Verizon Wireless has seen some success getting their off-contract customers who have stubbornly refused to upgrade their phones to jump on board the smartphone craze… by lowering their prices.

The entry fee for smartphones on most carriers includes the up front cost of the device (often $199 for the most coveted phones) and a $30 monthly mandatory data plan.  That’s a price too high for many consumers to pay in this economy, and the result has been an increase in the number of customers letting their two-year contracts expire.

AT&T has tried to reduce the bite with a paltry $15 monthly plan that only includes 200MB of usage per month, which is nearly pointless for smartphone users who want to really use the multimedia features the phones were designed to provide. Verizon responded with a holiday season promotional offer charging $15 a month for an even lower 150MB per month, with widespread speculation the “limited time only” part of the offer will soon become “available every day.”

But for most smartphone customers who plan to regularly use data-hungry applications, neither “budget plan” will suffice.  That leaves one alternative for Verizon customers — the $29.99 unlimited plan.  Ouch.

To prod price-sensitive customers, Verizon has offered family plan members the option of upgrading their old phones to new smartphones, and has sweetened the deal with a $10 price break.  While technically a credit on the “additional line” charge, some Verizon employees pitch the discount as a reduction in price for the mandatory data plan.  Where $30 a month sounds obscene, $20 a month sounds somewhat better.

The offer has proven sufficiently successful that Verizon has now extended it until Jan. 30 (note just prior to next month’s iPhone introduction) and any customer who has not upgraded their phone in the last 180 days qualifies.  A new, two year contract is required and the offer is good if you want to add a new secondary line.

Unfortunately, the offer does not extend to the primary line.  Verizon would probably see an even larger number of upgrades if the offer extended to every legacy phone on a customer’s account.

The $9.99 credit applies for 24 months.  Over the life of the contract, that is worth $240 in savings per smartphone, which isn’t bad from America’s Cadillac wireless carrier.

AT&T claims every family should have access on the go, which is why they are “introducing” Smartphone data plans for the family.  Only one problem.  There is nothing new about the data plan, which still starts at $15 per month, per line, for up to 200MB of usage.

AT&T changed the plan’s name, but left the same high price in place.  An Internet Overcharging scheme is still an Internet Overcharging scheme no matter how a wireless company pitches it.

The plan, which throws in AT&T Wi-Fi, which customers can also already get, “is designed for families that primarily surf the web, send and receive personal email and visit social networking sites,” says AT&T spokeswoman Mari Melguizo.

But a real data plan for families would let every user on the account share from one data plan, billed once on the account, not per phone.  That’s not on offer from AT&T, although analysts predict the next wave of smartphone upgrades will come only when data pricing comes down, especially on accounts with multiple phones.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Family Smartphone Data Plan Ad.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s new ad for the same old, overpriced product.  (1 minute)

Two years after Time Warner promised upgraded speeds for Rochester, they finally arrive this spring.

After much of upstate has already been upgraded for DOCSIS 3 service, New York’s second largest economic center — Rochester, will finally see speed upgrades for cable broadband service this spring.

Time Warner Cable, which promised Rochester would be among the first cities to see faster speeds if they accepted the company’s Internet Overcharging experiment instead took their upgrades elsewhere (like Watertown) when the community collectively said “no.”

Two years later, the upgrade other cities including Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and New York received last year will finally make its way to the Flower City this spring.

“Time Warner Cable delivers cutting-edge products that speak to the growing needs of both the tech-savvy user and multi-media families who simply want the fastest speeds right now,” said Terence Rafferty, Regional Vice President of Operations for the Northeast communities of Time Warner Cable.

That “right now” part may true as long as you don’t live in Rochester.  With anemic (at best) competition from also-ran Frontier Communications, which delivers DSL service that long since forfeited its position in the broadband speed race, Time Warner wasn’t exactly pressed by market conditions to deliver upgrades in a hurry, and they didn’t.

Instead, Verizon service areas where FiOS, the company’s fiber-to-the-home network loomed got the fastest service, without threats of Internet Overcharging schemes hanging over their heads.

As elsewhere, Time Warner will bring two tiers of DOCSIS 3 service: 30/5 service for $20 more than Road Runner’s Standard service (10/1Mbps) or 50/5Mbps service for $99.  The “sweet spot” will be 30/5 service, which is just $10 more than Road Runner Turbo customers currently pay.

Rochester and Finger Lakes area customers interested in the service can pre-register and get notified when the service becomes available in your area.  A new cable modem is required, but since Rochester area customers do not own their own (the modems are provided free with the service), the swap is a minor inconvenience.

The new cable modems include wireless connectivity, so up to five devices can share your broadband connection without wires.

A message from Senator Al Franken:

[flv width=”540″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/A Message from Senator Franken on Comcast-NBC Merger 1-12-11.flv[/flv]

As you know, the proposed merger between Comcast and NBC Universal is an important moment in our effort to stop big corporations from controlling our media.

But the FCC and Department of Justice may be about to approve this deal. This would have serious consequences for Minnesotans and consumers across America.

Once you’ve watched the video, please sign our open letter asking that this merger be stopped.  Forward this video to all of your friends–we don’t have much time to act. And stay tuned for more information.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Thanks to quick work from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canadian broadband providers have wasted no time announcing new usage limits and penalties for those who exceed them.

The principal culprit for the Internet Overcharging: Bell (Canada), the nation’s largest telecommunications company.

Bell’s newly won right to charge wholesale customers usage-based billing rates has caused a collective groan from independent providers from Vancouver to Charlottetown. Primus, the second-largest alternative communications company in Canada, threw up its hands and announced it was going to pass Bell’s costs along to their customers.  Some other providers have already raised rates, shocking customers who received December bills with $100 in overlimit penalties.

“It’s an economic disincentive for Internet use,” said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. “It’s not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it.”

That is a hallmark example of what happens under Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based pricing,” usage caps, or other limited use plans.  Customers don’t pay for their actual broadband use — they overpay, especially when stiff penalties are imposed when they exceed their usage allowance.

“Canada’s broadband market is a racket, period,” says our reader Andy, who lives near Petawawa, in northern Ontario.  “If you are in a major city in the south, you can choose Bell or one of their lackeys or the cable company, which almost always means Shaw or Rogers in English-speaking Canada.”

Andy doesn’t have access to cable, so his broadband comes courtesy of DSL from the phone company.  He counts himself lucky he has that, even though it only delivers around 512kbps and is down at least once a week, especially when the weather is bad.  Other communities have no broadband at all, and some areas are so desperate for access, they have provided financial incentives to attract a provider to town.  It rarely succeeds.  Zeropaid reports a handful on unscrupulous would-be providers have taken the incentives and left town with no broadband service to show for it.

“These guys only want the easy customers and they’ve got them in Toronto or Ottawa,” Andy says. “The rest of us can live with dial-up.”

The Canadian government occasionally launches highly publicized demonstration projects to deliver rural broadband in northern Canada, often over wireless, something Andy scoffs at.

“When the TV cameras are shut off and [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper’s political bandwagon goes home, the networks last for about a month until something goes wrong and the whole thing shuts down, sometimes for weeks before someone repairs it,” Andy says.

There oughta be a law.

Katz

In fact Canada, a country with a reputation for keeping a regulatory eye on essential services, has an agency that is supposed to protect consumers and monitor telecommunications services. Unfortunately for Canadians, it was that agency that gave Bell the go-ahead to kill unlimited, flat rate broadband — the service that has kept most independent service providers in business.

Critics charge the Commission has been acting more like a Big Telecom industry trade group than an independent oversight body, and many independent providers openly wonder how long they’ll survive with Bell’s predatory pricing.

Reviewing who serves on the Commission may provide some answers about why they seem to be closely aligned with Canada’s largest telecom companies.  Many of the commissioners used to work for the very companies they are now asked to regulate, and some are likely to return to them after their stint at the CRTC.  The agency’s supposedly independent commissioners know if they want future employment in the telecommunications industry, it’s best not to antagonize your next boss.

Take Commissioner Leonard Katz.  He joined the CRTC in 2005 and was appointed vice chairman of telecommunications in 2007.  For 30 years before joining the Commission, Katz was employed by Canada’s largest telecom firm, moving up through Bell’s management ranks from 1974-1985.  His last big job at Bell was as the assistant director of Bell’s regulatory lobbying department, where he spent his energy and time dealing with federal politicians and the CRTC.  Katz also loves Canada’s wireless industry, dominated by Rogers Communications.  He was founder and chairman of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Clearinghouse for wireless carriers.

Arpin

Or there was Michel Arpin, a consummate former insider at some of Canada’s largest corporately-owned broadcast station groups like Astral Broadcasting, Mutual Broadcasting, and Radiomutuel.  He also had a side relationship with Telus, a western Canadian telecom company that also belongs to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB).  Arpin served CAB as vice-chair and chair. Arpin, the corporate media man, also served as the vice-chairman of the CRTC’s broadcast division until late last year.

Other examples:

• Rita Cugini — A regional commissioner for the province of Ontario, her professional background has been working for some of the province’s biggest media interests, including Alliance Atlantis, Telelatino, and CFMT/OMNI.  She also is integrally involved with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which bends the ears of regulators regularly on a variety of matters;
• Tim Denton — About as close to the broadband industry as you can get, Denton’s role as a commissioner began in 2008, but his money was made working for the broadband industry, including the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, which lobbies for big broadband provider interests.
• Candice Molnar — Serves today as regional commissioner for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but she knows most of the prairie provinces’ movers and shakers by name, having spent more than 20 years at SaskTel, Saskatchewan’s biggest phone company.  She helped guide SaskTel from provincial to federal regulation when she worked there and her voting record shows her heart is still with her former employer.

Cugini

With a Commission stacked against ordinary Canadian consumers, it’s no wonder Internet Overcharging schemes and stifled broadband competition rule the day in Canada.

“Rural Canada always pays the biggest price,” says Andy.  “If it didn’t happen in Toronto or Ottawa, it didn’t happen at all.”

Andy complains Canadian broadband will never improve with Internet Overcharging schemes in place.

“They complain about your usage and say if they can restrict it, they can improve service to more people; well, where is my better service?” Andy asks.

“At least I don’t have to worry about their usage allowances… yet,” Andy says. “Even if I left my connection running continuously, at these speeds I doubt I could do much damage.”