Better days: AT&T's BlackBerry Curve, circa 2007

The prevalence of unlimited wireless data plans may have been an important factor in the American consumer’s move away from Research in Motion’s (RIM) former superstar BlackBerry, according to a company official.

Responding to questions about its falling market share in the U.S., Patrick Spence, the managing director of regional marketing at RIM pointed to unlimited usage plans as one potential way the competition got a leg up on their devices.

“In the United States, they’ve had flat rate data pricing for a long time, which has meant users haven’t had to worry about how they are using their smartphones,” Spence said.

He noted Americans love for wireless data has forced carriers to launch 4G upgrades in advance of other markets where 3G remains the fastest available standard.

The Guardian’s Charles Arthur gave RIM’s Patrick Spence a challenging series of questions about RIM’s ongoing loss of market share, and why the company is forcing BlackBerry owners to cope through two major platform upgrades in the coming months. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Spence said the dynamics of unlimited data have inspired a change in the types of devices used in the United States, namely not necessarily those carrying the BlackBerry brand.

As carriers end unlimited data, Spence predicts users will likely change their behavior in concert with new data plan limits as low as 200MB per month.

Where data limits prevail, BlackBerry devices seem to do better.  Spence touted the fact BlackBerry phones have now achieved number one status in Africa and countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, displacing troubled Nokia.

Spence warned tech reporters not to extrapolate American marketplace trends as foreshadowing developments in the rest of the world.  One reason for that, according to Spence, has been the unlimited data plan, now being replaced with usage based billing or usage-capped plans.

BlackBerry phones have had a difficult time competing with the iconic Apple iPhone, as well as Android-based smartphones on offer from virtually every wireless carrier.  BlackBerry devices, once deemed the most advanced phones in the market, have lost quite a bit of luster in the last four years, particularly after the arrival of iPhone.

As a result, RIM has been engaged in serious cost-cutting, announcing job cuts of some 2,000 employees recently.  The company hopes to spring back with a series of platform upgrades and new phones, dubbed “superphones” by RIM, to regain market share.

It cannot come soon enough, as RIM lost another four percent of market share in just the past four months.  comScore suggests RIM phones now have just 21.7 percent of the smartphone market.  Only Microsoft and Nokia are doing worse.  Most of the BlackBerry fan base are moving to Android-based smartphones instead as their contracts come up for renewal, particularly those made by Samsung.  The Korean manufacturer now manufactures one of every four smartphones Americans own.

As of July 2011, RIM has 7.6 percent of the market share in the United States.

BlackBerry phones have fewer challenges overseas, and the devices remain very popular among younger users in the United Kingdom, parts of western Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.  That has been a mixed blessing for RIM in England, where the phone has been  implicated as the device of choice for looters during riots earlier this month.

On September 13, most PBS stations will premiere a new documentary, “Bill McGowan, Long Distance Warrior” exploring the many trials and tribulations of MCI Corporation, the long distance and e-mail provider that was instrumental in breaking up Ma Bell’s monopoly in telephone service.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Long Distance Warrior.flv[/flv]

A preview of PBS’ Long Distance Warrior, which premieres on most PBS stations Sept. 13  (3 minutes)

For those under 30, “MCI” may not mean much.  The company that helped pioneer competitive long distance calling was absorbed into the Worldcom empire in 1997, where it continued to provide service until a major corporate accounting scandal brought Worldcom down in 2002.  Most of what was left was eventually sold to Verizon Communications in 2005.

Remarkably, Microwave Communications, Inc. (MCI) was founded all the way back in 1963, but not as a provider of telephone services.  That MCI sought to build a network of microwave relay stations between Chicago and St. Louis to provide uninterrupted two-way radio service for some of the nation’s largest trucking and shipping companies.

The Bell System

By the late 1960s, William G. McGowan, an investor and venture capitalist from New York won a seat on MCI’s board of directors and part ownership of a newly-envisioned version of MCI — one that would provide businesses with a range of telecommunications products, including long distance telephone connections.  With many American corporations maintaining branch and regional offices, connecting them together was a potentially very lucrative business, especially if MCI could deliver the service at prices cheaper than what the monopoly Bell System was charging.

With their microwave relay network, now expanding across the country, MCI could distribute long distance phone calls cheaply and efficiently, if they could find a way to connect that network to Bell’s local phone system.  After all, it does little good to offer long distance service if you cannot connect calls to the businesses’ existing telephone equipment.

That’s where AT&T and its Bell Operating Companies objected.  For them, only calls originating on and delivered over their own network should be allowed.  MCI, as an interloper, was seeking to use the network AT&T built and paid for.  It’s an argument that has echoed more than 30 years later, when AT&T’s then-CEO Ed Whitacre objected to outside Internet content providers “using AT&T’s pipes for free.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MCI First 20 Years.mp4[/flv]

On the occasion of MCI’s 20th anniversary, the company produced this retrospective exploring the difficult times competing with AT&T and the Bell System.  (9 minutes)

MCI's best argument: AT&T's long distance bills

McGowan confronted arguments from AT&T executives who warned that competitive long distance would destroy the business model of America’s Bell System, which provided affordable local phone service to all 50 states, in part subsidized by long distance telephone rates, mostly paid by its commercial customers.  Tamper with that, they warned, and local phone bills would be forced to soar to make up the difference.

MCI called that argument a scare tactic, and suggested instead that AT&T’s monopoly had grown inefficient, bloated, expensive, and resistant to innovation and change.  MCI could deliver a substantially less expensive service and would force AT&T to increase its own efficiency to compete.  AT&T wasn’t interested in that argument and sued, repeatedly, to keep MCI out of its business.

By 1984, federal courts declared AT&T a monopoly worthy of a break-up, and opened the door to MCI’s long distance network.  By that time, MCI was already thinking about evolving itself beyond a business long distance provider, whose network was largely idle after business hours.  Because most Americans were accustomed to making long distance calls at night when rates were substantially lower, MCI developed new residential long distance service plans that encouraged customers to use that idle network at night and on weekends.

[flv width=”640″ height=”447″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/crying_mother.f4v[/flv]

One of MCI’s most memorable ads features a sobbing mother who reached out and touched her son over long distance a little too much.  (1 minute)

Thus began more than a decade of heavy advertising and competition for the long distance telephone market.  With equal access rules in place, consumers could choose their own long distance phone company and shop for the one with the lowest rates.  Competitors like Sprint, WilTel, LDDS, RCI, LCI, and yes, even AT&T all pitched their own calling plans.

MCI also pioneered MCI Mail, one of the first commercial electronic mail systems.  The original concept had businesses typing letters on a computer terminal, printed on standard paper at an MCI office closest to the destination, and then mailed in an envelope through the U.S. Post Office.  This poor-man’s version of a telex or telegram worked for businesses that wanted overnight delivery, but not at the prices charged by shippers like Federal Express.  In larger cities, MCI Mail could offer businesses delivery of their electronic communications within four hours, something closer to a traditional telegram of days gone-by.

MCI Mail’s hard copy deliveries wouldn’t last long, of course.  As the 1980s progressed, the fax machine and the more familiar all-electronic e-mail we think of today became firmly established.  As MCI Mail became less relevant, the company innovated into offering low priced telex services, mass-faxing, and data backhaul services to provide connectivity for online networks.

[flv width=”504″ height=”400″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIBW MCI Mail 1984.flv[/flv]

WIBW explores a new concept in communications — something called ‘electronic mail,’ a service that bewildered consumers in the early 1980s.  This report from 1984.  (2 minutes)

Bill McGowan: Would not approve of AT&T's plans to restore the glory days of the past.

AT&T, in contrast, was still getting over the loss of its local Bell Operating Companies — the regional phone companies most Americans did business with, and the loss of revenue earned from renting telephone equipment.  For years, AT&T long distance was branded as a quality leader, not a price leader.  It maintained its enormous market share partly through consumer indifference — customers who did not initially choose a new long distance carrier remained with AT&T, the default choice.

It took only about a decade after the Bell break-up for telecom industry lobbyists to begin advocating for enough deregulation to allow many of those former Baby Bells to re-combine through mergers and acquisitions.  The result is today’s AT&T, formed from its long distance unit, BellSouth, Illinois Bell, Indiana Bell, Michigan Bell, Nevada Bell, Ohio Bell, Pacific Bell, Southwestern Bell, Wisconsin Bell, and Southern New England Telephone.  Its largest competitor is Verizon Communications, which itself resulted from a combination of Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, GTE, and what was left of MCI after Worldcom was through with it.

McGowan’s fight was a personally costly one.  A workaholic, McGowan routinely put in 15 hour work days and drank up to 20 cups of coffee daily.  His heart finally had enough and McGowan succumbed to a heart attack in 1992 at age 64.  But he leaves a legacy and two decades of fighting to break up AT&T’s monopoly, which he always believed was bad for consumers and business (unless you were AT&T, of course).  That’s an important message as AT&T strengthens its resolve to acquire one of its significant competitors in the profitable wireless market — T-Mobile.  McGowan would have never approved.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCSM San Mateo Electronic Mail 6-18-87.mp4[/flv]

“The Computer Chronicles,” a production of KCSM-TV, spent a half hour in June 1987 showing off electronic e-mail service from MCI and how consumers and businesses using something called a “modem” could connect their home computers with online databases and services to exchange information and communications back and forth.  And for those business travelers on the road, away from their office computers, Speech Plus offered a product that could still keep you “connected,” by reading your e-mail to you over the phone.  In 1987, outside of commercial pay networks like CompuServe, Delphi, PeopleLink and QuantumLink, most Americans with modems used them to connect to typically-free hobbyist-run computer bulletin board systems.  Widespread access to “the Internet” would take another 5-6 years.  (29 minutes)

A British physicist has developed a technology that could one day deliver your wireless broadband connection over any ordinary household lamp equipped with a “light emitting diode” (LED) light bulb.

Professor Harald Haas from Edinburgh University in the United Kingdom says he has developed a super-efficient, super-fast wireless broadband transmission system that uses light instead of radio waves.

Dubbed Light Fidelity, D-Light, or “Li-Fi” for short, Haas demonstrated his invention using an ordinary table lamp that successfully transmitted data at speeds exceeding 10Mbps using light waves from LED light bulbs to a computer located below the lamp.

To prove that the light bulb was the source of the data stream, he periodically blocked the beam of light, causing the connection to drop.

Haas says using light waves for data transmissions could revolutionize wireless communications and end the spectrum shortage plaguing today’s wireless industry.

“The way we transmit wireless data is inefficient electromagnetic waves, in particular radio waves which are limited, they are sparse, they are expensive and only have a certain range,” Professor Haas said. “It is this limitation which does not cope with wireless data, and we are running out of efficiency.”

Haas notes 95 percent of the energy used to transmit electromagnetic waves is wasted through heat dissipation.

Haas added that during today’s spectrum crunch, opening up light waves for wireless telecommunications would increase the amount of available spectrum by at least 10,000 percent, potentially transforming how we think about wireless communications technology.

“Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Wouldn’t it be great to use it for wireless communications?”

Haas believes as we begin to replace energy inefficient traditional light bulbs for LED bulbs, which are becoming increasingly affordable, using them to piggyback data transmissions of all kinds could make staying “in range” of a wireless signal as simple as flicking on a light switch.

“For me the applications of it are beyond imagination,” Haas said.  “All we need to do is to fit a small microchip to every potential illumination device and this would combine illumination and data transmission, and this could solve the problems facing us in wireless communication.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Harald Haas Demos Light-Fi.mp4[/flv]

What if every light bulb in the world could also transmit data? At TEDGlobal, Harald Haas demonstrates, for the first time, a device that could do exactly that.  (13 minutes)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced more than $103 million in federal grants and loans to 16 states to help expand broadband, or high-speed, Internet access to unserved and underserved areas of rural America:

The providers involved offer a mix of technology, ranging from traditional cable companies like Inter Mountain Cable and Crystal Broadband Networks — to Wireless ISPs like Wichita Online, serving southwestern Oklahoma, to rural telephone company DSL provided by companies like Hemingford Cooperative Telephone and the Coleman County Telephone Cooperative.

What most rural providers have in common are much-higher prices for slower speed service over what urban customers pay, and a regular need for resources to update capacity and the number of potential customers served.  Most of these grants and loans are expected to cover some of those costs.

Ouch. Rural Americans pay substantially higher prices for broadband service than city-dwellers do. This is current pricing from Inter Mountain Cable, which serves parts of rural Kentucky.

Thanks to a divided 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, customers trying to seek relief from unilateral fees and surcharges suddenly showing up on their Verizon cell phone bills will have to pursue individual arbitration claims with the cell phone company instead of joining forces in a class arbitration claim.

That Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, is turning out to benefit Verizon Wireless as much as AT&T, because the Supreme Court found merit in contracts obligating customers to seek individual arbitration to settle differences while forbidding customers from pursuing organized legal action.

Now the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has reversed an earlier ruling, reinstating a 2008 decision by U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson that delivered victory to Verizon Wireless.

At issue was Verizon’s decision in October 2005 to unilaterally impose an “administrative fee” of $0.40 and/or $0.70, as part of the monthly charges for each Verizon cell phone line.  Customers upset with the new fees felt they violated the principle that, as part of their two year contracts, Verizon would deliver a fixed-price service.  The cell phone company has since implemented a variety of fees and surcharges on customers that are pocketed by Verizon, regardless of the contract price.

All Verizon Wireless customers are obligated by contract to challenge any terms and conditions they disagree with through an arbitrator of Verizon’s choosing, at a place also chosen by the company.  That means Verizon could place an arbitrator on retention in a city potentially thousands of miles away, and demand the customer make their case there, to an arbitrator whose livelihood ultimately depends on retainer fees paid by the company.  Few consumers would make such a journey to protest a fee that amounts to less than $10 a year per line.

Lawyers Keith Litman and Robert Wachtel, representing Verizon customers, decided to try a different approach — a class action arbitration.  The two attorneys would represent potentially millions of impacted customers themselves, making any travel cost concerns incidental, and providing a seasoned challenge before arbitrators, who would also hear counter-arguments from Verizon’s own legal team.

Verizon’s attorneys argued such class action arbitration was specifically forbidden in the company’s contract with customers.  Normally, a judge might decide at that point a customer agreeing to those terms and conditions was effectively up the creek.  But a series of legal challenges in circuit courts opened the door to invalidating those terms.

Litman and Wachtel argued that because the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Del. (2006), has held that an arbitration provision in a consumer contract that precludes class arbitration of low-value claims is unconscionable under New Jersey law, similarly, the arbitration provision in Verizon’s contract is also unenforceable.

Unfortunately for the two attorneys representing consumers, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overrode that case, leaving Verizon on top with Judge Wolfson’s 2008 decision.

Wolfson

Wolfson’s written ruling on the case seemed unimpressed with claims that Verizon’s fees were unconscionable:

In this case, Plaintiffs are customers who chose Verizon as their wireless provider at least four years ago and continue to use Verizon today. They signed the customer Agreement with the arbitration clause and agreed to subsequent terms of service as added by Verizon. Plaintiffs do not allege that they did not understand the Agreement that they voluntarily entered into nor do they allege fraud or misrepresentation. The parties agreed “to settle [their] disputes . . . only by arbitration,” and the “agreement doesn’t permit class arbitration.” Therefore, [federal law] requires this Court to uphold the arbitration provision within Plaintiffs’ service Agreement.

But Judge Wolfson did recognize the effective impact of her decision:

“The Court recognizes the many hardships visited upon plaintiffs, such as in this case, based upon this ruling. First, it creates the opportunity for a different result depending on whether the case is brought in federal or state court. Second, it is also clear that compelling individual arbitration in this case will be tantamount to ending the Plaintiffs’ pursuit of their claims, as there is very little possibility that these Plaintiffs or any other plaintiff will pursue individual arbitration for claims that amount only to several dollars in damages. While this outcome is harsh, this Court is bound by Third Circuit precedent.”

Lately, Verizon Wireless customers have been seeking other forms of relief when Verizon unilaterally changes or implements new fees or surcharges.  Many are invoking the “materially adverse” clause found in Verizon’s terms and conditions, which theoretically allows customers to exit their contracts penalty-free if they do not agree to the changes Verizon is imposing on customers.  Verizon Wireless appears to be increasingly aggressive in fighting these claims, too, refusing to allow customers to leave without stiff early termination fees.  That may become the subject of another lawsuit at some point in the future.