The billing address on file at Verizon Wireless can make a difference in your monthly bill.

One Maryland man recently appealed for a refund of $840 when he discovered the wireless provider had specified his Bethesda workplace as his billing address, exposing him to additional taxes even though Verizon sends the bill to his Annapolis home.

That distinction cost Larry Sisle an extra $3.50 a month — the difference between mobile taxes charged in Annapolis and those levied in Montgomery County, which includes the city of Bethesda.

Adding up the incorrect taxes applied to his two phones over the years he has been with Verizon revealed Sisle was potentially out hundreds of dollars and he wanted his money back.

In a classic “pass the hundreds of bucks”-move, Verizon told him to work with his local government to get a refund — a virtual impossibility for a telecommunications tax collected by a third party.

Make sure you are being billed the correct county and state taxes based on your billing address, not the location designated by your Verizon Wireless phone number.

“Excuse me? Why should I have to take this up with Montgomery County when it was Verizon who collected the tax incorrectly,” Sisle asked the Capital Gazette’s consumer watchdog.

A spokesperson for Montgomery County agreed with Sisle, telling the newspaper the phone company pays the tax directly, not the consumer, so the only recourse would be to pursue Verizon directly.

A Verizon Wireless representative eventually explained his Anne Arundel wireless number was accidentally put into the Montgomery County tax category in early 2010, which is what caused the error. That should raise eyebrows among other Verizon customers with Anne Arundel numbers that could have been overcharged as well.

Verizon says since the error has been ongoing only since 2010, it is processing a refund of just under $200 which will be credited to Sisle’s account.

Customers should scrutinize their Verizon Wireless bills, particularly checking to see if the company is appropriately billing state, county, or local taxes based on your billing address, not the city and county associated with your original Verizon Wireless number.

A traditional metrocell, designed to be installed on a utility pole or side of building.

AT&T’s wireless network expansion plans include more than 10,000 new HSPA+/LTE cell sites, 40,000 small “metrocells,” and 1,000 distributed antenna systems (DAS) that will improve network performance, broaden Wi-Fi service, and reduce traffic on its traditional cell tower network.

With much of urban and suburban America (and the roads that connect communities) already covered by cellular networks, AT&T has embarked on an effort to more efficiently manage its wireless traffic.

AT&T, the lowest-rated wireless carrier by Consumer Reports, has suffered from a reputation for dropped calls and inadequate network infrastructure investment. The company has sought to correct those mistakes with the implementation of its multi-billion dollar Project Velocity IP (VIP) program that will expand capacity and bring Wi-Fi to new places.

John Donovan, senior executive vice president of AT&T’s Technology and Network Operations division told attendees at the Citi Global Internet, Media & Communications conference in Las Vegas the company was shifting investment towards deploying small cell technology like “metrocells” that provides service to 32 or 64 concurrent users in a small geographic area. These fiber-fed, low-power small cells traditionally cover areas less than 1.2 miles wide, and can be hidden on utility poles or on buildings.

AT&T intends to leverage its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood network to provide much of the expanded network’s backhaul connectivity, at least in cities where AT&T provides landline service.

With an in-house fiber network, AT&T can more cheaply deploy expanded Wi-Fi that will help the company offload cellular data traffic. AT&T says customers will benefit because Wi-Fi use currently does not count against a customer’s monthly data usage allowance. With Wi-Fi accompanying new metrocell and DAS installations, AT&T customers will eventually see a much larger area of Wi-Fi service on their wireless devices, especially in urban areas.

AT&T’s fall announcement of a renewed push for U-verse compliments plans to expand its wireless network. In cities where AT&T is not the landline provider, the company often contracts with other telecom companies to handle traffic to and from cell sites.

Donovan noted a crucial key to the plan’s success is to demand a more seamless transition to and from Wi-Fi from device manufacturers, automatically switching customers off the cellular network in favor of Wi-Fi, where available. At present, customers make the choice. In the future, the device itself could ultimately become the final arbiter, choosing the strongest, most reliable wireless technology available automatically.

The company has not given up on traditional cell tower networks.

AT&T intends to expand its HSPA+ footprint to 300 million homes by the end of 2014. It reaches around 288 million homes at present, with LTE service available to around 170 million. The company intends to provide both its slower HSPA+ and faster LTE 4G service.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Metrocells.flv[/flv]

Alcatel-Lucent is a supplier of metrocell technology and produced this video explaining why offloading network traffic was important, particularly in large congested cities and at major event venues.  (2 minutes)

Cahill

A New York assemblyman is telling his upstate constituents to stop wasting money on Time Warner Cable’s monthly broadband modem equipment fee and buy your own device.

“I want consumers to know that they do not have to waste their hard-earned money on a product which was considered free for years,” said Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston) in a statement to members of his district. “Over the course of a year or two, depending on the model, the purchase of a new modem will pay for itself. Additionally, the models for purchase have more features than leased modems, like faster speeds and the capability to handle unlimited wireless devices.”

Time Warner expects less than three percent of its customers will take Cahill’s advice and avoid the $3.95 monthly fee, which opens a new, lucrative revenue stream for a cable operator that already enjoys up to 95 percent gross margin on its broadband service.

Cahill complained the 1996 U.S. Telecom Act prohibits the state’s Public Service Commission from intervening, but reminded customers there is a joint New York-New Jersey class action lawsuit against the cable operator over how the modem fee was implemented.

As of Jan. 14, Time Warner Cable has approved the following modems-for-purchase that can be activated for use with its broadband service, with our recommendations in red:

Telecom door fees and other accommodations are often illegal under New York State law.

More details are emerging over Verizon’s complaint to the New York Public Service Commission after the company was refused entry to several New York multi-dwelling buildings to restore phone service after Hurricane Sandy and upgrade tenants to the company’s fiber optic network FiOS.

The New York Times reports the management blockade of telecom companies is nothing new. In some instances, landlords even expect to receive compensation for unlocking the front door for Verizon and Time Warner Cable, despite the fact it is illegal.

Verizon spokesman John Bonomo declined to tell the newspaper how much landlords are asking, but cable industry executives tell stories of building owners demanding as much as $150 per apartment in what they call “door fees.”

Verizon noted DSA Management, the company that takes care of 11 Maiden Lane, has asked for compensation. Theoretically, if DSA requested the same amount, it would run more than $10,000.

A DSA Management executive claims tenants in the building never lost phone service because of the storm and had no interest in the additional services Verizon FiOS had to offer. But a Stop the Cap! reader living in one of the impacted buildings shared a very different story with us.

“My phone has not worked right since even before Sandy hit,” shares a reader who wishes to remain anonymous to avoid possible retaliation. “You can get a dial tone but you also get to hear half of Manhattan when you make a phone call. I can’t hear myself over the other conversations. Verizon has let their copper network go to crap.”

The reader says Verizon is aware of the problem and a trouble ticket is open, and the company indicated it was having trouble arranging access to fix the problem.

“I want FiOS yesterday. I guess some of these building owners already have it and will let us have it if the kickback is finally high enough. Time Warner Cable comes and goes whenever they like.”

Bonomo told the Times Verizon has paid “nominal fees” to building owners before, ostensibly to post fliers and set up sales tables in the lobby.

In some states, renters don’t have much of a choice. Cable operators have been known to sign lucrative deals with property owners to sign everyone in the complex up for cable, bundling the monthly bill into rent payments or mandatory fees. Customers can refuse the service, but they will still pay for it.

Some building owners claim they have a natural hesitancy allowing telecom companies into their buildings because they do not always take care to hide their work or avoid inconveniencing tenants with noise or damage.

TF Cornerstone says Verizon should not be in a hurry to effect repairs at 2 Gold Street or 201 Pearl Street. Both luxury high-rises have been uninhabitable since Sandy struck and until heat, hot water, and electricity is back, FiOS can wait, they say.

How accurate is the map?

The biggest story you know nothing about is taking place at the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, where regulators are trying to figure out what to do with $185 million in leftover broadband expansion funds Internet Service Providers either could not qualify for or did not want. The FCC is on the verge of making a decision, one that will rely on broadband map data that service providers are now calling grossly inaccurate.

During the first phase of the Connect America program to fund broadband expansion in rural areas, the Commission offered up to $300 million to providers willing to wire consumers and businesses deemed too unprofitable to serve.

The rules largely favored phone companies, and although some including Frontier Communications gratefully accepted the funding to expand their DSL service, both of America’s largest phone companies expressed little interest. Many others, including CenturyLink and Windstream, petitioned to change the rules.

In the end, less than half of the available funding — $115 million — was actually spent, none in areas served by AT&T and Verizon.

The initial guidelines for participation were not exactly a high bar to cross. Under the program’s original rules, providers are required to deploy broadband within three years to certain locations that receive less than 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream (or no service at all). That “means test” set the bar far below the minimum speed providers can even call “broadband” under the FCC’s own current definition: 4/1Mbps.

Anyone served by 1-3Mbps DSL “broadband” was instantly ineligible because the FCC effectively deemed those speeds ‘good enough for now.’ The FCC argued it wanted to first target funds to those without any service at all, not those who had inadequate service.

Participating carriers receive compensation up to $775 per home to defray connection costs, bringing expenses closer to the Return on Investment-test that decides whether your rural home will have broadband service or not. Large phone companies complained the subsidy was not nearly enough and did not bother applying. Some others said even with the subsidy, it was still too unprofitable to wire rural homes in their service areas.

This not-so-auspicious start of the Connect America project has driven the FCC to propose modifying the rules to increase participation by disinterested providers. In an opaque “Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” the Commission proposes new rules that will “further accelerate the deployment of broadband facilities to consumers who lack access to robust broadband.”

Under the new guidelines, providers could be able to apply for funding if the areas they propose to serve are not already getting at least 4/1Mbps service. But in a surprising footnote, the FCC announced they will “use 3Mbps downstream and 768kbps upstream as a proxy for 4/1Mbps service.” In other words, the FCC is ignoring its own standard definition of broadband and settling for something less. That will leave customers waiting for something better than 3Mbps service up the creek, excluded from Connect America funding.

The U.S. Telecom Association is a lobbying group dominated by AT&T, Verizon and other phone companies.

The U.S. Telecom Association (USTA), which represents phone companies, was appalled, suggesting this footnote will block funding from approximately one million rural households that receive what most of us would consider substandard broadband.

“This is particularly true for rural areas served by DSL which in most cases has been engineered to provide an upstream speed of 768 Kbps,” the USTA wrote in comments to the FCC. “In such cases, significant and costly network upgrades would be necessary to provide broadband service meeting the 4/1Mbps  benchmark. Therefore, rather than relying on evidence of 3/768 service to exclude areas from eligibility, the Commission should use the next speed tier—6/1.5Mbps as a proxy for 4/1 service.”

Windstream, in its own comments, was reduced to educating the FCC about the basic technical facts of DSL:

One Mbps upload speeds are not necessarily available to all customers served by standard ADSL 2+ architecture over a 24 AWG copper pair of 12,000 feet. Rather, delivery of reliable upload speeds of 1 Mbps would require an upgrade, such as two-pair bonded ADSL 2+. Two-pair bonded ADSL2+ essentially doubles last mile deployment cost since the end user modem is two to three times the cost of a normal single pair modem, two cable pairs are used instead of one, and two ADSL2+ ports are required at the DSLAM. Moreover, to achieve 1 Mbps of customer payload throughput would require an upload connection speed of more than 1.2 Mbps, while an upload connection speed of 1 Mbps would produce an actual throughput of about 820 Kbps.

Even where the loop length from the DSLAM to the customer is less than 12,000 feet, a service provider can only deliver service meeting the 4/1 requirement—or more precisely, service at speeds of 6/1.5Mbps, the next-fastest standard service tier—if the DSLAM is ADSL2+ capable and fiber-fed.

Windstream provides a primer on DSL to the FCC.

The resource that will determine who qualifies for broadband funding and who does not is the National Broadband Map, which seeks to describe the broadband options available at hundreds of millions of American addresses. If the map shows an area unserved, it qualifies for funding. If the map shows there is no broadband inadequacy, no funding will be offered.

Unsurprisingly, providers of all kinds are hurrying in comments that declare often considerable inaccuracies in the FCC’s map. This is ironic since much of the collected data on which the map is based was voluntarily supplied by those providers.

In various submissions filed with the FCC, several ISPs suggest the national map is not to be trusted. Some complain the updated service areas they earlier submitted have never been incorporated into the map, others are discovering inaccuracies for the first time because they can make the difference between winning or not qualifying for rural broadband funding (either for themselves or a competitor). Among other complaints: providers are overestimating their coverage and fibbing about actual speeds, the map’s census tract granularity ends up declaring an area served if even one household manages to get DSL service while others cannot, and providers only serving business customers are treated as if they serve everyone.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant is asking the FCC to clean up the inaccuracies in the Mississippi portion of the National Broadband Map.

The state of Mississippi is the poster child for inaccuracies in the National Broadband Map. All that was required to disqualify most of the state from rural broadband funding was a boastful and inaccurate submission from one cable broadband reseller that claimed they served virtually all of Mississippi. Nobody bothered to question the veracity of their submission or verify it. Now the governor’s office is involved in efforts to scrub the inaccurate broadband map they consider more a fantasy than reality on the ground.

With the FCC preparing to launch the second phase of the Connect America Fund with up to $1.8 billion of available funding per year over five years, the money sharks are in the water circling one another.

Cable operators and wireless ISPs are asking the FCC not to hand out money to their competitors and phone companies are returning fire claiming those providers are lying about their coverage areas and have restrictions on service.

Companies ranging from Comcast to small, independent cable operators working with the American Cable Association are filing objections to the existing map. Wireless ISPs, often family-owned, are even more worried what will happen if phone companies like Windstream get federal dollars to upgrade their DSL service while unsubsidized WISPs are left to compete on their own.

In fact, the Competitive Carriers Association argues wireless providers are best positioned to make use of the unspent funds to deploy rural wireless broadband immediately.

“Wireless carriers offer the best opportunity to bring much needed broadband services to unserved and underserved areas, and it only makes sense for the FCC to consider proposals from wireless carriers,” said CCA president Steven K. Berry. “Many of our members are ready and willing to build out these networks, but depend on [financial] support in order to do so.  Wireless remains underfunded, and this could be an opportunity for the FCC to provide significant support for the services consumers want most.”

Not if the USTA and Windstream have anything to say about it. Both are on the attack in comments filed with the FCC:

WISPs: “Coverage should be independently verified before such areas are considered ineligible for Connect America funding. Like satellite providers, WISPs often have capacity caps and service quality issues, including unpredictable degradation from third-party interference from common devices such as cordless phones, garage door openers and microwave ovens when WISPs use unlicensed spectrum. The sustained speeds WISPs offer, particularly during busy times, also tend to be slower than those offered by [phone company broadband], and certainly slower than the 4Mbps downstream standard required of future recipients of federal funding.” — U.S. Telecom Association

The USTA also attacks WISPs for their usage caps, which they claim should disqualify them from serious consideration because their networks are technically and realistically inadequate to service today’s broadband consumer.

Cable “Competitors”: Windstream claims the bare existence of a cable operator alone should not disqualify the phone company from funding. Windstream suggests cable companies in its service areas may only serve one or two customers in a census tract, not really offer service at all, or provide sub-standard broadband that is so bad, nobody will do business with them.

Windstream proposes its own competition test: “In many areas […] with an alleged presence of an unsubsidized competitor, Windstream has received no requests in the past two years from customers for telephone number ports that are accompanied by cancellation of the customer’s Windstream broadband service. In other words, despite the alleged presence of a competitor providing service at speeds of at least 3/768 in areas where Windstream itself does not provide service exceeding 3/768, Windstream has not received a single request in two years in an entire area to port a phone number to a competitor and cancel the associated Windstream broadband service. Windstream submits that the lack of such porting requests throughout an entire area over a reasonable historical period is strong evidence that there is no competitor providing 3/768 or better service in that area.”

The independent phone company proposes that alleged unsubsidized competitors offer proof they are actually providing service before the FCC excludes an area from funding consideration.

“Here is our view.” — Phillip Dampier

Consumers are free to share their own views with the FCC on these matters by filing their own comments here. The Proceeding Number you will need is 10-90. It is generally easier to create a .PDF, standard .txt file, or Microsoft Word document and attach it to the submission form. Your comments will be publicly visible and posted to the FCC website.

Stop the Cap! feels the FCC should not renege on its commitment to fund rural providers that will guarantee customers will receive at least 4/1Mbps service. This barely adequate minimum will require phone companies to upgrade their facilities to next generation DSL technology that can support future speed upgrades. Compromising on lower speeds gives phone companies the option to deploy outdated early generation DSL that cannot be upgraded easily. In a positive development, many phone companies seem willing to commit to these upgrades with some financial assistance.

Funding should also be available to the provider that can deliver the best broadband service at the lowest cost. As urban and suburban customers have learned, that service often does not come from the phone company. Cable operators willing to commit to rural broadband upgrades should not be disqualified from funding, nor should community-owned providers who want to build their own networks.

We have also repeatedly complained about broadband mapping that lacks a formal mechanism to clearly verify coverage and speeds independent of the ISP supplying the data. Providers have an incentive to artificially boost or reduce coverage, particularly if it means the difference between qualifying for federal broadband expansion funding or disqualifying a competitor because the provider can falsely claim they already offer the service.

Our thanks to Cassandra Heyne, who dubbed the current situation an FCC ‘maptastrophe.’