Here today, Gone today. T-Mobile withdraws a prepaid plan hours after sending press releases about it. (Image: TmoNews)

Imagine if your “unlimited” phone line came with a hidden limit — after 50 calls a month, each additional call would take at least five minutes to complete.

In the data world, speed throttles for “heavy users” deliver a similar frustrating experience.  That is what makes T-Mobile’s newly-announced “unlimited” use plans so ironic.  They are not truly unlimited at all.

T-Mobile’s “Even More” plan ($79.99) announced today for their contract/postpaid customers promises unlimited calls, texts, and data sessions with a very big asterisk — after using 2GB of data in a month, the company will throttle your data speed to near-dialup until your next billing cycle starts.

Providers routinely claim this doesn’t represent false advertising because you can still use data services on your phone, as long as you are willing to wait… a… very… long… time….

T-Mobile also managed to take back an announced plan for prepaid customers literally hours after seeding press releases to as many news agencies as possible.

In our copy, “Even More Plus” was supposed to deliver the same features as “Even More,” but at a much lower price — $59.99 per month.  It too was sold as “truly unlimited” for all of five hours before company officials yanked it, perhaps realizing their prepaid plan threw their postpaid/contract customers under the bus — charging them $20 more a month for same plan prepaid customers were to get for less.

TmoNews, home to a number of employees willing to share inside information about T-Mobile’s business, shared a copy of a notification message telling employees to avoid signing people up for the cheaper prepaid plan — it has been withdrawn.  But if customers insist, T-Mobile will agree to let you have the lower price, but only if you call by the end of today.

We noted with interest T-Mobile labels what they sell as “truly unlimited data” as the “$20 (2GB) feature” add-on in their own internal sales system.

Jeff, a Stop the Cap! reader grandfathered on an earlier T-Mobile data plan says it’s classic “bait and switch” advertising.

“My data plan offers 5GB of usage before the speed throttle kicks in, and now T-Mobile is advertising a 2GB data plan that they call ‘unlimited’,” Jeff notes. “A T-Mobile rep actually tried to tell me the new plan was better than the one I have now, which is the kind of new math that will make T-Mobile’s marketing department fit in real well with AT&T if this merger is approved.”

Verizon's Herd Mentality

Saturday will be the final day Verizon Wireless customers will be able to sign up for one-year service contracts and still get a discount on new equipment.

Effective April 17, customers will have just two choices for service — the ubiquitous two year contract with a steep early termination fee or month-to-month service priced artificially high to recover equipment subsidies off-contract customers do not receive.

Verizon claims the changes will “reduce consumer confusion,” which suggests customers couldn’t make up their minds between contracts for one year or two.  But the company claims most subscribers managed soon enough, usually choosing two year contracts to maximize discounts on equipment.

Some media outlets suggest the change is to discourage customers from abandoning Verizon Wireless for AT&T by holding them to longer two year contract terms.  But with AT&T losing customers to Verizon, that is an unlikely reason.

More likely is the company’s ongoing “simplification” of service plans, which has the unfortunate side effect of herding customers into plans that may not serve them well.  Verizon earlier did away with their popular “New Every Two” handset bonus plan which rewarded loyal customers renewing their contracts with additional $50 discounts.  The company also has cut back on other discounts on equipment, driving an increasing number of customers to third party retailers like Wirefly.

The one year service plan was established to let customers get some discount on wireless equipment without tying them down to a 24 month service commitment.  Since wireless providers build in cost recovery of the subsidies they “give” customers, you effectively pay back those discounts over two years by in the form of overpriced service plans.  Month to month “off-contract” customers do not get the benefit of any discounts for new equipment, but pay the same high prices for service everyone else does.

If your contract has recently expired, or you never had one, you might do better with Page Plus or Wal-Mart’s “Straight Talk” which both rely on Verizon’s network, but sell service at much lower prices, without a contract.

Stephenson can use hit upsized alarm system to sleep better at night.

While AT&T is just weeks away from implementing Internet Overcharging schemes on its DSL and U-verse customers, the company’s CEO is raking in perks defended in the company’s 2011 proxy statement as necessary to be “robust and competitive enough to attract and retain key talent.”

Yet USA Today notes CEO Randall Stephenson, 50, doesn’t appear to be going anywhere — he has been with AT&T since the first term of the Reagan Administration.

In addition to more than $20.2 million in compensation, Stephenson’s perks and goodies amount to $417,000 in 2011.  Some of the highlights:

• Free personal use of the company jet ($180k)
• Paid life insurance premiums ($164k)
• A home security system ($31k)
• Car leases ($29k)
• Financial planning to help figure out what to do with all the cash ($14k)

What did your employer give you last year?

Signal boosters use an outdoor antenna to reach distant cell tower sites, while using an indoor antenna your mobile device can lock onto for improved reception.

If the Federal Communications Commission has its way, Americans annoyed with lousy cell phone reception will soon be able to purchase a new generation of signal boosters capable of delivering service to fringe reception areas ignored or bypassed by providers.  And unlike home cell-phone extenders, they won’t use your home broadband connection while also eating up your voice and data allowance.

A signal booster, not to be confused with a “femtocell” some wireless carriers sell or give to customers, acts like an amplified super-antenna — giving a boost to phones and mobile broadband signals in difficult reception areas.

This devices have been around and legal to use for a several years in North America, much to the consternation of cell phone companies and some public safety officials who deal with occasional interference problems created by misused or malfunctioning equipment.  The FCC is trying to find ways to mitigate interference problems while still allowing customers to benefit from signal boosters.  There are documented cases of rescuers relying on the equipment in remote disaster areas, and rural residents have managed 911 calls that would have been impossible without signal boosting technology.

Despite the agency’s efforts, several cell phone companies — particularly AT&T, object to the Commission’s plans to allow the independent use of signal-boosting equipment on “their” frequencies and networks.  Because cell phone boosters agnostically enhance every company’s signal within its frequency range and does not require users to pre-register phones to get access, AT&T stands to lose revenue if they are not the exclusive authority on selling, approving, and registering the use of miniature relay stations that boost their network’s coverage area.

AT&T currently sells customers femtocells which reduce dependence on the carrier’s overburdened 3G network — offloading traffic onto home and workplace wired broadband connections, which includes both voice calls and data.  But only a small percentage of customers get the equipment for free, often extending their contracts in the process.

Some providers and emergency responders have documented instances where these devices have created interference problems for cell tower sites and for emergency radio traffic that co-exists on the same frequency bands signal boosters occupy.  In some cases, inappropriate use of signal boosters has blocked emergency traffic, shut down cell sites, or reduced their coverage.  That is why the FCC wants the next generation of signal boosters to be able to intelligently interact with cell sites and other traffic users and reduce their power or discontinue service if they begin to create interference problems.

AT&T’s suggested safeguards go well beyond what most other carriers want from the FCC:

First, AT&T proposes that wireless licensees have “ultimate control” over any signal boosters operating on their networks under a presumptive authorization.  Specifically, signal booster operators must activate their devices with the licensee prior to initial use. In addition, the booster must possess technology to permit the licensee’s network to identify the device as a booster and identify its location at all times. Further, the licensee must have “dynamic control over the boosters’ transmit power” and have the authority and ability to turn off the booster for any reason at any time. Alternatively, AT&T proposes that the booster have “automatic gain control functionality that adjusts the power provided to the booster based on distance to the relevant base station.”

Second, AT&T proposes that signal boosters may only be operated on a channelized basis on the frequencies authorized for use by the wireless licensee whose signal is being boosted. AT&T suggests that manufacturers could meet this requirement by selling carrier-specific narrowband boosters or by designing “intelligent” boosters that limit transmissions to the spectrum licensed to the carrier whose signal is being boosted.

Third, AT&T proposes that signal boosters be designed with oscillation detection and will terminate transmission when oscillation occurs.

Fourth, AT&T proposes an expanded certification process for signal boosters that are to be used pursuant to a presumptive authorization. Specifically, the booster would be subject to (1) the Commission’s equipment certification process; (2) an industry-driven certification process;105 and (3) individual licensee approval to ensure compliance with the licensee’s proprietary confidential network protocols.

Fifth, AT&T proposes that any presumptive authorization standards be applied prospectively and that the Commission bring enforcement action against parties that sell, market, or use devices that do not meet the presumptive standard.

Wilson Electronics is a major manufacturer of cell signal boosters.

Equipment manufacturers are not impressed with AT&T’s ideas.  One tells Stop the Cap! if adopted, signal boosting equipment would cost more than double today’s average price of $200-400.

“AT&T has built so many requirements into their proposal, they know the result will be a product too expensive to sell to consumers,” the source tells us.  “And the part where AT&T wants the right to authorize and register the equipment gives them the option of charging a fee for doing so, turning the product into yet another way for AT&T to make money.”

Equipment manufacturers agree that there have been instances of interference problems, and they are willing to work with the Commission to find solutions, but not at the risk of adopting proposals some suspect are designed to destroy the signal booster business.

“AT&T is a control freak, plain and simple,” the source says.  “If they don’t own it or control it, it’s offensive to them.  It must be eliminated.”

More than one equipment manufacturer has noted, not for attribution, they find AT&T’s complaints a bit ironic.

“This is the same company that is already notorious for dropping calls,” said the source.  “You would think they would look favorably on anything that could deliver ‘more bars in more places,’ because AT&T sure isn’t doing it these days.  Just ask their customers.”

Another month, another colossal mistake from Frontier Communications.

As dead-tree-format telephone directories make their way to residents in western New York, customers noticed Rochester’s largest employer — the University of Rochester/Medical Center, was largely missing from the company’s Yellow Pages.

Oops.

During the production process for your 2011 FrontierPages Rochester Metro directory, multiple listings were inadvertently omitted or printed in error.  On behalf of FrontierPages and out telephone directory publisher, The Berry Company LLC, I’d like to sincerely apologize for this oversight and any confusion this may have caused.

Frontier printed and enclosed a supplement, University of Rochester Special Edition, to cover the lost listings.  It was the least they could do for the community’s biggest employer.  Ordinary consumers (like myself), don’t get similar treatment.  For the seventh year in a row, Frontier’s White Pages lists an old address we left in 2004.  This, despite not less than 15 reminders asking them to fix it.