their service for “web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing or other systems that drive continuous heavy traffic or data sessions.”  P2P traffic, in particular, is usually a painful experience for both the wireless user and provider.  These kinds of terms and conditions are commonly found in wireless provider agreements.  We’d have a problem with Virgin Mobile if they joined some wireless ISP’s in banning use of online video, but they have not.

So does Virgin Mobile’s marketing of its unlimited Broadband2Go service pass the Stop the Cap! Honest Marketing Test?

The company claims: “Speed varies based on location and coverage with average downlink data speeds between 600 and 1400Kbps. Virgin Mobile does not restrict your speeds based on data usage caps.”

At first glance, we suspected that 600Kbps speed might be a little higher than what real-world users would actually encounter.  Signal strength can steal a lot of speed and if Sprint’s nearest cell tower encounters heavy usage at peak times, speeds can drop dramatically.

We ran several speed tests from different server locations, because results can vary dramatically.  Here is what we found from our location in Rochester, N.Y.:

Speedtest.net recommended a speed test server in the San Francisco area. Our first test showed reasonable 3G speeds.

Interestingly, using a local speed test site showed better downstream results, although upload speeds suffered somewhat.

Finally, a speed test result using a Los Angeles test server that performed well.

Virgin Mobile’s speed and marketing claims do pass the Honest Marketing Test, although we feel they should more openly disclose the ban on P2P traffic.  It’s likely not enforced, if only because most users would grow impatient with the poor results.  Although we have not had a chance to test the robustness of Sprint’s data network and how well it hands off data signals between tower sites or peak usage, the browsing experience was definitely superior to that of the other wireless broadband service we tested — Cricket Wireless.  The speeds were better, too.

There is no way to tell whether Virgin Mobile’s owner Sprint will ultimately be able to sustain the service should a flood of new customers saturate their 3G network.  It’s a shame that although Virgin Mobile uses Sprint’s network, they do not currently allow access to Sprint’s much-faster 4G network.

Our Recommendation

For those lucky enough to have good wireless signal coverage from Sprint and are currently stuck with Hughes or Wildblue satellite fraudband service — your day has come.  Stop the Cap! can heartily recommend Virgin Mobile’s unlimited service as a great alternative to either provider.  We can also recommend this service to those stuck on .768-1.5Mbps DSL, especially if the phone company is charging you more than $40 a month for tortoise-slow DSL service.  For those on the go, this is also a great choice, assuming where you go is within Sprint’s coverage area.  Broadband2Go can even provide an effective backup if your primary Internet provider goes down.  But we do not recommend it as a replacement for higher speed DSL, cable, or fiber delivered broadband.

Because Sprint’s coverage is more spotty than AT&T or Verizon, it is important to consider where you will use the service.  Those on the edge of coverage areas may experience considerably poorer service, or none at all, when indoors.  Sprint locates their towers inside major metropolitan areas and along major highways that connect those communities.  If you are uncertain whether Broadband2Go will work where you want to use it, you can consider buying the MC760 with $10 worth of usage, which will provide 100MB of usage within 10 days.  If it doesn’t work well for you, return the modem and be out only $10 worth of usage.

Those who like the service can either top-up your account automatically to cover the $40 monthly fee with no interruption in service, or just pay for the service when you need it.  There is no activation/re-activation fee.

Overall, our first impressions are positive, although we wished existing Virgin Mobile customers could link the service to their existing accounts.  Over the next few days, we’ll take the service on the road and see how it fares.

Verizon Wireless customers increasingly confront mandatory data plans costing $10-30 a month even if they don't intend to use their phones to access data services

An increasing number of Verizon Wireless customers at the end of their two-year contracts are suspended in time, unwilling to upgrade their phones because of costly mandated data plans that dramatically boost cellular phone bills, especially if everyone in the family wants an improved phone.

Kathy Vega, who lives in Rotterdam, N.Y., is just one example.

She complained to the Albany Times Union she’s effectively trapped with her old phone, an LG enV, because any upgrade will expose her to new mandatory data plans costing as much as $30 extra per month.

She’s been a satisfied Verizon Wireless customer for years. She also has Verizon Internet service, a Verizon e-mail address and a Verizon land line at home. She’s been a virtual walking, talking advertisement for the company’s products and services.

That’s why Vega was so irked by Verizon’s response when she tried to replace her enV phone and add a second one for her stepfather for free, thanks to a Father’s Day promotion the company was running.

Vega recalls that she was told that she’d have to pay another $30 each month for a “media pack” that would provide Internet and e-mail access.

It’s not clear to her now whether the additional price quoted to her was actually $30 per phone, which was her understanding at the time, or a total additional cost of $30 per month, based on a $9.99 data plan for each phone.

The Maroon enV model like hers on Verizon’s Web site now requires a data package costing “$9.99 or higher.”

The exact amount is almost irrelevant, as far as Vega is concerned. She just doesn’t see why she should have to pay for services she doesn’t use — especially since she wants the same phone she already has with no data charge.

Kathy Vega explains her plight to the Albany Times Union Advocate.  (1 minute)

Good luck.

Verizon Wireless, like AT&T, is increasingly exposing loyal customers like Vega to hidden rate increases in the form of mandatory service add-ons, in this case to cover data usage.  While Verizon’s most basic cell phones are still free from these fees, the phones most popular with consumers these days all come with bill busting add-on requirements.

Vega pays $116 a month for cell phone service now.  Verizon’s salespeople don’t always volunteer the company offers a lower usage data plan for $10, so assuming she follows the path laid before her by Verizon’s in-store staff, she could face quite a rate hike.

Confronted with her options, Vega is toughing it out with her current phone and an expired contract — like many other Verizon Wireless customers.

For those who have been loyal to Verizon for years, it’s galling to find higher priced monthly bills when it’s time to renew a contract and upgrade a phone.

Jen Smith said she was peeved when she learned of the new data program and associated costs.

“It’s sickening. I also hate that they have no customer loyalty. We have been with Verizon since they took over for Bell Atlantic Mobile in the area (~11 years ago). We have six phones and spend about $320 a month for them. You’d think we’d get a little better service for that, or a free accessory or some little perk, or heck, even a polite customer service specialist, but nope,” she writes.

Reader Sarah discovered the same thing, and she headed out the door to Sprint:

“This is exactly why I left Verizon over a year ago. I wanted a Palm. I didn’t want the data plan. Even though you can put a block on the phone to prevent the “unintentional use” of the data plan, they refuse to sell any smart phone without a data plan. So I had to go to Sprint. Can’t say I’m totally pleased with Sprint, but at least I could get what I wanted, and that was no data.”

For Verizon spokesman John O’Malley, it’s all a matter of doing some math.

He told the Times Union’s Cathy Woodruff, who serves as the newspaper’s consumer advocate, mandating data plans actually saves customers from unexpectedly high bills. He described circumstances where many owners of such devices had been racking up unexpected charges, suffering bill shock from Verizon’s punitive charge of $1.99 per megabite of data consumed.

“Customers who purchase these phones tend to take full advantage of the phone’s capabilities for surfing the Web, checking e-mail, etc.,” O’Malley said. “We’ve seen that those customers use an average of 17 megabytes of data per month. At our pay-as-you-go rate of $1.99 per megabite, that would cost them more than $30 a month.”

The $9.99 data feature provides up to 25 megabytes of data per month, which would cost nearly $50 under the old pricing policy, which makes the package “more cost effective,” he said.

Woodruff argued it won’t save any money for customers who don’t use data services.

But beyond that, we contend O’Malley’s math only works when using Verizon’s numbers.

It was Verizon Wireless that set the price of $1,990 per gigabyte of usage for “occasional users.”  Had Verizon chosen pricing more reflective of its actual costs, consumers finding an extra dollar or two on their bill for a piddly 17 megabytes of data would still leave Verizon fat and happy, more than covering their costs.  By inflating accidental and occasional use pricing into the ionosphere, O’Malley has a stronger argument to sell customers mandatory data plans that protect them from data pricing traps created by Verizon itself.

Overpricing data plans for loyal Verizon Wireless customers who can’t or won’t jump for joy at the prospect of spending $100 a month or more for a single cell phone with data service are now shopping around for better deals.  Unfortunately, they won’t find them at AT&T, who generally charges the same prices Verizon does.  But the financially-stressed consumer can find savings if they are willing to explore the second-tier of carriers, ranging from Sprint and T-Mobile and prepaid plans that require no contract.

Sprint promotes itself as a better value than larger carriers AT&T and Verizon

Sprint is banking on Verizon and AT&T overplaying their hand and overcharging their customers.  With Sprint’s newest handset hit — the HTV Evo, which also works on Sprint’s slowly growing 4G network, the company is attracting another look by advanced smartphone users.  Sprint’s latest marketing also targets families weary of tricks and traps from their cell phone provider, especially usage-limits and allowances.  Sprint bundles more services into its unlimited plans than other carriers, and its prepaid unit, Virgin Mobile, is no longer limiting wireless broadband usage on its 3G network.

Sprint’s biggest challenges to regain its top-tier footing come from years of bad customer service which company CEO Dan Hesse now assures is behind them, and a considerably more limited coverage area that simply cannot compare to AT&T and Verizon.

But for customers like Vega, being able to use the phone she wants and not pay gotcha fees for services she doesn’t use may be enough to compel a switch. 

Verizon isn’t fooling her.

Woodruff

As Woodruff observes, “it seems foolish for Verizon to close out options for loyal customers, though, at a time when options can be such a strong selling point.”

“I just think (Verizon’s data package) is their way of building it to create more revenue, which I understand,” Vega told Woodruff, “but the customer should have a choice.”

She is so right.

Cathy Woodruff is known to Times Union readers as The Advocate.  Cathy covers telecommunications issues regularly in her column which appears twice-weekly in the newspaper.  She has covered the capital region of New York around Albany for more than 25 years, becoming The Advocate in July, 2009.  She grew up in Herkimer County in upstate New York. Her column is highly recommended.

Virgin Mobile has hit a roadblock trying to introduce its new $40 unlimited Broadband2Go service that was due to launch today.  It turns out the company cannot figure out how to update its computer systems to accept and properly bill the new unlimited service.

The prepaid division of Sprint issued a sheepish apology on the company’s Twitter feed postponing the introduction of the new service, now promising a launch “within the next two days.”

The launch failure by the prepaid provider comes after considerable press attention about the introduction of the new unlimited plan and yesterday’s press release heralding unlimited mobile broadband that nobody can actually buy.

The result has been customer confusion and accusations of “bait and switch” advertising.

Stop the Cap! has received a number of e-mails that confuse the company’s old pricing, still on the website, with the new pricing still to take effect.  Most believed the company was playing games with the word “unlimited,” thinking Virgin had actually limited the new “unlimited” plan to just 1GB of usage.  But that’s the old usage-limited pricing.

Virgin Mobile customer service has not helped.  Several of our readers called the provider which relies on an overseas call center.  Those customer service representatives never heard of the company’s unlimited service plan and denied they had one.

Virgin Mobile’s social media outlets acknowledge the problems, telling readers their customer service department cannot accept new orders or activations.  That has sparked some negative comments, especially on the company’s Facebook page.

We recommend consumers avoid signing up for the service until the unlimited plan appears on Virgin Mobile’s website.  We also recommend you stay away from phone activations — Virgin Mobile’s overseas customer service agents do not inspire confidence.  Some customers who jumped the gun and “topped-up” their Virgin Mobile accounts now find they are paying for Virgin Mobile’s original pricing.  Customer service will not apply funds to the new unlimited service until after the customer exhausts their current usage-limited plan.

Verizon Wireless today announced a new 5GB tier for its prepaid mobile broadband service at a steep price — $80 per month.

The new 5GB tier joins several other levels of prepaid data service available from the nation’s largest wireless carrier:

• $15 for 75MB of usage (expires in 24 hours)
• $30 for 250MB of usage (expires in one week)
• $50 for 500MB of usage (expires in one month)

But some critics charge Verizon’s new 5GB data plan is way overpriced.

Current Analysis claims $80 for just 5GB of access, expiring after 30 days, is simply too much to ask from consumers looking for a contract-free, prepaid data plan.  Although AT&T has similar pricing for occasional users, smaller carriers are driving prepaid customers to expect more data for less money.

Cricket Wireless charges $50 a month for 5GB, T-Mobile delivers the same 5GB for $40 a month, and now Virgin Mobile will deliver unlimited access for $40 a month.

The only customers that would likely consider Verizon’s $80 prepaid data plan are those outside of Sprint, Cricket and T-Mobile’s coverage areas who want something more than 500MB of usage and don’t want to be stuck on a two year contract.

Virgin Mobile, Sprint’s prepaid wireless division, will introduce big changes to their mobile broadband pricing as early as tomorrow, including an unlimited mobile broadband plan for $40 a month.

While the fine print is not yet available for review, if Sprint defines “unlimited” the way dictionaries do, the introduction of unlimited access for $40 a month represents a major departure among carriers who are increasing mobile data pricing or slapping usage limits or speed throttles on customers.

Virgin Mobile noted some of their customers are replacing their home wired broadband connections with the company’s own wireless broadband option, and the new unlimited pricing plan makes that a realistic option for some consumers who can live with Sprint’s current 3G network speeds.  Virgin Mobile customers currently do not have access to Sprint’s Clearwire 4G network.

Virgin Mobile’s new Broadband2Go price plans were leaked on their Facebook page over the weekend:

Virgin Mobile's Broadband2Go Plans have been simplified into one occasional use budget plan and unlimited service for $40 a month

The new pricing departs from old pricing models that included four tiers of service, none unlimited, sold by anticipated data usage:

Virgin Mobile's old Broadband2Go delivered usage limits and forced consumers to guess at how much of a usage allowance they would need.

Virgin Mobile’s new flat rate mobile broadband data plan reflects increasingly aggressive pricing in the prepaid wireless business.  While other carriers place limits of up to 5GB on usage — typically sold for $60 a month, Virgin Mobile’s plan is fully $20 less per month and offers unlimited access.

The service is sold on a month-to-month basis with no contract requirement or credit check.  If the service does not meet one’s needs, customers can just walk away at the end of the month.

Virgin Mobile uses Sprint’s CDMA network, which offers reasonable coverage in metropolitan areas but is much spottier outside of population centers.

In the northeastern United States, Sprint's data network extends to large communities and major highways, but routinely skips smaller towns and isolated areas. For example, Virgin Mobile offers almost no service in northern New England. In upstate New York, service becomes spotty beyond the cities of Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, and the highways that connect them. There's almost no coverage in northern Pennsylvania, West Virginia, or eastern Kentucky either.

Virgin Mobile, formerly a reseller of Sprint’s network but now owned outright by them, has repositioned itself to emphasize “worry-free, unlimited service” for consumers who do not want to count calls, minutes, or megabytes.  Their latest marketing campaign pushes “crazy” low pricing, while calling out larger carriers charging up to $99 a month for the same service as “stupid.”

Virgin Mobile’s new pricing is expected to become effective Tuesday and will create a shakeup in the prepaid mobile broadband sector.  Perhaps no carrier is at bigger risk of losing mobile data customers than Cricket Wireless, which recently increased pricing on its mobile broadband service delivered on a far smaller network.

Virgin Mobile’s new pricing represents a far good deal for consumers and dispenses with usage limits.  The only downside is that Virgin Mobile customers will have to buy new modems — an Ovation MC760 for $79.99 or the MiFi 2200 Mobile Hotspot, which lets up to five users share a Virgin Mobile 3G connection over Wi-Fi, for $149.99.  These are available on Virgin Mobile’s website or in Best Buy stores.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Crazy Life by Virgin Mobile -- Full Version.flv

Virgin Mobile’s “The Crazy Life” campaign is certain to be noticed amidst other, more subdued, advertising.  It promotes Virgin Mobile’s embrace of unlimited calling and data plans.  (1 minute)

Verizon has decided Sprint is worth competing with again, so the nation’s largest wireless carrier has started testing unlimited calling plans that deliver Verizon’s network at Sprint’s prices.

So far the unlimited plans are only available in two markets – Los Angeles and San Diego, and represents a $20 discount off regular monthly pricing:

The $99.99 price is no coincidence. That happens to match pricing for Sprint’s Simply Everything and T-Mobile’s Individual Talk + Text + Web plans which both sell for $99.99 per month.

Verizon’s price cut experiment may be a reaction to Sprint’s new marketing that stresses it will not usage cap smartphone customers, and charges a lower price for more services.

Most Verizon customers in the two California cities will learn about the new pricing in Verizon retail outlets and through the company’s website.

Although the new pricing seems attractive, there is a mass of fine print which may temper your enthusiasm:

1. The lower pricing is only good for Individual plans.  You cannot get the savings on a Family Plan.
2. No monthly access discounts, available through many employers, are permitted.
3. There is a $35 activation fee.
4. Tolls, taxes, surcharges and other fees, such as E911 and gross receipt charges, vary by market and as of August 1, 2010, add between 5% and 39% to your monthly bill and are in addition to your monthly access fees and airtime charges.
5. Monthly Federal Universal Service Charge on interstate & international telecom charges (varies quarterly based on FCC rate) is 13.6% per line.
6. The Verizon Wireless monthly Regulatory Charge (subject to change) is 13¢ per line.
7. Monthly Administrative Charge (subject to change) is 83¢ per line.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Scott for the news tip.

You've used too much, and now we have to charge you more... a lot more.

No matter where you live, work or play — be it Seoul, Korea, Manchester in England, or Oklahoma City — there is one thing consumers in all three cities will readily agree on: hatred of broadband data usage caps.

Those are the findings of a brand new survey conducted by GfK NOP in association with Reuters News in Britain.

Nearly 1,000 consumers were asked what they would do if confronted with their Internet provider implementing usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  More than half said they would be shopping for a new provider.

Not surprisingly, regardless of whether a consumer uses wired or mobile broadband, few believe usage caps are anything more than price gouging by providers to rake in additional revenue.  Many of these company’s biggest-spending-customers are unhappy to learn their provider is back looking for more money in return for less service.

The survey found users of smartphones such as the Apple iPhone care more about their mobile data allowance than they do about their choice of operator or even handset brand.

The survey found that users of the iPhone, Google Android phones or Research in Motion’s BlackBerry — typically, those who spend the most — are far more likely to switch operators to find better data deals.

More than half the users of these devices said they would switch to get a higher mobile data allowance.

Adjusted to take account of the fact that consumers do not always do what they say they will, GfK NOP esimated that 24 percent of contract customers using smartphones would actually switch operators.

Such a stampede would ring panic alarms inside any wireless carrier, but one company in particular faces some serious consequences for delivering years of bad service at high prices.

According to market research firm Morpace, nearly one-half of AT&T’s iPhone customers will seriously consider jumping ship if and when Verizon offers their own version of the wildly popular Apple smartphone.

At least 34 percent of current iPhone owners are resisting upgrade offers from AT&T that require a two-year contract renewal.  They’d rather wait until the iPhone is available on any network other than AT&T.

Even worse, should Verizon introduce their version of the iPhone in the coming year, nearly a quarter of AT&T customers (including those without the iPhone) are “somewhat or very likely” to dump AT&T immediately and head for Verizon.

In addition to complaints about lousy network performance, AT&T smartphone owners who spend the most with the carrier absolutely loathe AT&T’s new data usage limits implemented this past June.

“Experienced smartphone users who understand the benefits of using the Internet on the move and use services to help them in their day-to-day lives simply can’t live without mobile data,” says GfK/NOP analyst Ryan Garner, one of the report’s authors.

“They don’t want to be thinking about their data allowance and possible costs of over-running every time they open their browser or click on an app.”

Although AT&T told their customers and the media the new data-limited plans were going to save many customers money and have no impact on the rest, that is not what AT&T’s Chief Financial Officer Rick Lindner told Wall Street bankers and shareholders on a conference call last month.

“We believe over time, based on how much data they use, they will then begin to migrate up to [more costly] higher tiered plans,” Lindner said.

AT&T is well aware customers are already packed and ready to abandon ship, which is why the wireless provider has introduced a series of impediments to keep customers anchored in place.  Waived upgrade rules permitted most iPhone owners to upgrade to the latest iPhone 4 model this summer at the promotional price, in return for a two-year contract extension.  Customers seeking an end to their relationship with AT&T will find divorce an expensive proposition.  The company nearly doubled the contract early termination fee for smartphone owners June 1st.  Your exit price: up to $350.

Why construct more of these if providers can get you to use less and pay more in the process?

Reuters notes the biggest driver towards the introduction of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps is the quest for additional revenue.

Most Western carriers have frozen or cut capital expenditure in the last two years as they prioritise maintaining the dividends prized by investors — meaning the modernisation of networks has been largely put on ice.

Meantime, they say they can no longer afford physically or financially to support unlimited data usage, and are banking on the fact that most consumers will barely notice data caps that are in any case far more generous than average data usage.

Stop the Cap! has been reporting that fact for at least two years now.  Usage limits are never about saving money for customers or making consumers pay for what they use.  They are about increasing profits at the same time providers continue to reduce investments to maintain and upgrade their networks.  Providers routinely report they are spending countless billions on network infrastructure, but neglect to mention those investments are not keeping up with subscriber growth and, in many cases, are actually decreasing year-by-year.  The self-perpetuating problem of network congestion that inevitably follows then becomes an excuse to charge customers more money for usage-limited service.

Reuters confirms that many western carriers have business plans that would be familiar to any neighborhood drug dealer – hand out plentiful cheap samples, get customers hooked, and then gradually reduce the supply while also raising the price.

In Europe, Scandinavian operator TeliaSonera is betting that the superiority of its next-generation LTE network, the world’s first, will allow it to offer premium services — at premium prices.

“When a service like this is entering the market, you normally more or less give it away for free, and so we did with mobile data,” Hakan Dahlstrom, the company’s head of mobility services, told investors last month.

“After a while… to meet the customer’s need for cost control; that is when you have flat rate. And then after some time the user understand how these services work and how it suits them, and you start charging for speed and volume.”

Yet not every provider has found success in alienating and overcharging their customers for increasingly important connectivity.

Reuters found Japan and Korea’s more advanced and mature data networks have already been down the road of usage restrictions, and found they didn’t solve network congestion issues — only provider investments in upgrades did:

Japanese operators NTT DoCoMo, KDDI and Softbank have stuck to flat rates — with discounts for months in which customers use less data — while encouraging them to use more Wi-Fi to take pressure off the mobile networks.

In Korea, carriers are returning to unlimited data plans because of heightened competition while investing heavily to upgrade their networks — a move that Western counterparts are unlikely to be able to avoid for much longer.

SK Telecom, South Korea’s top mobile carrier, last month said it would offer unlimited data services and free mobile Internet calls for customers paying 55,000 won ($46.40) and over in monthly service charges.

Of course, both Korea and Japan maintain more oversight by public officials over critical network infrastructure vital to both nations’ economies.  Neither government allows unregulated monopolies or duopolies in their midst — convinced they’ll deliver the least amount of service they can for the highest possible price they can get away with. In other words — today’s marketplace model in much of Europe and North America.

Phillip "Cry Me a River, Guys" Dampier

Like two peas in a pod, Robert Cyran and Bob Cox are back for the umpteenth time with their views on something.  A few years ago, they were upset because the group Radiohead decided consumers should name their own price for one of their albums.  This time it’s about Net Neutrality and variable pricing for broadband.  Writing for Reuters BreakingViews, they’re deeply concerned poor traditional phone and cable companies are being shortchanged — saddled with the costs of building and maintaining networks that content companies like Google, Apple, Cisco, and Microsoft get to use for free.

As for the four leading [content companies], they have a combined net cash pile of around $140 billion. Last year they spent $4.9 billion on capital expansion, a tenth of what the big four [telecom companies] paid to erect new cell towers, buy routers and extend fiber-optic cables.

[...]The introduction of variable pricing, or charging customers based on the data they consume, will help pay for the needed gear. But it means that the already unpopular [telecoms] will stick their customers with far larger bills — a recipe for political interference. Meantime, the [content companies] would continue to carry away what the telecom operators see as a disproportionate share of the benefits.

This analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep — fundamentally flawed because of information Cyran and Cox either ignored, didn’t know about, or didn’t care to consider.

First, Cisco is hardly a content company.  It is doing quite nicely feeding rumors of the forthcoming great tsunami of data — the “zettabyte era of broadband” that will result in a global traffic jam only they can help overcome. Cisco’s success comes from the sale of advanced networking equipment that can manage the growth of the Internet.  The amount of data that crosses today’s broadband wires has grown exponentially, even as the costs to manage it are increasingly declining on a per-gigabyte basis.  Apple is partly a content company, but more importantly is a developer of devices like the iPad and iPhone which are driving growth in wireless networks and helping justify the acceptance of monthly wireless phone bills easily over $100 a month in many households.  Google has content, but is also willing to take a plunge into being a provider itself, with plans to deploy an advanced 1Gbps fiber network that big telecom providers say cannot be built in a sensible way (to their investors.)  Finally, love or hate Microsoft, they have successfully powered the growth of personal computing which made the concept of broadband something telecom companies could actually sell to their shareholders as a viable business.

Cyran and Cox equate content providers and big telecom companies as unequal beneficiaries of the broadband revolution.  But just like many other powerful interests opposed to Net Neutrality, they forget those big telecom companies earn enormous revenue and profits from their customers — you and I.  The financial reports of all of these companies tell the story Cox and Cyran don’t.  Broadband profits among large telecom companies are the biggest growth area these companies have.  Deploying the service reaps financial windfalls.  Even with capital expenses involved in constructing fiber optic networks, broadband revenue can still make shareholders smile like no other component in today’s triple play packages.

On the wired side, Verizon has announced it has suspended further expansion of its fiber network FiOS indefinitely.  No other national cable or phone company is currently constructing true fiber to the home networks. Instead, most deploy fiber to the neighborhood and let coaxial or copper wiring cover the rest of the way.  Indeed, capital spending by many telecom companies is actually dropping.

On the wireless side, more than 90 percent of Americans now carry cell phones.  The monthly prices most pay for service exceeds that of their landline provider, if they have one.  Yet for all of the awful costs wireless providers face, AT&T and Verizon can’t wait to devote more time and energy to the wireless side of their business, because that is where the real money can be found.

It’s difficult to claim “victim” status of unequal treatment when you’re standing in a room filled with piles of cash.

The authors also completely ignore the fact companies that produce content don’t just throw it on the web for free.  An entire industry devoted to delivery of streaming media and other high bandwidth content buys fat pipelines from these telecom companies to deliver content to consumers.  Every content provider already pays their fair share for the traffic they generate.  Consumers pick up the rest as part of their monthly bill.

But Cyran and Cox believe these content companies (and consumers) should pay dramatically more to telecom companies for “upgrades” that may or may not materialize, and are frankly just the cost of doing business, which can be recouped from the relatively expensive broadband pricing Americans already pay for service.  The profit margins for broadband service are enormous.

Variable pricing, which we consistently call Internet Overcharging, is nothing more than price gouging, and the one true fact in their piece we agree with is that customers will get stuck with the bill.

Despite some denials last week that Verizon and Google were not married and cohabitating their political agendas, the two giants announced a shared vision of the Internet’s future — one that does not “purposely throttle or block content,” but reserves for themselves a new, super speed Internet for the two companies and their closest corporate friends that will make blocked websites the least of America’s broadband problems.

For Internet enthusiasts, the deal is nothing less than a complete sellout of one of the founding visions of the Internet – content judged on its merits, not on the deep pockets backing it.  It’s a complete betrayal of Net Neutrality and broadband reform by Google, which has some of the deepest pockets around and has apparently forgotten the story of its own founding — a story that would likely be impossible on an Internet envisioned by Big V & G.

The Five Biggest Lies About Google and Verizon’s Net Neutrality Proposal

Big Lie #1: “For the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.”

That is a distinction no longer worth the difference should the two providers succeed in developing a special fast lane for their content partners.  If you don’t have the admission price or a favored pass to belong to the golden magic superhighway, not being purposely blocked or throttled on a clogged free lane offers little comfort when your start-up cannot compete with the bully boys that can outspend you into submission.

Both companies seek to invest millions in what is essentially a toll highway, incentivized by the potential returns offered by deep pocketed content producers willing to pay the toll.  With Wall Street following that money, those left behind on the slow lanes will find providers increasingly uninterested in throwing good money into necessary upgrades to keep the “free lane” humming.  The Internet that results will resemble the difference between a Chicago public housing project and the Ritz-Carlton.

Big Lie #2: “Reasonable” Network Management

The partnership’s declaration of support for its definition of  “reasonable” traffic management has more loopholes than Lorraine Swiss cheese.  For instance, “reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network to ensure quality service” for consumers already exists.  It’s called “upgrading your network.”  Now, it could also mean classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits, speed throttles applied to all “free lane” content, or billing schemes that “mitigate” congestion by charging extortionist pricing for broadband usage.  Using vague notions of “accepted standards” could be defined by any group deemed by Google and Verizon to be “recognized.”  Both have enough money to influence the very definition of “accepted standards.”

You don’t need a policy that reads like a credit card agreement to manage traffic on a well-managed, consistently upgraded broadband network.  Nothing prevents either company from providing such a network, but with no oversight and pro-consumer reform, nothing compels them to provide it either.

Big Lie #3: This preserves the open Internet.*

(*- excluding wireless broadband access to the Internet.)  As an increasing number of consumers seek to migrate some of their Internet usage to wireless networks, it’s more than a little unsettling Google and Verizon would exempt these networks from most of the “consumer protections” they have on offer.

Big Lie #4: The FCC gets its coveted authority to oversee the Internet.

Not really.  In fact, this agreement shares more in common with corporate interests that want less regulation and oversight, not more.  The suggested framework graciously grants the FCC the right to sit and listen to complaints, but strips away… permanently… any authority to pass judgment on the cases they hear and write regulations to stop abuses.

Clauses like “parties would be encouraged to use non-governmental dispute resolution processes” must give the arbitration industry new hope.  Already out of favor in many quarters, this proposal is tailor-made to bring a new Renaissance for “out of court arbitration” that heavily favors the companies that bind consumers and other aggrieved parties to using it.  The arbitration industry is no stranger to contributing to the right people to make them the only reasonable choice for dispute resolution.

Verizon and Google want nothing less than the right to define how their Internet will work — from the applications you can effectively use, the speed throttle you are forced to endure on the free lane, to the enormous bill you’ll receive for using those non-favored websites.

Big Lie #5: Google in 2006 — “Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.”

Google has come a long way, baby — in the wrong direction.  Demanding Google “not be evil,” something hundreds of thousands of Americans have already said today, is becoming so commonplace as to be cliché.  Still, being for Net Neutrality one day and throwing that concept overboard the next is the ultimate flip-flop.  When money talks louder than doing right by the millions of users who made both companies what they are today represents the ultimate betrayal.  Let’s make sure they realize it.

Bloomberg News reports consumers will be stuck with higher broadband bills, especially if they dare to watch online video, on a broadband platform envisioned to saddle Americans with toll highways for Internet content.  (4 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Google Joint Internet Policy 8-9-10.flv

CNBC echoed concerns about the Verizon-Google deal and its implications for the future of Internet applications.  (4 minutes)

Read the Verizon-Google Proposed Framework below the jump…

… Continue Reading

Verizon and Google have reached an agreement in principle to deal away Net Neutrality protections for American broadband users according to a late report in today’s Washington Post.

Cecilia King writes the agreement is days away from being revealed in public, but two sources verified Verizon and Google have agreed to a split the difference on Net Neutrality — abandoning the open Internet concept for wireless broadband, but protecting against service providers holding bidding auctions over the speed of web content delivery.

Verizon wouldn’t confirm that a deal was struck but said in an e-mail statement:

“We’ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy. We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the FCC. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it.”

Specifically, Google and Verizon’s agreement would prevent Verizon from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders for capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But any promises regarding open-Internet access wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement.

And Verizon could offer managed services — better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOS customers at better quality.

Public interest groups, some occasionally accused of being in bed with Google, were outraged at the news.

“The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google, or even the six companies and groups engaged in other discussions at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on similar topics,” said Gigi Sohn, president of public interest group Public Knowledge.

The clear distancing from Google’s settlement illustrates these pro-consumer groups are not simply shilling for Google’s public policy positions.

For Stop the Cap!, the implications are extremely disturbing.  As outlined, this compromise deal would relegate wireless broadband to usage caps, speed throttles, and content blockades indefinitely.  Should “improved quality” service on the wired side be an available option, it could allow the broadband industry to mount a devastating campaign to end would-be competitors, especially to their video businesses.  Cable and phone companies could pick winners and losers (with their products being the winners, and would-be competitors the losers) by prioritizing high quality video services, exempting their partners from Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, and subjecting would-be, “non-preferred” content providers to usage and speed-restricted broadband lines.

Offering preferred content producers discounted rates would also completely change the business models of content distribution and discourage investment in would-be challengers that could provide consumers with other video options.

More importantly, it provides an example of an Obama Administration ruthlessly willing to cut consumers out of the debate about Net Neutrality, while forcing them to live with the results.  King notes the priorities of Google and Verizon don’t exactly include consumers:

According to the sources, Verizon and Google have met separately to reach an agreement they will tout as an example of successful self-regulation. Once bitter opponents in the so-called net neutrality debate, the firms have grown closer on the issue as their business ties have also strengthened. Verizon partners with Google on their Android wireless phones.

Their actions could set a course for the FCC meetings and what ultimately the parties could present to lawmakers, analysts said.

Voluntary self-regulation worked so well with Wall Street banks and the housing market that a disconnected crowd inside the beltway is willing to give it another try with a broadband industry that is already a duopoly for most consumers.  Psychic abilities are not required to guess at the eventual outcome.

Update 12:30pm — The denials are flying over a NY Times piece that claims Google has agreed to pay Verizon’s asking price for prioritized traffic:

Google: “The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.”

Verizon: “The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”