An avalanche of iPhones is to blame for AT&T's wireless problems, according to a Slate columnist

Telecommunications companies love people like Farhad Manjoo.  He’s a technology columnist for Slate, and he’s concerned with the congestion on AT&T’s wireless network caused by Apple iPhone owners using their phones ‘too much and ruining AT&T’s service for everyone else.’  Manjoo has a solution — do away with AT&T’s flat data pricing for the iPhone and implement a $10 price increase for any customer exceeding 400 megabytes of usage per month. For those using less than 400 megabytes, he advocates for a “pay for what you use” billing model.  Will AT&T adopt true consumption billing, a usage cap, or just another $10 price increase?  History suggests the latter two are most likely.

Stop the Cap! reader Mary drew our attention to Manjoo’s piece, which predictably has been carried through the streets by cheering astroturf websites connected with the telecommunications industry who just love the prospect of consumers paying more money.  They’ve called the organizations that work to fight against such unfair Internet Overcharging schemes “neo-Marxist,” ignoring the fact the overwhelming majority of consumers oppose metered broadband service and still don’t know the words to ‘The Internationale.’

Manjoo’s description of the problem itself has problems.

His argument is based on the premise that the Apple iPhone is virtually a menace on AT&T’s network.  He blames the phone for AT&T customers having trouble getting their calls through or for slow speeds on AT&T’s data network.

Every iPhone/AT&T customer must deal with the consequences of a slowed-down wireless network. Not every customer, though, is equally responsible for the slowdown. At the moment, AT&T charges $30 a month for unlimited mobile Internet access on the iPhone. That means a customer who uses 1 MB a month pays the same amount as someone who uses 1,000 MB. I’ve got a better plan—one that superusers won’t like but that will result in better service, and perhaps lower bills, for iPhone owners: AT&T should kill the all-you-can-eat model and start charging people for how much bandwidth they use.

How would my plan work? I propose charging $10 a month for each 100 MB you upload or download on your phone, with a maximum of $40 per month. In other words, people who use 400 MB or more per month will pay $40 for their plan, or $10 more than they pay now. Everybody else will pay their current rate—or less, as little as $10 a month. To summarize: If you don’t use your iPhone very much, your current monthly rates will go down; if you use it a lot, your rates will increase. (Of course, only your usage of AT&T’s cellular network would count toward your plan; what you do on Wi-Fi wouldn’t matter.)

First, and perhaps most importantly, AT&T not only voluntarily, but enthusiastically sought an exclusive arrangement with Apple to sell the iPhone.  For the majority of Americans, using an iPhone means using AT&T as their wireless carrier.  If AT&T cannot handle the customer demand (and the enormous revenue it earns from them), perhaps it’s time to end the exclusivity arrangement and spread the iPhone experience to other wireless networks in the United States.  I have not seen any wireless provider fearing the day the iPhone will be available for them to sell to customers.  Indeed, the only fear comes from AT&T pondering what happens when their exclusivity deal ends.

Second, problems with voice calling and dropped calls go well beyond iPhone owners ‘using too much data.’  It’s caused by less robust coverage and insufficient capacity at cell tower sites.  AT&T added millions of new customers from iPhone sales, but didn’t expand their network at the required pace to serve those new customers.  A number of consumers complaining about AT&T service not only mention dropped calls, but also inadequate coverage and ‘fewer bars in more places.’  That has nothing to do with iPhone users.  Congestion can cause slow speeds on data networks, but poor reception can create the same problems.

Third, the salvation of data network congestion is not overcharging consumers for service plans.  The answer comes from investing some of the $1,000+ AT&T earns annually from the average iPhone customer back into their network.  To be sure, wireless networks will have more complicated capacity issues than wired networks do, but higher pricing models for wireless service already take this into account.

Business Week covered AT&T’s upgrade complications in an article on August 23rd:

Many of AT&T’s 60,000 cell towers need to be upgraded. That could cost billions of dollars, and AT&T has kept a lid on capital spending during the recession—though it has made spending shifts to accommodate skyrocketing iPhone traffic. Even if the funds were available now, the process could take years due to the hassle and time needed to win approval to erect new towers and to dig the ditches that hold fiber-optic lines capable of delivering data. And time is ticking. All carriers are moving to a much faster network standard called LTE that will begin being deployed in 2011. Once that transition has occurred, the telecom giant will be on a more level playing field.

And there are limits to how fast AT&T can move. While it may take only a few weeks to deploy new-fangled wireless gear in a city’s cell towers, techies could spend months tilting antennas at the proper angle to make sure every square foot is covered.

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports also points out a good deal of the iPhone’s data traffic never touches AT&T’s wireless network and he debunked a piece in The Wall Street Journal that proposed some of the same kinds of pricing and policy changes Manjoo suggests:

iPhone users are using Wi-Fi 42% of the time and the $30 price point is already a $10 bump from the first generation iPhone. The Journal also ignores the absolutely staggering profits from SMS/MMS, and the fact that AT&T posted a net income of $3.1 billion for just the first three months of the year. That’s even after the network upgrades the Journal just got done telling us make unlimited data untenable.

Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett has been making the rounds lately complaining that a wireless apocalypse is afoot, telling any journalist who’ll listen that the wireless market is “collapsing” and/or “grinding to a halt.” Why? Because as new subscriber growth slows and the market saturates, incredible profits for carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless may soon be downgraded to only somewhat incredible. Carriers may soon have to start competing more heavily on pricing, driving stock prices down. That’s great for you, but crappy for Moffett’s clients.

You’ll note that neither the Journal nor Moffett provide a new business model to replace the $30 unlimited plan, but the intentions are pretty clear if you’ve been playing along at home. As on the terrestrial broadband front, investors see pure per-byte billing as the solution to all of their future problems, as it lets carriers charge more money for the same or less product (ask Time Warner Cable). Of course as with Mr. Moffett’s opinions on network upgrades, what’s best for Mr. Moffett quite often isn’t what’s best for consumers.

If AT&T doesn’t have the financial capacity or willingness to appropriately grow their network, inevitably customers will take their wireless business elsewhere, and perhaps Apple will see the wisdom of not giving the company exclusivity rights any longer.

Manjoo’s proposals (except the $10 rate increase, which they’ll love) would almost certainly never make it beyond the discussion stage.  A pricing model that automatically places consumers using little data into a less expensive price tier, or relies on a true consumption “pay for exactly what you use” pricing model would cannibalize AT&T’s revenue.  Past Internet Overcharging pricing has never been about saving customers money — they just charge more to designated “heavy users” for the exact same level of service.  Need more money?  Redefine what constitutes a “heavy user” or just wait a year when today’s data piggies are tomorrow’s average users.  Now they can all pay more.

The average iPhone user already pays a premium for their AT&T iPhone experience — an average $90 a month for a combined mandatory voice and data plan — costs higher than those paid by other AT&T customers.  AT&T accounted for the anticipated data usage of the iPhone in setting the pricing for monthly service.

The biggest data consumers aren’t smartphone or iPhone users. That designation belongs to laptop or netbook owners using wireless mobile networks for connectivity.  Those plans universally are usage capped at 5 gigabytes per month, far higher than the 400 megabyte cap Manjoo proposes.  If AT&T felt individual iPhone customers were the real issue, they would have already usage capped the iPhone data plan.  Instead, they just increased the price, ostensibly to invest the difference in expanding their network.

Perhaps at twice the price, everything would be nice.

Manjoo admits AT&T does not release exact usage numbers, but it’s obvious a phone equipped to run any number of add-on applications that the iPhone can will use more data than a cumbersome phone forcing customers to browse using a number keypad.  That in and of itself does not mean iPhone users are “data hogs.”  In reality, 400 megabytes of usage a month on a network also handling wireless broadband customers with a 5 gigabyte cap is a pittance.  That’s 10 times less than a customer can use on an AT&T wireless broadband-equipped netbook, and still be under their monthly allowance.

Here’s a better idea: end the monopoly AT&T has on the iPhone in the United States. That would immediately do a lot more for AT&T customers, as the so-called “data hogs” that hate AT&T flee off their network.

Manjoo’s alternatives are a “pay $10 more” solution that won’t save consumers money and “pay exactly for what you use” plan that AT&T will never accept.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

"I think these are radical consumer groups," says Larry Kudlow

CNBC host Larry Kudlow engaged in on-air lovemaking with the wireless phone industry in a shameless segment decrying Net Neutrality.  His guest, Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA – The Wireless Association, was strictly in friendly territory as Kudlow tossed him softballs.  It was an industry talking point Blitzkrieg on consumers from start to finish:

Kudlow: Potential government control of the Internet: is Net Neutrality going to limit investment and innovation and even customer service?

Reality: Saying Net Neutrality is “government control” of the Internet is like saying safety inspections are “government control” of the food industry.  Without Net Neutrality, big cable and phone company providers will be the ones controlling the Internet.  Will Net Neutrality really limit investment, or continue the Internet success story that investment and innovation has already produced before providers demanded you pay more.  As for impacting customer service, that’s about as valid as claiming Net Neutrality will cause snakes to hide in your bed.

Guttman-McCabe: It’s a perfect storm of usage.  If we’re forced to deliver every bit all the time you’re going to lead to some form of commoditization of the product.

Reality: Gasp!  We can’t have that!  For those who may miss the meaning, commoditization refers to a perfect storm of competition, with providers generally competing on price because their products are of similar scope and quality.  Providers cannot extract higher pricing in such environments, because consumers won’t pay.  In the wireless industry’s eyes, Net Neutrality forces them to actually deliver the service they promise in their marketing materials.  You, as a consumer, get to choose the applications and services you wish to use and pay accordingly.  The market they want is to closely control and manage the content you use on their networks, blocking or impeding “unauthorized” services that don’t have a relationship with, or approval from, your wireless phone company.  Consumers actually want every bit delivered all the time, and providers are throwing a hissyfit because of it.

Kudlow: If you’re forced to deliver every bit all the time and meet the demands of these radical consumer groups, what happens to the profits of the deliverers?  The profits that are supposed to go into the investments to expand the broadband delivery?

Reality: Radical consumer groups?  Attacking real consumer groups that represent what consumers actually want, while providers stomp their feet when forced to deliver, doesn’t solve “the problem.”  And what of the profits?  That’s a good question Guttman-McCabe isn’t prepared to fully answer.  The enormously profitable broadband industry, in general, earns billions and invests a small percentage of that back into expanding their networks.  As our readers have learned on the wired broadband side, the logical assumption that providers will at least maintain a level percentage of revenue going back into network infrastructure isn’t always the case.  Instead, some providers raise prices and limit service, blaming “increased demand.”  Kudlow could ask providers what percentage of their revenues go into network expansion, and whether that has changed in the last ten years.  Of course he doesn’t.

Kudlow (to Guttman-McCabe): …obviously you’re not from the telephone company or the cable company, what’s your meat in the game here, who are you representing?

Reality: The CTIA has among its members AT&T, Cox, and Verizon.  Guttman-McCabe’s meat is paid for by all three, and many other industry members who belong to the group.  Who does CTIA not represent?  Consumers.

Guttman-McCabe: (Here come the shiny keys of distraction and misinformation, folks) I posit a question.  Are they (Google) allowed to cache their content closer to the customer to provide a better service under these Net Neutrality rules?

What about this pen -- will it be allowed under the new Net Neutrality rules?

Reality: Yes!  Having redundant and strategically placed content delivery servers is a widespread, industry-accepted practice not harmed by Net Neutrality.  Akamai delivers vast quantities of video content from regionally placed servers.  Cable operators will be able to place servers to deliver TV Everywhere to their customers wherever they like, if they so choose.  Net Neutrality does not compel web providers to run everything from a central server farm.  It would, however, tell broadband providers they cannot identify and artificially slow that content delivery down just because they don’t like it on their networks.  Big difference.

Guttman-McCabe: Is the Amazon Kindle, which is basically a wireless (single purpose) device — is that allowed to exist under the new Net Neutrality rules?  I think these are some of the questions that will come out as the Commission considers these new rules.

Reality: Yes!  Mr. Boots, your cat, will also be allowed to exist under Net Neutrality rules if he happens to jump on your keyboard while you access web pages.  Your wireless picture frame, which receives digital images to display on your bookcase will also be allowed to exist even if it cannot be used to play World of Warcraft.  I’m certain Guttman-McCabe and his friends will concern troll their way through the debate by throwing up lots of non-germane “concerns and questions” that they know have no relationship to the matter at hand.  They are well paid to do so.

Kudlow, of course, doesn’t challenge his guest on any of these issues, because he seems in perfect agreement with the industry position.  The shameless segment wraps up with the ominous notice that Net Neutrality has a long way to go and the CTIA has a “lot of educating to do.”  I’ll bet.

Larry Kudlow is the host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report (M-F, 7pm/ET).

[flv width=”400″ height=”300″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Kudlow Net Neutrality 2009-09-21.flv[/flv]

Larry Kudlow interviews Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs at CTIA – The Wireless Association on Net Neutrality (9/21/09) (4 minutes)

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.

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