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.

Shapiro

Yesterday, Stop the Cap! reviewed a report from Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin Hassett suggesting “heavy users” should pay 80 percent of the costs to upgrade and expand broadband service to help lower prices for Internet access among America’s poor.  But what might have read to some as a scholarly assessment of challenges confronting American broadband is, in reality, propaganda produced by Sonecon, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm hired by AT&T to sell their corporate agenda to the American public, interest groups, and Congress.

Beltway Economics – Buying Credentialed “Experts” to Back Discredited Policies

The dirty little secret of Washington power politics is that money buys attention, access, and all too often votes.  What began as a cottage industry to help facilitate communications between private business and political Washington has grown into a monstrosity that now largely controls the agenda, giving the upper hand to those who can outspend their rivals.  Since all too often those rivals are consumers who don’t bring money to play the game, they don’t even get a seat at the table.

Few people start a career thinking they’ll ultimately wind up prostituting their good name and resume to the highest bidder.  For many inside the beltway, what may have begun as a well-intentioned career in public service too often ends working for one of countless “public strategy firms” that help special interests get their way. Their impact on the debate is pervasive, especially when Congressional allies are on board: using suggested witnesses at Congressional hearings that lock out true consumer groups, reading lobbyist-provided talking points during floor debates, quoting from industry-sponsored reports sold as “independent research,” and gratefully accepting any accompanying campaign contribution checks along the way.

Most D.C. lobbying firms rely on recognized names who maintain a high profile in Washington power circles even years after leaving the public sector.  When selling an agenda, it helps if the person doing the sales pitch already knows the person being sold.  That’s why so many ex-Congressmen, deciding they’ve gotten used to living in Washington and want to stay, find new careers and a much bigger paycheck working as lobbyists.  But elected office isn’t a requirement.  Even those appointed to positions in the public sector can turn those lean government pay years into an income bonanza once that administration leaves office.

Robert J. Shapiro has come a long way from his early days in progressive politics found him in positions at several liberally-minded groups like the Progressive Policy Institute and the Progressive Foundation.  He advised several Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  Bill Clinton appointed Shapiro the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs during his second term in office.

Unfortunately, although that title looks great on a business card and future resume, the pay is downright lousy.  Besides, his temp job would end with the Clinton Administration’s departure.

Shapiro combined his credentials with years of networking into Sonecon, LLC — a D.C. lobbying firm that pays dividends from its grateful clients, including AT&T.  Sonecon describes itself as “an economic advisory firm that provides in-depth analyses and unique insights into changing economic conditions in the United States and around the world and the impact of government policies on those conditions….”

Sonecon Knows Its Place

But just a little digging reveals Sonecon is really just another cog in the wheel of corporate campaign strategy and messaging.  Among the services promised to its clients (underlined emphasis ours):

• [Sonecon] works extensively with a network of affiliated firms (read that other lobbyists, astroturf groups, and think tanks) to help design and execute message campaigns;
• Sonecon plays an influential role in shaping public policy debates. We identify economic risks and opportunities created by recently proposed or enacted laws and regulations. By outlining the risks and opportunities associated with these changes, Sonecon enables business and government decision makers to react in a timely and appropriate way.  One recent example: Our reports on proposed new FCC regulations effecting broadband providers focused on broadband access issues for lower income households.
• As part of our services, Sonecon principals and advisers take part in strategic public relations campaigns designed to promote the firm’s work in the media, Congress and Executive Branch.  Well-informed, credentialed, and highly credible spokespersons, our team members are available for special appearances as well as ongoing communication campaigns.

Sonecon’s involvement in this particular ongoing communications campaign was made considerably easier by CNET’s sloppy editorial policy which effectively handed free media to AT&T without adequate disclosure of Shapiro’s agenda.  A simple Google search would have given CNET ample evidence that Shapiro and his firm were performing work on behalf of its clients — the telecommunications industry, especially AT&T.  This is not CNET’s first lapse.  On June 3rd, they provided column space for Robert Hahn to bash the FCC for involving itself in data plan pricing.  Only they never disclosed the fact Hahn is associated with the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), a phone and cable industry-backed think tank.  Even Comcast managed to disclose that association in their company blog.

In March, Shapiro appeared on an industry-backed panel to oppose broadband reform (from left, Robert Crandall-Brookings Institution, Walter McCormick-USTelecom, Lee Rainie-Pew Internet and America Life Project, Robert Shapiro-Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, and Joseph Waz, Comcast)

The unfortunate part of this story is that Sonecon and Shapiro have also infested the current debate over the National Broadband Plan.  This past March, Shapiro joined forces with the aforementioned TPI and its benefactors AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and the cable lobbying group NCTA to appear at a half-day “event” at the National Press Club to whine about broadband reform’s impact on industry investment and broadband expansion.  To underscore the economic investment threat, the sponsors were only willing to provide a continental breakfast for participants.  Leave us deregulated or else American broadband will resemble this stale pastry and ersatz “orange juice”-flavored beverage.

Such events happen easily in Washington with a swipe of a corporate credit card.  If consumers still had money, they could hire firms like Sonecon to represent their interests in these beltway policy debates.  But then hard-hit Americans don’t even have credit cards to spare these days, thanks to earlier lobbying efforts that allowed banks to use the economy as their personal casino.  Shapiro played his part in this too, writing a January 2008 report, “American Jobs and the Impact of Private Equity Transactions” that advocated for big Wall Street private equity leveraged buyouts, playing down the typical wholesale job losses that followed:

The data strongly suggest that private equity operations have solid, positive effects on U.S. employment, a finding consistent with the general role that private equity transactions play in the American economy. Private equity funds identify inefficient companies or subsidiaries, leverage those companies’ assets to borrow much of the financing to purchase them outright or to purchase a controlling interest, reorganize their operations and management, and run the enterprises as privately-owned entities.

Friends Until the End… Of the Contract

True to word, Shapiro did work extensively with a network of affiliated firms.  Many of the sources in his report are other groups also working for the industry or dependent on it.

The challenge here is that industry and government experts now expect that broadband bandwidth demand will continue to rise rapidly with the fast-expanding use of video and audio applications, and that consequently broadband providers face an extended period of significantly higher investments to accommodate this growing bandwidth demand.

[…]Another estimate cited by David McClure, the head of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and John Ernhardt, Senior Manager of Policy Communications for Cisco Systems, projects that the long-term investments required to keep up with rising bandwidth demand could cost providers an additional $300 billion over 20 years, on top of their trend level investments.

Recently, the FCC broadband task force suggested that the additional investment requirements, including wiring every household with fiber, may well reach $350 billion.

The U.S. Internet Industry Association is a trade association for service providers like AT&T and Verizon.  A Verizon executive serves on its board.  Its mission includes working “to enhance your existing legislative and regulatory resources, giving your company a stronger voice over a wider range of issues — and at a reduced cost.”

Cisco Systems, principal advocate of the theory of the Internet traffic tsunami, makes its living selling equipment to manage the “exaflood” to the same industry that it pals around with in public policy debates.

Kevin Hassett co-authored the Sonecon report

And where does Shapiro’s estimated price tag of $350 billion come from?  His proclaimed source, the FCC broadband task force, is only half the story.  In fact, this cost estimate came from service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations/lobbyists, among others¹.  That part didn’t make it into Shapiro’s report  — maybe he ran out of room.

Therein lies the basic problem with sock puppet research.  The credibility of any industry-funded study is questionable before the first copy even gets published.  Common sense dictates that a firm’s longevity is directly tied to its performance for clients.  Producing research that questions the strategy a company hires you to push is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy.  It doesn’t matter what credentials one brings to the table, money always speaks louder, especially in Washington.

Shapiro’s co-author, Kevin Hassett, is a political polar opposite, having served as an economic adviser to John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and Director of Economic Studies at the very-business-friendly American Enterprise Institute.  The potential friction between the two was eased by the ultimate incentive: big piles of bipartisan telecom cash.

In the end, Sonecon has done its client’s bidding — fixing facts to subjectively argue that unlimited, flat-rate broadband has to go. Their evidence is as flimsy as can be — assumptions that overcharging some people for Internet service will guarantee upgrades and cheaper pricing for others.

If you believe that, you’ll also believe Shapiro and Hassett wrote this report for free.

¹Federal Communications Commission. FCC Task Force on the National Broadband Plan Presentation to the FCC: September Commission Meeting (Slide 45)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report assumes quite a lot:

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

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

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

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

The report has several other glaring fact-gaps:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You: “Why is this drive so expensive?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You: “You aren’t making any sense.”

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

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

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

Tomorrow: Down the Sonecon rabbit hole

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

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

Paper: Muni Broadband Bill Quietly Tucked Into Another Bill

by: Brian Bowman, Save North Carolina Broadband

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

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

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

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

Sen. David Hoyle (D-NC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC Municipal Broadband 4-2010.flv[/flv]

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

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Signal – Connectivity on the move 6-10.mp4[/flv]

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