[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/There’s a Map for That 1.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s “There’s a Map for That” Advertising Campaign: Spot 2 (pre-revision — includes “out of touch” language (30 seconds)

Verizon's advertising only displays network coverage of 3G service areas

AT&T Mobility has filed suit against Verizon Wireless in the Northern District Court of Georgia (Atlanta Division) demanding the court order Verizon to stop running ads that suggest AT&T has lousy wireless 3G data coverage.

The suit comes in response to a series of advertisements from Verizon that compare the coverage maps of both companies “3G” wireless data networks.  The term “3G” refers to the third generation (3G) of mobile telephony standards – IMT-2000.  In general terms, local wireless networks upgraded to provide 3G service can provide much faster wireless data speeds than those still operating under older standards like “2G.”

Verizon Wireless has aggressively deployed 3G upgrades across its service area, while AT&T has largely focused on more urban population centers for their 3G upgrades, something Verizon’s advertising calls out.

The crux of the suit is exactly how Verizon depicts the differences in coverage.

AT&T claims the ads leave viewers with the impression that those vast white areas depicted on the coverage map designated by Verizon as “AT&T,” are areas without any data coverage at all.  Most cell phone company coverage maps routinely depict “no service” areas in white, and AT&T claims Verizon underlined the impression in its ads, including one on radio, that included the phrase “out of touch” when speaking about non-3G AT&T service areas.  AT&T described the ad above as showing “a frustrated or sad AT&T customer sitting alone on a bench because she is not able to use her wireless device to meet up with her friends.”

AT&T Mobility’s own coverage map depicts data coverage in varying hues of blue, designating the different types of data service coverage available nationwide, but those different hues and service areas only become apparent after starting to zoom in on specific regions of the country.

AT&T's "Nationwide" Coverage Map for Data

AT&T's coverage map changes when you zoom in, depicting the different types of network standards used in different areas. This map of eastern Texas shows coverage ranging from 3G to woefully slow EDGE networks owned by "AT&T partner" companies

On AT&T’s maps, areas in white are labeled “no service available.”

On October 7th, AT&T Mobility contacted Verizon Wireless and demanded that they either cease the ads or modify them to make them, in AT&T’s words, “less misleading.”

In response, Verizon dropped the “out of touch” language from the ads and inserted a fine print disclaimer at the bottom indicating “Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas.”

AT&T considers the modifications inadequate and filed the lawsuit asking for a cessation of the ads and monetary damages from perceived ill-gotten profits from Verizon snatching away AT&T customers.

Verizon’s defense?  Accuracy.  Verizon Wireless’ ads never stop referring to “3G service” and both maps include specifically labeled “3G Coverage.”

AT&T argues that their network is actually more expansive than Verizon’s, when you also include AT&T’s more prevalent 2G and earlier wireless data standards.  But that’s arguing apples and oranges.  Verizon intends to promote and leverage benefits from upgrading its service areas, large and small, to 3G service.  AT&T has not done that, and in fact has been on the receiving end of criticism from customers frustrated at times with the poor performance of its network, including slow data speeds, dropped calls, and insufficient coverage in certain areas.

Verizon's ads clearly depict "3G Coverage" on their map comparison

The gadget enthusiast press has not been enthusiastic about AT&T’s lawsuit, wishing the company would be as enthusiastic with network upgrades as they are engaging their legal team to fight Verizon, or is little more than a whining villain that has been exposed for its inadequacies.

AT&T customers frustrated with their mobile experience are probably still better off than T-Mobile customers, some of whom spent much of yesterday with no service at all.  In the second nationwide outage in two months, T-Mobile claims about two million customers nationwide experienced voice and data service outages for much of the day, although anecdotal reports suggest a company estimate of “five percent of customers impacted” is low.  No explanation for the outage was given.  This comes after an embarrassing server failure in October which led to some T-Mobile Sidekick customers being without service for up to a month, as well as a loss of stored data which company officials have slowly tried to restore weeks after the system crashed.

Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&T Mobility

AT&T Mobility has news for its customers: “You’ll be hearing something from us in the near future,” says AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega.  He was speaking about an end to “unlimited” usage of its wireless network.  Stop the Cap! reader Jeremy learned about it and sent word our way.

Of course, AT&T has always reserved the right to impose overlimit fees or terminate accounts that exceed 5 gigabytes per month, but most of the horror stories about enormous bills come from consumers using AT&T’s wireless broadband service on a computer.  For iPhone users, who are force-fed a mandatory $30 monthly “unlimited” data plan, their wireless usage has not been subjected to an AT&T crackdown for whatever they consider “excessive” that month.

But that is likely to change, and soon.  De la Vega warned listeners on a conference call held this week that AT&T’s considerations of ways to deal with extreme bandwidth users are “all in flux, but we will come up with ways that mitigate the [network] impact we’ve seen by a small number of customers who are driving inordinate usage.”

The company has been holding focus groups about Internet Overcharging schemes, trying to conjure up a public relations message that consumers will be duped into believing is fair.  They’ve tested everything from meal scenarios to toll roadways, comparing “heavy users” with 18 wheelers and ordinary light users with Mini Coopers, asking participants if they felt it was fair “for the truckers to pay more?”  One of our readers clandestinely participated in one of these, and managed to debunk their nonsense over a free lunch, with consumers incensed to discover the tolls they are charging are ludicrously profitable even at current rates.

When facts about Internet Overcharging are revealed, it’s not a question of who should pay more — it’s a demand to know why everyone isn’t paying less -and- why companies like AT&T aren’t investing a greater percentage of their fat profits in expanding their network.

As I’ve written on several previous occasions, it comes as no surprise to me that some companies in the broadband industry have been looking for an excuse to throw all of our “favorite” Internet Overcharging schemes on customers — usage allowances, overlimit fees and penalties, or just throttling your connection to dial-up speeds.  As I predicted, some will try an “either/or” scam on consumers, telling them they are “forced” to impose these kinds of profit grabs because the government is demanding Net Neutrality.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other of course, but it’s a convenient excuse to help rally consumers against Net Neutrality now, and impose higher pricing on consumers anyway.  It is crucial that consumers do not fall for this ploy.  There is no fairness in being overcharged for Internet access, such plans never truly provide “only paying for what you use” pricing, and no one should be willing to give up one for the other.  In Canada, they ended up with no Net Neutrality -and- Internet Overcharging schemes, precisely what would happen here.

As has always been the case, AT&T blames a “small percentage” of their users for consuming massive amounts of bandwidth.  Earlier this summer it was “three percent of Smartphone users use 40% of AT&T’s wireless network.”  The us vs. them mentality is designed to divide consumers into finger pointing camps blaming their neighbors for “the problem” instead of asking pointed questions of the carrier making the claim.  Some questions are:

1. Exactly how much data do those “heavy Smartphone users” consume?
2. What is AT&T’s cost per megabyte/gigabyte to deliver that data to consumers?
3. Why does AT&T mandate iPhone customers purchase an “unlimited” data plan and then complain when customers utilize what they are paying for?
4. Will AT&T significantly reduce pricing for mandatory data plan customers, or simply throw a usage allowance on existing accounts and expect consumers to pay the same?
5. What percentage of AT&T’s profits are spent on their network and its expansion, and has that amount as a percentage increased or decreased in the last five years?
6. If AT&T is suffering from smartphone congestion, why continue an exclusive deal for the iPhone, which AT&T claims contributes to a significant amount of that congestion?
7. Why does AT&T marketing claim their wireless broadband plans are “unlimited” when, in fact, they are limited to 5 gigabytes of usage per month?

Jack Gold, an analyst at J. Gold Associates, told Computerworld carriers have a legitimate issue in considering an “overage charge,” for users who surpass a certain number of gigabytes of data per month.

“People will complain about an overage charge,” Gold said. “I guarantee complaints, but there’s no other way to deal with it short of building out more networks to give people the bandwidth they crave. There really are bandwidth hogs. You have 5% of the users taking up 90% of the bandwidth sometimes.”

Gold said he agrees with net neutrality rules that allow users to reach any Web site on the Internet, but argued that carriers can’t provide unlimited bandwidth to all users. Doing so “means everybody else is limited … The AT&Ts and Verizons have a legitimate point.”

Of course, Gold is in the business of representing business interests, not consumers.  Does Gold have direct evidence of his numbers, or does he simply repeat what he has heard carriers tell him?  Since consumers cannot easily find truly unlimited mobile broadband accounts in the American wireless industry today, de la Vega’s urgent statements about imposing limits on customers must target iPhone and other smartphone users specifically, because those are the only accounts AT&T hasn’t held hard to their 5GB usage cap.

AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs James Cicconi e-mail bombed AT&T employees Monday asking them to express their “deep concern” for Net Neutrality on the FCC’s Net Neutrality website’s comment section.  (Thanks to several Stop the Cap! readers, among them Dave, “Gaff”, “Bones”, “Prevent Caps” and James who sent news tips on this story. The delay in publication came from assembling a response you, as actual consumers, can fire back at the AT&T Propaganda Parade on the FCC website.)

More than 300,000 AT&T employees received the “suggestion” in their e-mail box, complete with ready-made talking points employees can use to parrot AT&T’s anti-Net Neutrality positions.  In a remarkably brave section, Cicconi suggests employees not use their company e-mail accounts when engaged in the “grassroots” push back, as if word of that maneuver would not promptly get leaked to the media.  (By Tuesday morning, it did.)  The FCC shouldn’t know the barrage of anti-consumer, anti-Net Neutrality comments came as a result of a PressureGram from AT&T Corporate.

“We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet,” Cicconi wrote in his letter.  “Those who seek to impose extreme regulations on the network are flooding the site to influence the FCC; it’s now time for you to voice your opinion.”

(Note: Most of those seeking to “impose extreme regulations” are actual consumers.)

The convenient “talking points” AT&T provided are identical to the comments found on any anti-consumer, telecom-sponsored astroturf group website.  That’s no surprise, considering most of those astroturf groups survive on the checks sent by those large telecommunications companies.

We debunk them for your convenience:

• America’s wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that’s working so well?

That’s demonstrably false.  Consumers Union and other consumer groups independently found a high degree of concentration and obstacles to competition among providers of mobile data and Internet access services, which Net Neutrality rules would cover.  As Stop the Cap! has already reported, competition for wireless broadband is hardly a Battle Royale with virtually every carrier charging around the same amount for 5 gigabytes of maximum mobile web usage per month.  AT&T was charging a ridiculous $480 per gigabyte for those exceeding that limit, according to CU.  Americans pay an average of over $500 a year for wireless access, which hardly represents the lowest prices.  Consumers Union discovered Americans pay “much more than users in most other developed nations.”

Americans also endure restrictive phone plans that give exclusivity to popular handsets, limit certain web applications from wireless usage, and impose often stiff penalties for choosing to end a relationship with a wireless provider before the contract term has ended.

• There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There’s been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don’t burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.

That’s brazenly false.  The wireless telephone industry has contracted in the last several years due to mergers and acquisitions and a determination by several independent resellers that profits were elusive reselling access to another company’s wireless network.  Alltel is now owned by Verizon Wireless.  Virgin Mobile, which took over Helio, will itself likely soon be owned by Sprint.  Amp’d Mobile, Disney Mobile and ESPN Mobile, among many other resellers, disappeared altogether.

Most rural Americans “enjoy” a monopoly broadband service provided, where available, by their local phone company providing slow speed DSL service.  Most medium sized cities are served by a duopoly — one cable and one phone company.  Innovation in broadband comes to some, such as those served by Verizon FiOS, and skipped for others, such as those suffering with Frontier, FairPoint, and other phone companies that believe standard DSL is “good enough.”  AT&T, among many other providers, now want to experiment with rationing the Internet with Internet Overcharging schemes designed to curb use of their broadband services.

• Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.

That’s ludicrously false.  Managing networks, which sounds benign in theory, is often not in practice.  Several providers have recently taken a turn towards limiting access to those networks with usage rationing plans that limit consumers to a pre-determined amount of usage before overlimit fees or service termination kicks in.  AT&T is testing those schemes in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada this very day.  Stop the Cap! has repeatedly documented providers that admit their connectivity costs are dropping, right along with their investments in those networks to keep up with demand.  For some network companies, throwing hundreds of hours of online video to congest those networks seems to be an okay proposition, telemedicine or not.  Upgrade the networks that earn the American broadband industry billions in profits every year.

• The “net neutrality” rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can’t be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.

That’s infamously false.  AT&T managed to eke out an existence after its merger with BellSouth when it had to live under a Net Neutral regime for two years.  As Tim Karr from Free Press notes, “AT&T is loath to mention that it made considerable network investment when it had to abide by Net Neutrality conditions, and then invested considerably less when it didn’t.”  Somehow, U-verse will survive a Net Neutral world.

Meanwhile, many other broadband providers are in no hurry to expand or build new networks unless their hands are forced by the other competitor in the market threatening to steal their customers away.  AT&T’s U-verse offering is a direct response to the cable television industry swiping their customers with “digital phone” and cable television bundles that include broadband.  Time Warner Cable earns most of its new broadband customers at the phone company’s expense when consumers tire of slow, unreliable DSL service.

For rural communities, a Net Neutral America won’t make much difference either way.  Without Net Neutrality protection, companies like Verizon continue to abandon more rural states, selling off operations to companies like FairPoint and Frontier Communications, which have uninspired broadband programs that bring slow DSL service to areas that will never be wired for Verizon fiber-optic FiOS.  Large phone companies like Verizon continue to layoff employees, especially in the traditional wireline telephone business.

If we wait for private companies to deliver broadband to every American, it will be a very long wait.  But when it does arrive, it would be nice if consumers could actually enjoy their broadband service without network throttles and Internet Overcharging schemes.

• The FCC shouldn’t burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

That’s a laughably false premise.  When is the last time you bought broadband service from Yahoo!, Bing, or Google?  AT&T wants to compare their broadband apples with search engine oranges.  A level playing field would mean an end to the too-cute-by-half cable industry’s unofficial non-compete regime which makes sure no large cable operator intrudes on someone else’s territory.  It would mean an end to exclusive wireless handset provisions and gotcha contract terms designed to hold customers hostage to their wireless provider.  It would guarantee that if a municipality is fed up with the broadband backwater status afforded it by providers convinced what they deliver is “good enough,” that municipality can construct their own advanced broadband network and do the job private providers won’t.

Broadband regulated in the providers’ best interests have resulted in middle-of-the-pack broadband service for Americans, not the world class networks America can use to leverage a leadership role in the digital economy of the future.  The FCC should regulate the Internet to provide free, open access to innovative products and services that will really create new jobs for Americans.  They should definitely not continue a protectionism regime already in place that forces Americans to choose near-identical wireless service plans at high prices, and broadband service from one or two providers with dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles.

An avalanche of iPhones is to blame for AT&T's wireless problems, according to a Slate columnist

Telecommunications companies love people like Farhad Manjoo.  He’s a technology columnist for Slate, and he’s concerned with the congestion on AT&T’s wireless network caused by Apple iPhone owners using their phones ‘too much and ruining AT&T’s service for everyone else.’  Manjoo has a solution — do away with AT&T’s flat data pricing for the iPhone and implement a $10 price increase for any customer exceeding 400 megabytes of usage per month. For those using less than 400 megabytes, he advocates for a “pay for what you use” billing model.  Will AT&T adopt true consumption billing, a usage cap, or just another $10 price increase?  History suggests the latter two are most likely.

Stop the Cap! reader Mary drew our attention to Manjoo’s piece, which predictably has been carried through the streets by cheering astroturf websites connected with the telecommunications industry who just love the prospect of consumers paying more money.  They’ve called the organizations that work to fight against such unfair Internet Overcharging schemes “neo-Marxist,” ignoring the fact the overwhelming majority of consumers oppose metered broadband service and still don’t know the words to ‘The Internationale.’

Manjoo’s description of the problem itself has problems.

His argument is based on the premise that the Apple iPhone is virtually a menace on AT&T’s network.  He blames the phone for AT&T customers having trouble getting their calls through or for slow speeds on AT&T’s data network.

Every iPhone/AT&T customer must deal with the consequences of a slowed-down wireless network. Not every customer, though, is equally responsible for the slowdown. At the moment, AT&T charges $30 a month for unlimited mobile Internet access on the iPhone. That means a customer who uses 1 MB a month pays the same amount as someone who uses 1,000 MB. I’ve got a better plan—one that superusers won’t like but that will result in better service, and perhaps lower bills, for iPhone owners: AT&T should kill the all-you-can-eat model and start charging people for how much bandwidth they use.

How would my plan work? I propose charging $10 a month for each 100 MB you upload or download on your phone, with a maximum of $40 per month. In other words, people who use 400 MB or more per month will pay $40 for their plan, or $10 more than they pay now. Everybody else will pay their current rate—or less, as little as $10 a month. To summarize: If you don’t use your iPhone very much, your current monthly rates will go down; if you use it a lot, your rates will increase. (Of course, only your usage of AT&T’s cellular network would count toward your plan; what you do on Wi-Fi wouldn’t matter.)

First, and perhaps most importantly, AT&T not only voluntarily, but enthusiastically sought an exclusive arrangement with Apple to sell the iPhone.  For the majority of Americans, using an iPhone means using AT&T as their wireless carrier.  If AT&T cannot handle the customer demand (and the enormous revenue it earns from them), perhaps it’s time to end the exclusivity arrangement and spread the iPhone experience to other wireless networks in the United States.  I have not seen any wireless provider fearing the day the iPhone will be available for them to sell to customers.  Indeed, the only fear comes from AT&T pondering what happens when their exclusivity deal ends.

Second, problems with voice calling and dropped calls go well beyond iPhone owners ‘using too much data.’  It’s caused by less robust coverage and insufficient capacity at cell tower sites.  AT&T added millions of new customers from iPhone sales, but didn’t expand their network at the required pace to serve those new customers.  A number of consumers complaining about AT&T service not only mention dropped calls, but also inadequate coverage and ‘fewer bars in more places.’  That has nothing to do with iPhone users.  Congestion can cause slow speeds on data networks, but poor reception can create the same problems.

Third, the salvation of data network congestion is not overcharging consumers for service plans.  The answer comes from investing some of the $1,000+ AT&T earns annually from the average iPhone customer back into their network.  To be sure, wireless networks will have more complicated capacity issues than wired networks do, but higher pricing models for wireless service already take this into account.

Business Week covered AT&T’s upgrade complications in an article on August 23rd:

Many of AT&T’s 60,000 cell towers need to be upgraded. That could cost billions of dollars, and AT&T has kept a lid on capital spending during the recession—though it has made spending shifts to accommodate skyrocketing iPhone traffic. Even if the funds were available now, the process could take years due to the hassle and time needed to win approval to erect new towers and to dig the ditches that hold fiber-optic lines capable of delivering data. And time is ticking. All carriers are moving to a much faster network standard called LTE that will begin being deployed in 2011. Once that transition has occurred, the telecom giant will be on a more level playing field.

And there are limits to how fast AT&T can move. While it may take only a few weeks to deploy new-fangled wireless gear in a city’s cell towers, techies could spend months tilting antennas at the proper angle to make sure every square foot is covered.

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports also points out a good deal of the iPhone’s data traffic never touches AT&T’s wireless network and he debunked a piece in The Wall Street Journal that proposed some of the same kinds of pricing and policy changes Manjoo suggests:

iPhone users are using Wi-Fi 42% of the time and the $30 price point is already a $10 bump from the first generation iPhone. The Journal also ignores the absolutely staggering profits from SMS/MMS, and the fact that AT&T posted a net income of $3.1 billion for just the first three months of the year. That’s even after the network upgrades the Journal just got done telling us make unlimited data untenable.

Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett has been making the rounds lately complaining that a wireless apocalypse is afoot, telling any journalist who’ll listen that the wireless market is “collapsing” and/or “grinding to a halt.” Why? Because as new subscriber growth slows and the market saturates, incredible profits for carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless may soon be downgraded to only somewhat incredible. Carriers may soon have to start competing more heavily on pricing, driving stock prices down. That’s great for you, but crappy for Moffett’s clients.

You’ll note that neither the Journal nor Moffett provide a new business model to replace the $30 unlimited plan, but the intentions are pretty clear if you’ve been playing along at home. As on the terrestrial broadband front, investors see pure per-byte billing as the solution to all of their future problems, as it lets carriers charge more money for the same or less product (ask Time Warner Cable). Of course as with Mr. Moffett’s opinions on network upgrades, what’s best for Mr. Moffett quite often isn’t what’s best for consumers.

If AT&T doesn’t have the financial capacity or willingness to appropriately grow their network, inevitably customers will take their wireless business elsewhere, and perhaps Apple will see the wisdom of not giving the company exclusivity rights any longer.

Manjoo’s proposals (except the $10 rate increase, which they’ll love) would almost certainly never make it beyond the discussion stage.  A pricing model that automatically places consumers using little data into a less expensive price tier, or relies on a true consumption “pay for exactly what you use” pricing model would cannibalize AT&T’s revenue.  Past Internet Overcharging pricing has never been about saving customers money — they just charge more to designated “heavy users” for the exact same level of service.  Need more money?  Redefine what constitutes a “heavy user” or just wait a year when today’s data piggies are tomorrow’s average users.  Now they can all pay more.

The average iPhone user already pays a premium for their AT&T iPhone experience — an average $90 a month for a combined mandatory voice and data plan — costs higher than those paid by other AT&T customers.  AT&T accounted for the anticipated data usage of the iPhone in setting the pricing for monthly service.

The biggest data consumers aren’t smartphone or iPhone users. That designation belongs to laptop or netbook owners using wireless mobile networks for connectivity.  Those plans universally are usage capped at 5 gigabytes per month, far higher than the 400 megabyte cap Manjoo proposes.  If AT&T felt individual iPhone customers were the real issue, they would have already usage capped the iPhone data plan.  Instead, they just increased the price, ostensibly to invest the difference in expanding their network.

Perhaps at twice the price, everything would be nice.

Manjoo admits AT&T does not release exact usage numbers, but it’s obvious a phone equipped to run any number of add-on applications that the iPhone can will use more data than a cumbersome phone forcing customers to browse using a number keypad.  That in and of itself does not mean iPhone users are “data hogs.”  In reality, 400 megabytes of usage a month on a network also handling wireless broadband customers with a 5 gigabyte cap is a pittance.  That’s 10 times less than a customer can use on an AT&T wireless broadband-equipped netbook, and still be under their monthly allowance.

Here’s a better idea: end the monopoly AT&T has on the iPhone in the United States. That would immediately do a lot more for AT&T customers, as the so-called “data hogs” that hate AT&T flee off their network.

Manjoo’s alternatives are a “pay $10 more” solution that won’t save consumers money and “pay exactly for what you use” plan that AT&T will never accept.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Verizon Wireless and Google this morning surprised the wireless mobile industry when it went far beyond a much-anticipated agreement between Verizon and Google to market smartphones using Google’s Android operating system, and instead seemed to embrace Net Neutrality for unrestricted use of online services on Verizon Wireless’ network.  Is this a consumer-friendly about face or a strategic effort to take the wind out of the sails pushing for formal adoption of Network Neutrality regulations?

Today’s announcement represents a complete reversal for Verizon Wireless, which announced opposition for wireless Net Neutrality in September.  Tom Tauke, Verizon’s executive vice president of regulatory affairs said then: “We believe that when the FCC reviews the record and looks at the facts, it will be clear that there is no current problem which justifies the risk of imposing a new set of regulations that will limit consumer choices and affect content providers, application developers, device manufacturers and network builders.”

Google and Verizon have been on opposite sides of the Net Neutrality debate for several years now.  The phone company spends millions of dollars lobbying Washington to keep Net Neutrality off its back, in direct opposition to Google’s strong advocacy for the consumer-friendly open network rules.  One might anticipate a joint webcast between the two companies would be reserved in tone at best.

It wasn’t.

In fact, Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam and Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt fell all over themselves praising one another, and attacked Verizon’s nemesis AT&T.

McAdam took a shot at AT&T for the recent controversy over their decision to block Google Voice and other Voice Over IP services from working with AT&T’s wireless network.

“Either you have an open device or not. This will be open,” McAdam said.

Schmidt praised Verizon Wireless’ nationwide mobile broadband network, calling it “by far the best in the United States.”

AT&T understood the implication of the partnership between its biggest rival and the super-sized Google and announced it was reversing its decision to block Voice Over IP applications on its network.

Ralph de la Vega, chief executive of AT&T’s consumer wireless unit, said “the iPhone is an innovative device that dramatically changed the game in wireless when it was introduced just two years ago.  Today’s decision was made after evaluating our customers’ expectations and use of the device compared to dozens of others we offer.”

That’s a remarkable statement coming from a company that has routinely ignored the wishes and expectations of its iPhone customers for less expensive, higher quality, less restrictive service.

AT&T’s reversal was praised by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who is pushing for adoption of Net Neutrality as part of FCC broadband policy.

“When AT&T indicated, in response to the FCC’s inquiry, that it would take another look at permitting VoIP on its 3G network I was encouraged,” Genachowski said. “I commend AT&T’s decision to open its network to VoIP. Opening wireless services to greater consumer choice will drive investment and innovation in the mobile marketplace.”

Have AT&T and Verizon suddenly realized taking a customer-friendly position of Net Neutrality is better for their corporate image?

Perhaps, but one might also consider the reversals to be part of a strategic effort to demonstrate a lack of need for Net Neutrality rules in a ‘remarkably open and free competitive wireless marketplace.’  Expect to see that line or something akin to it coming from the anti-Net Neutrality lobbying campaign within hours of today’s events.

AT&T has also spent millions on lobbying efforts in Washington to keep Net Neutrality and other telecommunications legislation at bay.  The prospect of a sudden role reversal for two of the biggest spenders on influencing public policy would be remarkable, if it actually happened for consumers’ sake.

Verizon Wireless & Google Joint Webcast — October 6, 2009 (18 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.