Verizon Hands Out More Money for Lobbying Than Any Other Telecom Company

Verizon spent $4.44 million dollars in the second quarter of 2010 on lobbyist activities designed to influence the federal government on broadband matters and other issues of concern to the telecommunications giant.

Verizon’s lobbying budget routinely exceeds $16 million a year.  It achieved the top spot among all telecommunications companies willing to spend millions to get its views heard in Washington, even as it stops expansion of its fiber optic FiOS project and has reduced spending on network upgrades, especially for landlines.

Verizon’s lobbying activities were disclosed as part of federal reporting requirements.  Verizon’s filing shows the company has several lobbyists working on a number of issues of interest to the company, particularly broadband and wireless phone legislation.

The company’s disclosure form lists the names of some of their top lobbyists.  The revolving door seems to always be turning in Washington, as former members of Congress and their aides leave to accept lucrative positions at Washington-area lobbying firms.  Among Verizon’s:

Shirley Bloomfield: From 2007-2009, she represented Qwest while also working with Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.).  Bloomfield also lobbied for the National Telecommunications Co-Op and served as a press aide for the House Budget Committee.  From 2009 on, she’s been the VP of Federal Government Relations (read that – lobbyist) for Verizon Communications.  She kept one foot firmly planted at Big Telecom and the other in the halls of Congress.

Frank Cantrel Jr.: He’s been in this lobbying business for a long time.  After serving as an aide for ex-Senator Bob Packwood (R-Oregon), Cantrel worked for MCI’s interests for nearly a decade before moving on to represent Verizon’s from 2006 forward.  You could have spotted him July 20th at the invitation-only “Beers and Burgers” event for Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) bought and paid for by several lobbyists with campaign contributions in hand.  Would you like some fries with that “compromise” on Net Neutrality?

Bloomfield

Peter Davidson: General Counsel for former House Majority Leader “Darth” Dick Armey (R-Tex.), Davidson learned lobbying and corporate-backed astroturfing from the grand poohbah himself.  He spent time lobbying for US West and Qwest.  While Armey left for FreedomWorks, Davidson spent time as General Counsel at the Office of U.S. Trade Representative before getting paid the big bucks by Verizon.

Brian Rice: Verizon’s newest addition to its lobbying army, Rice comes straight from the office of Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) where he served as Kerry’s Communications Policy Advisor.  Anyone want to guess what he “advised” the senator to do that helped make him the perfect choice for Verizon’s newest lobbyist?

Representing your constituents’ interests can be a major problem for members of Congress and their staffers who know only too well that riches await them working at lobbying firms after their stint in public service ends.  But few will be offered positions if they spend their time and energy alienating their future employers, which is just another reason why many members of Congress are receptive to industry arguments, especially when accompanied by a generous campaign contribution at an industry-sponsored golf tournament, barbecue, or luncheon.

For too many members of Congress, your needs come second (or third… or don’t even make the list.)

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.

Shaw's flyer distributed to Novus customers

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has thrown out Novus Entertainment’s 2009 lawsuit against Shaw Cable accusing western Canada’s largest cable operator of predatory pricing and other anti-competitive acts.

Last summer, Stop the Cap! gave considerable attention to the price war that broke out between Novus Entertainment, a fiber provider serving many Vancouver apartment buildings and condos vs. incumbent cable provider Shaw Cable.

Novus, which entered the BC market well after Shaw, faced what it alleged were incidents of fixing prices below cost and false advertising in an effort to drive competition out of the market.

At one point, last summer’s battle dropped prices as low as $30 a month for a package of HD cable, unlimited phone, and 16Mbps broadband service from Shaw.  Novus accused Shaw of recouping their losses in Vancouver from other Shaw cable subscribers across Canada who made up the difference with higher cable rates.

Novus sought relief before The Honourable Mr. Justice Greyell, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.  Novus argued that under the recently expanded Competition Act, the court could order Shaw to cease unfair competition and face punitive fines for the cable company’s bad behavior.

Novus recited details of the price war:

Commencing February 2009, Shaw began a series of marketing campaigns specifically targeted at Novus’ existing customers in high-rise, multiple-dwelling units (“MDUs”) developments in Vancouver and Burnaby, British Columbia.

In February 2009, Shaw offered very low pricing on its Cable Television Services, Internet, and digital telephone services to certain Novus customers.  Customers were free to take one, two or all three of the services offered.  There were no contracts or commitments required:

• Cable Television Services:  Shaw’s “High-Definition TV” package including over 100 digital and HD channels, plus 1 year free rental of a high-definition personal video recorder (“HDPVR”), free for the first two months, and $9.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).
• Digital Telephone:  Shaw’s “Digital Phone Basic” package, which includes local calling and call display, free for the first two months, and $14.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).
• High-speed Internet:  Shaw’s “Xtreme-I Internet” package, free for the first two months, and $19.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).

In March 2009, Shaw began offering a free HPDVR to keep, plus the first month of service for free, to customers that switch back to Shaw. Customers were only required to commit to six months of pre-authorized payments.

In July 2009, Shaw offered even lower pricing than it marketed in February:

• Cable Television Services:  More than 200 digital channels, including all analogue and digital television channels, 25 high-definition television (“HDTV”) channels, a movie channel package, plus two rental HDTV set-top boxes with personal video recorder (“HPDVR”), free for the first two months, and $9.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).
• Digital Telephone:  Shaw’s “Digital Phone” package, including local telephone service, over a dozen calling features including voicemail, call display and call waiting, unlimited calling within Canada and the US, 1,000 International minutes to selected countries per month,”) free for the first two months, and $9.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).
• Shaw’s “Xtreme-I” high-speed Internet: with advertised download speeds of up to 16 Mbps, “Powerboost”, 10 personal email addresses and 100 GB monthly data transfer”), free for the first two months, and $9.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).

To add insult to injury, according to Novus, Shaw began advertising Internet “now 50 percent faster.”  In Novus’ opinion, the advertising implied Shaw’s Internet service was now 50 percent faster than broadband offered by Novus.

The text from Shaw’s ad read:

Feel the need for extra speed?  Shaw high-speed Internet is now 50% faster that’s fast.  Downloading your favourite music, videogames, and movies will take no time at all.  Plus Shaw high-speed Internet comes loaded with no cost extras like Powerboost, Shaw Secure and much more.  Get Shaw high-speed Internet for the amazing new price of only $19.95 per month for the first three months including modem and installation.  There’s never been a better time to order.  Call 310-Shaw today.

Signs sponsored by Shaw Cable were placed in front of buildings wired by Novus

The decision by Mr. Justice Greyell was carefully watched across Canada as it represented the first test of expanded authority granted by Parliament for courts to impose significant monetary fines against bad actors.  Commentators noted the new authority theoretically granted courts the power to determine anti-competitive activity itself — a power formerly held by Canada’s Competition Tribunal.

Those commentators need not have worried if the BC Supreme Court decision stands intact.

Mr. Justice Greyell dismissed Novus’ claims and ruled that in the absence of a determination of anti-competitive behavior by the Competition Tribunal, the court had no right to declare Shaw guilty of such behavior in the case.

“I conclude that in the absence of an order from the [Competition] Tribunal under s. 79 of the [Competition] Act, those portions of the statement of claim alleging a breach of s. 79 of the Act be struck out,” the chief justice ruled, effectively dismissing Novus’ anti-competitive claims against Shaw.

Mr. Justice Greyell also was unconvinced consumers would be confused by Shaw’s “50 percent faster” advertisement, believing the cable company now delivered faster service than Novus.

“In applying these tests to the ‘Now 50% Faster’ advertisement I am unable to conclude a reasonable person would view the words used as referring to the plaintiff’s business.  I am of the view the interpretation any reasonable person would place on the words is that Shaw is directing the advertisement to its own customers, and anyone else who might be interested, that its services are 50% faster than they used to be.  This fact is made clear by Shaw’s use of the word ‘Now’ – which implies that in the past Shaw’s services were slower and that Shaw has ‘Now’ improved the speed of its services   The advertisement makes no reference to Novus or to any Shaw competitor,” the chief justice ruled.

Novus effectively walks away from the BC Supreme Court empty-handed, and a little lighter in the wallet.  The chief justice also ruled Novus is responsible for Shaw’s legal bills associated with defending itself against Novus’ lawsuit.

[flv width=”630″ height=”375″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Novus – 10 Bucks Too.flv[/flv]

Novus released this video as part of an outreach campaign arguing cable customers across western Canada should qualify for the same incredibly low promotional pricing Vancouver residents pay for Shaw Cable. (2 minutes)

Stevens

Sen. Ted Stevens death last week in a plane crash has shined a light on increasingly cozy relationships between Alaska’s most powerful politicians and the special interests that court their support.  Winning favor with a politician that can control and direct financial resources from Washington can secure your company millions in taxpayer dollars and legislative favors in America’s most rural state.

When he died, the former Alaskan senator was on his way, as an invited guest, to an isolated lodge owned and maintained for the use of executives at Alaska’s largest broadband provider — GCI.  Time alone in the Alaskan wilderness delivered the ultimate captive audience for those the company sought to influence and Stevens was always a company favorite.

Accompanying Stevens on the doomed flight were GCI’s senior lobbyist Dana Tindall and William D. Phillips Sr., a lawyer, lobbyist and former chief of staff for Mr. Stevens.  Both also perished in the crash.

Even after Stevens was voted out of office after being initially found guilty in a federal corruption trial, special interests like GCI continued to court Stevens, who all-too-willingly mixed business and pleasure — including the ill-fated fishing trip sponsored by the Alaskan telecom company.

Stevens didn’t go quietly out of politics after losing to Democrat Mark Begich in 2008.  The New York Times noted he split his time between Washington and Alaska, providing “consulting” services and worked on resource issues.

His close connections to beltway politics kept him in favor among Alaska’s corporate interests, many of whom had supported Stevens financially and rhetorically for decades.

Tindall’s close relationship to Stevens paid GCI dividends in favors and support — both of which they returned in the form of generous campaign contributions, as the Times reports:

Ms. Tindall, 48, did not work for Mr. Stevens, but several people said they had a strong mutual respect and a warm rapport. She is credited with helping the company she worked for, GCI, grow rapidly in Alaska at the same time that Mr. Stevens was influential in telecommunications issues in Congress. He frequently brought members of the Federal Communications Commission to Alaska and helped steer money toward improving communications in rural areas. Another of his former chiefs of staff, Greg Chapados, is a vice president at GCI.

Tindall

“Senator Stevens was instrumental in helping get a satellite project started so that people in Alaska could watch same-day television and live events,” said Mike Porcaro, a radio personality and advertising executive whose clients include GCI. Mr. Porcaro recalled not being able to watch live network television in Alaska as late as the 1970s. “We went from the 1800s to the 20th century in one day, mostly because of him,” Mr. Porcaro said.

Executives at GCI were generous campaign contributors to Mr. Stevens. Since 1994, Ms. Tindall was the most generous, donating $7,100 to his campaigns, records show. But in 2007 and 2008, as the corruption case surrounded Mr. Stevens, Ms. Tindall and other GCI executives gave less. Ms. Tindall initially gave $1,000 that year, though she later reduced the amount to $400.

Roberta Graham, a public relations executive and a close friend of Ms. Tindall’s, said Ms. Tindall and Mr. Stevens were “kindred spirits,” similarly tenacious and dedicated to their work.

GCI can afford to wine and dine Alaska’s politicians from the rate hikes they will visit on their broadband customers with a proposed Internet Overcharging scheme that will limit customers to how much Internet access they can enjoy.

That abusive pricing is something Senator Stevens would have undoubtedly supported, even if he lacked an understanding of its implications.

The late senator embarrassed himself in 2006 when he sought to defend his friends in the telecommunications industry against Net Neutrality.  At one point, Stevens reduced the Internet down to a “series of tubes.”

But then companies like GCI didn’t contribute generously to his campaign for his broadband knowledge — they just wanted to make sure he was a safe vote in their column.

Broadband customers face dramatically higher prices for Internet service from a telecom company that wants to define for Alaskans an “appropriate” amount of “fair usage” of the Internet.

GCI, Alaska’s largest cable company, is currently embarked on a so-called “education” campaign over the summer telling residential customers it might be time for them to log off, or face the consequences of enormously higher broadband bills.

For one Anchorage coffee shop, that added up for several hundred dollars for just a single month of usage — all because they offer free Wi-Fi to their customers.

“People use it for their second space. Their home office,” Kaladi Brothers Coffee COO Dale Tran told KTVA news. “We’ve always offered an open network in our cafes, and after hours some people come by and park out front.”

Tran says the result was a bill from GCI several hundred dollars higher than expected.

GCI Communications Manager David Morris says at least two percent of their 110,000 customers are using “too much” service and violating the company’s “fair use” policies.  Morris also warned customers with wireless equipment that if they don’t take steps to lock down their routers with passwords and security, they could be exposed to a huge bill from GCI for providing free Internet service to the entire neighborhood.

Morris claims the company wants to specifically define what it considers “fair use,” claiming it will make things more equitable for everyone.

But GCI’s Internet Overcharging scheme will never save a single customer a penny.  Instead, customers will see only skyrocketing bills should they not fit within GCI’s arbitrary definition of “fair use”:

The company’s website states, “For a large majority of customers, normal usage activities are not expected to exceed the plan profiles defined below”:

GCI customers are not happy.  One reader of the AK Community forum provided additional insight:

To add a little dimension to this before I start ranting, here are the respective rates for the above service plans:

Now, those prices are misleading because they are only for the internet service portion of the “bundle.”  What they’re not telling you (anywhere on the web site that I can find, in fact) is that in order to receive that price, data transfer rate, and monthly bandwidth, you must also pay for GCI’s digital cable television service ($57.99 when part of a bundle), local phone service ($15.49 a month), and long distance service ($5.99 a month plus taxes and surcharges).

Without factoring in the various FCC fees and whatnot, the above information brings the total cost of GCI’s fastest, highest monthly bandwidth package to $179.46 per month!  That’s actually the cost they quoted me on the phone, too, so at least we know their “customer service” staff are at least intelligent enough to figure out an adding machine.

Oh, and did I mention that those speeds and transfer rates are not available for standalone cable modem [subscribers]?

[…] What happens when you do go over?  BAM!  $5.12 per gig tacked on to your bill!  I don’t know about you guys, but I’m sick of getting ripped off by GCI.  Those of you who live outside of Alaska can confirm this, but GCI is just about the only cable company that still meters their customers’ bandwidth.  I have friends who tell me that they’re paying $49.00 a month for 8Mb/s transfer rate and unlimited bandwidth!

What GCI is doing is highway robbery.  How are they getting away with it?  I’ll tell you: no competition.  For very high speed broadband internet, they’re the only show in town, so they can charge whatever they want to anybody who wants more than 3Mbps (standard speed DSL service from Alaska’s other big telecom provider, the phone company).

[flv width=”478″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVA Anchorage GCI Fair Internet Use Crackdown 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

KTVA-TV in Anchorage ran this report about GCI’s plans to force many of their broadband customers to pay more if they enjoy the Internet “too much.”  (3 minutes)