Sprint is preparing to launch its own 4G LTE network early next year in an undetermined number of markets to increase 4G speeds and compete with AT&T and Verizon.

Sprint’s existing 4G service, based on older WiMax technology that powers the Clearwire network, has not kept up with subscriber demands, and many of Sprint’s “4G”-capable markets have speeds more in common with 3G than Verizon’s LTE or AT&T HSPA+ 4G networks.  As Clearwire continues to struggle through serious financial problems (the service has not expanded into a new market since 2010), lawsuits, and disgruntled customers, Sprint isn’t waiting around for Clearwire’s own planned upgrade to TD-LTE, which would require at least $600 million in financing to undertake.

Instead, Sprint is deploying the same technology used by Verizon for its LTE network.

CNET reports Sprint will initially use its G-block spectrum (1900MHz) for its LTE network, but the most robust coverage will come in 2013 when Sprint retires the Nextel iDEN network which currently resides in the 800MHz band, more suitable for longer range reception.

Sprint says the 4G LTE upgrade is all part of its Network Vision plan, which upgrades virtually the entire Sprint network at a cost of $4-5 billion.  But shareholders aren’t reacting over Sprint’s LTE spending, because it is included in the earlier budget already disclosed to Wall Street.

For consumers, the upgrade will mean the company that first embraced 4G will once again deliver speeds worthy of that label.  Sprint customers across the country have reported network speeds have suffered as more customers have piled on Sprint’s and Clearwire’s network.  Clearwire will remain a Sprint partner, but that wireless provider will increasingly depend on Sprint’s network, a reversal of Sprint’s current dependence on Clearwire WiMax for their existing 4G service.  Clearwire may ultimately be unable to finance its own upgrades.

Sprint also announced it will keep its unlimited smartphone data plans, because they attract customers from AT&T and Verizon who do not want limited-use plans.  But preserving unlimited data comes at a cost.  Sprint has been cutting perks all month:

1. Sprint nearly doubled its early termination fee from $200 to $350 effective Sept. 9.
2. Sprint slashed its satisfaction guarantee program for new customers from 30 to 14 days on Sept. 16.  Sprint’s guarantee allows new customers the opportunity to test Sprint’s network before committing to a two-year contract.  The company also now expects to be paid for whatever airtime charges were incurred during the trial.
3. Sprint has announced it is ending its Premier Program Dec. 31.  Premier gave customers who spend more than $89 a month on an individual cell plan the opportunity to upgrade their phones annually, penalty-free.  Members also received free minutes, discounts on accessories, early buying opportunities for the newest phones, and regular plan reviews.  Instead, customers will be dropped into the same New for You^SM Upgrade Program lower spenders receive.  But Sprint will be changing that program too:

Unlimited data... for now.

On October 2, the following changes to our New for You^SM Upgrade Program will take effect:

• New lines of service and existing customers who upgrade on or after October 2, 2011 will receive future upgrades after 20 months;
• $75 and $25 upgrade discounts will no longer be available for customers signing up for a 1-year agreement or 2-year agreement after 12 months or signing a 1-year agreement after 22 months.

Additional information for existing customers. As of October 2:

• If you’ve already qualified for a full upgrade, nothing changes. When you sign up for a new 2-year agreement and take your device offer, future upgrades will be available after 20 months;
• If you haven’t qualified for your full upgrade yet, to receive a discount you’ll wait until you qualify for your full upgrade at 22 months.

On Oct. 5, Sprint is expected to introduce the Apple iPhone on its network for the first time.  Some analysts predict iPhone will be the catalyst to drive Sprint’s unlimited data plan into the ground, because the phone has a reputation for being a favorite for heavy data users.  iPhone 5 will remain dependent on 3G networks for connectivity outside of Wi-Fi, which could drive data usage higher than any other Sprint phone.  Should that overwhelm Sprint’s 3G network before its 4G service enjoys a widespread rollout (and Apple introduces a phone that works on 4G), Sprint may find itself limiting data usage as well, as least on its 3G network.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Welcome to 4G from Sprint.flv[/flv]

Sprint’s promotional video promoting its current 4G WiMax network, powered by Clearwire.  (3 minutes)

Company-owned store or third party reseller?

Customers who see the logo of their favorite wireless phone company on a storefront might do better to look a little closer to determine if they are doing business with a company-owned store, or a third-party reseller.  A Bakersfield, Calif., man quickly learned the difference when he bought a mobile broadband service plan from Go Wireless that Verizon says no longer exists.

Allan Fox found out the hard way when his first bill arrived with a steep overlimit fee attached, and without the broadband plan he signed up for.

Fox purchased the discontinued plan from Go Wireless, a third party reseller of Verizon Wireless services.  Fox thought he was purchasing a 3GB plan for $35, with a two-year service contract.  Verizon thought otherwise, and so began weeks of a runaround between Fox, Go Wireless, and Verizon.

It turned out that Verizon no longer offered the plan Fox bought from what he thought was Verizon Wireless itself.  Go Wireless is one of several independent third party companies that resell Verizon Wireless service, often with their own terms and conditions that include early termination fees owed not just to Verizon, but also to Go Wireless.

Go Wireless’ retail stores prominently feature Verizon Wireless’ logo, with their own logo appearing in reduced size, next to a message indicating they were a “premium retailer.”  That presumably sounds better than “third party reseller.”

After several attempts to straighten out the mess, Fox wanted to cancel his contract and just move on.  But then he discovered Go Wireless would charge him a $175 early cancellation fee, even though Fox’s predicament was their fault.  That’s when Fox called a local television newscast for help.

Wirefly is a major online reseller of Verizon Wireless

KBAK-TV news waded into the middle of the dispute that had gone on for nearly six weeks.  Verizon Wireless told the station it was willing to cancel Fox’s service penalty-free, but since Fox purchased the phone from a third-party reseller, and not from a company-owned store, Go Wireless would have to credit their own cancel fee.  Go Wireless, experiencing some turnover in local management, finally agreed to waive the fee, but only after the TV station got involved.

Customers must be careful when purchasing phones or signing contracts with third party sellers — both online and in traditional stores.  Most company-owned stores display their respective carrier logos and nothing else.  Words that usually provide a clue you are dealing with a reseller include: “authorized retailer,” “authorized dealer,” “Service provided by: (name of third party company),” “authorized agent,” and a dead giveaway is a signed contract with anyone other than the cell phone company you are using for service.

Third party resellers make their money on generous commissions earned when a customer signs a new contract or renews an existing one.  That commission can be forfeit if a customer returns the phone or cancels service early, which is why third party dealers protect themselves with their own contracts that include early termination or cancellation penalties owed to them, not the wireless provider.  Some customers can find themselves exposed to $500 or more in total cancellation penalty fees owed between the wireless phone company and the reseller.

So why do people purchase phones from these resellers?  Convenience and savings.

In smaller communities, company-owned stores may be few in number (or non-existent), and in-person help can be a godsend for customers who need to figure out their phone or obtain a warranty replacement.  Online, resellers like Amazon.com, Newegg, Wirefly, and others often charge substantially less than wireless carriers charge themselves for phones.  That savings can often be more than $100.  But these resellers are not for those who are unsure about the phone they want (or the provider).  Returning a phone or canceling service means dealing with two parties — the carrier and the reseller, to end service.  The cost of doing so can be very steep, so always read the terms and conditions before buying.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KBAK Bakersfield Man has Internet billing trouble 9-26-11.mp4[/flv]

KBAK-TV’s Investigation Bakersfield unit helped a local man untangle a major billing mess that began when he was sold a mobile broadband plan that no longer existed.  (3 minutes)

Canadians looking for more competitive wireless prices and faster service may think they’re going to get them if they sign on to a new campaign sponsored by Rogers Communications that calls on the Canadian government to eliminate spectrum “set-asides” for the country’s smaller wireless competitors.  Rogers wants those frequencies for itself, critics charge, and they have the resources to outbid any new player in the country’s wireless market.

From Rogers’ “I Want My LTE” Website:

[…] There are some who are supporting a Federal Government regulation that would limit who can have access to the spectrum. Such regulation would exclude select companies from the upcoming auction to license the 700 MHz spectrum band. The outcome of this auction will have a major impact on deploying LTE across Canada. If a decision is made that prevents certain companies, including Rogers, from participating in the spectrum auction, it would be a recipe for leaving Canada behind the rest of the world, stalling Canadian innovation and limiting who can access LTE.

The website offers a pre-written plea to policymakers in government to allow for an open bidding process for the forthcoming 700MHz frequencies many wireless companies crave for their robust performance.

The problem is, according to industry observers, if a wide-open, no-limits auction takes place, it’s a virtual certainty Canada’s largest wireless companies — Bell, Telus, and Rogers, would walk away with most, if not all of the auctioned spectrum.  Even worse, it will stall competition that will lead to lower prices.

“The future of affordable wireless rates is at risk, not the future of long-term evolution (LTE) networks,” said Chief Operating Officer Stewart Lyons. “Mobilicity has helped bring down the cost of wireless in Canada significantly and we need to augment our limited amount of spectrum to ensure affordable pricing continues.”

“[The] big 3 wireless carriers have more spectrum than they need and will stop at nothing to dress up and misrepresent their hidden agenda of eliminating competition so they can raise their rates back up again,” he added.

The government is not planning to ban Rogers and the others from the spectrum sale.  They just want to set aside some frequencies for bidding among the smaller, newer competitors.  But even that is too much for Rogers, who has bad memories from the last spectrum auction that allowed those competitors to become established in the first place.

Today, new cell service providers like Wind Mobile, Mobilicity and Quebecor’s Videotron are forcing larger carriers to reduce prices or lose business.

Fido is actually Rogers under a different name.

For some Canadians, wireless bills have dropped a lot since the competition arrived.  Some are leaving Rogers in favor of better prices elsewhere.

Andy Lehrer from Toronto had a cellular plan with Fido, an ostensibly independent cell phone company that is, in fact, owned outright by Rogers Communications.  Lehrer was paying Fido $150 a month for his Blackberry voice and data plan.  Today, with one of the new competitors, he pays $44 a month for a plan that offers more data and talk time.

Although new competitors still have just under 5 percent of the Canadian market, the price differences have become too enormous to ignore in many cases, especially if a customer is willing to give a new carrier a break as it works through growing pains.

Lehrer told the Globe & Mail his cellular reception is poorer, but not bad enough to make him switch back to Rogers’ Fido.

Convergence Consulting Group Ltd. notes the price disparities mean savings as much as 58 percent with new competitors’ combined voice and data plans.  For data services alone, new providers charge as much as 83 percent less.

If Rogers and the two others head home from spectrum auctions with everything up for bid, it will assuredly stall competition and help protect today’s high wireless prices.  Rogers, Bell, and Telus have never seen fit to undercut each other, adopting a rising prices raise all balance sheets-approach at doing business.  But scrappy new entrants like Wind and Mobilicity are willing to slash prices to attract customers.  But nobody will buy service if those companies cannot obtain necessary spectrum to actually compete.

Regardless of the outcome, North America in general has a long way to go to find the lower wireless prices commonplace abroad.

The network envisioned with the help of a $30 million federal broadband grant, now in jeopardy.

A consortium of 15 rural north Florida counties awarded a $30 million federal broadband grant to provide a “middle-mile” wireless broadband network for the region has spent almost $7 million of its federal grant on consultants, design engineers, land acquisition and staffing without breaking ground on a single construction project.

In February 2010, the Obama Administration announced the broadband grant to deliver rural Florida residents a way to finally obtain high-speed access to the Internet within three years.  Now, a year-and-a-half later, not a single tower of the wireless network has been built, residents have been told they will never receive Internet service directly from the project, and one of the key members of the North Florida Broadband Authority charged with constructing the network has called one of the major contractors “incompetent.”

Last week, federal officials suspended the grant amid growing accusations of wasteful spending and lack of oversight.

NFBA was supposed to be building a wireless wholesale-access network across 15 counties that would deliver ISPs, government agencies, libraries, and other institutional users packages of 6, 12, 25, 60, 150Mbps or faster service, linked with fiber to Orlando and Tampa.

Although media coverage touted the project as delivering improved access to residential customers in Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Putnam, Suwannee, Taylor, Union and Wakulla counties, the NFBA project will not directly make broadband service available to consumers.  Would be residential customers will have to hope an incumbent Internet Service Provider chooses to participate and resells access to the network across the region.  Otherwise, those taxpayers will only be able to use the network they paid for at a local library.

That is, if the project ever gets completed.

To date, financial statements from the NFBA reflect the biggest checks paid to-date have gone to architecture and design consultants, which have received a total of more than $3.37 million dollars.  In contrast, NFBA has paid $0.00 for on-site construction and site work as of the end of the last quarter.  Money has also been spent on “Administrative and Legal Expenses” amounting to more than $863,000, and $1.54 million has been spent on property appraisal, acquisition, and expenses related to establishing rights-of-way.

When questions began to be raised about why the project had spent so much on so little, the fur began to fly, according to the North Florida Herald:

Christopher Thurow of Bradford County, accused [contractor] Government Services Group of being “incompetent.” Government Services Group answers to the Authority and is in charge of managing the project.

Then Rapid Systems, one of the project’s engineering companies, began making accusations of not getting paid. But GSG pointed to what it said was inadequate documentation by Rapid Systems and not following payment procedures.

Adding to the controversy was that GSG had been let go from managing the Florida Rural Broadband Authority (FRBA), a program similar to the North Florida Broadband Authority.

Multiple FRBA meetings were canceled, and the project was behind schedule, said Rick Marcum, chairman of FRBA.

“We felt like we needed to move in a different direction,” he said.

Since then, Government Services Group has filed a lawsuit against FRBA, saying there is a breach of contract.

At the North Florida Broadband Authority, some members allege a conflict of interest between GSG and Capital Solutions, which was contracted by GSG to oversee the administration of the grant money.

The apparent conflict comes from the accusation that Government Services Group CEO Robert Sheets is 25-percent owner of Meridian Services group, where Lisa Blair is CEO and president. Blair also is the CEO of Capital Solutions.

NFBA project members seem content to blame most of the problems on others, as well as on a sudden discovery their initial network design would not meet the performance requirements of potential wholesale customers.  That meant a wholesale re-design of the project into a “interconnected-ring network” design topology.  The rest of the delay, according to the NFBA, was because the project was sitting around waiting for government approvals:

This entire process (which included design re-evaluation, engineering services procurement, and network redesign) was carried out over a period of two to three quarters, which was the period of time designated in the original Baseline Plan for the turnkey link design phase as well as for subsequent equipment procurement, site acquisition, and pre-deployment activities. Additional variance from the Baseline Plan resulted substantial delays that were incurred awaiting wage-rate determinations (more than 3 months), awaiting a response to a waiver request to allow eligibility of Long term Operational leases (requested process in December, 2010, AAR submitted in April 2011, received in June, 2011); and comments from the Program Office on a Route Change Request (2 months).

That explanation did not pass muster with grant administrators at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the federal agency overseeing broadband grants.

“NFBA has experienced a number of external and internal delays on its project and, as a result, NTIA has serious concerns regarding the project’s long-term viability and, in the short-term, its ability to implement and deploy the proposed project during the grant award period,” the NTIA wrote in a statement.

As a result, the NTIA has suspended the program, ending all work, pending some sort of oversight agreement with the NFBA being concluded before Oct. 10.

The NTIA wants all invoices and disbursements from the $30 million grant approved directly by them before any more money is spent on the project.

To date, filings indicate the project has no signed customers of any kind, institutional, commercial or otherwise.  NFBA anticipates it will “outline service to 308 anchor institutions by project closeout,” with “outline” at this point defined as “offer.”

However, NFBA claims to have received a “Commitment Letter for a substantial monthly service commitment from one of our last mile partners, and we expect to receive additional Commitment Letters over the next quarter as we continue to actively engage last mile providers in the network region.”

Last-mile partners are the ones that will ultimately deliver service to residential and business customers.

Dixie County resident and Stop the Cap! reader Jimmy Dixon, who alerted us to the latest developments, calls it “a good government program hijacked by greedy consultants and incompetent local officials.”

“This was supposed to be about serving the unserved — we the people — and instead the project will only sell to government buildings and libraries, and whatever ISPs choose to buy access,” he writes. “But when an ISP won’t sell DSL to your home today, nothing about this grant will make them sell it tomorrow.”

Indeed, Dixon says the local phone company in his area continues to have no plans to wire his neighborhood for DSL, grant or no grant.

“They frankly told me it did not make economic sense to extend DSL here, and unless the government directly defrayed those expenses, they never will service us,” Dixon shares. “But I guess until recently it was just fine to line the pockets of consultants with millions in taxpayer dollars to not deliver service to anyone else, either.”

“We’re all in the same boat, and it’s sinking fast.”

Read the special investigative report published by the North Florida Herald here.

Earlier this month, many Verizon prepaid customers with texting plans began receiving messages on their phones from the company, typically after completing a minutes refill:

“Starting on October 14th, 2011 when sending a picture or video message, you will be charged for each recipient for each message sent.”

Controversy ensued, as customers interpreted that message to mean Verizon was now only including plain text messages, not picture or video messages, in their texting plans.

But hang on a moment, says Verizon social media rep JoeL_VZW.  It doesn’t mean that at all.  Verizon was attempting to clarify how they charge for messages sent to multiple recipients.  Send it to one person, it counts as one message.  Two people, two messages… and so on.  Customers can still send picture and video messages without extra fees, assuming they have a texting plan with a sufficient allowance.

“If you sent one picture to two people it would count as two messages that would come out of your 250 bundle. You wouldn’t incur any extra picture messaging charges as long as you haven’t exceeded 250 text or pictures,” he says.

Unlimited customers are not impacted by the change at all, but those on texting plans with 250 message allowances might be, if they send a lot of text messages to multiple recipients.

Still, it was easy to interpret the message very differently, all thanks to not having sufficient space in a single text message to explain it better.