As AT&T and Verizon discover an increasing amount of their revenue and profits come from their respective wireless divisions, they’re testing the waters to determine just how much more consumers are willing to pay for cell phone and wireless broadband services.

Verizon Wireless has spent the past year closing loopholes of various kinds and herding an increasing number of customers into mandatory data plans which can add up to $30 a month per phone to your monthly bill.  AT&T wants more if you plan on early upgrades for your cell phone.  A quick review:

Verizon Wireless Locks Down Prepaid Phone Models: Anyone who has shopped for a prepaid phone has probably noticed them dangling from hooks in Walmart and other stores at prices starting around $20.  Most of these prepaid phones are basic models or those deemed cutting edge a few years ago.  Take the LG 5600 — the Accolade.  It’s a phone your father would be comfortable with, covering the basics and designed primarily for making and receiving phone calls.  Verizon Wireless’ retail price for its “postpaid” customers (those who get and pay a bill every month) is $199.99 for the Accolade.  Of course, if you sign a new two-year contract, the phone is free.  But you can find the exact same phone, labeled for Verizon’s prepaid service at prices as low as $15.88.

Verizon claims the deep, deep discounts on prepaid phones are made back from the higher prices prepaid customers pay for airtime.  Some enterprising Verizon postpaid customers have sought these models out to replace or upgrade a worn out or broken phone without having to sign a new two-year contract.  Some other prepaid companies have also activated Verizon’s prepaid phones on their own network, including Page Plus.

Verizon has put the kibosh on both practices.  Customers seeking to activate a prepaid phone on a postpaid account must first use the phone in prepaid mode for a minimum of six months prior to its conversion to postpaid use.  Until very recently, some customers discovered a loophole around this requirement — registering a prepaid phone first on Verizon’s website and then activating it by dialing *228.  So long as a phone had never been activated, it often could be used on a postpaid account from the date of purchase.  But now Verizon tracks which phones are intended for postpaid and prepaid use, and that loophole has been closed.

Page Plus, which resells Verizon’s network, also had to stop activating Verizon prepaid phones almost a year ago.

As a result, those who want discounted cell phone service but keep Verizon’s robust network coverage have been forced to buy handsets at retail pricing, purchase one of several mostly refurbished phones direct from Page Plus, or activate an older phone no longer in use.

Avoiding the Data Plan: What drives an increasing number of Verizon off-contract customers towards “creative solutions” for upgrading their more than two year old phones is resistance to the expensive data plan required for most of their newest and best phones.  For these customers, renewing a contract means a plan change that includes $30 a month extra for data services or a phone downgrade to a basic model to avoid a data plan. Verizon’s remaining data-plan exempt handsets are:

• Verizon Wireless CDM8975
• LG Accolade™
• LG Cosmos™
• Pantech Jest™
• Samsung Gusto™
• Verizon Wireless Salute™
• Verizon Wireless Escapade®
• Samsung Haven™
• Samsung Intensity™
• Samsung Convoy™
• Motorola Barrage™

For large families accustomed to mid-level phones, the prospect of being stuck with a Jitterbug-like-downgrade or a $30 data plan has kept many from renewing their contracts, sticking with what they already own.

When AT&T announced the end of its flat rate smartphone plan, it said the lower pricing on smaller allowance data packages would represent “savings” for consumers reluctant to upgrade.  It’s hard to accept the same company that set prices so high for data usage in the first place has consumer interests at heart with usage-limited alternatives, especially when they no longer offer an unlimited option for customers who want one.

Verizon also plans to drop its unlimited plan in the near future.  Also on tap is a gradual shift away from so-called “mid-level” phones that consumers can purchase with a reduced rate, but still-mandatory $10 data plan.  Verizon increasingly will push customers between two stark choices — a high-powered, battery-eating smartphone that will give you a heart attack if you drop it or a very basic, stripped down phone with features commonly found on handsets five years ago.

This kind of pricing is driving some cash-strapped consumers to prepaid alternatives, such as Page Plus and Straight Talk on Verizon’s network and Wal-Mart’s new family prepaid plan on T-Mobile.  This is especially true if customers just want to talk and text.

AT&T’s Increases ‘Early Upgrade Price’ for Data-Friendly Smartphones by $125

Boy Genius Report obtained a copy of an AT&T memo to its sales force notifying them the price for “Early Upgrade Pricing,” traditionally charged customers who must have the latest and greatest, or accidentally lose or destroy their existing phone, is going up — way up, from $75 to $200:

Beginning Oct. 3rd, Early (Exception) Upgrade pricing for Smartphones will increase from the two-year price plus $75 to the two-year price plus $200.  This change does not apply to iPhone or Basic and Quick Messaging Phones.

Example: BlackBerry Torch $199.99 two-year price + $200 Early Upgrade fee = total price $399.99, a savings of $100 off the No-Commitment price of $499.99.

In return for just a $100 discount, customers sign a new two-year contract that begins with the phone’s replacement.  That contract includes the usual early termination fee of $325, which decreases by $10 per month.  AT&T watchers speculate the price change was designed to stop resale of relatively new phones on sites like eBay or Craigslist, where sellers charge near-retail prices and eat the formerly low penalty for an early upgrade.  It also makes the price of getting the very newest phones that much higher.

Cell Phone Lobby Resists Requirement for Early Warnings Alerting Customers Their Data Allowance Is Almost Gone: “It Will Cause Customer Confusion and Frustration”

Liz Szalay had to dip into her 401(k) retirement account to pay the family’s $2000 Verizon Wireless bill, gone wild with data fees her 14-year old son ran up searching for and downloading songs.

“I would never have allowed my son to accrue such charges, if I had known,” Szalay, a secretary in Niles, Michigan, told Bloomberg News. “What I did to prevent this from happening in the future was have his Internet access completely blocked by Verizon, but not before they made off with a boatload of money.”

Had Szalay received a text and/or e-mail message warning her one of the phones on her account was approaching 80 percent of its monthly data allowance, or was already at risk of racking up huge fees, it would have been possible to stop the damage before it began.

Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, wants to make sure she gets that warning.  Udall drafted legislation that would require companies to warn customers when they have used 80 percent of their allotment.

“It’s difficult for the carriers to get up and argue against greater transparency on bills and notifications,” Christopher King, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Baltimore told Bloomberg. “It’s becoming an issue on the front burner of regulators’ minds.”

The industry’s lobbyists are trying to block the legislation anyway.

The CTIA, the wireless industry lobbying group, is fiercely trying to kill Udall’s bill, claiming warnings will cause “customer confusion and frustration” and that carriers already offer customers the opportunity to check their usage by visiting carrier websites or via a text message.

The lobbyist solution requires consumers to be vigilant and check daily to make sure they don’t exceed any limits.  Udall’s idea puts the onus on phone companies to warn customers, who often have family members that have no idea what kind of cash bonanza they can provide a wireless provider just by using data features built into their phones.

Szalay’s son has a phone that doesn’t require a data plan, but incurs an enormous $1.99 in charges for every megabyte accessed online.  Verizon’s own website notes customers can consume 183 megabytes of data streaming music just five minutes a day for a month.  That’s $364 in data charges.  Five minutes downloading games — 440 megabytes or $875 in data fees.  One need not use their phone for hours a day to incur enormous fees for data usage.  Szalay’s son could have managed the $2,000 bill he caused using his phone for less than 15 minutes each day.

Verizon does not allow customers hit with these bills to retroactively sign up for a data plan to cover the costs, which are the same to Verizon whether a consumer incurs them on an unlimited $30 monthly data plan, or on a pay per use plan with a stinging penalty rate.

And the company objects to any government official telling them to warn customers before the overlimit fees kick in.

“We have several measures in place that allow our customers to monitor their usage and protect against overages — this is a proactive approach on Verizon’s part,” Verizon’s Smith told Bloomberg in an e-mailed statement.

How to Protect Yourself

Both Verizon and AT&T are masters of extracting a maximum amount of money from customers’ pockets.  Verizon is increasingly risking its high rating for customer service and quality by finding new ways to nickel and dime even long time customers to death.  AT&T already has earned a bad reputation and can’t drop much further unless it adopts Sprint’s old strategy of driving its own customers away.  Only through education and careful consideration of your family’s actual usage can you safely navigate around these shark-like wallet biters.

1.  Avoid cell phone company insurance plans unless you are concerned about theft.  With “early upgrade” plans, even at AT&T’s $200 price, it may not be worth paying an expensive monthly fee for insurance.  Also consider Squaretrade, a third party warranty/replacement provider.  They charge considerably lower prices than most (Google around for coupon codes offering up to 30 percent off).  If your phone breaks or is damaged, and you are not on a contract, you might find a suitable refurbished replacement through websites like eBay.  Just make sure the phone wasn’t designated for prepaid service to avoid activation hassles.

2.  If you want Verizon network quality, but don’t want to pay Verizon’s diamond-platinum pricing, consider doing business with one of the new prepaid providers offering month-to-month service that uses the same network as Verizon itself.  Walmart sells Straight Talk, but also consider Page Plus, which offers 1,200 minutes of call time, 1,200 texts, and 50MB of data use for $29.95 per month.  The only downside is that most prepaid providers don’t sell family plans, meaning each user pays the same price.  Walmart’s new prepaid plan changes that with the introduction of a shared family plan, with additional lines given discounted pricing.  But the discounts are not as good as postpaid plans offer, and the service relies on T-Mobile, which is not well-regarded for coverage outside of metropolitan areas.

3.  Smartphones, in addition to being expensive, often deliver horrible battery life.  Some won’t even make it through an entire business day.  Before seeking out one of these premium phones, consider whether you will actually use their features.  Is it worth the price of a $30 a month data plan if you only occasionally use the phone for wireless Internet?  Bragging rights come with a $200 up front price tag and a two year contract that will run up to $720 just for the data plan over two years.  If you drop it, lose it, or it gets stolen, the retail price for most of these phones is north of $500.

4.  Carriers design “gotcha” data pricing into their assumed revenue models.  They know even with online tools, nobody wants the hassle of checking their allowance for data every day, especially when most stopped checking their voice minutes allowance years ago.  While carriers occasionally waive gigantic bills, especially when the media gets involved, you can restrict data access on some or all of your phones if you do not have a data plan and don’t care about this feature.  You should support Senator Udall’s bill as well.  Carrier excuses that a warning message will cause confusion and frustration are laughable.  Getting a $2,000 wireless bill in the mail will cause far more of both.  That the industry objects to even this common sense approach illustrates just how rapacious wireless companies are for additional profits.

5. Educate everyone on your plan about the implications of using the phone to download music and games or watch video.  Unless you are on a flat rate plan, you may want to simply tell your family not to use their phones for these kinds of services without asking permission first.  This gives you an opportunity to check your allowance before Verizon gets a chance to reduce your bank balance.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cell Phone Savings 10-12-10.flv[/flv]

We have four reports covering consumer news on cell phones that can save you money:  KSHB-TV in Kansas City takes a look at Walmart’s new prepaid family plan using T-Mobile’s network, WIVB-TV in Buffalo reports Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) wants carriers to stop international roaming charges when customers end up making and receiving calls on a Canadian provider’s network from the American side of the border, WFTS-TV in Tampa provides tips on getting lower rates from your cell phone company and WTEV-TV in Jacksonville helps customers analyze cell phone bills for savings.  (6 minutes)

Back in the 1980s, a group of ragtag rural home satellite dishowners with 10 foot dishes took on the cable television industry for forcing viewers to purchase a set top decoder unit ($395) and paying programming prices higher than what cable viewers paid.  It was all part of an effort by the cable industry, which had an ownership interest in most cable networks back then, to discourage consumers from purchasing satellite dishes to escape ever-increasing cable rates.

Back then, these consumers ran into the same kind of Congress we endure today — quick to listen to industry representatives bearing campaign contributions and slow to respond to the needs and interests of their constituents who elected them.  Indeed, in one infamous example, a call placed to then-New York Senator Al D’Amato resulted in a staff member asking “what company are you with?”

Despite the power and influence of corporate interests protecting their turf, earning enormous profits along the way, many satellite dishowners stayed in the fight, and as cable rate increases continued, major reforms were finally enacted in the 1992 Cable Act which made small satellite dish services like DISH and DirecTV possible.

The struggle for Net Neutrality reminds me of that fight, and the fact it would take time to overcome the special interests and obtain important reforms.  Here at Stop the Cap!, we’ve won more battles than we’ve lost thanks to a small army of consumers who despise Internet Overcharging schemes and are tired of paying outrageous high prices for broadband and other telecommunications services.  Giving up the fight is not an option.

As the 111th Congress draws to a close, efforts to enact Net Neutrality through legislation this year have come to naught.

We were also disappointed by Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Despite his promising start at the agency, after more than a year watching his performance he has proven to be far better at making speeches than actually implementing policy.  His indecision and dawdling has resulted in a failure to deliver on his promise to reclassify broadband as — what it is — a telecommunications service.  That leaves standing a federal court decision that swept away the Commission’s authority to oversee broadband and stop abusive behavior.  For providers, that’s a dream come true.  Just consider this week’s story that Clear is throttling their customers despite marketing claims they would never do such a thing.

But not to worry, America.  AT&T is “committed to an open Internet,” proclaims the company in a new, feel-good advertisement.  AT&T’s public policy ad claims the company stands with the Obama Administration on delivering universal access to broadband by 2020.

“The future,” the ad claims, “has always been our business.”

The notion is just so warm and fuzzy, it makes me want to adopt puppies and kittens.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Public Policy Commercial.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s newest ad promotes the company’s public policy agenda, which opposes Net Neutrality while still claiming to respect its core principles.  (1 minute)

Of course, AT&T is not so warm and friendly in Washington.  This is the company that dwarfs all other Big Telecoms in spending its customers’ money on hardcore lobbying blitzkriegs on Capitol Hill, drowning Washington in cash and fooling consumers with fake front groups pretending to represent their interests.

Suz, a third-year graduate student at Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture and Technology (CCT) program, noticed some of our earlier coverage on the topic of AT&T and wrote this is a company with a history:

The ad really struck me because of its message and because of the medium. In another class I’m currently taking – The Development of Electronic Media – we just came to the chapter on the development of the telephone and the major influence that AT&T held over that field for the majority of the 20th century. In part because of government regulations supporting the idea of “universal service” and in part because of the desire to connect rural areas with urban areas on the same line of service, the federal powers – though they put a little pressure on after AT&T acquired Western Union with the threat of anti-trust lawsuit – eventually support AT&T’s decompetitive nature by insisting on a compatible network and blocking “duplicative” services, giving AT&T the far-and-away lead in the market.

“The future has always been our business – AT&T.”

Now, there was a lot of history between this “golden age” of monopoly for AT&T and its eventual position today. But what I find striking is the similar-sounding stance to then-CEO Vail’s mission statement of universal service. Their motive may not have been as altruistic as the motto was (one way to attain universal service is to place it in the hands of one provider), but it eventually convinced the government that its powers could be used for good, even at the expense of a competitive (and innovative) marketplace.

Welcome to AT&T v2.0.

AT&T’s dominance in landlines is now at an end, but its influence over the telecommunications medium of the 21st century — the Internet, is just beginning.

The timing could not be more ironic, either.  While AT&T supports the goal for universal broadband service, it is fiercely lobbying to abandon a promise it made a generation earlier to deliver universal landline telephone service.  For that earlier commitment to wire every home, it was granted monopoly status for much of the 20th century.

AT&T has promised to be benevolent if it can remain a completely unregulated mega-player in the broadband industry.  It won’t openly censor opposing viewpoints, but it reserves the right to slow them down to make room for its preferred content partners.  AT&T won’t control what you see or do online, but it does want the right to limit how much of the seeing and doing you can do without overlimit usage fees kicking in.  But no worries, America — AT&T promises full disclosure, so at least you will know you’ve been network managed and overcharged for service.

Jeffrey Burnbaum — writing for the Washington Post — notes AT&T was the gold standard of high powered lobbying and little has changed today:

In the 1980s, AT&T was known for having one of the largest and most skilled corporate offices in Washington. Its representatives were everywhere and well-regarded on Capitol Hill. I remember one encounter between a tall AT&T lobbyist and an elegant McLean matron at a congressional cocktail party. The woman pecked the lobbyist on the cheek and then teased him: “I see you’re wearing your sincere blue suit.” He laughed knowingly — as did the lawmakers standing nearby and with whom he held much sway.

But personal respect wasn’t enough to hold back the tide, either. The telecommunications act of 1996 demonstrated the growing clout of the Baby Bells and AT&T made one last stab at restoring its prowess. In 1998 it hired a former White House deputy chief of staff, James W. Cicconi, to reorganize its Washington presence.

The former aide to George H. W. Bush put together what stands to this day as the model of a contemporary lobbying campaign. Under his guidance, AT&T dispensed tons of campaign cash, formed coalitions with sympathetic-sounding organizations, hired some of the biggest names in downtown Washington as lobbyists and spent millions of dollars on television advertising.

Net Neutrality advocates believe broadband reform is essential in the marketplace duopoly that exists today for most Americans.  With limited options, providers must do more than commit to an open Internet — they must be compelled to deliver it.  The industry’s scare tactics of slowed investment, job losses, and lost innovation are as patently ridiculous — and offensive — as similar claims made by the company over its breakup in the early 1980s.  With the power and influence of lobbying, telecommunications deregulation has allowed them to start putting the pieces back together again.  They are richer and more powerful than ever.

But can they be overcome?  Considering the cable industry deeply underestimated the impact of a consumer outcry over the industry’s abusive practices in the 1980s and early 1990s, the answer remains yes.  Just like the speeds of AT&T’s DSL service, it is just going to take awhile.

A phone company-backed research group has awarded Verizon the “Top Provider among Market Leaders for multi-protocol label switching and Carrier Ethernet services,” with two 2010 Nemertes PilotHouse Awards. This is the second time Verizon Business has received top honors for Market Leaders in both of these categories since the awards program debuted in 2008.

Nemertes Research, which depends on industry money to conduct research, is behind the awards.  Nemertes, backed by the phone industry-funded Internet Innovation Alliance, is the same group that regularly issues research reports predicting an imminent global “brown-out” of the Internet because of excessive broadband traffic.  In turn, those reports are used to lobby for network management policies that violate Net Neutrality and fuel calls for Internet Overcharging schemes.

Verizon’s press release spends several paragraphs on the defensive, going out of its way to suggest this particular award was not another phoneybaloney recognition created out of thin air with telco money:

“This recognition is particularly meaningful because the rankings are based 100 percent on the views and experiences of actual users, making PilotHouse a truly unique industry award,” said Anthony Recine, vice president of networking and communications solutions for Verizon Business.

[…]PilotHouse Awards are based 100% on the experiences of IT-decision makers. No vendors sponsor this research.

Nemertes itself spends plenty of time trying to cope with skepticism on its own website, but manages to expose another money trail along the way (underlining ours):

6) Is this a “pay-to-play” awards program?

No. Nemertes publishes aggregate and comparative data for all vendors for which we receive a total number of ratings equal to at least 10% of the total pool of ratings. As part of the survey, Nemertes provides a list of vendors derived from extensive research and analysis. There is also another category to allow participants to write in any provider in any category.

9) Can vendors promote the awards?

Yes. After completion of the award reports, Nemertes will notify winners and offer the option of buying award packages that include reprint rights, logo licensing, webinars, issue papers, and award dinner tickets. Buying award packages have no bearing on the results of the PilotHouse awards.

Among the big winners are AT&T, Cisco (the biggest driver of the “exaflood” theory around), Verizon, and Qwest.

What remains unsaid is who pays Nemertes to run an awards program and where the research firm would be without large telecommunications companies purchasing “research” they can safely assume will always find in their favor.

Nemertes’s slogan is “Independence, Integrity, Insight.”  Research groups that truly represent those ideals need not emphasize them because they are embodied in the quality of the research, the firewall that keeps industry money from tainting the findings, and full disclosure of who is paying for what.

University of Texas students living in a Richardson on-campus apartment complex are stuck paying a mandatory $15 monthly “technology fee” for AT&T-provided Wi-Fi service that works so poorly, many residents are signing up with other providers and paying twice for Internet access.

Residents of Waterview Park have complained about Wi-Fi access inside the complex for some time, but they were never forced to pay for it until May, when the complex’s governing board notified residents that the mandatory fee would be imposed once AT&T took over the service.

Although AT&T doesn’t bill for, or collect the fee, they do provide the service, and students have complained loudly about its weak signals and poor performance.

The Mercury, the university newspaper, ran a story this weak outlining the complaints:

A sample lease agreement obtained from Waterview shows the mandatory technology fee of $15/month.

Computer science junior Kenny Rodriguez said the problems stem from the use of hotspot Wi-Fi as residential internet for students. Hotspot Wi-Fi generally broadcasts an internet signal from a fixed location that becomes weaker the further you move away from it.

“When I was living in building 29, my roommates and I could only pick up a signal by standing in one corner of the living room,” junior Michael Stettler said.

Stettler and his roommates moved to building 31 and are now able to pick up a signal in two of their bedrooms, albeit a slow one.

Rodriguez, who lives in building 8, can only pick up a signal in his living room and sometimes can’t even log on to use it.

“Frequently, the access points are broadcasting but aren’t routing traffic anywhere,” Rodriguez said.

Once a student finds a place in his apartments where a signal can be received, the speed of the connection becomes a problem because the more students who share the available bandwidth the slower the speed becomes.

“It was decently fast at the beginning of this school year, then when everyone came back for fall it crawled to like a tenth or a fifth of a MB per second,” Stettler said.

Waterview’s management has been forced to issue refunds of up to $30 to affected students for poor or non-existent service, but the complex won’t waive the ongoing monthly fee, despite the fact the service can’t deliver much more than 1Mbps on a good day.

Several residents opted to sign up with other providers instead, paying $30 a month or more for service they can actually use.  Stettler and his three roommates decided it was worth it and signed up with Time Warner Cable for 15Mbps service.

The student newspaper took note of another bulletin issued by Waterview management issued August 31 that claimed every resident would have reliable internet within the next 7-14 days or else a non-specific contingency plan would be implemented.

“Nobody has actually stated what will happen if AT&’T doesn’t make their service reliable,” Rodriguez told the paper.” They’ve just vaguely implied that something will happen.”

Twenty-two days later, students report no verifiable improvements have been made in the reliability of the network or the service.

AT&T is buying newspaper ad space to publish a feel good message about Internet Openness that bears no reality to the company’s multi-million dollar lobbying effort to derail broadband reform, taking guarantees of a free and open Internet with it.

The advertisement’s appearance is remarkable, coming at the same time the company’s “government affairs” team of paid lobbyists and friends are browbeating elected officials and the Federal Communications Commission.  AT&T wants the right to allow preferential treatment of its selected content partners while dumping everyone else on the Internet slow lane.

The only opening AT&T supports is a new way to cash in even further on the Internet.  An “open network” to the phone giant means one that is totally deregulated and open to whatever AT&T wants to do with it.

AT&T’s “innovation” is to monetize the traffic that happens to cross their network on its way to AT&T customers.  By manipulating broadband traffic, AT&T will sell its “selected partners” priority access, shoving uncompensated traffic out of the way to make room for whatever AT&T’s special friends want you to see.  While that’s great news for companies that agree to pay AT&T’s tolls, it’s very bad news for everyone else, because the websites you choose to visit may or may not be available on the second rate “free lane.”  Given the choice between AT&T-backed video streaming or a third party provider like Netflix, guess what traffic will never get stuck “buffering” or face glitches.

Investors love the concept because AT&T can collect revenue just by sitting back and demanding tolls from content they neither produce nor host.  It’s not as if they haven’t been paid already — by their customers — to obtain access to that content.  AT&T wants another payday for their shareholders while sticking you with second-rate service.

The problem with AT&T’s world view is… AT&T’s world view.  Real innovation would mean delivering customers a world class broadband service the envy of anyone, delivered on America’s most advanced communications network, not re-purposed copper wire phone lines.  Then, “traffic management” on a mega-sized information highway wouldn’t have to squeeze the speed of some traffic to make room for “premium content.”  There would be plenty of room for one and all.

AT&T’s proposed answer for broadband reform is all about their interests, never yours.

Some examples:

• Net Neutrality has been a part of AT&T’s corporate life for several years as a condition of its 2005 merger with SBC.  It didn’t harm their ability to provide all of the innovation, service, and speeds they could have, but never did.  Nothing about Net Neutrality protection harms AT&T’s ability to deliver broadband service to more of its customers. Giving AT&T whatever it wants won’t change that fact or deliver service to a single new customer;
• The freedom AT&T writes about is their idea of a Corporate Bill of Rights, which grants them the freedom to exchange their ideas and content, but says nothing about protecting your freedom of speech;
• A robust and secure network should exist regardless of Net Neutrality, considering the enormous amount of cash AT&T harvests from their Internet customers month after month.  AT&T is free to innovate all they like, on a level-playing-field, where customers can choose the best applications at the best prices, not the ones AT&T provides to them on a paid fast lane;
• AT&T’s record on competition is laughable when it spends its free cash on an army of lobbyists and “dollar-a-holler” interest groups.  Their mission?  To oppose potential competitors and enthusiastically support AT&T’s competition-busting mergers and acquisitions that further concentrate their market power;
• For AT&T’s customers, transparency alone is hardly the kind of consumer protection Internet users need.  Yes, it’s nice to be told when you are overpaying for broadband service that is “network managed.” Admitting AT&T seeks to throttle broadband speeds and potentially block websites in a monopoly/duopoly market doesn’t help much when customers can’t find another provider.  Disclosing the fact AT&T is sticking it to you is not the same thing as prohibiting them from trying in the first place.

AT&T has no interest in working with anyone that opposes their corporate interests.

The Internet should not be AT&T’s personal playground, ready and able to be “managed” out of its unique ability to deliver ideas equally — to be judged on their merit — not on the money backing them.

Americans have already experienced a corporate-sanitized online service for pre-approved ideas, products, and services.  It was called Prodigy, and by 2000 it was to become the Internet experience for 77 million SBC (later AT&T) customers. By the time the bottom fell out in 2001, SBC owned 100 percent of the service nobody wanted.  In 2005, SBC tried to sell the Prodigy brand in the United States.  There were no buyers.

That should be the outcome of AT&T’s proposal for “an open Internet.”  No deal.