WTTG's "Ask Allison" segment answers a question about unwelcome mandatory data plans

Ever wonder why your cell phone bill seems to keep increasing when you renew your contract?

American wireless phone companies have discovered that subjecting an increasing percentage of customers to required data plans can create a revenue bonanza for companies, whether customers use many data services or not.

Many customers are just learning of new, mandatory data plans now required by all four of the country’s major carriers.  Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile now compel customers upgrading to new “smartphones” — designed to be used for accessing online services — to also choose an extra add-on plan to cover their data usage.  In some cases, that can add an additional $30 a month to monthly cell phone bills.

Some Verizon customers have learned about this the hard way when they tried to buy a new phone at the end of their two year contracts.  For those longstanding Verizon customers grandfathered on service plans developed five or more years ago, being forced to switch to one of Verizon’s current plans carries quite the sticker shock, especially for those who only occasionally send text messages or use data features.

The insistence by Verizon that Smartphone owners commit to their $29.99 unlimited data usage add-on plan adds considerably to monthly bills.  Many Verizon customers don’t care about increasing sizes of calling allowances — Verizon customers already enjoy free night and weekend calling and free calls to other Verizon Wireless customers (of which there are many — Verizon is now the nation’s largest wireless provider).

Here is a comparison between two near-equivalent Verizon Wireless calling plans, ones from 2005 and the other currently in effect.  There is a dramatic difference in pricing, particularly for those who would find a 250 text message allowance, and data usage counting against your minutes allowance more than sufficient to meet their needs:

AMERICA’S CHOICE II FAMILYSHARE PLAN (2005)

Plan Details

Promotion details

UNLIMITED N&W MINUTES, UNLIMITED VERIZON-TO-VERIZON CUSTOMER CALLING, MOBILE WEB – WEB USAGE COUNTS AGAINST MINUTE ALLOWANCE

Additional features

250 MESSAGE TEXT PLAN, INCLUDING TEXT AND VIDEO ($5 PER MONTH)

NATIONWIDE FAMILY TALK & TEXT SHAREPLAN (2010)

Plan Details

Promotion details

UNLIMITED N&W MINUTES, UNLIMITED VERIZON-TO-VERIZON CUSTOMER CALLING, UNLIMITED TEXT, PICTURE, AND VIDEO MESSAGING

Additional Features

REQUIRED UNLIMITED DATA PLAN (SMARTPHONE) ($29.99 PER MONTH)

Before taxes, fees, and surcharges, Verizon Wireless customers holding onto their legacy FamilyShare plan from 2005 would pay $65.00 per month for two lines sharing 700 minutes of calling, with one line also getting 250 text, picture, or video messages, and a data plan that ate from your minutes allowance, instead of charging you per megabyte.

Today’s plan costs far more — $129.98 — more than double, for most of the same features.  The only difference is that Verizon Wireless doesn’t presently limit your data usage or messaging on their SharePlan.

No wonder consumers are getting sticker shock when upgrading their phones.  The paradigm shift to a “required data plan” forces customers away from older service plans onto new ones.  The result is a much higher monthly bill.

All this and the same companies that have figured out how to effectively double your cell phone bill in five years are also contemplating taking away the “unlimited” part of the required data plan.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington Is It Legal to Require A Phone Data Plan 5-7-10.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV’s “Ask Allison” feature recently answered a question from a viewer who just discovered the “mandatory data plan” as an unwelcome part of her new phone purchase.  The Washington, D.C. viewer wants to know if that’s legal.  Allison educates viewers in the nation’s capital that isn’t the only trick or trap cell phone companies have in store for you.  Bottom line: maybe you don’t want that new phone after all.  (3 minutes)

Verizon, like AT&T, is seeking to eventually make the printed White Pages telephone directory a thing of the past.

Last Friday, the company appealed to the New York State Public Service Commission to cease automatic delivery of the directory to residents in New York State.  It is the first among 40 phone companies serving New York to do so.

Verizon cites a Gallup study that suggests only 11 percent of households still use the printed White Pages, with the rest going online or using directory assistance to obtain listings.

New York State telecommunications law requires that all phone companies provide a free set of telephone directories to every subscriber in the state.  While phone companies earn millions from Yellow Pages advertising (which is why Verizon is not seeking to stop automatic delivery of those books), they technically lose money on residential listings found in the White Pages.

Verizon claims New York White Pages consume more than 5,000 tons of paper per year and that they are unwanted by many customers.

What the company does not say is that consumers can already request that automatic delivery of telephone directories be stopped.  Few consumers select to opt-out of directory delivery, however.

Verizon, like AT&T, proposes an opt-in system where a copy of the White Pages will only be dropped on New York doorsteps if a subscriber specifically requests one.  It will also be available on a CD-ROM or online.

Verizon is so confident of its forthcoming success with the Commission, it even included pre-written press releases in its filing announcing the imminent demise of the printed listings.

The prospect of the end of the New York White Pages made news in some pages of a different kind — in the New York Times:

In its petition to regulators, Verizon is emphasizing the environmental benefits of the move. Most of the cost savings would be realized by SuperMedia, the publisher of the directories, which once was a division of Verizon but is now a separate company.

Scott W. Klein, the chief executive of SuperMedia, which is based in Dallas, declined to say how many directories his company estimated it would still deliver in New York if distribution was no longer mandatory — or how much it would save. But, he added, “We’re not talking about millions and millions of dollars.”

SuperMedia would continue to print and distribute the real money-maker, the Yellow Pages, which charges businesses that want prominent display, and the business White Pages, which also generate revenue from display advertising, he said. Those directories would include listings for government offices.

Verizon’s proposal reflects technological progress and a new way of thinking in the telecommunications industry, Mr. Klein said.

Not long ago, he said, the industry’s attitude was, “By gosh, we’re going to deliver this book to you whether you want it or not.” Even if the Public Service Commission rejects Verizon’s proposal, New Yorkers who do not want the White Pages can notify the company that they want delivery halted.

“We made a conscious decision to make it easy for people to not get the book,” Mr. Klein said. “We only want to create and provide products that people want to use.”

Of course, the one group that never realizes any savings from an end to telephone book distribution are individual ratepayers.

Verizon has a similar request before telecom regulators in New Jersey.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WICZ Binghamton No More White Pages in New York 5-10-10.flv[/flv]

WICZ-TV News in Binghamton was among several TV newscasts telling viewers across the state that the White Pages may be an endangered species.  (1 minute)

Reach Out and Touch Someone... With Cash

Stop the Cap! readers Terry and Scott write to let us know it was an Astroturf weekend in the pages of the New York Times‘ ‘Letters to the Editor’ section as two traditional allies in big telecom’s fight against Net Neutrality and broadband regulation blasted the newspaper’s recent pro-FCC regulatory authority editorial.

Mike Wendy, vice president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a disingenuously-named telephone and cable-backed front group, was first up, proclaiming the bipartisanship of the glorious Telecommunications Act of 1996 which made unregulated broadband’s growth possible:

Over the last five years alone, American companies — incentivized by the absence of Internet regulation — have invested more than half a trillion dollars to build broadband infrastructure. Consequently, this has exploded broadband choice and access, boosting jobs, productivity and commerce, as well as other important societal-civic benefits, for more than 90 percent of America. This growth will continue, fostered by vibrant competition among cable, wireless, wire line and other evolving means.

It is understandable that you ignore the second fact: it reveals an inconvenient truth. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which put Internet services outside of 75-year-old telephone regulations, was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner. The Bush-era regulatory changes, which ensure that Internet services get treated in accord with the law, only followed through on the pro-deregulatory, pro-marketplace intent of the law.

Speaking of inconvenient truths, it took the newspaper’s editors to fully disclose that “the writer is vice president of […] a think tank that takes support from the information technology, telecom, wireless, media, cable and content industries.”  Kudos to the Times for disclosing that — too often such hackery goes unchallenged, without informing readers who is paying for it.

In the case of P&F, it’s all our favorites:

Translation: We don't represent consumers

• AT&T
• Comcast Corporation
• Cox Enterprises
• National Cable & Telecommunications Association
• Time Warner Cable
• T-Mobile
• USTelecom – The Broadband Association
• Verizon Communications

Of course, those big dollar amounts representing industry investments ignores the even bigger profits reaped from those investments, particularly in barely-competitive broadband.  Nobody in the broadband industry is lining up for a bailout, that’s for certain.

As to the group’s assertion that bipartisan bliss made telecom deregulation all worthwhile, the only thing they managed to prove is that both political parties are ready and willing to be suckered into believing the broken promises of lower pricing and better service for their constituents (helped along with a generous campaign contribution to ease any disappointment later on.)

President Clinton, who signed the Act, considers it one of his mistakes after he saw the results.

Just days after the governor of Arizona signed a highly controversial border enforcement measure into law, LULAC labels Net Neutrality opposition its "top news story." Is this a group that represents the real interests of America's Latino community, or that of its backers AT&T and Verizon?

Next up is a letter from Brent A. Wilkes, Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).  He doesn’t like Net Neutrality either, and regurgitates familiar industry talking points our readers can recite in their sleep:

We’ve seen more than $200 billion invested in broadband networks — more private investment than anywhere in the world — and the Internet in the United States has been an unquestioned success.

Second, network neutrality regulations are largely a solution in search of a problem. The F.C.C. adopted “Open Internet” principles in 2005. Since then, there have been only a few alleged breaches that were quickly resolved under this framework.

On the other hand, net neutrality regulations could shield the companies that make billions in profits from the Internet — search engines and other providers — from contributing toward the $350 billion in investment broadband upgrades needed to handle bandwidth demands, which double every two years. That would shift these bandwidth costs exclusively — 100 percent — onto consumers and could thereby deter broadband adoption in Latino and other communities.

Net neutrality could also bar broadband providers from managing, in a nondiscriminatory manner, the few bandwidth-hogging applications and services that can consume nearly all of a neighborhood’s bandwidth. If and when critics identify a real problem, Congress should quickly grant the F.C.C. the express authority to fix it.

Now why would a Latino interest group be so ready and willing to carry the industry’s water in the pages of the New York Times?  Whenever AT&T and Verizon have a public policy concern, LULAC is sure to follow.  For years, this group has been a part of more than a few industry-backed astroturf campaigns designed to trick consumers into buying their corporate agenda.  For disadvantaged Latino communities already hard hit with an ever-expanding price tag for telecommunications services, it’s shameful to see a group openly advocating an agenda that extracts more money from consumers’ wallets.

LULAC has received millions in support from General Motors, AT&T and Verizon

LULAC was there as a card-carrying member of both TV4Us and Consumers for Cable Choice, front groups promising consumers in states served by AT&T that statewide video franchises would lower their cable bills.  LULAC was front and center in the cheerleading section.  Only Latino Wisconsins, along with everyone else, got rate increases instead.  Thanks, LULAC!

Telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick tears the lid off:

This “deception … is about playing on America’s caring about the public interest and about minorities getting a fair shake,” Kushnick says . Worse, “these organizations have very deep-pocketed funders with lobbying groups, PR firms and others to get them the loudest ‘volume’ in the media or access to regulators and legislators. They often overwhelm the message of independent consumer groups.”

LULAC was there in states like New Jersey when Verizon was looking for its own statewide franchises.  To not offer them, LULAC suggested, would harm Latino communities across the region.  Actually, for many of them, the fact their cable and phone bills continue to march relentlessly higher actually hurts more.

The group is an equal opportunity sellout.  During discussions about XM Radio and Sirius merging, LULAC was ready with a letter of support for the merger.  Because when you think about pressing concerns for today’s Latino community, dwelling on the merger of two satellite radio services is a real front burner issue.

When Verizon wanted to acquire Alltel, guess what group was there to cheer the deal on:

LULAC supports this merger because the networks of the two companies are largely complementary. That means that when the merger is complete, even more consumers will enjoy the innovations Verizon Wireless plans to bring to market in years to come.

It’s getting hard to find a cause célèbre for AT&T or Verizon where LULAC doesn’t have their back.

But why?

Money, of course.

AT&T and Verizon have both donated millions of dollars over the years to LULAC.  General Motors, which had a direct interest in the outcome of the XM/Sirius merger is a donor as well.

Don’t fall for hackery.  Net Neutrality protects consumer interests and guarantees online freedom, something especially important as the forthcoming immigration reform debate begins anew.  That’s an issue Latinos are concerned with.  Too bad those issues don’t generate multi-million dollar contributions, which might get groups like LULAC to stop advocating against the interests of their own members.

“The world is calling. Answer it. With Verizon Wireless, you can call and text in more than 220 countries.”

Verizon Wireless has taken some liberties in its latest advertising, claiming to provide service to “more than 220 countries” worldwide.

That’s an amazing feat, considering there are fewer than 200 recognized nations on Earth.

In fact, although recognized authorities peg the number of nations somewhat differently — the United Nations recognizes 192, National Geographic 193, and the World Atlas 195 — nobody comes close to Verizon Wireless.

The company told Consumerist, who made inquiries, that it counts special administrative regions, dependent territories, and other special zones as individual countries.

Norfolk Island, part of the Commonwealth of Australia, enjoys full sovereignty as an independent nation in the eyes of Verizon.

So do the Falkland Islands (or Las Islas Malvinas if you prefer), a fact sure to upset Great Britain which fought a war over the matter in the early 1980s.

Even the Åland Islands, a Swedish-speaking territory of Finland, ends up on the list. The neutral Åland Islands were considered the Switzerland of the Baltic Sea during World War 2, where merchant ships delivered goods for both the Axis powers and the Allies.  These days, both Germans and the English can text one another with Verizon Wireless.

At this rate, Verizon could claim South Bass Island, one of several Lake Erie Islands, as an independent nation, too.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington Verizon Ad Makes Confusing Claim 4-16-10.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV in Washington explores Verizon’s confusing claim that it delivers service in more countries than exist on planet Earth.  (1 minute)

Plans by Frontier Communications to clamp down on “excessive usage” of their DSL service and overcharge customers who exceed 100GB of usage per month brought a strong negative reaction from a consumer group, who called Frontier’s limits “divorced from the underlying economics.”

Sources also tell Stop the Cap! the company is actively working on changing language in their Acceptable Use Policy that, as of this morning, is still misleading customers in Minnesota about their service.

A Frontier spokesperson also told an Oregon newspaper Frontier’s acquired FiOS service areas are not guaranteed cap-free service — the company may implement some restrictions there as well.

But first, Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy no longer matches reality for customers in Mound, Minnesota who are getting notified that their service is at risk of being shut off if they don’t agree to new, dramatically-higher priced service plans.  But such e-mails run contrary to several sections in the company’s own published policies:

Frontier’s Residential Acceptable Use Policy (Last Update: December 23, 2008) (PDF Archived 4/15)

The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier’s Supplementary “5GB” Addendum to their Acceptable Use Policy (PDF Archived 4/15)

Frontier has not implemented tiered usage plans and will continue to evaluate if and when they would be necessary. If and when Frontier implements a tiered usage plan pricing and usage information will be communicated to all High-Speed customers.

Does Frontier plan to limit my use of the Internet?
Frontier is providing (NOT LIMITING) all customers with a minimum of 5GB of usage on a monthly basis. The Company has made no decision at this time to charge for additional usage but wants to start to educate customers about their usage.

If I hit 5GB will my service be interrupted?
No. Your service will not be interrupted at 5Gb. You will continue to use our High Speed Internet service without disruption.

How will I know how many Gigabytes I am using?
Sometime in the future, Frontier will provide to all customers visibility as to what your usage is on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. We will also provide a the ability to estimate bandwidth usage for different types of activities – like streaming video downloads or file sharing. These tools will give our customers the ability to make informed decisions about broadband usage consumption.

Tell that to the customers in Mound who have 14 or fewer days and counting to either pay extortionist broadband pricing, curtail their usage, or go elsewhere for service (if they can).

It’s no surprise some customers in Mound are outraged when receiving the company’s e-mailed notification about paying higher prices for usage because it runs completely contrary to the published policies of Frontier’s broadband service.

That’s just one more mistake in a series of mistakes Frontier has made in marketing its broadband service, especially in areas where consumers can take their business elsewhere and not have to worry about exceeding Frontier’s minuscule usage allowance.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost quotes a statement released by Free Press research director S. Derek Turner: “While there may be a place for discussing reasonable usage-based billing, the scheme Frontier is testing is completely divorced from the underlying economics. Even worse than their price-gouging is Frontier’s assertion that a mere 5 gigabytes per month is a ‘reasonable’ amount of usage when just last month the National Broadband Plan reported that average Internet users with a fixed connection consume 9 gigabytes of data per month.”

Davis also managed to get a Frontier spokesperson on the record about the debacle, telling MediaPost, “the company is only trying to prevent some exceptionally heavy bandwidth users from degrading service for others on the network. She also says that people who received the letters were given an option of decreasing their bandwidth consumption or switching to a different, higher-priced plan.”

Yet the concept of DSL customers degrading the broadband experience of other customers on the network is itself controversial, as DSL providers have always emphasized they do not suffer from slowdowns like shared networks used by cable broadband providers.  While heavy consumption can theoretically congest “middle mile” networks that serve regional areas or connect telephone company switching offices, those congestion issues are not difficult to address when companies use fiber connections to connect them, as Frontier frequently does.  Indeed, Frontier is far more likely to suffer congestion issues when millions of former Verizon customers are piled on Frontier’s network.

Nowhere in Frontier’s e-mail does it tell customers they can reduce usage to retain service.  It only says “if you do not wish to switch to this new rate plan, you can have your service disconnected.”  Mound residents are faced with the prospect of immediately reducing usage from 100GB to just 5GB to stay within Frontier’s terms and conditions.  Under those conditions, they could do better with dial-up.

Meanwhile, those soon-to-be-discarded Verizon customers facing a transition to Frontier Communications may soon find themselves potentially impacted by some sort of usage limit as well, which could also apply to the areas served by FiOS.

Mike Rogoway at The Oregonian talked with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby about Frontier’s plans:

I talked this afternoon with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby, who said there won’t be tight bandwidth restrictions after Frontier acquires FiOS — but he indicated that there may be some restrictions.

Currently, Frontier’s user agreement sets a nominal 5 gigabyte cap on monthly bandwidth usage.

“You know, I know and everyone knows that’s a very low number,” Crosby said. “We don’t hold people to that.”

The letters that went out in Minnesota went to a small group of very heavy bandwidth users in one community, Crosby told me. It’s not meant to reflect a broader policy.

As Frontier prepares to take over Verizon’s operations in Oregon and other states — Crosby says the deal is on track and likely to close in late June or early July — Frontier is reviewing its Internet use policies.

I pointed out Comcast’s bandwidth cap, and told Crosby that it seems likely his company will do something similar. He left that possibility open, but said any Internet limits are still under discussion.

“I don’t know what that limit will be,” he said. “The one thing I do know is we don’t want to impact our customers.”

St0p the Cap! responds:

• This is the first time Frontier has hinted that usage limits could eventually apply to the FiOS fiber-to-the-home service it is acquiring from Verizon, a network constructed to manage 21st century broadband traffic Frontier now also seems willing to limit;
• Frontier does hold people to the 5GB usage cap when they are in violation of it, using it as an excuse to expose customers to far-higher-priced service plans or service disconnection.  If Frontier isn’t serious about it, why retain the language in customer agreements?
• If Frontier’s Mound e-mail notifications do not reflect a broader policy, than the only customers who will see a change in the Acceptable Use Policy will be those in the Mound, Minnesota area.  If customers elsewhere see a change, it -does- reflect a broader policy after all.
• As part of Frontier’s “review of Internet use policies,” the company should not defray expenses surrounding the Frontier-Verizon deal by dumping them on broadband customers with outrageously punitive pricing plans.
• As for not wanting to impact customers, our response is “too late.”  Frontier’s original introduction of the 5GB usage allowance in the summer of 2008 impacted customers far and wide, and for its largest service area — Rochester, NY, gave Time Warner Cable happy hunting grounds to experiment with a usage cap of their own.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost offers some food for thought:

Frontier’s letters could well trigger regulatory or judicial scrutiny, especially given the seeming disconnect between the company’s acceptable use policy and its recent actions.

Of course, the underlying problem is the lack of competition. If consumers had more options for broadband providers, a company that threatened to disconnect its customers, or charge $99 or $250 a month for broadband service, might quickly find itself dealing with more pressing problems than public criticism.