Not all mobile customers are treated equally.

That is the conclusion of a new piece in MIT’s Technology Review, which found wireless companies carefully data mine their customers in an effort to keep their best (and most profitable) customers happy, while leaving those who pay substantially less or enjoy an unlimited data plan on hold.

The concept of “big data” — the practice of collecting and analyzing customer usage, payments, and services, has become part of today’s sophisticated data analysis used by wireless companies to target their highest level of service to their best customers.

In practice this means big spenders might cut ahead of others in customer service call queues, be given priority on wireless carriers’ networks, and be pampered with discounts, service credits, and other special offers when service goes awry.

Carriers merge data about network problems—such as how many dropped calls a consumer experienced—with unstructured data such as the transcripts of complaints to customer-service representatives, deciphered by voice-recognition software and searched for angry keywords.

For customers enrolled in expensive “tiered” data plans, the carriers are vigilant to respond with refunds or discounts on re-enrollments; they tend not to be so generous to customers with resource-guzzling unlimited data plans.

The article did not name any specific carriers, but says selective customer-service treatment is “common industry practice in the United States.”

In Europe, disparate treatment goes even further.  When congestion starts slowing down a provider’s data network, some will boot customers with unlimited data plans onto inferior networks which treat the interlopers as second-class citizens, subject to reduced priority and even throttled speeds in some instances.

It is all designed to maximize profits by keeping the most profitable customers happy, even if lesser customers make due with less.

Data mining opens the door to even bigger profits in the days ahead, especially with contextual and location-based advertising that leverages your location with retailers who believe you can be enticed to stop in their stores in return for a discount offer or coupon sent to your smartphone.

“We’re at the beginning of an era in big-data analytics,” says Antonio Rodriguez, a venture capitalist who works at Matrix Partners in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “If you think about the treasure trove of data they have—it’s question of how they tow the privacy line between what they have access to and what they do with it.”

Rogers’ paid social media outreach campaign on Twitter was supposed to promote the company’s new 1Number service, more or less a ripoff of Google Voice (with fewer features) that lets Rogers’ cell phone customers make and receive calls from a computer or wireless phone, engage in video chats, and send text messages from the 1Number portal. But the paid tweets, which reached the top of Canada’s “trending topics,” quickly went rogue after antagonized customers who loathe Canada’s largest cable operator hijacked the campaign.

“Rogers deserves every tweet coming their way,” wrote one Ontario customer. “What a national disgrace of a company. I’ll bet my last dollar this is the first time top [management] has had any clear indication what their customers think of them. Until now, they’ve just been busy finding new ways to part customers from their money.”

“Bryck123” took Rogers’ debacle more in stride: “Watching this epic fail is almost worth all that I’ve overpaid you guys over the years.”

Ironically, Rogers is paying Twitter for most of the venting and customer wrath.  Twitter sells a “promoted tweets” service to companies who pay whenever someone retweets, replies, clicks, or gives a “thumbs-up” to the promotion. A lot of Canadians are obliging, telling Rogers their customer service, billing and pricing is a disaster.

Hijacking a paid social media outreach campaign isn’t new on Twitter. McDonalds learned this themselves in January when its own paid hashtag turned into a bashtag.

“Rogers learned nothing from McDonalds’ disastrous Twitter campaign, which it smartly ended after a few hours,” said Twitter user Jacques Roglet. “Rogers has been carrying on for days, and so have their customers.”

Roglet says Rogers’ mistake was trying to use Twitter as a way to reach younger customers with a one-way advertising campaign.  Twitter was designed for two way (or more) communication, and Rogers showed no interest in establishing a dialogue with their customers.

They are now.

In an effort to turn consumer lemons into lemonade, a small army of Rogers’ social media representatives are reaching out to complaining customers to address sometimes long-standing problems and concerns.  Customers threatening to leave Rogers behind are winning special customer retention deals that slash rates or deliver larger broadband usage allowances for the same money.  But it may be too late for some.

“I think if there is some true Canadian identity, something shared by Canadians from all walks of life, it might be the common experience of having your money and time stolen by Roger’s criminal syndicate,” shared Michael To.

But things may not be that great elsewhere.

“I went through Bell, Rogers and Telus over the course of 12 years,” shared one reader of the Globe and Mail. “‘Bad service’ doesn’t describe it adequately – ‘absolute contempt for my humanity’ better describes it – every one of the them viewed me as a muppet to be abused, exploited and soaked as much as possible.”

[Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Damian who alerted us.]

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Welcome to Rogers One Number.flv[/flv]

Rogers produced this video introducing customers to its 1Number service.  (2 minutes)

When the nation’s largest phone and cable companies get together, it’s never good news for consumers.

Verizon has struck a backroom deal with a cartel of cable companies — including Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications — to stop competing against one another and instead divvy up the spoils of the growing mobile market.  And they’re keeping mum on the details of this arrangement.

The cable industry wants to sell Verizon the mobile phone spectrum it originally considered using to give Verizon Wireless a little competition.  In return, Verizon Wireless is going to start selling you Comcast/Time Warner/Cox cable TV service.  It’s all great for them, but if you were waiting for Verizon FiOS or a better deal for your cell phone, these phone and cable companies want to make sure you’ll wait a long… LONG time.

They claim they are not getting together in an anti-competition pact.  They are just getting differently apart. It’s like divorcing someone by agreeing to move in with them.

It’s a bad marriage for consumers and now is the time for the Federal Communications Commission to deliver some parental supervision.

Stop the Cap! joins Free Press in calling on consumers to tell the FCC to expose Verizon’s backroom shenanigans.

Tell the Commission you aren’t happy with secret handshake deals that hand over the public airwaves to Verizon Wireless to consolidate its market concentration.

Even worse, you don’t want America’s largest competitor for big cable TV — telco-delivered broadband, TV, and phone service — eliminated so the phone companies can pitch you overpriced, non-competitive cable service from their new best friends.

What part of “monopoly cartel” doesn’t the FCC understand?  Tell them you want these deals stopped and you demand real competition, not more of the same.

The days of free Internet access are back… sort of.

United Online, Inc. announced Monday that it will offer free wireless Internet access through its NetZero service, provided as a “loss leader” that depends on users upgrading to paid access to cover the service’s costs.

NetZero became familiar to most Americans in the 1990s when the company handed limited dial-up Internet access, paid for through online advertising that subscribers endured in return for getting the service for free.  But broadband costs considerably more, so as the transition away from dial-up turned into a stampede, NetZero faded into memories about as much as AOL signup floppy disks and CD’s.

But now the company is back pitching free access to “4G wireless Internet” with no strings attached, contract commitments, or overage fees.  But that does not tell the full story.

While there is no contract commitment, NetZero requires an upfront investment in wireless hardware — $50 for a USB antenna stick suitable for a laptop or $100 for a “mobile hotspot” that can deliver a Wi-Fi connection to other nearby devices.  The devices are for sale on NetZero’s website.

The “free wireless” offer is probably better described as dim sum — it comes with a 200MB monthly usage limit, which makes it suitable for basic web browsing and e-mail only.  Once your limit is reached, the service is cut off for the remainder of the month, unless you agree to one of several paid usage plans that range from $9.95 for 500MB to $49.95 for 4GB, billed monthly.

After 12 months, NetZero’s free ride is over unless you agree to continue with a paid usage plan.  It ends even sooner if you choose to upgrade to a paid plan anytime during the first year.  Once you do, you lose the option of switching back to the free plan.

Whether paid or not, NetZero users ride on Clear’s troubled 4G WiMAX network, which Sprint — Clear’s largest customer — is planning to eventually abandon for more advanced LTE.  The long term future of Clear, also known as Clearwire, is also up in the air.  The company has ceased investing in its WiMAX network and is making preparations of its own to switch to LTE 4G technology — incompatible with the NetZero hardware you will spend $50-100 to acquire.

Clear’s network has also received considerable criticism for its speed and performance.  Because it operates on much higher frequencies, Clear’s wireless signal has problems penetrating indoors, and has even more trouble where energy efficient window coatings are used, especially in the south.

While NetZero does, in fact, deliver the service for free, the upfront investment and potential service headaches limit its usefulness.  Light users may find free Wi-Fi, increasingly common in a number of businesses, more convenient, affordable, and faster than the NetZero alternative.

A Wall Street analyst says Sprint has a 50/50 chance of being forced into bankruptcy, either pulling through a difficult upgrade to LTE 4G and stabilizing its partnership with Clearwire, or sinking under a load of debt incurred by Apple’s iPhone and network upgrade expenses.

Sanford Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett downgraded Sprint this morning from “market perform” to “underperform,” noting Sprint’s complicated five year credit default swap financing deal already prices in a 50/50 chance Sprint will be forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.

Moffett told investors he believes Sprint’s near term future can be described in one of two ways:

“In the first, the company successfully navigates its complicated Network Vision upgrade, stabilizes Clearwire‘s financial position, and delivers a compelling 4G product. In the second, some combination of its gargantuan take-or-pay contract with Apple, a hobbled 4G offering, and a stupendous debt burden bring the company to its knees.”

Moffett says Sprint’s biggest risk may come from Apple’s forthcoming 4G LTE iPhone, which he does not believe will work well on Sprint’s network.

“The problem is 4G. Sprint doesn’t have enough free-and-clear spectrum on which to launch a competitive LTE network, and it doesn’t have the money to clear spectrum that’s already in use,” Moffett said. “We expect Sprint’s competitiveness to begin to backslide when LTE becomes the nation’s de facto standard.”

Sprint continues to rely primarily on its troubled partner Clearwire for 4G service, which uses the aging WiMAX standard other carriers abroad are decommissioning.

With the iPhone 5 due later this year, should it provide access to 4G LTE service, Sprint could be in real trouble.  By fall, Sprint’s LTE network is expected to only provide limited coverage in a handful of cities, and on PCS spectrum less suitable for penetrating buildings.  Sprint would be forced to compete against Verizon’s nearly-completed LTE network as well as AT&T’s mixture of LTE and HSPA+ 4G services.  Verizon and AT&T will operate their 4G networks on 700MHz spectrum which can deliver robust signals indoors and out.

“Unfortunately, at this point we simply don’t believe there is any analytical framework that provides strong conviction as to whether Sprint can or cannot avoid bankruptcy over the next four years or so,” Moffett says. “Instead, one is left with this; are the perceived risks rising, or are they falling? We conclude … that risks of bankruptcy are rising, and that perceived risks will rise still further with the release of the first 4G iPhone.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Sprint to Go Bankrupt 3-19-12.flv[/flv]

CNBC speaks with Craig Moffett about the challenges afflicting Sprint’s effort to build a 4G LTE network and how a bankruptcy might affect customers.  (4 minutes)