The classic one-two punch of Internet Overcharging is to limit your broadband usage -and- throttle speeds downwards.  AT&T wireless customers in several major cities across the United States are experiencing that for themselves over the long holiday weekend, reporting upload speeds have been throttled down to 100kbps or less (one-tenth of the speed most customers enjoyed as late as last week).

Speedtest.net has shown AT&T network throttling in many parts of Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Fairfax, Houston, Kansas City, Las Vegas, New York, Orlando, Phoenix, St. Paul,  Salt Lake City, and Washington, D.C.

The speeds are so noticeably slow, it has become a national story as irate customers find their wireless broadband service first usage capped at just 2GB per month, and now upload speed throttled to the point of unusability.  AT&T promised a statement explaining the issue, but one has not yet been forthcoming.  Some speculated the throttles were designed to reduce congestion on AT&T’s network over the holiday, while others suspect a technical fault.

Reducing your wireless speed reduces the impact on AT&T’s backhaul network, which in turn reduces congestion and the number of dropped wireless calls.

The introduction of speed throttles for “heavy users” is a favorite in countries where overcharging schemes predominate.  Most permit a preset amount of traffic to pass at normal speeds, but once customers exceed an arbitrary allowance, a temporary speed throttle gets applied to dramatically reduce speeds and discourage further use.  Some limit customers to a selected amount of traffic per day, others per month.  Once the window expires, the throttle is automatically removed.

While there is no indication AT&T is applying such a throttle at this point, the company has strongly opposed efforts to ban such schemes.  AT&T has a history of antagonizing its wireless customers with poor network performance, and has been judged the least favorite provider by Consumer Reports.

Don't touch this -- Bridging the gap (circled) can drive your iPhone's signal bars into a ditch

The long lines are over.  The hype that drove some Apple fanboys to wait hours in line, even with an advance reservation for the phone, has died down.  The people in the office you irritated bragging about your conquest have moved on with their lives.  For a growing number of early iPhone 4 buyers, that exhilaration is now being replaced with a realization: you are a beta tester for a new product that has some nagging design problems and defects.  And you are still stuck with AT&T, the nation’s least favorite wireless carrier.  Only now, it’s not just AT&T dropping your calls — it’s the iPhone itself.

A growing number of buyers have discovered a flaw so obvious even the most rudimentary testing, even from the drunk guy who left his phone in that California bar, should have picked up — if you hold the phone in your hand a certain way to make a call, the iPhone has a tendency to drop it.  That problem has grown so significant, Apple had to lock the message thread discussing the matter because it was crashing the browsers of support forum visitors.

You didn’t buy the iPhone to actually make calls, did you?

Sorting out whether the dropped calls are Apple’s fault or just business as usual at AT&T is now underway.

Apple’s answer to this particular problem is to turn the potential marketing crisis into an opportunity — by selling you a $30 “bumper”-case to keep your hands from actually touching the phone’s side, which is part of the antenna system.  The case’s odd design, which only covers the sides of the phone, has some speculating Apple knew about this problem all along and designed a case to mitigate the problem, and pocket the proceeds.

A leaked memo from Apple includes talking points to calm customers who have concerns Apple thinks are non-issues.  Apple even insists its representatives take a moment to summon up the proper “tone” when dealing with customers:

1. Keep all of the positioning statements in the BN handy – your tone when delivering this information is important.

• The iPhone 4’s wireless performance is the best we have ever shipped. Our testing shows that iPhone 4’s overall antenna performance is better than iPhone 3GS.
• Gripping almost any mobile phone in certain places will reduce its reception. This is true of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, and many other phones we have tested. It is a fact of life in the wireless world.
• If you are experiencing this on your iPhone 3GS, avoid covering the bottom-right side with your hand.
• If you are experiencing this on your iPhone 4, avoid covering the black strip in the lower-left corner of the metal band.
• The use of a case or Bumper that is made out of rubber or plastic may improve wireless performance by keeping your hand from directly covering these areas.

2. Do not perform warranty service. Use the positioning above for any customer questions or concerns.

3. Don’t forget YOU STILL NEED to probe and troubleshoot. If a customer calls about their reception while the phone is sitting on a table (not being held) it is not the metal band.

4. ONLY escalate if the issue exists when the phone is not held AND you cannot resolve it.

5. We ARE NOT appeasing customers with free bumpers – DON’T promise a free bumper to customers.

The yellow blotch problem

This week, even more problems are showing up:

• The Glitchy Proximity Sensor: PC World covers the iPhone’s sudden activation of the menu screen while talking on the phone.  With one’s face next to the screen, customers are reporting calls suddenly switched to speakerphone mode, muted, or throwing blasts of touchtones at callers.
• AT&T “Still Sucks”: Customers in San Francisco and Los Angeles, among other large cities, report “Bermuda Triangle” reception zones where calls regularly drop and cannot be made.  Randomly dropped calls are also still a major problem, and some customers believe the latest iPhone is more prone to showing “no service” than earlier models.
• Yellow Screen Blotches: Yellow-tinted blotches are visible on several owners’ iPhone screens.  Apple claims this is residue from the manufacturing process to bind the glass to the screen and will disappear with use as the adhesive fully dries.  Gizmodo reports these phones were likely rushed through manufacturing and shipped in time for the iPhone release day.  While some customers confirm the blotches do seem to be fading, others have been instructed by Apple to return yellow-tinged phones for replacement.
• Easily-Scratchable: Despite the hype about breakthrough glass technology making the phone more scratch resistant than ever, folks on Engadget found it was quite easy to tear up the phone when placed in a pocket with keys or other scratchy things.

Engadget received photos of scratched iPods hours after being unboxed (click to enlarge)

A Sacramento law firm, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff has already started looking for customers experiencing poor reception quality and dropped calls, presumably to consider a class action lawsuit against Apple, AT&T, or both.  As of now, the law firm has received more than 400 complaints.

The signal loss problem has the prospect of becoming the most notorious — for both Apple and AT&T — especially when it is easily reproduced by reporters on the local evening news (see below).  But Steve Jobs thinks the complaints are overblown, writing back to one complainer, “Non issue. Just avoid holding it in that way.”

Despite that,  Gizmodo launched a petition urging Apple to give free cases to all iPhone 4 owners.

Every product launch has its bugs. We’ve seen a lot this time. Many issues, like the yellow screens, will go away as manufacturing fine tunes and adjusts to solve the problems. But the antenna issue is a fundamental one, a design flaw, that won’t go away as easily without adjusting the product in a deeper way.

So with all these great things, it’s terrible that buyers should have this excellent phone ruined for them because of a single, but serious, design problem. And even worse that Apple should suggest users use their phones in unnatural ways or shell out $30—for what is essentially a double wide livestrong armband—to fix it.

According to some Apple-watchers, the company plans a software fix, suggesting the signal meter displayed on the phone is the real issue, not the actual quality of reception from AT&T.  If the software fix only re-calibrates the signal meter and consumers still see dropped calls and reception problems, additional complaints are likely.

After a week of made-for-TV-lines outside of Apple stores across the country, reality has set in and several stations are now turning their attention to the iPhone 4’s pesky problems.

We have a number of videos for you to watch below the jump!

… Continue Reading

A California attorney has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against AT&T for fraud and misrepresentation over claims the company baited consumers to purchase Apple iPads with unlimited access and then subjected them to Internet Overcharging schemes after AT&T ended its unlimited data plan.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP claims AT&T knew it was going to break its promise to thousands of customers who were told they could switch between unlimited and limited data plans as their needs changed.  On June 7th, AT&T ended its unlimited data plan but grandfathered existing contract customers, permitting them to retain the plan indefinitely.  But if a customer changed to a limited usage plan or discontinued service, they lose the chance to get the unlimited plan back.

Apple and AT&T announced this policy change with less than one week’s notice to their customers and only about a month after Apple and AT&T began selling 3G-enabled iPads.  Apple and AT&T had promised consumers flexibility with their data plans, allowing them the ability switch back and forth between the limited data plan, the unlimited data plan, and no data plan.

No more.

“The availability of an unlimited data plan was a key reason why consumers paid the extra $130 charge to access the 3-G network, and their ability to switch in and out of the unlimited data plan was also an important consideration in the decision to purchase an iPad,” stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Michael W. Sobol. “The complaint alleges that Apple and AT&T should have known at the time they were promoting the availability of unlimited data plans, they were not going to keep that promise.”

“I originally purchased a standard iPad. Three weeks later, I returned it to the Apple store, paying an additional $130 plus sales tax to upgrade to an iPad with 3G capability. I thought the iPad 3G was worth the additional money because, with the unlimited data plan, I could work outside my office or home and access all the data I needed for a fixed, monthly price,” commented plaintiff Adam Weisblatt of Fulton, New York. “But I also knew that for several months each year, with my schedule, a lesser expensive, limited data plan was sufficient. I would have never purchased a 3G-capable iPad if I knew Apple and AT&T were planning on suddenly taking away from me the freedom to opt in and out of an unlimited data plan at my choice.”

The proposed class plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class consisting of all individuals and entities within the United States who purchased or ordered an Apple iPad 3G on or before June 6, 2010.

Consumers wishing to join the suit can contact the law firm for additional details.  There are no details on exactly what the attorneys will be seeking from AT&T.

Class action lawsuits have often delivered far more in benefits and compensation to the law firm that filed the lawsuit, with consumers usually left with discount coupons or less than $10 in compensation.  In this case, demanding AT&T deliver on its marketing promises or permitting customers to return their iPads for full refunds would seem appropriate.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Marcus for the news tip.

More dollar-a-holler advocacy for AT&T in the pages of CNET. AT&T brings the money, lobbyists ride their former credentials to deliver exactly the "facts" AT&T wants to read.

CNET last week shamefully handed over column space to a barely-disclosed AT&T lobbyist trotting out the latest unfounded, anti-consumer nonsense: tiered data plans help bring broadband to the poor.

It’s all part of AT&T’s Re-education campaign to sucker convince Americans that paying more for less service is a good thing:

New analysis shows that as Internet providers ramp up their investments to accommodate the surge in bandwidth demand, the old, one-price-for-everybody model would slow our progress toward universal adoption, especially by lower-income Americans.

The first reaction of many Internet users to this news may well be disbelief. How can it be that a pricing approach that has worked so well for so many years can suddenly become obsolete and even counterproductive? The answer is that technological advances have changed what many of us do online, which, in turn, has changed the economics.

A techno-ecosystem once dominated by e-mail and text now is increasingly characterized by high-definition video that claims up to 1,000 times as much network capacity and bandwidth as simple text. The way we currently pay for the infrastructure required to keep the network humming also will have to change.

The only humming we hear is AT&T’s dollar bill-counting machines.

When at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  Robert J. Shapiro and his co-author Kevin Hassett’s latest work, “A New Analysis of Broadband Adoption Rates By Minority Households,” is simply a rehash — spoiled leftover bologna — of their last bought-and-paid-for-study we analyzed last fall.  Both reports are tailor-made to appeal to the minority-interest groups that are part of AT&T’s Rainbow Coalition of Cash — groups that engage in dollar-a-holler advocacy of AT&T’s agenda while quietly depositing their substantial contribution checks.

The report assumes quite a lot:

• That broadband service adoption rates in minority communities are too low because heavy users are artificially keeping broadband prices too high;
• That without tiered data plans, AT&T can never afford to expand broadband service;
• That unlimited broadband tiers can never co-exist with tiered plans — it’s one-size-fits-all under today’s bad pricing model;
• That a grand exaflood is coming to swamp broadband users of all kinds, and without tiered pricing to finance upgrades, we could all drown.

For the second time, Shapiro and Hassett try to stick the bill for upgrades on so-called “heavy users,” who they suggest should pay 80 percent of the upgrade costs through higher priced broadband service.  They also want content producers to cough up — the “they can’t use my pipes for free”-argument AT&T loves.

How will customers react to paying huge surcharges on their broadband bills?  According to the report’s authors, heavy users won’t mind because they are “price-insensitive.”

Ask Time Warner Cable customers in New York, Texas, and North Carolina if they minded the prospect of paying $150 a month for broadband service they used to pay $50 a month to receive.  How about Frontier’s customers in Mound, Minnesota asked to pony up $250 a month for up to 3Mbps DSL service because they exceeded Frontier’s 5GB monthly usage allowance?

The report has several other glaring fact-gaps:

• Tiered service plans are already available industry-wide, based on broadband speed, not usage.  Low income customers can obtain cheaper broadband today, if companies decide to advertise it;
• The wounds from high broadband pricing are industry self-inflicted.  They charge $40 or more for a service their financial reports suggest costs less than $10 a month to provide;
• Providers can achieve universal broadband first by extending existing networks to rural America, upgrading them to fiber as the economy of scale from urban and suburban upgrades forces prices down;
• The authors strenuously avoid reviewing providers’ financial reports which show enormous profits even as costs continue their rapid decline;
• Many of the footnotes used to back their arguments turn out to quote self-interested parties like service providers, equipment manufacturers, and trade associations.

None of this is surprising or new in bought-and-paid-for-reports commissioned by companies to cheerlead their corporate agenda.  The last thing AT&T wants to read is a recitation of facts that disprove their arguments.

In essence, Shapiro and Hassett are arguing (with a straight face) that if providers are allowed to charge some consumers dramatically higher prices for broadband service, it will somehow convince them to upgrade their networks -and- trickle down lower prices for economically-challenged consumers.

Maybe if we let BP drill more oil wells in the Gulf, the extra profits they earn will somehow lead to better safety records for drilling and lower gas prices.  After all, with those record-busting profits earned over the past three years, the safety record for the industry is better than ever and gas is sold at fire sale prices, benefiting economically disadvantaged Americans, right?

If you or I argued this theory, we’d be drug tested.  For corporate lobbyists, it’s just another day at the office.

Here’s just how silly this really is:  You just discovered your hard drive is nearly full.  You’ve gone shopping for an upgrade, planning to spend around $100 for a new drive.  Just a few years ago, you spent around that much for a 120GB model.  Today, that same $99 would today buy you a 1.5 terabyte drive, unless you bought it from AT&T.  They want $1,500.

Newegg's price: $99.95 -- AT&T's price: $1,500

You: “Why is this drive so expensive?”

AT&T: “Over 90 percent of our customers never need a drive bigger than 120 gigabytes.  Developing a 1.5 terabyte drive costs plenty, and we feel that because you are a heavy user, you should bear the brunt of the development and manufacturing costs of all hard drives.”

You: “Sure, but this same 1.5TB drive is available in Korea for $99 dollars.  You want $1,500.  Why is there such a price difference and when does your price come down?”

AT&T: “Poor people in Korea and America can’t afford even a 60 gigabyte drive.  We are trying to make smaller drives more affordable  so in turn you should pay a higher price.  This isn’t about when AT&T will lower our price, it’s about when you will see our grand charitable vision and lower your selfish expectation of a lower price.”

You: “Wow, a corporation with socially-conscious pricing to benefit the poor?  So you are telling me that when I spend $1,500 on this hard drive, it is going to subsidize the cost of their 60 gigabyte drive, right?”

AT&T: “No, not exactly.  See, if we didn’t charge you $1,500, we’d have to raise the price on their 60 gigabyte drive and that’s not fair because they don’t need to store as much as you do.”

You: “But wait, your ‘subsidized’ 60GB drive costs three times more than what Koreans spend for a drive at least three times larger.”

AT&T: “That’s because the standard of living is different there.  Besides, why do you want to make the poor pay for your hard drive?”

You: “You aren’t making any sense.”

AT&T: “But we are about to make a whole lot of dollars!”

Dumping unlimited usage pricing only sets the profit expectations-bar higher for the broadband industry on Wall Street, regardless of what the true costs are to provide the service.  Wall Street never argues that excess profits should be spent on network upgrades and price subsidies to the poor — they want those profits paid to shareholders instead.

When the telecom industry is paying for your study, real facts never matter.  If you want them to do future business with your lobbying firm, the only acceptable conclusion is the one AT&T wants you to reach.

Tomorrow: Down the Sonecon rabbit hole

Mark Lowenstein was a vice president of strategy at Verizon Wireless, where helped set pricing for the carrier.

The key to turning America into a haven for Internet Overcharging schemes is Re-educating customers to accept that unlimited ‘isn’t fair,’ especially in wireless mobile broadband.

Mark Lowenstein, an industry analyst and commentator, has given his prescription to Internet providers just itching to slap usage limits and overlimit fees on consumers enjoying unlimited broadband service:  you have to Re-educate consumers to accept Internet Overcharging schemes as a “positive” rather than a “punitive” development.

Fierce Wireless, where Lowenstein’s ideas were published, left out the fact he was also a senior executive at Verizon Wireless.

Despite the billions in profits earned from today’s broadband marketplace, some in the industry want to banish “unlimited” from subscribers’ lexicons.  Sure it’s true that many companies’ investments in broadband expansion and upgrades have actually declined in the last few years, right along with the costs to provide the service.  But in a world where revenues in other parts of the business are drying up, someone has to make up the difference — you.

For AT&T, the decision was easy.  If you want the raging-popular iPhone, you’re going to need a two-year service contract and a data plan limited to 2 GB of usage per month.  Exceed that at your financial peril (or use a Wi-Fi hotspot and stay off our 3G network).  Don’t like it?  Too bad for you.  Where else will you find a subsidized iPhone?

Now that AT&T has thrown down the smartphone cap gauntlet, Lowenstein is ready to offer carriers advice on how to make their abusive pricing schemes go down better with consumers.  He wants everyone to take a crash course in computer science. Grandparents everywhere will come to understand the meaning of megabyte and get into the habit of contemplating how many of those will be eaten from usage allowances everytime they use their phones.

A key part of the transition to usage-based pricing is going to be educating users and the app development community about what a “megabyte” is, as well as developing more advanced tools and the right early warning systems to ensure wireless operators don’t end up testifying before Congress for Bill Shock, Part 2. U.S. consumers are accustomed to flat-rate pricing in all other aspects of their connected life: landline phone, wireless voice (increasingly), cable, broadband and so on.

Lowenstein considers AT&T Usage Estimator to be “nifty,” missing the irony of his own declaration that AT&T’s nasty cap means “moderate usage of anything multimedia gets you to 2 GB pretty fast.”  AT&T, he notes, also helpfully notifies customers they are about to bust through AT&T’s subjective definition of an appropriate usage allowance.

He concedes there are some “gray areas” — mere minutiae in AT&T’s greater scheme for fatter profits:

• New generation multitasking smartphones can run apps and other bandwidth-consuming features in the background, sometimes simultaneously, leading to exponential increases in data usage;
• The model of the “constant connection” means apps in the background exchanging data over the mobile network 24/7 could consume plenty of data, or perhaps not.  Few know for sure;
• Consumers are forced to pay for spam, advertising, unwanted file transfers and attachments, and other data not specifically requested;
• Family plan users now need to track something else on AT&T’s website — how much data their kids are using.  Remember the wars over cell phone voice calling plan overages and text messaging?  Wait.

In Lowenstein’s world-view, this all represents opportunity.

Among his suggestions:

1. Add special ratings to apps that are highly consumptive of content.
2. Provide notification before certain content downloads or heavy usage apps.
3. Provide a view into other family plan users.
4. Provide the option for sponsored content and value exchange.

That last one may prove to be the most controversial at all.  It assumes the Kindle model — where the content producer builds in the price of network consumption.  That would make AT&T’s day — forcing content producers to cough up money to deliver content over the same network AT&T already charges customers to access.  Who would turn down being paid twice for the same thing?  Lowenstein’s model allows for advertisers to defray part of the costs:

An advertiser or sponsor could pick up some of the network cost. Or the content publisher could bundle the price of data into the app. Users are comfortable with the “choice” model in the TV world: view it for free on broadcast or Hulu, with commercials; pay a monthly fee for the DVR service and skip the ads; or pay a premium to view that content on-demand, commercial-free.

That suggestion benefits AT&T enormously, but does nothing for content producers who can’t even sustain themselves with advertising.  Lowenstein suggests they should now seek out advertisers to remunerate AT&T?  The implications of wireless carriers deciding who gets the usage-cap-exempt content deal and who doesn’t opens a whole new Pandora’s Box.  It effectively allows a handful of companies to pick the winners and losers in the mobile broadband marketplace.  After all, if AT&T offered free videos on its own video portal but didn’t exempt other websites with the same video content, guess where users will choose to watch.

Lowenstein believes taking these kinds of steps will somehow insulate the wireless industry from charges it’s barely competitive, restricts too much, and charges even more.  Yet usage limits like AT&T’s, coming even as carriers enrich themselves with gotcha add-on plans and extra fees will speak far louder than AT&T providing customers a guide on how to be abused by the wireless carrier just a little less.

I also think how usage-based pricing is handled in wireless will be closely watched in the wired broadband world. Consumers have become accustomed to flat-rate pricing for unlimited data from their broadband provider. But with the exponential growth of video consumption, and the notion of more TV and movie programming being downloaded from or streamed via the Internet, usage-based pricing for certain types of content or highly consumptive customers might be coming to a broadband neighborhood near you.

The “unlimited” ride might be coming to an end, but there’s an opportunity to implement it in a positive, rather than a punitive, manner.

In spite of Lowenstein’s love of telecom industry talking points (hardly a surprise considering he works for that industry), his notions that consumers will accept increasing broadband bills even as the level of service provided is reduced makes him not only wrong, but hopelessly out of touch.