Verizon Wireless and Google this morning surprised the wireless mobile industry when it went far beyond a much-anticipated agreement between Verizon and Google to market smartphones using Google’s Android operating system, and instead seemed to embrace Net Neutrality for unrestricted use of online services on Verizon Wireless’ network.  Is this a consumer-friendly about face or a strategic effort to take the wind out of the sails pushing for formal adoption of Network Neutrality regulations?

Today’s announcement represents a complete reversal for Verizon Wireless, which announced opposition for wireless Net Neutrality in September.  Tom Tauke, Verizon’s executive vice president of regulatory affairs said then: “We believe that when the FCC reviews the record and looks at the facts, it will be clear that there is no current problem which justifies the risk of imposing a new set of regulations that will limit consumer choices and affect content providers, application developers, device manufacturers and network builders.”

Google and Verizon have been on opposite sides of the Net Neutrality debate for several years now.  The phone company spends millions of dollars lobbying Washington to keep Net Neutrality off its back, in direct opposition to Google’s strong advocacy for the consumer-friendly open network rules.  One might anticipate a joint webcast between the two companies would be reserved in tone at best.

It wasn’t.

In fact, Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam and Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt fell all over themselves praising one another, and attacked Verizon’s nemesis AT&T.

McAdam took a shot at AT&T for the recent controversy over their decision to block Google Voice and other Voice Over IP services from working with AT&T’s wireless network.

“Either you have an open device or not. This will be open,” McAdam said.

Schmidt praised Verizon Wireless’ nationwide mobile broadband network, calling it “by far the best in the United States.”

AT&T understood the implication of the partnership between its biggest rival and the super-sized Google and announced it was reversing its decision to block Voice Over IP applications on its network.

Ralph de la Vega, chief executive of AT&T’s consumer wireless unit, said “the iPhone is an innovative device that dramatically changed the game in wireless when it was introduced just two years ago.  Today’s decision was made after evaluating our customers’ expectations and use of the device compared to dozens of others we offer.”

That’s a remarkable statement coming from a company that has routinely ignored the wishes and expectations of its iPhone customers for less expensive, higher quality, less restrictive service.

AT&T’s reversal was praised by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who is pushing for adoption of Net Neutrality as part of FCC broadband policy.

“When AT&T indicated, in response to the FCC’s inquiry, that it would take another look at permitting VoIP on its 3G network I was encouraged,” Genachowski said. “I commend AT&T’s decision to open its network to VoIP. Opening wireless services to greater consumer choice will drive investment and innovation in the mobile marketplace.”

Have AT&T and Verizon suddenly realized taking a customer-friendly position of Net Neutrality is better for their corporate image?

Perhaps, but one might also consider the reversals to be part of a strategic effort to demonstrate a lack of need for Net Neutrality rules in a ‘remarkably open and free competitive wireless marketplace.’  Expect to see that line or something akin to it coming from the anti-Net Neutrality lobbying campaign within hours of today’s events.

AT&T has also spent millions on lobbying efforts in Washington to keep Net Neutrality and other telecommunications legislation at bay.  The prospect of a sudden role reversal for two of the biggest spenders on influencing public policy would be remarkable, if it actually happened for consumers’ sake.

Verizon Wireless & Google Joint Webcast — October 6, 2009 (18 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Customers love the iPhone, but hate using it over AT&T’s wireless mobile network.

That is the conclusion of CFI Group’s Smartphone Satisfaction Study 2009 (free registration required), which found Apple’s iPhone “the undisputed leader in smartphone customer satisfaction,” scoring 83 out of a possible 100.

But while customers love their iPhones, in the United States, they are generally stuck using it on AT&T’s mobile network, which CFI Group rated dead last in customer satisfaction.  CFI also found that despite the iPhone’s exclusive agreement with AT&T, the iPhone does not improve AT&T’s customer satisfaction in any meaningful way.

“The iPhone has been a cash cow for AT&T, but that cash comes at a cost in terms of overall satisfaction. In effect, switchers can be satisfaction saboteurs if they were not already inclined to choose AT&T,” said Doug Helmreich, program director with CFI Group.

Apple iPhone

“As for Verizon, the scales may tip if customers continue to demand smartphones that the company fails to supply. Then again, will its network hold up if it adds network-heavy smartphones? For now, its an apples to oranges comparison.”

CFI’s study top rated Verizon and T-Mobile for smartphone users, both with satisfaction scores of 79 out of 100.  Verizon’s perceived advantage in coverage makes them the top rated network for customer loyalty, with 86% of current Verizon customers identifying the company as their ideal provider.  Customers believe Verizon’s marketing slogans that suggest Verizon has the best nationwide network coverage of any provider.  But customers recognize they pay a price for that coverage in the form of a higher monthly bill.

Customers looking for the best value with competitive pricing will find it with Sprint and T-Mobile, according to the study findings.  AT&T scored among the worst values, in part because they penalize iPhone owners with a mandatory data plan customers thought was “pricey,” especially if they never had a data plan before.

The customer bashing of AT&T didn’t stop with bottom rating the network and its pricing.  CFI found that half of iPhone respondents would flee AT&T for another carrier if given the chance.  At least 40% of iPhone owners said they switched to AT&T only because they had to in order to purchase the iPhone, and they resented it, and the quality of service they found going forward.

ONE And The Same?

The Washington Post continues its full-speed-ahead campaign to attack Net Neutrality, both in a published editorial on September 28th and again yesterday on their “Guest Blogger” section in yet another hit piece on the concept of protecting content from the whims of big phone and cable companies.

Tim Karr, a Stop the Cap! reader and a Net Neutrality advocate from Save The Internet called out The Post for an enormous lapse in disclosure when the newspaper “forgot” to inform its readers it has principal ownership of… wait for it… Cable ONE, the nation’s ninth largest cable operator that also offers broadband Internet access.

Cable ONE is notorious for its Internet Overcharging schemes, placing daily limits on customers’ residential broadband accounts, while excluding business customers from usage limits.  The company also has a poor privacy track record, conducting NebuAd behavioral targeting tests on approximately 14,000 of its accounts in Alabama for six months beginning in November 2007, unbeknownst to customers who were being tracked.  When caught, the company relented.

Karr has called on The Post‘s ombudsman to get the newspaper to engage in full disclosure, and there is plenty to disclose as Karr notes in his piece on The Huffington Post:

The Post editorial, “The FCC’s Heavy Hand,” was gift wrapped for the narrow special interests of the influential phone and cable lobby. And it’s been cited ad nauseum by phone and cable company shills intent on removing the last protection of an open Internet.

The Post’s editors state that Net Neutrality would hurt investment in a “vibrant and well-functioning marketplace” when, in fact, the opposite is true: Carriers working under neutrality conditions have invested tens of billions of dollars in network buildout and improvements.

The Post editorial suffers not only from inaccuracy, but also from lack of disclosure. One of the companies that stands to gain from a world without Net Neutrality is Cable One, an Internet service provider active in 19 states that hopes to pad its already considerable profits by stifling the free flow of online communications. One of the principal owners of Cable One is – you guessed it — the Washington Post Co.

Cable One Chief Executive Tom Might has been an outspoken opponent of Net Neutrality, calling it “a very, very clever D.C. campaign” designed to intimidate politicians “because it sounds so wonderful, like Mom and apple pie.”

Readers should demand that the Post’s ombudsman and editorial page editor clarify this obvious oversight. You can prompt them to respond by sending an e-mail to: [email protected]. Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Post’s editorial page, can be reached at [email protected].

The Federal Trade Commission on Monday issued new guidelines to stem the growing trend of product and service endorsements on web-based blogs that do not disclose the cozy relationship some bloggers have with the companies they write about.  For the first time, new FTC guidelines will require bloggers to confess any payments or free products or services they receive in return for their writings.  Waiting and Watching, one of our regular readers, wrote asking if these guidelines would affect telecommunications-related sites like Stop the Cap!

The revised FTC rules add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised rules specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

Unfortunately, in the marketplace of ideas, astroturf groups which pretend to represent consumer interests that receive direct financial support from the industry they write about do not appear to be covered by the new FTC guidelines.

Several marketing firms specializing in “word of mouth” marketing or social media campaigns are paid to put free samples in the hands of bloggers who agree to write a review of the product or service (or at least write about it generally).  In return, they get to keep the product at no charge.  Some bloggers belong to marketing programs that pay them directly for positive reviews, mentions, or links to a product or service.

The new regulations will not punish bloggers who violate the FTC guidelines — the Commission will instead go after the marketing company, the manufacturer or provider.

Jack Gillis

Some consumer groups think that is a mistake, and that bloggers should also be accountable.

Jack Gillis, a spokesman for the Consumer Federation of America, told the Associated Press he thinks the FTC doesn’t go far enough to protect consumers from unethical bloggers.

“Consumers are increasingly dependent on the Internet for purchase information,” he said. “There’s tremendous opportunity to steer consumers to the wrong direction.”

The consumer advocacy group said lack of disclosure is a big problem in blogs. To mainly crack down on companies that give out freebies or pay bloggers won’t always solve the problem. By going after bloggers as well, “you put far more pressure on them to behave properly,” Gillis said.

For the record, Stop the Cap! receives no compensation of any kind from this industry or any other.  This website is supported entirely by myself and consumer contributions made through the Paypal link on the right.  Further, none of our authors are employed by or contracted with any company or provider with an interest in our issues, including Google (for the few who have made that baseless accusation in the past.)

I believe that bloggers should be held to fully disclosing their industry and/or financial connections so consumers may be fully informed about any potential conflict of interest or bias.  Fake website reviews and promotions have been a perennial problem on the Internet, some written by consumers who earn money or free service whenever a new customer signs up using a special link he or she provided.

Some reviews on big sites like Amazon have been written by company employees under pseudonyms which praise their own products and trash the competition.  The “word of mouth” marketing industry takes this to a new level, by leveraging social media networks to hype a product, with a direct incentive for the writer to provide glowing reviews if they want to remain on the “free goodies” mailing list.  An even stronger incentive to write “pay for say” articles comes when actual cash payments are provided for reviews.  Bloggers instinctively would suspect the gravy train would derail if they turned in a series of negative honest reviews, leading to the marketing company to drop them from the program.

Having full disclosure for sites engaged in public policy debates is an even better idea, especially when members of Congress routinely quote from material provided to them by what they assume are consumer groups, but are actually little more than industry-sponsored megaphones.

[flv width=”480″ height=”360″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WWLP Springfield Bloggers Must Confess 10-5-09.flv[/flv]

WWLP-TV in Springfield reports on the new rules for bloggers.  Note the report is inaccurate about fining bloggers — FTC enforcement will not target bloggers. (1 minute)

A Fox News video report about “blogger mommies” that advocates self-regulation is also included below.

… Continue Reading

The Mountain Pointe subdivision, northwest of Cleveland, Tennessee

The rural broadband divide doesn’t just impact the middle class.

Residents of the affluent Mountain Pointe subdivision in Cleveland, Tennessee (any neighborhood with an extra “e” on end of the name always spells money) are unhappy to find a home life without broadband service.  Like many wealthy enclaves set outside of clustered suburban neighborhoods, homes are too few and far between in the subdivision, making it too expensive for Charter Cable to wire service there.

Charter Communications Director of Government Relations Nick Pavlis told The Cleveland Daily Banner that it was not profitable to provide service to the 55 homes affected.

Generally, Charter Cable will not wire a neighborhood or street if it costs much more than $500 per home to provide service, including the collective cost of bringing wiring to that area.  In the case of Mountain Pointe, Pavlis said it would cost the cable company $130,000 to run an underground cable 2.5 miles to supply the subdivision with service, and that’s “not a reasonable payback,” considering the company expects a 36-48 month return on investment.

Charter is willing to wire the subdivision, if the residents agree to pay $1,850 apiece to pay for the wiring expenses.

That is a cost some homeowners may be willing to pay, considering the affluence of many of them.  Among the residents, according to Cleveland Mayor Tom Rowland, are bankers, business owners, and a former state senator.

“These are the kind of people you want to provide service for — they would subscribe to all of your services if they were available,” said Rowland.

But before opening their wallets, residents are looking for alternatives.  Mountain Pointe resident Lou Patten told the newspaper he and his neighbors are frustrated because a newer subdivision on Freewill Road has service from both Charter and AT&T.

A few residents have braved wireless broadband as their best option, for now, but the neighborhood’s terrain makes service unreliable.  AT&T DSL service is not available because Mountain Pointe is too far away from the central office serving the neighborhood, located northwest of the city of Cleveland.

With Charter remaining intransigent, the mayor met with five of the neighborhood’s residents and State Rep. Kevin Brooks, City Attorney John Kimball and AT&T Regional Director Mary Stewart Lewis to see if AT&T could find a solution.

A DSLAM manufactured by Siemens designed for outdoor installation

Tennessee’s statewide franchise agreement with AT&T points to Bradley County being wired for U-verse, a hybrid fiber-phone line TV, broadband, and telephone service, by July of next year.  But such agreements do not require 100% coverage and doesn’t guarantee Mountain Pointe service.

Lewis told the newspaper she would consult AT&T engineers for a possible solution to the problem.

“We’ve got to see where you are,” Lewis said.

In the short-term, AT&T could provide DSL service by installing equipment nearby that would reduce the distance between Mountain Pointe residents and AT&T’s switching equipment, using a device known as a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM).  It is commonly installed in more remote locations to provide DSL service in areas where direct service isn’t possible.