Verizon Communications will stop selling DSL broadband-only service to its customers May 6th in what the company is calling an effort to control costs “enabling us to continue providing competitively priced services to existing and new customers.”

Broadband Reports readers first reported receiving written notice of Verizon’s plans to discard “naked DSL” service, although existing customers who don’t move or make any changes to their account will be able to keep the broadband-only service for now.

Verizon provides the details:

Beginning May 6, 2012, we will no longer offer High Speed Internet without local voice service on the same account.

What does this mean for you?

• If you currently have High Speed Internet without local voice service on the same account, there is no action required on your part to continue enjoying your internet service. You will not experience any disruption of service.
• Prior to May 6, 2012, you can still make speed upgrades or downgrades to your existing service.
• Prior to May 6, 2012, you can receive bundle discounts by adding DIRECTV service or Verizon Wireless service to your current internet service.

What this means if you change or disconnect your High Speed Internet Service as of May 6, 2012 or after:

• You can make changes to and retain your Verizon High Speed Internet Service on or after the above date, by adding Verizon’s local voice service to the same account.
• If you are moving your service from one location to another on or after the above date, you may subscribe to internet service at your new location if you also subscribe to Verizon’s local voice service on the same account.
• If you choose to subscribe to additional Verizon services you could be eligible for a bundled discount when you also subscribe to Verizon’s local voice service on the same account.

There is speculation Verizon is eliminating its DSL-only service in an effort to boost revenue and push subscribers in FiOS-enabled areas to Verizon’s fiber optic network.  A decade earlier, many phone companies fought to avoid selling “broadband-only” DSL service without a voice landline because of revenue losses.  Landline customers continue to drop voice service from traditional phone companies at an alarming rate — choosing competing cable or Voice over IP service or a cell phone.  By requiring voice service, Verizon can boost average revenue from each customer, whether those customers want the service or not.

Customers who currently subscribe to broadband-only DSL service from Verizon are advised that virtually any account change of significance can disqualify them from continuing with the service.  That includes address changes and speed adjustments.  Stop the Cap! recommends customers make any changes prior to May 6th.

Large sections of Verizon’s service area are not FiOS-eligible,  so current DSL customers with no other broadband choices may find themselves stuck with adding voice service. Verizon sells Basic Home Telephone Service with no local calling allowance at prices ranging from $7 in some communities to $16 or higher in others, excluding the FCC-mandated line fee, which runs an extra $6.50 a month.

One thing Verizon’s higher bills will accomplish is making Verizon Wireless’ new 4G LTE Home Fusion wireless broadband service look slightly more price competitive.  If a Verizon landline customer has to pay for both voice and data service, paying $60 a month for 10GB of wireless broadband may not seem that expensive in comparison.

Google's prototype

Google’s plan to revolutionize eyewear by turning it into a virtual Internet appliance could be tempered considerably by the Internet Overcharging schemes enforced by most of North America’s wireless phone companies that would provide the connectivity.

Google’s Project Glass reportedly will produce the first set of Google glasses, which provide eye-activated online content, before the end of the year.  Without any vision correction, the glasses are anticipated to retail for $250-600, not including your wireless Internet plan.

Chris Green, principal analyst at Davies Murphy Group Europe, told the BBC Google may have bit off more than they can chew, and that other companies have considered similar techwear but abandoned prototypes because technology was insufficient to adequately power the devices.

I see a data cap.

“Monetization opportunities would be enormous, but there are still big issues involved with shrinking the technology and making the computer that receives and processes the data truly portable,” Green said.

The glasses project icons and images within the wearer’s field of vision and allow voice-activated control and communication.

The constant connectivity could provide a major new revenue source for usage-capping wireless providers, especially if the wearer decides to pass the time watching something other than what is directly within the field of view. While short messages and updates would have almost no impact on wireless data allowances, streamed content, especially video, could.

That may make the initial price tag for the glasses the least expensive part of owning them.

A two-year contract for wireless data can run more than $720 with companies like AT&T.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google eyeglasses can surf internet 4-3-12.flv[/flv]

Google’s prototype eyeglasses can surf the Internet in this Google-produced video envisioning potential uses.  (2 minutes)

Canadian cable, phone, and satellite providers have done a better job stymieing would-be “cord-cutters” than their counterparts further south in the United States.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) annual report on the country’s telecom companies shows all of them remain exceptionally profitable, keeping pay TV customers far more effectively than American providers. Total revenues climbed from $12.5 billion to $13.5 billion in just one year, as price hikes, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage-based billing, and lack of competition continue to takes its toll on Canadian wallets.

The biggest winners were the biggest telecom companies in Canada — Rogers Communications, Bell Canada (BCE), and Shaw Communications, which all saw profits soar 8.2% to $11 billion.  Costs increased about 10.7% in 2011, fueled by network upgrades and rampant hikes in programming costs — an interesting state of affairs considering Rogers and Bell own or control a substantial number of the programmers demanding higher payments.  Most of those increases were passed on to customers in the form of rate hikes.

Although Canadians are increasingly interested in streaming online video, virtually every major Internet Service Provider in the country has effectively prevented customers from dropping cable television service in favor of broadband-only access.  They manage it with usage caps and usage billing on their broadband products.  With streamed video accounting for a substantial drain on customers’ monthly usage allowances, Canadians are unlikely to cancel cable TV in favor of watching all of their favorite shows online.

In fact, the number of Canadian households that subscribed to a cable company’s basic television service actually increased by 2.8% in 2011 to reach 8.5 million.  Experts say the country’s transition to digital over the air television may account for some of that increase, but a few high broadband bills with overlimit fees for “excessive Internet use” can effectively drive online video fans back to traditional cable TV as well.

Satellite television in Canada remained flat,  with a virtually unchanged 2.9 million Canadians relying on Bell and Shaw satellite service for television entertainment.

But everyone is paying more to watch.

In 2011, cable companies paid $2.1 billion in wholesale fees to the pay and specialty services they distribute, an increase of 10.2% over the $1.9 billion paid the previous year. The fees paid by satellite companies rose by 2.8% in one year, going from $894.4 million to $919 million.

That leaves vertically and horizontally-integrated conglomerates like Bell in the perfect position to extract higher programming payments.  Those costs are passed down to Canadian consumers and blamed on “greedy programmers,” despite the fact those programmers are owned in part or outright by Bell.

A Rogers retail rental store

Rogers is also well-suited to remain a part of the Canadian entertainment experience.  The company owns cable systems, wireless phone networks, programmers, and even home video stores. However Stop the Cap! reader Alex notes Rogers has been closing a number of those video stores over the past few months.

“This gives customers one less choice for renting movies, basically forcing them to use Rogers On Demand instead,” writes Alex.

Rogers On Demand comes with a higher price, too.  In-store rentals from Rogers are priced at 2 for $9 or 3 for $15.  A recent look at Rogers’ video on demand website, Rogers Anyplace TV, shows most movie titles priced at $4.99 each.  With Rogers closing 40 percent of their retail rental outlets, movie fans have had fewer competitive choices for movie rentals.

One potential new contender coming to Canada – kiosk video rentals.  Although services like Redbox are now commonplace in the States, they are virtually unknown in the north.  Jim Gormley, former owner of Jumbo Video is back with Planet DVD.  With just 2% of Canadians renting movies from kiosks, Gormley believes there is plenty of room to grow, especially as Rogers scales back its video rental business.

Planet DVD has a pilot project running with supermarket chain Sobeys to place kiosks in front of nine store locations.  The first kiosk was erected in early March in front of a Sobeys store in Mississauga, Ont.

A new release at a Planet DVD kiosk is priced at $3 for a one-day rental.  That’s less than what most video stores charge, but more than double what Americans pay at a Redbox kiosk.

The Consumerist awards AT&T the "Bronze Poo" Award for Third Worst Company in America. (Image: The Consumerist)

A video game company reviled by game fans and the perennially-shoddy Bank of America managed to beat out America’s lowest rated phone company in The Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America” annual award contest, but not by much.

As Electronic-Arts tries to explain away its top-worst rating, AT&T easily took third place after a consolation round decidedly eliminated Walmart.

Congratulations to the folks aboard the Death Star! As soon as we get some proper bronze-colored paint, we’ll be packing up your Bronze Poo and sending it off in the mail. It will, of course, include a 620-page end-user agreement that preempts any class-action lawsuits by AT&T employees.

Some Consumerist readers wondered why game fans rushed to beat EA over the head over its anti-consumer tendencies when Ma Bell was still ripe for some kicking:

The Consumerist notes their award epitomizes the last 12 months for AT&T.

“First it attempted to leap-frog to the head of the wireless pack by swallowing T-Mobile whole, only to fail miserably after many months and at a cost of several billion dollars,” the piece reads. “Then it came tantalizingly close to vying for the coveted Worst Company In America Golden Poo trophy, only to be given the smack-down by a video game company. At least it won’t be leaving the tournament empty-handed.”

No broadband for you...

Sometimes even money doesn’t talk… or buy you faster broadband service.

That is a lesson some of New Hampshire’s wealthiest residents — company presidents, top-dollar lawyers, and the trust-fund endowed — in Rindge and Grafton County are learning only too well.

It seems neither Comcast or FairPoint Communications has shown much interest in extending today’s definition of “broadband” to the multi-million dollar homes on Hubbard Road.

“Every year, I start working up the telephone chain, calling people at Comcast. I’m looking for the vice president, or whatever, in charge of infrastructure so I can call him, bribe him, plead with him to connect me,” said Leigh Eichel, who moved to the ritzy cul-de-sac in 2005. “I’ll pay anything!”

Eichel and his friends told their story to David Brooks of the Nashua Telegraph, who used the plight of the 1%’ers to ponder whether broadband should be a universal right.

A century ago, the government decided that mail service to all American homes was necessary and launched Rural Free Delivery. Then it decided electricity was necessary and created regulated utilities that guaranteed connection. It did the same with telephones, creating the universal access fund that collects money from all phone bills to subsidize land lines to the remotest home.

But nothing similar has happened with Internet service, which is mostly unregulated by government. The market has been largely left to its own.

The result is scattered empty spots like Hubbard Road, which should be broadband heaven.

... or you.

Comcast continues, for the seventh year running, to show zero interest in wiring the wealthy enclave.  That left residents trying to make do with satellite broadband, which they cried was too slow and usage-capped.

Eichel finally managed to cajole FairPoint Communications, the bankrupt phone company that bought out Verizon landlines in northern New England, to extend DSL to the neighborhood, but they did it on-the-cheap, leaving residents with sub-par service barely capable of breaking 1Mbps, when they’re lucky.

Welcome to broadband equality of a different kind, whether you are fighting AT&T from a family farm in Wisconsin for better-than-1Mbps DSL or a super-wealthy executive in New Hampshire suffering with FairPoint’s alleged broadband and utterly rejected by Comcast.

Particularly appalling for the well-traveled Hubbard Road residents: the realization that Singapore’s equivalent of a seedy Motel 6 has basic broadband service that beats the pants off New England’s dominant phone company.

Even Money Won't Talk

“I was staying in a budget hotel; there weren’t even windows in the room. Hey, I was spending my own money,” Eichel’s neighbor Rick Slocum told the newspaper. “[They had] 12Mbps broadband — the connection [was] 10 times as fast as my home.”

Brooks concludes New England wants the same thing most of the rest of the country wants — universal fiber-to-the-home access, which delivers 100-1000Mbps, depending on the provider.

They, like most everyone else, will have to wait.  Like AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS, FairPoint’s very-limited fiber offering FAST has reached a limit of its own — the amount the phone company is willing to spend rebuilding their network.  Future expansion plans are now on hold.

Slocum ponders the speed needs America will have in the future, and wonders if even fiber optics will one day need to be replaced for something even faster.

Brooks responds with a prediction.  As long as Comcast and FairPoint are in charge, whatever it is, Hubbard Road probably won’t have it.