Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has proposed cell phone carriers permanently disable stolen cellphones, unless and until they are reactivated by the original owner.
Currently, only Verizon Wireless shuts down stolen phones, preventing their easy reactivation. Other carriers only disable internal SIM cards, which are easily replaced by any thief in minutes, and for a fee AT&T and T-Mobile will reactivate any phone. Sprint only disables access to stored contact lists and contents of memory cards that often accompanying modern smartphones. But anyone can reactivate a stolen Sprint or Nextel phone just by claiming to have acquired it legitimately from the former owner and replacing the removable SIM card.
The result of easy reactivation is a thriving black market for stolen phones, particularly in New York.
“Forty-one percent of all property crimes in New York City in the first half of this year were related to cellphones,” Schumer said, noting phones often sell for hundreds of dollars and are back in operation sometimes hours after being stolen.
SIM Card
Schumer says if carriers permanently disabled stolen phones until the rightful owners declare them retrieved, phones would become worthless to would-be thieves.
The senator notes that European carriers use each phone’s unique identification code to monitor the status of the phone. Once reported stolen, overseas carriers will not reactivate a disabled phone without a signed statement from the original owner authorizing the transfer of ownership.
Schumer notes cell phone theft is rising dramatically in New York as more people start carrying increasingly sophisticated smartphones.
In 2009, 10,650 phones were stolen in the city. In 2010 — 10,746. So far this year, more than 11,320 phones have been taken by thieves.
[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNYW New York Deactivate Cellphones 8-21-11.flv[/flv]
WNYW-TV in New York has raw video of Sen. Schumer’s press conference on cell phone theft. (10 minutes)
A year after Frontier Communications assumed control of Verizon’s assets in the Pacific Northwest, customers are fleeing the company’s inherited fiber-to-the-home service FiOS, after announcing a massive (since suspended, except in Indiana) 46 percent rate hike for the television portion of the service. A new $500 installation fee has kept all but the bravest from considering replacing customers who have left for Comcast and various satellite TV providers.
Frontier’s second-quarter financial results revealed the company has lost at least 14,000 out of 112,000 FiOS TV customers in the region (and in the Fort Wayne, Ind. market, where the service is also available.)
Early reaction to the original rate hike announcement started customers shopping for another provider — mostly Comcast, which competes in all three states where Frontier FiOS operates. Even after the rate hike was suspended in some markets, intense marketing activity by Frontier to drive customers towards its partnership with satellite provider DirecTV managed to convince at least some of those customers to pull the plug on fiber in return for a free year of satellite TV, although an even larger number presumably switched to the cable competition.
D.A. Davidson, a financial consulting firm, toldThe Oregonian the message was clear.
“They would love to get rid of the FiOS TV customers,” Donna Jaegers, who follows Frontier, told the newspaper. “They’re programming costs are very high compared to the rates that they charge.”
Jaegers said Frontier Communications completely botched their efforts to transition customers away from FiOS TV towards satellite, because most of those departing headed for the cable competition, attracted by promotional offers and convenient billing.
Many others simply don’t want a satellite dish on their roof, and are confounded about Frontier’s message that satellite TV is somehow better than fiber-to-the-home service.
Frontier admits its FiOS service is now underutilized, but claims it will continue to provide the service where it already exists.
Wilderotter
Frontier Claims Its DSL Service is Better Than Cable Broadband
Frontier’s general business plan is to provide DSL service in rural areas where it faces little or no competition, and most of Frontier’s investment has been to upgrade Verizon’s landline network to sustain 1-3Mbps DSL service, for which it routinely charges the same (or more) for standalone broadband service that its cable competitors charge for much faster speeds.
But Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter says their DSL service is better than the cable competition.
“A key differentiator between our network and cable competition is that you consistently get the speed you pay for,” Wilderotter told investors on a conference call. “There’s no sharing at the local level. High demand for bandwidth-intensive applications like video are putting pressure on all wired networks. To that end, we want to make sure that we have more than enough capacity to satisfy the expectations of our customers. We’re spending capital in all parts of the network with specific emphasis in the middle mile, which will enable us to consistently deliver a quality customer experience for our customers of today and tomorrow.”
Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter defends anemic broadband additions during the 2nd quarter of 2011 and tries to convince investors DSL service is better than the cable competition. August 3, 2011. (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.
Netflix Traffic Represents 25% of Frontier’s Broadband Traffic; Online Video — 50%
Wilderotter admitted Frontier’s broadband network is overcongested in many regions, which she partly blamed for the company’s anemic addition of new broadband customers.
“Video is about 50 percent,” Wilderotter added. In an investor conference call, she explained network congestion in more detail:
“In [the second quarter], we had many areas with unacceptable levels of network congestion, which negatively impacted our growth in net high-speed additions.” Wilderotter said. “We believe all of the major congestion issues will be fixed by the end of [the third quarter], and that will enable us to drive higher growth and net broadband activation in [former Verizon service areas.]”
“What we decided to do is to go for fixing the middle mile, which is the [central office] to the […] neighborhood and to expand that capability by 100-fold. And then also, expand from the [central office] out to the Internet and make sure that we have huge capacity to deliver and receive capability to our customers. So when we sell 6 meg, 10 meg, 25 meg, 50 meg, the customer gets what we sell them and that was extremely important for us.”
“So what we did is in the areas where we saw the congestion increase based upon usage increases, and we’ve built new households. We’ve held off on marketing to a lot of those new households until we fixed the congestion problem because we didn’t want to exacerbate what we had already. We’ve shifted capital in terms of the mix of how we’ve spent capital to fix this problem. I’d say we’re probably 75% of the way there in fixing congestion. This quarter is another big quarter for us to get all of the major issues out of the network, which will allow us in the back end of this quarter through the fourth quarter, to really start pushing the penetration levels where we’ve built new households in the areas that have been affected by congestion.”
Frontier Introduces Line Bonded DSL — Two Connections Can Improve DSL Speeds
Frontier Faster? Frontier announces line bonded DSL.
Frontier Communications also announced the introduction of Frontier Second Connect, a DSL line bonding product that delivers two physical connections to a single household. Line bonding allows for improved broadband speeds.
“Second Connect gives our customers two exclusive connections in one household, and we’re the only provider in every market that can do that,” Wilderotter claimed.
In more urban markets, Frontier’s DSL speeds are woefully behind those available from most cable competitors. Frontier has begun upgrading some of their legacy service areas and retiring older equipment in an effort to improve the quality of service.
“The real initiatives that we have underway are called middle mile, interoffice facilities, as well as some of the more aged equipment that’s in the network,” said Dan McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer. “So as we go through, there’s about 600 projects that are underway today that will improve both the speed and capability.”
“We’ve inherited markets that there has not been upgrades to capacity in these markets for many years and fixes to the networks, plus the elements as the DSLAMs, even the DSLAMs themselves are old,” Wilderotter said. “So we’re replacing network elements in the neighborhood. We’re splitting them and moving customers to other network elements to make sure that they have a good experience.”
Frontier executives answer a question from a Wall Street banker about DSL speeds and congestion problems on Frontier’s broadband network. A detailed technical discussion ensues as the company tells investors it is redirecting some capital to fixing Frontier’s overcongested network. August 3, 2011. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.
Frontier Still Losing More than 8% Of Its Landline Customers Every Year
Despite broadband rollouts and incremental improvements, more than eight percent of Frontier’s landline customers disconnect service permanently every year. Frontier called that disconnect rate an improvement over its line losses last year, which exceeded 11 percent in some areas.
“Total line losses improved to an 8.6% year-over-year decline, our lowest level since taking ownership when the pro forma loss rate was 9.7%,” reported Wilderotter. “We also improved [the] loss rate [in former Verizon service areas to] 10.1% compared to 11.4% in Q2 2010.”
Most of Frontier’s departing customers are switching to cable providers and/or cell phone service.
(Update 8-23-2011: We are now told in many areas, Frontier’s Second Connect service is not actually a bonded DSL product, but rather a “dry loop” second DSL line that carries the same speed as your primary line. Presumably, household members can divide up who uses which DSL circuit for Internet access. The charge for Second Connect in ex-Verizon service areas is $14.99 per month plus a second mandatory monthly modem rental fee of $6.99. If the web link does not work, it means the service is not available in your service area.)
While wireless providers currently treat Wi-Fi as a friendly way to offload wireless data traffic from their 3G and 4G networks, the wireless industry is starting to ponder whether they can also earn additional profits from regulating your use of it.
Dean Bubley has written a white paper for the wireless industry exploring Wi-Fi use by smartphone owners, and ways the industry can potentially cash in on it.
“It is becoming increasingly clear that Wi-Fi access will be a strategic part of mobile operators’ future network plans,” Bubley writes. “There are multiple use cases, ranging from offloading congested cells, through to reducing overseas roaming costs and innovative in-venue services.”
Bubley’s paper explores the recent history of some cell phone providers aggressively trying to offload traffic from their congested 3G networks to more-grounded Wi-Fi networks.
Among the most intent:
AT&T, which acquired Wayport, a major Wireless ISP, and is placing Wi-Fi hotspots at various venues and in high traffic tourist areas in major cities and wants to seamlessly switch Apple iPhone users to Wi-Fi, where available, whenever possible;
PCCW in Hong Kong;
KT in the Republic of Korea, which has moved as much as 67 percent of its data traffic to Wi-Fi;
KDDI in Japan, which is planning to deploy as many as 100,000 Wi-Fi Hotspots across the country.
America's most aggressive data offloader is pushing more and more customers to using their Wi-Fi Hotspots.
Bubley says the congestion some carriers experience isn’t necessarily from users downloading too much or watching too many online shows. Instead, it comes from “signalling congestion,” caused when a smartphone’s applications demand repeated attention from the carrier’s network. An application that requires regular, but short IP traffic connections, can pose a bigger problem than a user simply downloading a file. Moving this traffic to Wi-Fi can be a real resource-saver for wireless carriers.
Bubley notes many wireless companies would like to charge third-party developers fees to allow them access to each provider’s “app store.” Applications that consume a lot of resources could be charged more by providers (or banned altogether), while those that “behave well” could theoretically be charged a lower fee. The only thing preventing this type of a “two-sided business model,” charging both developers and consumers for the applications that work on smartphones, are Net Neutrality policies (or the threat of them) in many countries.
Instead, Bubley suggests, carriers should be more open and helpful with third party developers to assist them in developing more efficient applications on a voluntary basis.
Bubley also ponders future business strategies for Wi-Fi. He explores the next generation of Wi-Fi networks that allow users to establish automatic connections to the best possible signal without ponderous log-in screens, and new clients that can intelligently search out and connect to approved networks without user intervention. That means data traffic could theoretically be shifted to any authenticated or preferred Wi-Fi network without users having to mess with the phone’s settings. At the same time, that same technology could be used to keep customers off of free, third party Wi-Fi networks, in favor of networks operators run themselves.
Policy controls are a major focus of Bubley’s paper. While he advocates for customer-friendly use of such controls, sophisticated network management tools can also be used to make a fortune for wireless providers who want to nickle and dime customers to death with usage fees, or open up new markets pitching Wi-Fi networks to new customers.
Bubley
For example, a wireless carrier could sell a retail store ready-to-run Wi-Fi that pushes customers to a well-controlled, store-run network while customers shop — a network that forbids access to competitors or online merchants, in an effort to curtail browsing for items while comparing prices (or worse ordering) online from a competitor.
Customers could also face smartphones programmed to connect automatically to a Wi-Fi network, while excluding access to others while a “preferred” network is in range. Wireless carriers could develop the same Internet Overcharging schemes for Wi-Fi use that they have rolled out for 3G and 4G wireless network access. Also available: speed throttles for “non-preferred” applications, speed controls for less-valued ‘heavy users,’ and establishment of extra-fee “roaming charges” for using a non-preferred Wi-Fi network.
Bubley warns carriers not to go too far.
“[We] believe that operators need to internalize the concept of ‘WiFiNeutrality’ – actively blocking or impeding the user’s choice of hotspot or private Wi-Fi is likely to be as divisive and controversial as blocking particular Internet services,” Bubley writes.
I’m increasingly convinced that mobile device / computing users will need sophisticated WiFi connection management tools in the near future. Specifically, ones that allow them to choose between multiple possible accesses in any given location, based on a variety of parameters. I’m also doubtful that anyone will want to allow a specific service provider’s software to take control and choose for them – at least not always.
We may see the emergence of “WiFi Neutrality” as an issue, if particular WiFi accesses start to be either blocked or “policy-managed” aggressively.
[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Future of Wi-Fi.flv[/flv]
Edgar Figueroa, chief executive officer of The Wi-Fi Alliance, speaks about the future of Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi technology has matured dramatically since its introduction more than a decade ago and today we find Wi-Fi in a wide variety of applications, devices and environments. (3 minutes)
[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPIX NY NYPD Anti-Terror Units Monitoring Verizon Strikers 8-13-11.flv[/flv]
Members of the New York City Police Department’s Critical Response anti-terrorism unit have been deployed to monitor Verizon workers on picket lines in several New York locations. Striking workers wonder how much New Yorkers are paying in tax dollars to provide de-facto security for Verizon. “The company made $19-billion in profit, they can’t afford to bring out their own security to watch their own men,” asked Jon Granziel, a veteran of 21-years with Verizon. WPIX in New York has the story. (3 minutes)
One of the conditions Comcast had to agree to as part of its multi-billion dollar deal to acquire NBC-Universal was to throw a bone to some of America’s poorest households by offering discount Internet access for three years. Comcast agreed and is rolling out low-speed Internet at a discount in time for the upcoming school year.
“Comcast Internet Essentials,” is the ultimate in bare-bones Internet. For $9.95 a month, customers in Comcast service areas will get 1.5Mbps download speed and 384kbps upstream, with the usual 250GB usage limit Comcast applies to everyone. But not just anyone can qualify. Comcast has limited the program only to households with at least one child qualified to receive free (not discounted) school lunches under the National School Lunch Program. So if your income-challenged household doesn’t include children, or you pay for your own school lunches, you are out of luck.
Comcast is also denying access to anyone who has had any level of Comcast Internet service within the last 90 days. So if you’ve scraped enough money together to pay Comcast’s regular prices, the cable company is not going to give you a break.
If your kids graduate or are removed from the school lunch program, your inexpensive Internet service goes with it.
If you have been late on a Comcast bill, or owe the company for unreturned cable equipment, you also cannot receive the service.
The company will also provide vouchers for a “discounted laptop” for $150 — a computer that turns out to be a netbook. At least it comes with Windows 7 (Starter Edition).
Comcast requires would-be customers to start with an application, available by phone, at 1-855-8-INTERNET (1-855-846-8376). The merger approval agreement required Comcast to provide the service for three years. Guess what happens to it when the requirement ends. No matter — Comcast is turning the entire affair to its public relations advantage, showing up on various media outlets promoting the program as if Comcast thought it up on its own. Not quite. We have three questions:
How many consumers would sign up for the service if Comcast offered $9.95 1.5Mbps to anyone who wanted it?
How many might consider downgrading their current service for something less expensive, especially if they are only interested in occasional web browsing?
Will the “digital divide” Comcast decries today be magically gone at the end of three years, when they quietly drop the program?
[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KRIV Houston Comcast Internet Essentials 8-8-11.mp4[/flv]
KRIV-TV in Houston explores the various conditions Comcast places on its Internet Essentials program. (2 minutes)
[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Low Cost Internet 8-10-11.flv[/flv]
Comcast’s David Cohen appeared on CNN promoting Comcast’s Internet Essentials as a way to “bridge the digital divide” — a disparity of access American ISP’s originally created with their excessively high-priced Internet services. (3 minutes)
Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about. Members of Broadband for America Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to […]
Astroturf: One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is “Astroturf lobbying” – creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power. Astroturf lobbying is hardly a new approach. Senator Lloyd Bentsen is credited with coining the term in the 1980s to […]
Hong Kong remains bullish on broadband. Despite the economic downturn, City Telecom continues to invest millions in constructing one of Hong Kong’s largest fiber optic broadband networks, providing fiber to the home connections to residents. City Telecom’s HK Broadband service relies on an all-fiber optic network, and has been dubbed “the Verizon FiOS of Hong […]
BendBroadband, a small provider serving central Oregon, breathlessly announced the imminent launch of new higher speed broadband service for its customers after completing an upgrade to DOCSIS 3. Along with the launch announcement came a new logo of a sprinting dog the company attaches its new tagline to: “We’re the local dog. We better be […]
Stop the Cap! reader Rick has been educating me about some of the new-found aggression by Shaw Communications, one of western Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, in expanding its business reach across Canada. Woe to those who get in the way. Novus Entertainment is already familiar with this story. As Stop the Cap! reported previously, Shaw […]
The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail. [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some […]
In March 2000, two cable magnates sat down for the cable industry equivalent of My Dinner With Andre. Fine wine, beautiful table linens, an exquisite meal, and a Monopoly board with pieces swapped back and forth representing hundreds of thousands of Canadian consumers. Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw drew a line on the western Ontario […]
Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them. This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment […]
I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes. Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by […]
In 2007, we took our first major trip away from western New York in 20 years and spent two weeks an hour away from Calgary, Alberta. After two weeks in Kananaskis Country, Banff, Calgary, and other spots all over southern Alberta, we came away with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Good Alberta […]
A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.” The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling […]
Less than half of Americans surveyed by PC Magazine report they are very satisfied with the broadband speed delivered by their Internet service provider. PC Magazine released a comprehensive study this month on speed, provider satisfaction, and consumer opinions about the state of broadband in their community. The publisher sampled more than 17,000 participants, checking […]