Rep. James Boles Jr. of Moore County seen yawning as the North Carolina Legislature worked long hours to close the session for the year. (Photo: Charlotte Observer photographer Corey Lowenstein)

A bill to temporarily ban municipal broadband projects in North Carolina went down in flames early Saturday after a marathon 19-hour closing session of the legislature allowed a handful of pro-consumer legislators to finally corner and kill the bill.  But that victory would not have come without a coordinated effort by consumers and communities across the state vociferously objecting to legislation designed to protect the duopoly of phone and cable service offered by Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink.

This was the fourth attempt by big telecom companies to get state legislators to do their bidding.  It’s almost as if they want to work harder to stop competitors from delivering service than they work at delivering it themselves.  North Carolina is ranked 41st out of 50 states in broadband adoption. Significant areas of the state are not served by any broadband provider, and broadband speeds experienced by customers in North Carolina are among the slowest in the country.

This year’s battle was among the most difficult because its biggest backer, retiring Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston), was considered a heavyweight in the legislature, serving in the North Carolina Senate for 18 years.

The drama that would eventually wind its way to the bill’s demise began late Friday evening in an overnight session of the state legislature.

Catharine Rice from the SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA) is our tour guide through the winding, treacherous waters of a North Carolina legislature in its final hours of the session for the year:

Saturday morning, July 11, at 5 a.m., the NC House of Representatives killed Senator Hoyle’s (D-Gaston) attempt  to force a moratorium on municipalities seeking to provide their communities broadband service. This was the industry’s 3rd (actually 4th) attempt to stop municipalities from providing superior broadband infrastructure to the communities.

Rep. Luebke

The bill died on Saturday after a one-two punch. First, the House Ways & Means Committee had refused to hear S1209 since June 8, under the hands of Committee Chair-Rep. Faison (D-Orange, Caswell), when it crossed from the Senate to the House. Then late Friday evening, the House itself added an amendment to its Study Authorization Bill (SB900) permitting, but not requiring, the Revenue Laws Study Committee to study the laws and circumstances surrounding municipalities providing broadband service to their communities, but dropping all other terms of S1209, mainly  the moratorium. The Senate concurred with House bill 900 unanimously later in the evening (9:49pm) and it was enrolled for review and signature by the Governor. (See Sections 7.5 (a) and (b) here)

Ten minutes later, Sen. Clodfelter introduced H455, a bill whose effect would have changed the approach of the House’s version of the municipal bbnd study. With H455, Senator Clodfelter gutted a House kidney awareness bill, and poured into it the “study” portion of S1209 (Hoyle’s Anti-Muni broadband bill), changing the House version by setting a date certain when the study (and recommended legislation) would have to be completed (March 2011), and increasing the number of seats on the subcommittee from 12 to 14, adding assigned seats for telephone coops and the NC County. The House version did not mandate a study, but made it optional, did not specifically authorize the committee to recommend legislation, and set the seats for the subcommittee at 12, naming 8 with an additional four unassigned seats. Clodfelter’s H455 contained two other sections, one addressing a fluke in sales tax refunds for MI-Connection, the Mooresville-Davidson muni broadband system.

Around 2:45 Saturday morning, on Rep. Paul Luebke’s (D-Durham) motion, the House denied concurrence with the Senate on H455 (96 to deny, 1 to allow). At 3:45 a.m., the House approved a Senate/House conference committee report for the purpose of keeping only one section of H455, (effectively deleting H455′s changes to the House study version of S1209). H455 (here) now provides a state sales tax refund status for Davidson and Mooresville’s MI-CONNECTION system, status the two towns would have if individually providing cable service, but from which they were disqualified by having  joined together to provide broadband cable  service.  On a vote of 91 to 6, the House approved the Senate/House conference report. At 4:55 a.m. the Senate concurred with that report and it was enrolled for the Governor’s attention.

Source: SpeedMatters/CWA

Bottom line, the effort to place a moratorium on consideration for new municipal broadband projects in the state is dead for 2010.  The next opportunity big telecom has for another anti-consumer bill is in January 2011.  At least the North Carolina legislature passed some additional ethics and government reform measures that will give consumers even more tools to fight the next battle:

• It toughens penalties for illegal campaign donations above $10,000.  As we’ve seen repeatedly, big campaign contributions can make all the difference when legislators throw their constituents’ interests under the bus.  Big phone and cable interests are among the most generous contributors, making it easy to find one or more members willing to carry their legislative agenda forward;
• Requires board and commission members to account for campaign fundraising activities for elected officials who appointed them.  A case of mutual back-scratching, powerful legislators can often find places for their special interest friends and supporters to serve on state commissions and boards.
• Expands personnel information that must be released to the public about state employees.  We saw the implications of conflicts of interest in the legislature this past session when one member contemplating municipal broadband bans also happened to be one of Time Warner Cable’s engineering contractors.  More information, this time about past work by state employees, prevents these kinds of conflicts from staying secret.

Please thank Reps. Faison and Luebke for their hard work to stop the broadband moratorium.  It’s unfortunate Rep. Faison’s efforts to bring better broadband to Caswell County, part of his district, were unsuccessful.  But at least Caswell County leaders won’t face a broadband moratorium should they wish to renew their efforts to provide broadband service where CenturyLink will not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WBTV Charlotte Salisbury A Wired Community 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Why we fight.  Communities like Salisbury, N.C., can now move forward on their own municipal broadband projects.  Back in May, WBTV-TV in Charlotte highlighted Fibrant, the community’s answer to bad service from incumbent providers.  (4 minutes)

I’d like to hear your impressions of Clear’s 4G wireless broadband service, which is also known as Road Runner Mobile in Time Warner Cable territories or Comcast High Speed 2Go where Comcast provides cable service.

I am specifically looking for speed results, coverage impressions — whether the coverage maps reflect reality or not, and what type of wireless modem you’ve chosen with the service.  Also, customer service impressions are welcomed.  Feel free to leave your comments in our comment section or use the Contact Us link above if you’d prefer to remain anonymous.  Please remember to include your city and state.

YouTube is littered with negative reviews and complaints about the service, but I’d like to hear from our readers.

Here is one annoyed customer who literally attached her USB modem to a broom handle and mounted it halfway up the side of her home and still could not connect. (Warning: Profanity) (3 minutes)

Frontier Communications rented a conference room at the Charleston Embassy Suites, calling it a "command center" for the transition. (Courtesy: Charleston Gazette/Lawrence Pierce)

No state faces a larger impact from Verizon’s exit than West Virginia.  The epitome of the kind of market Verizon doesn’t want to serve any longer, West Virginia suffered through several years of Verizon not keeping up with required investments in the aging landline network, and service had markedly deteriorated as a result.  West Virginia is mountainous — expensive to maintain infrastructure, often rural — reducing potential revenues, and economically-challenged — killing the chances of making “triple-play” sales (and profits) in communities where customers have to watch every penny.

West Virginia was also the epicenter of the loudest controversy over the sale, as unions and consumer groups opposed the transaction because of its enormous threat to an entire state’s landline network.  A failure by Frontier would result in the kind of drama experienced by northern New England customers of FairPoint Communications, who suffered with more than a year of horrible service and inaccurate billing.

So news that Frontier has run into problems in the state just one week in, despite sending 250 extra employees into the area for the conversion, has raised concerns with the Public Service Commission, as well as those impacted by problems and outages.  Frontier has tried to put its best face forward, with employees holed up in a self-described “command center” in a conference room at the local Embassy Suites in Charleston.  On the day before the handover, press photographers were able to snap pictures of Frontier employees seated at long conference tables facing one another, with laptops open.  A digital projector showed PowerPoint slides that promoted the “new Frontier” while a temporary company banner tacked to a corner wall rippled over a stand.  A high tech glitz and glamor presentation this was not.

David Armentrout, president and chief operating officer of FiberNet was underwhelmed by all of it.  His company requires connections with West Virginia’s landline provider to deliver full service to his clients.  Prior to the handover, Armentrout said FiberNet had 43 outstanding trouble tickets on file with Verizon.  But Verizon apparently never handed over those support tickets to Frontier, effectively losing them after the transition.  Now that Frontier has taken over, Armentrout’s company has had to open 113 trouble tickets for problems old and new.

Armentrout complained about the lack of results from Frontier in the pages of the Charleston Daily Mail:

Armentrout said that after consistently being put on hold for more than an hour when trying to reach Frontier to talk about outstanding trouble tickets, “we had a meeting with their senior team on Saturday. We said this was not acceptable. Since then they’ve given us a work-around with two dedicated Frontier employees. When we get an hour hold time, we contact these dedicated employees.

“Another issue we’ve had is, we’ve had to contact our customers directly to verify the status of their trouble tickets because the (Frontier) system doesn’t tell us the status,” he said. “As a result of having to contact our customers directly and working with Frontier on all of these issues since July 1, our dedicated team has spent over 200 man-hours working on these issues.

“When you look at the results: six of 43 completed and three of 113 completed, we’re doing a lot of work and spending a lot of man hours but not really seeing a lot of service issues being resolved.

“Unfortunately on Friday the Public Service Commission was closed,” Armentrout said. “We made attempts to get in touch with them because we recognized we would have the problems we’re continuing to have today. I want our customers to know we’re doing everything we can to get these issues resolved.

“Several individuals within Frontier have exhibited good-faith efforts to resolve these issues,” he said. “We commend them for their efforts. But what we’re looking for is results. We need to get these issues fixed. They’ve made efforts but at the end of the day we’re still not getting where we need to be.

“Come Tuesday when business gets back to normal we can expect these numbers to increase unless we get these issues resolved,” Armentrout said. “Our intention is to go to the Public Service Commission on Tuesday and get them involved to make sure these issues are getting resolved as quickly as possible. It has been a long weekend.”

Ken Arndt, president of Frontier’s Southeast Region, issued a statement Sunday that unconvincingly blamed some of the delayed fixes on the recent death of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd:

“We are doing the necessary work needed to correct old and current issues. It’s Day 4 and overall this has been a very successful conversion. That is especially true when you remember that Day 2 was marked by the presence of the President and Vice President of the United States and many members of Congress at the memorial for Sen. Robert Byrd. We made sure Frontier’s system performed flawlessly.”

The newspaper notes Verizon’s landline network in the state is notorious for having problems when there are storms, and since the July 1st transition there have not been any.  Armentrout agrees, hoping that Frontier’s outstanding issues get resolved before the first major storm hits the state, which could come as early as Friday.  Armentrout calls the first severe weather challenge Frontier faces “the mid-term exam.”

Taking the longer view, Frontier promises it will spend millions in West Virginia to update the state’s landline infrastructure and expand broadband availability.  Frontier announced the hiring of nine regional managers to oversee operations across the state, including Mitch Carmichael, a delegate in the West Virginian legislature representing Jackson.  Carmichael is a former computer salesman who will now manage Frontier’s Parkersburg office.

Customers are less impressed.  Many have experienced lengthy outages with their DSL service since the transition — a bad omen for many Charleston residents who immediately called Suddenlink, the area’s cable company, to switch service providers.  Another Charleston customer called Frontier’s continued reliance on a Yahoo!-provided “front end” “really low class.”  In nearby Huntington, a few customers couldn’t say much about what changed after Frontier took over because their phone service went out on the 1st and was still out a week later.

“I hope they don’t raise the bill since we have not had any phone service at all since 11:00am on July 1st when Frontier took over,” wrote one customer. “With my phone service out since Saturday and a new promise of repairs to be made by Tuesday July 6th, I am waiting to see where Frontier improves service in rural West Virginia. The Verizon employees would just as soon as to tell you anything — same people, just a different company. Frontier needs to have a major house cleaning, as their tales haven’t changed along with the service,” writes another.

A handful also complained that their Frontier phone service cost plenty more than what Verizon charged:

“My parents have Frontier and their bill is twice as high as my Verizon. We have the DSL and the freedom package (unlimited long distance, call waiting, voicemail and caller ID) and my bill is $78 a month.  My parents only have local calling, call waiting, voicemail, caller ID, and DSL and their bill is over $120 with no long distance,” he writes.  “How is this take over going to help anyone other than Frontier? I’m going to cable for Internet and phone.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Charleston Frontier Carriers Experience Minor Problems 7-6-10.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV in Charleston says some companies are experiencing minor problems in the West Virginian conversion from Verizon to Frontier.  (2 minutes)

For more than a year, Stop the Cap! has been covering the issue of broadband mapping, warning against allowing incumbent telecommunications companies from being able to control or influence statewide maps that show who has broadband, and who does not.  A perfect example of why we repeatedly call out telecom-connected groups like Connected Nation being granted a piece of the mapping action can be found this weekend in a guest editorial published in the Fort Worth Star–Telegram written by Todd Baxter, vice president of government affairs and general counsel for the Austin-based Texas Cable Association — the Texas cable lobby:

Newly released maps show that broadband — high-speed Internet — is widely available in Texas. They also underscore that the broadband stimulus program has been ill-conceived and poorly executed by the federal government.

That’s because the federal government put the cart before the horse.

It gave out more than $270 million of your money to a dozen projects in Texas before actually determining where current broadband operators provide service. Common sense would say to find out where broadband is, or isn’t, available before spending the money.

The feds also should better define “underserved,” since the money is intended to help both unserved and underserved areas. It sounds like a riddle — how many broadband providers have to serve a household before it isn’t considered “underserved”? So far that riddle has no answer, and it is costing you, the taxpayer, a lot of money.

Without the data or the definition, how can the federal government make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely and where it is really needed?

Now that we have the maps, we can see that more than 99 percent of all Texans can access some form of broadband, whether wired, wireless or mobile, from more than 123 providers. Yet — without this information — the federal government awarded hundreds of millions in grants and loans to the Texas projects, with possibly more to come before the broadband stimulus program wraps up in September.

The Texas Cable Association formally objected to seven of the dozen Texas projects when in the application stage, because the areas addressed are already covered by existing broadband providers. We don’t believe the areas are unserved or underserved.

Just a few weeks ago, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, with great fanfare, unveiled the current state of broadband in Texas.  Connected Texas, a subsidiary of Connected Nation joined forces with the state government to perform a broadband census across the state, based on voluntary information provided confidentially by existing service providers.  The result was the stunning “achievement” that 97 percent of Texas already had broadband access, quite a revelation to the scores of consumers who aren’t served by cable companies and cannot get DSL service from the phone company, even if the Broadband Map of Texas says they can.

Texas Broadband Map (click to enlarge)

Kelly from Childress, located in the Texas panhandle, is a perfect example.  She writes Stop the Cap! to tell us how thrilled she was to see the phone company had finally brought DSL service to her street just on the outskirts of town.  She had nagged everyone she could for more than three years about her lack of broadband.  The cable company offered service, if she paid $9,300 for installation of an extended cable line to reach her.  The phone company, despite serving her neighbors less than 1/2 mile away, said she was not “qualified” to receive DSL service.  Today, her husband and two kids do access broadband service, albeit from the equivalent of the broadband black market.  Her nearest neighbor has rigged a souped up Wi-Fi system that allows her family to share the neighbor’s DSL account.  A directional antenna mounted on the roof of each home provides line-of-sight access.  They split the cost of the account and Kelly, an accomplished baker, keeps her neighbors well-supplied with some great pies in gratitude.

Connected Texas collected the information about where broadband service was supposedly available in Texas

Texas has a well-deserved reputation for neighbors helping neighbors to solve problems they’ve long since decided the government can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t solve for them.  Now that neighborly spirit has taken a high-tech approach to share broadband.

With the release of the new broadband map, Kelly thought the days of sharing accounts was over, and she called the phone company to sign up for service.  But, in no surprise to us, broadband availability to her home changed only on paper, not in reality.  No, she was told, she could not sign up for DSL service today or tomorrow for that matter — the company had no plans to extend service her way… indefinitely.

For others, the map is inaccurate because it shows service from dominant cable and phone companies, but ignores the competition.  Regular Stop the Cap! reader Michael Chaney noted, “I know for a fact this map is inaccurate. They show no fiber to the home coverage in Cedar Park, Williamson County, even though I’ve had residential fiber service for almost two years.”

In 2009, Public Knowledge released a report highly critical of Connected Nation, the group responsible for broadband mapping across many states.  Among the findings:

In order to be effective, a national broadband data-collection and mapping exercise should be conducted by a government agency, on behalf of the public, with as granular a degree of information as possible and be totally transparent so that underlying information can be evaluated.

Connected Nation is none of those and represents none of those characteristics. It is an organization sponsored by the telephone and cable companies and represents their interests in deciding what data to collect and how information should be displayed. They are quite up front about their company sponsorship and, in fact, believe it is an asset, if in a way counter to solid public policy.

It would be a setback for our broadband policy if Connected Nation were to take a prominent role in broadband mapping and data collection if it continues on its present policy course because the organization does not represent wise public policy and because it distorts its results.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) was correct in April, 2008, when he vetoed a $2.4 million appropriation for Connect Kentucky, which until then had received almost $7 million from the commonwealth. Beshear said that the program was being rejected for state financing because it had asked for funds “without specifically identifying any services to be rendered to the state or providing for any oversight, control or performance measures relative to the services being rendered.”

The group’s close association to incumbent cable and telephone company interests were easily apparent just from the national organization’s board which has 12 outside directors, eight of whom are well known cable and phone company lobbyists or those with direct interests in the industry:

• James W. Cicconi – AT&T senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs
• Steve Largent – CTIA – The Wireless Association president and CEO
• Joseph W. Waz – Comcast senior vice president, external affairs and public policy counsel
• Larry Cohen – Communications Workers of America president. CWA is in frequent agreement with telecom companies on policy issues.
• Thomas J. Tauke – Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communication
• Walter B. McCormick – United States Telecom Association president
• Kyle E. McSlarrow – National Cable and Telecommunications Association president
• Grant Seiffert – Telecommunications Industry Association president. (The members are the equipment makers who sell their gear to the telecom industry.)

These individuals, and others, are listed as “national advisors” on the Connected Nation Web site. They are listed as “directors” in their filing with the Kentucky Secretary of State.

The implications of allowing incumbent service providers to influence broadband mapping can be seen in Baxter’s editorial.  If Texas cable and phone companies can declare broadband service available even in areas where it is not, they can then argue against broadband stimulus projects to expand availability as an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.  The answer to Baxter’s riddle is, unfortunately, too often “none.”  Areas that declare access to wireless broadband, cable and DSL often have access to none of these options.  The cable company doesn’t wire that Texas ranch located too far away from the phone company for DSL and is in an area that just can’t get a good wireless signal.

In smaller communities in rural Texas, efforts by local entrepreneurs to launch needed local broadband services often meet fierce opposition from incumbent interests who declare communities already served, backed up with a map that shows coverage, and therefore should not be allowed to receive stimulus funding.  Often, objections from existing providers effectively disqualifies stimulus applicants and the result is a continued blockade for rural broadband.

The dividend Connected Nation hands to the Texas Cable Association is the political argument that there is no broadband problem in Texas — nearly 100 percent of homes can already access it.  That means broadband stimulus is, in the eyes of the cable lobby, just another federal government giveaway — wasteful spending of tax dollars.  Just look at the Texas Broadband Map and see for yourself.

The Texas Department of Agriculture failed the people of Texas by relying on a group with a vested interest in not finding a broadband availability problem.  And even worse — taxpayers nationwide effectively picked up the $3 million dollars in grant money given to Connected Nation for its map.  That’s a waste of tax dollars that Baxter didn’t bother to bring up.  Somehow I knew he wouldn’t.

A full page ad from Verizon mocks Apple's iPhone reception problems (click to enlarge)

Apple wants customers to believe it’s not a head-slapping design flaw that is bringing iPhone reception to its knees when holding the phone, it’s the software that is telling you AT&T’s reception quality is better than it really is. Change the formula to calculate how many bars of signal strength AT&T is not delivering to its customers, problem solved.

But just how will Apple make its fan base believe those dropped calls and lousy data transmission rates, made worse when holding the phone “the wrong way” are just the result of some software bug?

In a statement released Friday, Apple told worried customers the latest version of the phone remained the best it had ever produced, and the lack of signal shown on the display is a software problem (inferring AT&T’s usual network issues), not a fundamental design flaw:

Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2 bars. Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak signal strength, but they don’t know it because we are erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place.

To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area. We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see.

We will issue a free software update within a few weeks that incorporates the corrected formula. Since this mistake has been present since the original iPhone, this software update will also be available for the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G.

In other words, Apple is banking that its fans are so enamored with the company and its products that just making a software change will convince customers the phone isn’t the problem. Will AT&T’s already lousy customer rating take an even bigger hit when Apple passes the buck for its design flaws to the cell phone provider?

The ongoing revelations of the flaws in the latest iteration of the Apple iPhone are stunning, if only because they were completely missed during beta testing by company employees. As we learned several weeks ago from the Apple employee who left his phone behind in a California bar, some prototype phones didn’t use the “innovative” case design now implicated in the “grip of death.”  Perhaps other Bay Area testers just assumed the bouncing signal strength meter was simply AT&T-as-usual.

Now that the signal issue, among others, has been made the star of the iPhone show on YouTube, Apple has launched into damage control mode.  What Apple does to regain your trust depends on what type of customer you are:

Tech-minded, Informed Consumers: Apple will have the most trouble convincing these customers to sign-on the iPhone bandwagon, especially now.  Many have refused to hop on board all-along, unwilling to sacrifice their wireless phone service to AT&T.  While many of these customers would happily buy an iPhone… from Verizon, news of technical defects and design faults will not inspire confidence.

Tech-minded Early-Adopters: Apple will need to fix its problems with the iPhone to keep these customers happy.  They are the first to buy new products and are more forgiving of early manufacturing faults (and are among those who probably first documented and reported them), but they won’t forgive intransigence and PR nonsense.  These customers want honest answers, a schedule for a solution, and mitigation — a few free iPhone case bumpers as a consolation would probably make many of these customers happy.

Non-technical Apple Devotees: If it’s from Apple, these people will buy it.  They don’t have the first clue about the technical mumbo-jumbo that explains the design flawed antenna on the newest phone, and probably don’t care.  They are loyal Apple customers, but they’ll happily slam AT&T for dropping their calls.  Most of these customers are probably blaming any reception issues exclusively on AT&T already.

The Fanboys & Fashion-Minded: These are the folks who perennially set up the lawn chairs in front of Apple stores 15 hours before the launch of every version of the iPhone.  A criticism of Apple is a personal affront, and they’ve probably already bought the company explanation for the issue.  The fashion-minded treat the iPhone as a must-have personal accessory.  Nothing short of a total failure of the phone will pry them loose from grabbing the latest version of the phone they need to be seen with.

For those without (or who don’t care about) iPhones, watching customers wait in long lines, proclaiming all things from Apple to be good — quickly followed by torch-bearing complaints when they are not so good brings  rolling eyes and mutterings about why someone would punish themselves over a phone.

Potentially the most irritating of all is the fact Apple could make money from its design failure — by advocating consumers spend a ludicrous $30 on what is little more than a rubber band to protect the rim of the phone from your hand.  Apple is selling their “bumper” case one to a package in multiple colors.  For that amount of money, consumers should get one of every color.  A company memo underscored the fact Apple was not about to give these out for free to aggravated customers.  Why lose an opportunity to extract even more cash from devoted customers?

[flv width=”536″ height=”420″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MSNBC iPhone Troubles 7-6-2010.flv[/flv]

MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ was unimpressed with customers who first lauded and then “whined” about their iPhone purchases, after revelations of inherent design flaws and other quality control issues threaten to turn the product sensation into the Toyota of telephones. (3 minutes)

Class action law firms are salivating at the prospects, and attorneys claim no “software fix” is going to suddenly make the iPhone’s antenna design issues go away:

• One suit filed on behalf of Steve Tietze and others in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeks class action status. Tietze accuses Apple of unfair competition, false and misleading advertising, breach of warranty, and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
• A second was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of Kevin McCaffrey, Linda Wrinn, and others accusing Apple and AT&T of knowingly distributing a phone with a malfunctioning antenna. The suit charges general negligence, defect in design, manufacture, and assembly, breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and fraud by concealment.
• Two others: Alan Benvenisty v. Apple, 10-2885, and Christopher Dydyk v. Apple, 10-2897, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).  “Apple’s sale of the iPhone with this unannounced defect, assuming Apple’s prior knowledge of the defect, constitutes misrepresentation and fraud,” said Christopher Dydyk of Cambridge, Massachusetts in his complaint. “In omitting to disclose the defect in the iPhone 4, Apple perpetrated a massive fraud upon hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting customers.”  Dydyk wants Apple to hand out free “bumper” cases that cover the antenna in rubber to prevent signal issues.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WJZ Baltimore Lawsuits Filed Over New iPhone 4 7-2-10.flv[/flv]

WJZ-TV in Baltimore covers the Maryland lawsuit seeking class action status.  Baltimore area residents filed the suit against both AT&T and Apple.  (1 minute)

Other phone manufacturers are laughing themselves silly at Apple’s declaration that all smartphones lose reception and drop calls based on how you hold the phone. Nokia is having a field day at Apple’s expense, promoting the fact you can hold their phones anyway you like and won’t suffer signal degradation:

One of the main things we’ve found about the 1 billion plus Nokia devices that are in use today is that when making a phone call, people generally tend to hold their phone like a…. well, like a phone. Providing a wide range of methods and grips for people to hold their phones, without interfering with the antennae, has been an essential feature of every device Nokia has built.

Of course, feel free to ignore all of the above because realistically, you’re free to hold your Nokia device any way you like. And you won’t suffer any signal loss. Cool, huh?

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington iPhone Signal Strength Can Drop 7-5-10.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV in Washington spoke with Washington Post Tech Reporter Rob Pegoraro who discussed the signal ‘death grip’ and characterized AT&T’s service quality: “we have terrible coverage and we were lying to you [about it] all along.” The report also seriously questions Apple’s claims of a “software glitch” asking why a software problem would cause calls to drop when holding the phone “the wrong way.”  (4 minutes)

Apple’s public relations problem continued to grow this week when it declared earlier reports of terse e-mails purporting to be from Steve Jobs as fakes.  Boy Genius Report, who compensated one recipient of the e-mails, posted e-mail headers that they represent proves the messages did, in fact, come from Apple.

Apple also was caught in a case of bad timing when blogs discovered the company posting help wanted ads seeking antenna engineers, which seemed ironic coming after the release of the much-anticipated iPhone 4.

One biochemist offered his advice for free:

Subject: HowToFix for minimal cost — hydrophobic organic thin film layer

Hi,

In truth, Apple’s explanation for iPhone 4 signal reception problem is inaccurate at best and disingenuous at worst. iPhone users are in some of the hottest and most humid parts of the country this summer and have salty, damp hands especially at events such as baseball games, barbecues, or other outdoor activities. having bare metal antennae purposely handled will absolutely short the signal. This problem will be difficult to reproduce in Apple’s labs because the engineers are required to wash their hands before touching devices, which also strips off the natural hand electrolytes that are ever-present in the field on a hot day.

Anyway, the solution is not a redesign of the phone, but rather an electrically insulating organic hydrophobic layer atop the bare metal. a variety of plastics will work, such as polyethers, polystyrenes, or nylons. you could even use the plastic labels ever-present on aluminum soda cans, which likewise have an electrically insulating effect when holding said cans. these plastic coatings can be very very thin films which do not ruin the aesthetics of the device, and would require a minimal change of your production line. More importantly, this coating in no way affects the ability to recycle the aluminum — the organic thin film layer will burn away cleanly during the aluminum remelt process. Phones that have already shipped could easily be coated with this new layer at any Apple retail store or with a simple kit you could send to your customers.

In summary, this is a problem of electrochemistry, and certainly NOT a problem of software design, nor one that can possibly be solved by a software update.

Apple needs to hire some chemists.

Best regards,
XXXXXXXXXX, Ph.D.

KWGN-TV in Denver noted job postings from Apple seeking the help of experienced antenna engineers to help with their iPhone product line.  (3 minutes)

Several additional videos detailing the saga of the iPhone 4’s bugs are included below the jump.

… Continue Reading