Sprint, the last remaining major national wireless carrier without an Internet Overcharging scheme, will adopt one of its own on Oct. 2 when it begins limiting 3G/4G Mobile Hotspot customers to just 5GB of usage per month with a huge $50/GB overlimit fee (charged in megabyte increments).

SprintFeed shared the details in a copy of a leaked internal company newsletter announcing the changes:

(click to enlarge - Courtesy: SprintFeed)

It is important to note Sprint currently plans no usage limits on their tablet or smartphone customers — this usage cap only applies to customers signed up for the Mobile Hotspot option who use their phone’s Wi-Fi feature to connect other wireless devices.  Those with third-party tethering apps or other “unofficial” tethering schemes won’t face the usage cap either, so long as Sprint does not initiate a crackdown on customers without a company-sanctioned tethering plan.

Customers will automatically be “migrated” to the new $29.99 usage-limited Mobile Hotspot plan in October.  Affected customers will be notified of the changes in bill messages or postcards.  Sprint will not grandfather existing customers.

Some Sprint customers claim the company has always had a “secret 5GB cap” on the Mobile Hotspot feature, only enforced when customers considerably exceeded it, but this makes it official.

Sprint may be preparing its network for the introduction of iPhone 5, which Sprint is rumored to introduce early next month.

According to Edmonton city Councillor Kerry Diotte (11th Ward), Rogers Communications told him the company needs up to 1,000 new cell towers in the Edmonton area alone to meet the growing demands from cell phone, smartphone, and tablet owners who are putting pressure on the company’s wireless network.  That’s a number Rogers disputes, but regardless of how many towers eventually get erected, few residents want to live next door to one.

Diotte is caught in the middle of a major, some say inevitable, fight between the telecommunications giant and homeowners living near the proposed home of a new 25 meter cell tower that is as tall as an eight story building.

Diotte

Diotte attended a heated public meeting Tuesday evening between residents of Hazeldean and Rogers officials over plans to place the new monopole antenna right in the center of town in a residential district.

“I will absolutely bring everything that I can to try to stop this,” Diotte told CTV Edmonton. “It’s the will of the people in this ward.”

CBC Radio in Edmonton explored the cell tower controversy in Hazeldean back in July when Rogers first announced plans to erect an 82 foot monopole cell tower at a local senior’s center. Rogers says increased demand requires the company to place new cell towers in residential neighborhoods to meet demand. July 14, 2011. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Rogers officials found themselves shouted down at times during Tuesday evening’s meeting, as dozens of residents complained the new tower would reduce property values and could pose a health risk.  At least one resident wants Rogers to pay moving expenses to allow her family to leave the area before the tower is built.

Hazeldean residents say a better spot for the antenna would be in an industrial neighborhood a few blocks away.

Rogers Communications says wireless data demands are growing exponentially, and constructing new cell towers improves reception, data speeds, and divides up the increasing load of data traffic on their network.  Unfortunately, cell towers are increasingly required where customers live, work… and use their wireless devices.

For the immediate future, Rogers has plans for 20 new cell towers in Edmonton, a number dwarfed by their competitor Telus, which has plans to install 80 new cell towers across the province this year.

Industry Canada has the final say on whether Rogers will ultimately win approval to place its proposed cell tower in Hazeldean.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV Edmonton Residents Upset Over Rogers Cell Tower 9-21-11.flv[/flv]

CTV Edmonton covered the Hazeldean cell phone tower controversy and spoke with a city councilman who shared Rogers told him they would need another 1,000 cell phone towers in the Edmonton area alone to meet growing demands for cell phone users.  (5 minutes)

Verizon Communications was supposed to have a “neutral” position regarding the takeover bid by AT&T to absorb T-Mobile, but Lowell McAdam, CEO could sit on his hands no longer, and told the Wall Street Journal “the match had to occur” and cautioned if the government blocks the merger, it needs to cough up more spectrum for wireless companies like his, and fast.

McAdam made those comments earlier today at an investor conference on the afternoon of the first court hearing on the Department of Justice lawsuit to derail the $39 billion deal.

My Breakfast With Julius

McAdam has the luxury of getting his point across directly with Washington’s movers and shakers.  While consumers continue to clamor in overwhelming numbers against the idea of T-Mobile being absorbed into a super-sized AT&T, McAdam enjoyed breakfast with Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski.

Consumers don't have the luxury of breakfast with the chairman of the FCC

“I have taken the position that the AT&T merger with T-Mobile was kind of like gravity,” Mr. McAdam said. “It had to occur, because you had a company with a T-Mobile that had the spectrum but didn’t have the capital to build it out. AT&T needed the spectrum, they didn’t have it in order to take care of their customers, and so that match had to occur.”

“So in my discussions with the FCC and folks on the Hill, if we want to stop or if the government wants to stop a merger like that, they need to then step up and say, this is how we are going to get spectrum in the hands of people,” he said.

Mr. McAdam said that can be done through secondary auctions, incentive options or freeing up additional spectrum. He said the wireless industry needs more spectrum, and the FCC will be “very focused on delivering that.”

McAdam didn’t say T-Mobile could have always sold its unwanted spectrum to AT&T instead of entering into a $39 billion dollar merger deal that will further reduce wireless consumers’ choice in carriers.

Unfortunately, consumers bringing delicious breakfast pastries and a point of view about wireless consolidation are unlikely to find themselves sharing a cup of joe with the head of the FCC.  They can’t even be trusted with the FCC Chairman’s direct phone number, which executives at AT&T and Verizon both have.

No Second Cup of Coffee for Jittery Investors

Investors may not want a cup of coffee themselves, considering the jittery reception some have had to news Verizon would forgo a recurring dividend and spend money at wireless spectrum auctions instead.

“When it makes sense, we’ll have a dividend,” he said. “When there’s a better first use for those dollars, we’ll do that with it, and the dividend will either be on a hiatus or less.”

If you are a current AT&T DSL customer, there is no reason you should be paying regular prices for their usage-capped broadband.  With the implementation of their 150GB usage cap on DSL (250GB on U-verse), now is a good time to call AT&T and tell them you are upset they reduced the value of your account with a usage limit.  But hint you may be persuaded to stay if you can sign up for the same deal some of your friends are getting.

At present, those deals include:

1. One year of AT&T DSL Elite service (typically 6Mbps) for $19.95-24.95 a month (this is the easiest deal to get and renew, even if you already took advantage of it — start by asking for the lowest price, but be willing to agree to the higher price if they won’t grant your first request — the price varies in different regions.)
2. One year of AT&T DSL Pro service (typically 3Mbps) for $14.95 a month;
3. One year of AT&T U-verse 12Mbps broadband for $25 a month.

These promotions should work for “naked DSL” (broadband service only) and for current customers who already subscribe to AT&T service.

You can get these offers by calling AT&T Retentions Department directly at:

• Midwest: 1-866-918-8377
• Southwest: 1-888-387-6270
• California: 1-877-377-0415
• Connecticut: 1-877-235-2293

If your promotion is about to expire, call and ask them to extend it.  They usually will.

Burlington Telecom offices in Burlington, Vt.

Citibank has sued the city of Burlington, Vt., and the city’s legal firm demanding municipal-provider Burlington Telecom hand back their fiber-to-the-home network and pay damages in excess of $33.5 million dollars.

Citicapital, which owns the equipment that operates Burlington’s community network, says Burlington Telecom has defaulted on their lease payments, and has demanded the city “de-install and return” the fiber network — everything from set-top boxes and in-home wiring to ripping fiber cables directly out of underground vaults and off telephone poles.  Citi also wants BT’s vehicle fleet turned over to them.

Burlington Telecom has been a poster child of poorly-planned and implemented city-owned broadband, and a series of financial and operational scandals led state investigators to consider criminal charges for misappropriating taxpayer funds to sustain the network.  While prosecutors ultimately declined to file charges, the resulting scandal in the mayor’s office has left the city with a network it stopped paying for, and the potential much of it could be auctioned off to the highest bidder, which could turn out to be Comcast or FairPoint Communications.

Citicapital claims the city has not made a direct lease payment since November, 2009.  The bank had been drawing down funds deposited in a special escrow account the city was required to open as part of the lease-to-purchase transaction.  That account has also run dry, and the bank claims it has received no payments since May of 2010.

Citibank’s attorneys filed suit:

“BT continues to use Citibank’s equipment and vehicles unlawfully and without its permission and continues to depreciate the value of Citibank’s assets in order to generate revenue for itself,” the bank’s attorneys charged.

Citibank wants a judge to award punitive damages in excess of its remaining loan balance “because Burlington’s intentional breach of the agreement amounts to a reckless or wanton disregard of Citibank’s clear contractual rights.”

“It’s ironic that a bank that received a taxpayer-financed multi-hundred-billion-dollar bailout now wants taxpayers in Burlington to pay them excessive damages,” shares Stop the Cap! reader and Burlington resident Joe, who shared the story with us.  “I think we should be calling it even after three years of big bank bailouts.”

The lawsuit has city residents worried because attorney fees, and any resulting damages or settlement agreement with the bank, will likely run well into the millions of dollars.  Every month the city remains in arrears, Citibank’s agreement calls for at least $235,000 in missed payment fees and interest.  Taxpayers will likely cover most, if not all of that amount.

“I don’t think anybody should be surprised,” City Councilor Paul Decelles, R-Ward 7 told the Burlington Free-Press. “I always believed this day was going to come. Now we have enormous mess on our hands.”

Citibank wants their fiber back.

Christopher Mitchell from Community Broadband Networks notes Burlington Telecom was an aberration in a country with many successful community-owned broadband networks.

“We have watched in dismay as Burlington Telecom transitioned over the past four years from a model community network to the worst case scenario,” Mitchell wrote on the group’s blog. “This situation proves only that community networks can suffer from bad management in some of the many ways private telecom companies can suffer from bad management (resulting in anything from bankruptcy to prison).”

“Communities can learn lessons from Burlington’s situation — chief among them that transparency is important,” Mitchell observed. “As with other public enterprise funds, the operation should be regularly audited and oversight must be in place to catch errors early, when corrections are easier and less costly.”

Among Burlington Telecom’s problems included overpriced, uncompetitive broadband service that never took full advantage of fiber’s speed and versatility.  Earlier news accounts included speculation BT had trouble securing sufficient connectivity with a backbone provider to sustain faster speeds, but it left the company at a competitive disadvantage against incumbent cable operator Comcast.  Burlington Telecom also failed repeatedly to build community support to establish a firewall against frequent political shots fired at the network as it became a partisan hot potato.

The city promises a “vigorous defense” against the lawsuit, and observers suspect a judge will not order the city to shut the network down, because it would cease the only revenue stream the company generates that could be used to pay a negotiated settlement with the bank.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Citibank Sues BT 9-20-11.mp4[/flv]

WCAX in Burlington explores how much of a case Citibank has in its lawsuit against the city and its attorneys over Burlington Telecom.  (4 minutes)