Phillip “We’re Still Here to Fight” Dampier

“We’re moving away from one-size-fits-all,” admits Jon Gary Herrera, a Texas spokesman for Time Warner Cable, which has introduced a usage-limited plan called “Internet Essentials” that limits customers to a paltry 5GB of usage per month in return for a $5 discount.

Time Warner Cable has learned from its mistakes in 2009, when the company attempted to force usage limits on broadband customers that would have left those seeking an unlimited experience with a broadband bill of $150 a month. After a consumer backlash organized by Stop the Cap!, the company quickly pulled back and put the plans on hold.

After three years, the playbook is off the shelf once again and being dusted off, although the nation’s second largest cable company is taking things a lot more slowly the second time around.

Lesson one: Broadband pricing and usage plan changes must happen gradually and carefully.

The New York Times reports that cable executives privately admit they are working to charge consumer expectations, starting with the notion that “all you can eat” broadband is what customers want or need.

Time Warner telemarketers have begun re-educating consumers when calling to sign up for broadband, now asking them what they do with their Internet connection and suggesting different plans based on their anticipated usage, not their speed expectations.

So far, sources working for Time Warner Cable in South Texas tell Stop the Cap! the plan is not working too well and few customers are interested in the usage-capped “Internet Essentials” plan that has been marketed in several markets in the state.

“Overage charges will be capped at $75 per month. That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage at Turbo speeds.” — (April 9, 2009) Landel Hobbs, then chief operating officer of Time Warner Cable

“Customers really are not interested in understanding what their usage level is and don’t see much benefit from the small discount our company is offering those who sign up,” one Time Warner customer service agent privately tells us. “A lot of them have learned lessons from what AT&T and Verizon Wireless are doing with wireless data plans, and they don’t want their home broadband accounts measured.”

Another source tells us those consumers most likely to consider the “Internet Essentials” plan are casual Internet users, particularly older customers on fixed incomes. But they are also the least likely to understand how to measure their usage.

“If you tell people what a gigabyte is, it goes in one ear and out the other and they really have no comprehension about it, and when their family members find out what they signed up for, we inevitably get a call back asking to switch to something else,” another agent tells Stop the Cap! “There is a real hostility about usage limits on home broadband out there, at least among those that understand what they are.”

Lesson Two: Forgive overlimit fees or overages liberally, because consumers will adjust their behavior to use less Internet just by threatening to charge them more.

Time Warner has been very liberal about forgiving customers who exceed their 5GB limit. AT&T has yet to enforce its limits in many markets, in part because of a defective usage meter. Other ISPs with usage limits are also wary about imposing overage fees on customers because of the potential political backlash. In short, the industry hopes the threat of overlimit fees will be sufficient to get customers thinking about their usage and self-limit what they do online, an important tool to wield against customers considering cord-cutting traditional cable TV to watch everything online. Efforts to earn additional revenue from more expensive usage-based broadband plans will come later.

Cable to Netflix: You better think about going back to the U.S. Post Office and mailing DVDs. Our customers can’t afford to throw away their usage allowance on your streamed movies.

The Justice Department’s antitrust lawyers are conducting an investigation into the cable industry’s treatment of online video companies, especially with the increasing number of usage caps coming into the market. With most consumers confronted with a broadband monopoly or duopoly, it is easy for providers to slap limits on usage if the competition follows suit. The new found love of usage caps and usage billing is proving curious to those abroad, because the rest of the world is moving away from consumption limits and towards flat rate broadband.

One Wall Street analyst wants the industry to adopt the meme that if the Justice Department gets away with banning usage limits, the industry should retaliate with usage-based billing, which is just another version of Internet Overcharging.

As with the wireless industry, Wall Street is the primary driving force pushing broadband providers to adopt usage billing and other price increases on broadband to boost earnings. Verizon Wireless and AT&T, responding to investor concerns about slowing growth, see endless profits in their future monetizing broadband usage. With broadband usage rising, charging customers more for using more can bring in endless profits, even as the costs to provide the service continue to decline. Without competition and with no organized opposition by consumers, regulators, or legislators, there is nothing to stop prices from skyrocketing.

Lesson Three: Try to convince customers upgrades are expensive and difficult.

A major enemy of the forces working to adopt income-increasing usage billing are broadband advocates who regularly analyze quarterly earnings of major providers, the costs of upgrades, the price of backbone connections, and the ever-increasing prices for Internet service.

In every case, cable and phone broadband providers adopting the latest broadband technologies are seeing major increases in revenue and profits even as their costs to upgrade and manage their networks decline overall. With providers like Comcast and Time Warner Cable now regularly increasing broadband prices, earnings are higher than ever for flat rate broadband sold in speed-based tiers, and consumers are gravitating towards higher speed service, which brings even more profit.

In 2009, Time Warner Cable faced protesters opposed to usage limits at this rally in front of the company’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Unfortunately, when cable and phone companies control the pipes that deliver broadband service and monetize their use, the threat to high bandwidth innovation has never been greater.

Netflix tells the New York Times there may be little they can do to stem to tide of usage limits.  Sony, a potential online video competitor, has already pulled the plug on its plan to sell cable channels over the Internet because usage limits will destroy the market for online video.

Netflix has been desperate enough to explore a concessionary move — partnering with the very providers that seem ready to limit customers’ access to their service. Netflix hopes it can find a way to be exempt from the industry’s usage limits, much the same way Comcast has given a free pass to Microsoft Xbox streamed video.

Lesson Four: Control the voices that claim to speak for consumers.

Consumers still overwhelmingly despise usage limits, but without unified action against Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage billing, the drumbeat of industry voices and the dollar-a-holler groups that parrot their beliefs in Washington will have the upper hand.

Consider the FCC’s “voice of the people” Consumer Advisory Council, infested with corporate interests and groups that would not exist without Big Telecom money paying to keep the lights on.

While the CAC has several authentic voices for consumers, they are practically outnumbered by industry sock puppets like the “American Consumer Institute” run by Stephen Pociask, who happens to be a telecom industry consultant and former chief economist for what is now Verizon. ACI represents the interests of AT&T and Verizon, not consumers. Call For Action is aptly named. It cashed checks written by AT&T.  “Consumer Action” relies on AT&T “grants.”  Many of the other “consumer voices” on the CAC are nothing of the sort. The CTIA Wireless Association is the giant lobbying group for the wireless industry. Not to be outdone, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) is there too, representing the cable industry. Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon are there in person as well, along with the billion dollar broadcast industry in the form of the National Association of Broadcasters. So much for the “Consumer” Advisory Council.

Is it any surprise that with “consumers” like this providing advice, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski opined he thought such billing schemes were useful.

It is more urgent than ever for customers to prepare for another round of battle against major broadband providers. Time Warner Cable itself fears a repeat of the 2009 public relations disaster, and promises it will always have an unlimited tier available for customers, even if it remains quiet on how much the company would charge for the service. If the cable operator still believes in its former chief operating officer Landel Hobbs, we can give you a clue. In April 2009, Hobbs thought he was delivering a major concession to protesters by offering to bring back unlimited broadband… for $150 a month.

An all-out consumer backlash can bring additional consumer victories, but only if customers are willing to get involved in the fight.

Stay tuned.

The Communications Workers of America says when it comes to “stealthy” bills like S.B. 1611 that deregulate telecommunications in California, “no price is too high — no lie is too big.”

AT&T and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are back again fighting for more deregulation of California’s telecommunications industry with a bill that will strip oversight of vital telecommunications services and stop punishing bad actors that leave customers without telephone service, sometimes for weeks.

California legislators are typically not responsive to the wholesale deregulation efforts that seem to draw support in more conservative states, so AT&T’s lobbyists are trying a more “incremental” approach in the state. But AT&T has also inserted “stealth” language into the bill that would dismantle consumer protections, allow companies to abandon unprofitable landlines, and strip away important oversight “checks and balances” needed to ensure good service.

Sen. Padilla’s top corporate contributor is AT&T.

S.B. 1611 illustrates that AT&T can buy its way into any legislator’s office, Democrat or Republican. The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Alex Padilla (D-20th Senate District) has received more contributions from AT&T than from any other corporation in both the 2006 and 2010 elections.

The bill ostensibly claims to limit its scope narrowly to “Voice over Internet Protocol” (VoIP) and “Internet Protocol enabled service.” That brings to mind services like “digital phone service” from cable companies or alternative telephone services like Vonage, magicJack or Skype.

S.B. 1611:

The bill would prohibit any department, agency, commission, or political subdivision of the state from enacting, adopting, or enforcing any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, standard, order, or other provision having the force or effect of law, that regulates VoIP or other IP enabled service, unless required or delegated by federal law or expressly authorized by statute. The bill would specify certain areas of law that are expressly applicable to VoIP and IP enabled service providers. The bill would provide that its limitations upon the commission’s regulation of VoIP and IP enabled services do not affect the commission’s existing authority over non-VoIP and other non-IP enabled wireline or wireless service….

To the layperson who generally believes services like Skype and Vonage might not deserve the same oversight as AT&T, Frontier, or Verizon — which provide Californians traditional landline service, consider Section 2 (a)(2) of the bill, which describes and defines VoIP and IP enabled service as anything that:

“Permits a user generally to receive a call that originates on the public switched telephone network and to terminate a call to the public switched telephone network” and “any service, capability, functionality, or application using existing Internet Protocol, or any successor Internet Protocol, that enables an end user to send or receive a communication in existing Internet Protocol format, or any successor Internet Protocol format through a broadband connection, regardless of whether the communication is voice, data, or video.”

This “narrow” deregulation bill just grew as wide as the Gulf of Mexico and can realistically allow any phone company in California to ignore state oversight and regulation forever.

Traditional telephone companies increasingly utilize exactly these technologies for calls placed over ordinary landline phones. Using broadband service to engage in two-way communications also qualifies. With this kind of defining language, virtually every telecommunications service in the state of California would win near-total deregulation and walk away from important oversight. The California Public Utilities Commission certainly understood the implications of this bill when the majority of commissioners came out in opposition to S.B. 1611.

Goodbye Universal Service: S.B. 1611 Allows Phone Companies to Abandon Rural and Economically Distressed California Communities

Several public interest groups also discovered language in the bill that is a perennial favorite of AT&T — eliminating universal service requirements that assure every citizen that wants a telephone line can get one. S.B. 1611 lays waste to Section 709 of the California Code which guarantees: “our universal service commitment by assuring the continued affordability and widespread availability of high-quality telecommunications services to all Californians.”

With that language gone, the state’s phone companies can unilaterally decide to abandon the customers they no longer want to serve. That could spell disaster in rural northern and eastern California, and leave low income residents with nothing but a dead phone line, unable even to call 911 in an emergency.

One AT&T Lobbyist for Every California Lawmaker

The importance AT&T places on influencing lawmakers is readily apparent when one realizes there are at least 120 AT&T lobbyists working in the state capital Sacramento, one for every California lawmaker.

But when one considers the track record of California phone and cable companies in the last few years, is less oversight and regulation the right answer?

• Verizon Sued for Providing DSL Speeds (Suitable for VoIP) They Can’t Deliver
• AT&T Gouges California With 25% Rate Increase
• California Landline Nightmare: Residents in Bakersfield in Tears Over Lousy Service
• Southern California Power & Phone Companies Blamed for Devastating Wildfires
• Verizon Bills Dead People: We’ll Settle for Half Because She’s No Longer Among the Living
• Frontier’s Goodbye Kiss: A $680 Final Bill for a Departing Customer
• Calabasas Residents Annoyed by “Corrupt and Deceptive” Charter Cable; Time Warner Cable Also Called Out
• Time Warner Cable Guy Arrives Late to Service Call, Leaves Claiming Homeowner Had “Bad Air”
• More Frontier Problems: Californians Wait Months on Refunds for Disconnected Landlines
• The Many Challenges of Charter Cable: Rate Increases for Seniors, Bankruptcy, Employees Attacked, Customers Hassled
• AT&T’s California Gold Rush: Company Lobbyists Spread the Money Far and Wide

“SB 1161 is a stealth vehicle for the gradual deregulation of telecommunications in California,” the Consumer Federation of California declared on their website. “Consumers need the CPUC to have the power to investigate complaints of bad service or unfair charges on bills, regardless of the technology used to provide phone service.”

Call to Action!

Consumers across California need to get on board immediately to stop S.B. 1611. You can file online opposition courtesy of Free Press, but it is far more effective to also directly phone your own legislator and leave a message to urge this bill be defeated. It literally takes only 2-3 minutes to call and the money and phone service you could save will be your own. Use this district finder to contact your representatives.

S.B. 1161 is scheduled for hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee this Wednesday, so time is of the essence!

Your modem needs an expensive upgrade, even if you own your own.

Frontier Communications customers may get less than they bargained for when calling the company about a malfunctioning modem or problem with service. Andrew, a Stop the Cap! reader from Tennessee discovered a simple service call left him stuck with two separate contracts for phone and Internet service, a major broadband speed reduction, and a sense that Frontier is willing to sign up customers without fully disclosing what they are selling.

Andrew reports he originally called Frontier to discuss a possibly damaged DSL modem. Upon hearing the model number, a Frontier customer service representative needed to hear no more — the modem “needed to be upgraded.” In fact, Frontier has been mailing postcards to customers with older modems not subject to monthly rental fees telling them their existing modem was “no longer supported” and needed to be replaced with a new model. In the fine print, the customer learns if they proceed, they will end up paying a monthly modem rental fee starting at $6.99… forever.

But things got much worse for this Frontier customer after he contacted the company to say he’d be keeping his current DSL modem, which turned out to be working just fine:

I was then told there would be about a $20 price drop on my next bill (for July). I asked the agent why and her response was, “oh, our prices are going down.” I said okay, thanked her and hung up the phone.

The next morning, I got an email from Frontier thanking me for my ”recent purchase or renewal of services,” further asking me to click and view the Terms of Service agreement for High Speed Internet (and to submit the PIN number associated with my account).

I then called Customer Service about the email. I was told that I had upgraded my phone service the previous day. It turned out that the agent upgraded my phone service to include their ”Digital Essentials” phone features package and had locked me into two price protection plans for both services. There was a one-year plan regarding the phone service and a two-year plan for the High Speed Internet.

I was shocked and informed the agent that I had made no such changes to my phone/Internet services and that I had simply called about cancelling a support ticket on my account regarding the modem.

He later tried to claim that I had given the previous agent authorization when I said okay after she had informed me about the price drop. I told him that was absolutely ridiculous, especially since she never discussed any upgrades to my phone service or any changes regarding my Internet. I asked him how it could be an authorization when what was done to my account was never fully explained (or asked for).

We’ve got a deal too good to refuse.

The Frontier agent then proceeded to hard-sell Andrew the same plan the former agent already applied to his account. The Frontier representative did not bother to mention the “upgrade” and “savings” he was getting included a drastic speed reduction. Frontier sold Andrew a package that included just 1.2Mbps broadband.   That is less than half the speed of his original 3Mbps service, for which he paid $40 a month with no modem rental fee.

Now Andrew is stuck with two contracts, both which carry early termination fees that will total well in excess of $100, the likelihood of a modem rental fee for a new modem he has never received and does not want, and less than half the broadband speed he used to get.

“I was never told by either agent I spoke with that my Internet speed would be [reduced] once the ‘upgrade’ was performed,” Andrew writes. “This, in my opinion, is fraud. Had I known a slower speed would be the end result of their price drop, I would have never [signed up].”

Now Andrew wants his old plan back and Frontier is stalling.

Frontier has a track record of retiring older service plans and packages, but leaving existing customers grandfathered on them until a representative can convince a customer to switch to something else. Unfortunately, newer plans often come with higher prices and more surcharges than older ones, which is part of the company’s effort to increase average revenue earned from each customer. Once off a discontinued plan, low level customer service representatives typically cannot re-enroll a customer.

But those who complain the loudest can get back the service they used to have, just by becoming a nuisance. Start by calling Frontier and asking to speak to a supervisor or manager. If that fails, ask to be transferred to the department that handles disconnections and threaten to drop all Frontier services if the company does not relent and put you back on the plan you started with.

Customers can also file complaints with their state utility regulators. In Tennessee, that is the Tenessee Regulatory Authority. Their online complaint form is here. Unfortunately, many states have succumbed to deregulation rhetoric and state regulators lack significant enforcement powers. But utilities that routinely filibuster state officials risk generating enough legislative energy to support a “re-regulation” effort, so most utilities will connect complainers to an executive level customer service department that can cut through red tape.

Customers can also file complaints with the Better Business Bureau and their state’s Attorney General. The more noise you generate, the more likely Frontier will satisfy your request.

Frontier customers are advised that anytime a customer service representative asks you to complete an online agreement using your PIN number, it signals you are about to commit yourself to a term contract or other major change in service that could prove costly to undo.

Always ask the Frontier representative to e-mail you a copy of the terms of the plan you are enrolling in, including broadband speeds, phone features, contract length and early termination fees.

Always read the agreement you are being asked to complete online.

If you have any questions, call Frontier before you sign. Some plans include a 14 or 30 day penalty-free cancellation provision. While this alone may not restore your old service, it can prove an important negotiating tool to win back the service you had before.

In the eyes of many entertainment executives, pressing fast forward to skip past commercials recorded by your DVR is a crime, and they want it stopped.

We’ve made progress. In the 1970s and early 1980s, those same executives were arguing recording a television show itself was a crime.

The copyright infringement wars continue, beyond college students facing ruinous lawsuits from the recording industry or movie studios sending a blizzard of subpoenas to Internet Service Providers seeking the names and addresses of those suspected of using file swapping networks.

With the increasing concentration and combination of entertainment conglomerates, the reflexive need to “control” the medium and means of distribution is gaining a receptive audience in Washington and in the courts, threatening to influence what you can and cannot do with the programming you pay to watch.

The impact is also weighing on innovative new technology from small companies like Aereo and much larger ones like Dish Network that have attempted to launch new services that challenge the conventional ways Americans watch entertainment. The result for all concerned: lawsuits designed to stifle anything the media business perceives as an imminent threat.

Dish Network has a new DVR box that can automatically skip past commercials on selected networks. The satellite company’s new “Hopper” DVR automatically records eight days’ of prime time programming from the four major American broadcast networks, analyzes the programming to find commercials, and allows subscribers to watch the recorded shows “ad-free” just hours after the original broadcast.

Major entertainment moguls immediately denounced the feature as criminal theft.

“If there were no advertising revenues, the free broadcast television model in the United States would collapse,” wrote an alarmed News Corp. (owner of FOX Broadcasting) in its complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court. That network also accuses Dish of violating their contract with FOX and copyright infringement.

“Of course, you know this means war.” — Dish’s new AutoHop feature raises the ire of the entertainment industry.

“This service takes existing network content and modifies it in a manner that is unauthorized and illegal,” CBS said in a prepared statement, echoing earlier statements that have historically argued recording, modifying, or re-purposing broadcast content in any way is automatically a violation of federal law, copyright, or the terms and conditions under which the network makes programming available for viewing.

NBC and ABC filed their own complaints against the technology as well.

Technically speaking, subscribers who pay a cable or satellite provider for television programming are already paying extra for the programming they are watching, negating the usual arguments commercial sponsorship covers the cost of watching “free TV” (that isn’t always free) and skipping commercials is the same as stealing.

Commercial television business models in the United States increasingly rely on “retransmission consent” fees — money paid by your satellite, cable, or phone company to the programmer for permission to carry a channel on their lineup. Virtually all of those fees are passed along to consumers as part of their monthly bill.

Some station owner groups are willing to play extreme hardball to get viewers to pay up -and- win the right to put a piece of tape over their fast forward buttons to keep them from skipping commercials on their stations.

Dallas-based Hoak Media is an example. Viewers in Panama City, Fla. were without WMBB-TV, the Hoak-owned ABC affiliate, on Dish Network for a week. Hoak Media pulled the plug on viewers earlier this month after Hoak demanded a 200% increase in retransmission consent payments and the disabling of Dish’s AutoHop commercial-skipping technology. Thirteen other Hoak stations around the country were also pulled off the satellite TV service.

“WMBB and Hoak don’t respect customer control — they are telling customers they must watch commercials,” Dave Shull, senior vice president of programming for Dish, said in a news release. “Channel skipping has been around since the advent of the remote and we think Hoak has taken an incredibly hostile stance toward their viewers.”

WMBB’s station management appeared caught off guard by their owners back in Dallas. WMBB General Manager Terry Cole admitted he didn’t even know about the AutoHop feature Hoak was demanding be disabled. A week later, the dispute appeared settled and the stations were back on Dish.

Entertainment executives are hopeful their deep pockets and industry partnerships with content distributors will ultimately win the day. They have a few things they can count in their corner.

In 2002, some of the same companies protesting Dish filed suit against ReplayTV, which had its own automated commercial skipping technology. The case dragged its way through the courts, with mounting legal expenses eventually forcing ReplayTV out of business. Problem solved.

The use of deep pockets have also intimidated other innovative ventures such as Aereo, which delivers over-the-air New York City stations online to a paying local subscriber base.

Innovation like that is also a concern to the cable industry, which itself has been around since the 1970s. Developing an online alternative to the local cable company puts cable TV executives in the same position entertainment industry executives live to fear: a threat to the business model that has earned billions in profits. In those terms, some cable operators seem willing to support the entertainment industry, even at the expense of their own customers.

That may explain why Time Warner Cable applied for, and won, their own patent for technology that disables fast-forward functionality on digital video recorders.

“Advertisers may not be willing to pay as much to place advertisements if they know that users may fast forward through the advertisement and thus not receive the desired sales message,” the cable company explains in its patent application. “Content providers may not be willing to grant rights in their content, or may want to charge more, if trick modes are permitted.”

The technology would look for digitally embedded cue tones, which are today used mostly to let local stations and cable operators insert their own local advertising messages on a network feed, to block fast forwarding past those ads.

Time Warner Cable is not likely to implement the technology anytime soon, not if they expect customers to continue to pay well over $10 a month for a recording device that won’t allow them to skip commercials.

Comcast is taking a different approach, considering plans to insert billboard advertising messages that automatically appear on-screen whenever a customer hits their fast-forward button. Broadcasters and networks have no love for that feature either, claiming it changes the programming the consumer recorded and represents… yes, copyright infringement.

Courts will once again have to find a balance between consumers’ home recording rights and the rights of large entertainment and cable companies. With more courts increasingly favorable to the notion of corporate rights enjoying equal prominence with those of citizens, who ultimately wins the right to your fast forward button remains a toss-up.

Won first place nationally for the best 4G LTE network with the fastest overall speeds and best performance.

PC Magazine went to a lot of effort to test the data speeds of America’s wireless providers, traveling to 30 U.S. cities sampling both 3G and 4G wireless networks to see which carrier delivers the most consistent and fastest results.

After 240,000 lines of test data, the magazine declared the results a bit “muddy.”

They have a point.

Depending on which carrier’s flavor of “4G” is being utilized, where reception was strongest, how much spectrum was available in each tested city, and how many people were sharing the cell tower at the time of each test, PC Magazine was able to deliver the definitive results. And it was effectively a draw.

Verizon Wireless achieved victory in 19 cities, AT&T won in ten others, and T-Mobile came in pretty close behind, and that carrier does not even operate an LTE 4G network. But taking all factors into account, including upload and download speeds, whether or not test downloads actually completed, and whether streamed media was tolerable, Verizon Wireless won first prize nationwide.

But by how much?

Not enough to matter, if you are using Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.

But the results do offer some things to think about.

1. MetroPCS is a mess. Despite the fact this smaller carrier is building its own 4G LTE network, results were simply terrible. Either its backhaul network from cell towers offers lower capacity or its backbone network is screaming for an upgrade.
2. Cricket was not willing to participate in the test. Their network, still 3G, delivers dependably “meh” results in the places where they actually provide coverage. The company has been reducing data allowances on their mobile broadband plans and raising prices on others. In one conference call with investors, company executives admitted they have been losing mobile broadband customers and expect that to continue at the prices they are charging.
3. Sprint needs their forthcoming 4G LTE network more than ever. Their 3G data service turned in mediocre results and their 4G WiMAX network was yesterday’s news a year ago. Sprint’s 3G network is also notorious for dead-end downloads, a situation I have witnessed on friends’ phones for several months.
4. Verizon Wireless remains far ahead of AT&T in covering more cities with their 4G LTE network. But more customers are also starting to use Verizon’s newer network, and the more customers piling on, the slower the speeds get for everyone. AT&T turned in some superior speed results in several cities, but those networks are often used less than the competition, for now.
5. No network is good if you cannot afford to use it. As America’s wireless carriers keep raising prices and reducing usage allowances to keep data usage under control, there will be a breaking point where customers decide the money they spend for wireless data just is not worth it, especially if they live in a place where Wi-Fi is free and easy to find.
6. What you test today will probably be different tomorrow. Wireless networks are constantly evolving and changing, with a wide range of factors contributing to their overall performance. Perhaps a more useful test would have been measuring how wireless carriers respond when their networks need upgrading and how long it takes them to respond to changing usage patterns. Verizon seems particularly aggressive, AT&T less so based on these results. The real surprise seems to be how well T-Mobile’s older technology is performing, and how quickly Sprint is now falling behind. On Cricket and MetroPCS, “you get what you pay for” seems to apply.