Cricket, the regional wireless carrier that claims to offer “unlimited” data plans that really are not, has jacked up prices on its wireless broadband plans and reduced wireless data usage allowances.

Cricket used to charge $40 a month for 5GB of monthly usage, $60 for 10GB.  No more.

Now the company wants you to pay more for less:

2.5GB for $40, 5GB for $50, and 7.5GB for $60 is hardly "respeKting" your wallet

Thankfully, existing Cricket customers are grandfathered into their existing $40 for 5GB plan, so they do not face the price hike and allowance cut.

Cricket’s claimed speeds up to 1.4Mbps are fiction — in our own tests we found service never exceeding 650kbps, and often averages 500kbps or less in the Rochester, N.Y. area.  When Cricket cell sites become congested, as they have in the southeastern part of the city, speeds can drop to 56kbps or less, making the service completely unusable.  While web page browsing and audio streaming are acceptable using Cricket, video streaming is not.  YouTube and other video multimedia was too painful to watch.

Cricket’s best advantage in the wireless broadband market was its pricing.  Customers accepted dramatically reduced coverage areas (don’t expect Cricket to work outside of the city, nearby suburbs, and adjacent major highways), slower speeds, and a “Fair Access Policy” that throttles your connection to dial-up speeds (or less) once you exceed your monthly allowance, all in return for service priced $20 less than most of the competition.  The modem is usually free or deeply discounted, and there is no contract requirement.

But at Cricket’s new pricing, consumers should take a look at Clearwire’s new 4G service, Comcast High Speed 2Go, or Road Runner Mobile instead.  Clear’s 4G-only plan offers unlimited access for $40.00 a month without a “Fair Access Policy” throttling your service to dial-up speeds, and much faster service than Cricket can provide.  The only downsides are the up front cost of the modem and being sure 4G is available in your area.

Clear, Comcast High Speed 2Go and Road Runner Mobile offer 4G service plans with a fallback option to 3G coverage for about $55 a month.  Clear and Comcast do not limit 4G usage, but do limit 3G access to 5GB per month before overlimit fees apply.  Road Runner Mobile offers unlimited access to both 3G and 4G service.

Cricket likes to claim it “respeKts your wallet.”  Raising prices and reducing usage allowances isn’t exactly a sign of respect.

AT&T's HotZone in Charlotte only covers a tiny portion of the city, along S. Brevard Street between the NASCAR Hall of Fame and East Trade Street and for AT&T customers waiting to use the nearby Lynx light rail.

What do you do when your wireless 3G network capacity is hopelessly overloaded and you don’t want to spend the money to upgrade the network to meet the daily demands your customers place on it?  You offload as much of that traffic as possible on less costly, conventional Wi-Fi network technology.

AT&T has discovered that Wi-Fi can turn an ugly congestion problem into a marketing opportunity.  The company has announced free, unlimited access to its increasing number of “Hotzones” to AT&T wireless customers, promising stronger signals and faster speeds along the way.  The three cities chosen for the launch of the neighborhood-blanketing Wi-Fi service are New York, Charlotte, N.C.,  and Chicago.

That New York and Chicago are on the list come as little surprise, but why Charlotte?

It turns out Charlotte is among the top-10 cities companies use to test market new products and services to get a better feel of how customers will react.  Charlotte has served as a test market for years.  FedEx used the city to test drop boxes inside U.S. post offices back in 2001.  Time Warner Cable brought its “Start Over” and “Caller ID on TV” services to Charlotte to get customer reaction.  AT&T first test marketed its 3G Microcell service in the area, so the company has a track record of choosing the community to test its newest offerings.

Stop the Cap! has been measuring reaction on our own to learn what Charlotte residents think about AT&T’s Hotzone.

First, many AT&T customers are still unaware that this Wi-Fi service has even made it to Charlotte.  For those who have learned about it, anything that improves AT&T’s service in uptown Charlotte is good news for them.

“Although AT&T in Charlotte has never suffered from the kind of congestion faced in larger cities, when you concentrate a lot of data users in one area, such as the Time Warner Cable Arena on East Trade, AT&T’s network can slow to a crawl,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Eric, who lives in Charlotte.  “I have ventured around that area several times and, to be honest, you can quietly hop on one of many business Wi-Fi hotspots for free now, but you can’t go too far before losing the signal.”

Eric says AT&T would be better off extending their Wi-Fi network across the city of Charlotte if they really want to offload 3G traffic.

“Wi-Fi is faster than their 3G service and it’s unlimited,” he notes. “I’d actually have a much more favorable impression of AT&T if they created city-wide Wi-Fi networks for their customers because it would add tremendous value and be a great reason to stick with AT&T for cell service.”

But Liam, who works in downtown Charlotte but lives near Freedom Park writes it’s a Band-Aid for a much bigger problem — AT&T underestimating the demand on their network.

“I am not sure how excited I should be about a Hotzone that runs up a street for about four city blocks,” he says.  “This is not midtown Manhattan where a service like that could make a huge difference for residents of skyscraping-condos and apartment buildings.  What about the rest of Charlotte?”

Liam was an AT&T customer but left for Verizon Wireless nearly a year ago.  He thinks AT&T isn’t a bad provider in Charlotte — in fact he thinks AT&T does a much better job in rural western North Carolina than Verizon does, but inside metro Charlotte, Verizon’s signals are more consistent.

“If this service does reach into Time Warner Cable Arena, it could make a big difference though, especially when that stadium is nearly full,” Liam notes. “Somehow I think we’ll see Time Warner Cable’s own Wi-Fi service operating there, for free, in the not-too-distant future.”

The Charlotte Observer‘s @Charlotte blog asked readers what they thought about AT&T’s Charlotte Hotzone in two articles.  Amidst a rhetorical war over the merits of AT&T and Apple’s latest iPhone, most comments welcomed the improved service, even if some are not sure exactly where that improved service can be found.

Reporter Eric Frazier wrote, “I was trying to find out for certain whether this zone will cover the office towers along Tryon Street, but a spokesperson for AT&T told me they can’t say whether specific buildings, such as the Bank of America headquarters, will or won’t be covered by the Hotzone.

Reverend Mike wants to know when he can get a Hotzone installed in his backyard, noting he was “glad to hear they are setting this up downtown.”

AT&T completed upgrades to its HSPA 7.2 network earlier this year and offers about double the potential speed its older 3G network provided Charlotte customers.

The Internet video revolution will increasingly be blocked by Internet Service Providers who will leverage their duopoly markets with restrictive usage limits to keep would-be video competitors from ever getting their business plans off the ground.

William Kidd, industry forecaster for iSuppli, an industry analyst group, sees a future of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overpriced pay-per-use pricing, and other limitations designed to erect roadblocks for online video content, which increasingly threatens the cable-TV products of both cable and phone companies.

The latest scheme to limit usage of streaming media come not from concerns about bandwidth costs but rather the “unknown risks” online video could have for cable and phone companies’ other products.

Such risks, Kidd believes, will compel broadband providers to increasingly implement caps in order to mitigate any long-term gambles that providers might have to take to make streaming media available to home and mobile environments.

At present, content can be streamed over TV from online service offerings such as Hulu and Netflix, or accessed through a device such as the PlayStation from Sony Corp. In addition, new-media business models continue to emerge with the introduction of new platforms that circumvent services currently provided by traditional cable or satellite pay-TV providers.

The caps planned for implementation will sink virtually all of the video streaming services that are not partnered with cable and phone companies.  Kidd notes the caps he’s seen offer limited viewing — as little as three hours for wireless 200kbps video streams or standard definition video streamed on wired networks for up to 25 hours per month.  True HD viewing is simply not going to happen with caps on many providers planned to cut off viewing after only seven hours.

Business plans and would-be investors must take notice of what providers have in store for would be competitors, Kidd argues.  Since the phone and cable companies maintain a near-monopoly on broadband, they ultimately control what Americans can do (and see) on their broadband accounts.

Rogers reduced usage allowances on several of its broadband plans days after Netflix announced a streaming service for Canadians.

One need only look to Rogers Communications in Canada for a timely example.  Rogers promptly lowered usage limits on some of its broadband plans just days after Netflix announced a video streaming service for Canadians that could directly compete with the cable giant’s video rental stores and cable pay per view services.

“These new-media business models imagine that they don’t have to pay the network through which their data traverse,” he said. “However, such a theory is directly at odds with the ambitions of cable and satellite-TV operators, which increasingly are unwilling to provide heavy data access through their networks for free—especially if a way can be found to monetize ongoing data traffic into viable revenue streams.”

In addition, new Internet-born content providers wrongfully take for granted that the way their largely free content has been consumed now also will apply in the future to premium services. The assumption is a bad one, Kidd observed, because in order for consumers to consider the Internet as a true substitute for their big-screen TV, content would need to be comparable in both technical quality and entertainment value. And to achieve the same level of value, such content necessarily would be extremely bandwidth intensive.

As a result, for any number of these emerging TV-substitute models to work someday, one has to assume that the picture quality being proffered is acceptable for viewing on large-screen TVs.

But providers have a trick up their sleeves by implementing seemingly tolerable usage caps as high as 250GB per month, which seem generous by today’s usage standards.  But they will be downright paltry tomorrow, especially if they do not increase over time, as online video increases in quality and size.

“By implementing caps now that don’t impinge on the way subscribers use the Internet today, cable and telco operators are able to create for themselves an advantageous situation,” Kidd said. “Under these circumstances, emerging media competitors must work more directly with the network owners before getting their services off the ground—as opposed to around them, as they may have previously hoped.”

That means giving them exactly what they want — a piece of the action and control over the content that crosses over their wires to broadband consumers.

Illinois politicians raked in more than a half-million dollars in campaign contributions from AT&T, yet claim the money had no influence on their decision to let AT&T reduce investment in its landline network, still serving three-quarters of residences and businesses in the state.

Not a single “no” vote was cast in either state legislative body over the latest deregulation bill — a combined vote of 177-0 in the Illinois House and Senate.

But many lawmakers said “yes” to hefty campaign contributions from AT&T.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch counted the money:

The AT&T legislation relaxes state rules on the company regarding its maintenance of basic land-line phone service, essentially allowing it to focus more fully on its wireless business. The bill also gave the company more flexibility in changing the packages it offers to customers without awaiting regulatory approval.

The company presented the measure as crucial to the unfettered advancement of the wireless market. Critics worried that land-line users and others would see a reduction in service from the company, and safeguards were negotiated into the bill with the consumer organization Citizens Utility Board and others. Gov. Pat Quinn signed it into law June 15.

Citizens Utility Board (CUB) Executive Director David Kolata says his group is still worried that land-lines users, rural customers and others may end up left behind as a result of the legislation. He stopped short of blaming AT&T’s heavy campaign donations for the company’s success at getting most of what it wanted from the legislation, but he noted: “Those of us who had concerns about the bill really had no money on our side.”

AT&T gave about $594,000 to state-level Illinois politicians from Jan. 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, according to the most recent data compiled by Kent Redfield, a political scientist and campaign finance expert with the University of Illinois at Springfield. That puts the company among an elite core of high-powered donors — including Ameren, ComEd, the Illinois State Medical Society several major unions — who gave more than $500,000 during that time.

Lawmakers who receive significant money from donors, while helping usher their bills through Springfield, invariably maintain the support is a matter of shared goals, not a quid pro quo.

“They’ve been supportive of me for the last three or four terms,” state Rep. Kevin McCarthy, D-Orland Park, said of AT&T, which has given him more than $10,000 since 2006. McCarthy was the chief House sponsor of the telecom bill.

“I’m a pro-business Democrat,” he said. “I think it was a great bill for the people of our state. I appreciate their support.”

If only it were that simple.  AT&T’s contributions ebb and flow depending on legislative action items before the state legislature.  For instance, nothing provoked a bigger blizzard of AT&T money than the 2005 purchase of AT&T by SBC Communications.  Seeking regulatory approval for the merger, SBC/AT&T kicked in more than $1.17 million dollars to state legislators. Less than half that amount was handed to legislators the year before.

Money buys attention to legislative issues and can move a low priority agenda item to the front burner, especially if contributions are likely to arrive from all sides of an issue.

AT&T’s latest legislative accomplishment has bought the company the right to focus its attention on its wireless business, with financial requirements to maintain landline service quality eased.  While that might help urban residents in northern Illinois achieve better cell phone service, it could leave many rural, elderly and poor residents with deteriorating basic phone service at potentially higher prices and no broadband.

That is because AT&T’s deregulation campaign left the company off the hook for a requirement it deliver broadband to 90 percent of its landline customers outside of Chicago.

The Moline Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus had a problem with that:

CUB’s biggest objection, which we share, is that the measure as written lets AT&T off the hook from a state order to ensure that its network provide high-speed Internet access to 90 percent of its customers outside Chicagoland — including folks here in the QCA and just about every corner, and the vast middle, of the state. Telecom companies would have you believe that their industry is truly competitive. But in many areas it is not, particularly outside of large urban centers. Adds Mr. Kolata, “This should be of particular concern to residents of central and southern Illinois, as state regulators recently concluded that many areas in the land of Lincoln are ‘grossly underserved.'”

Ask any company, including this one, which has tried to get the monopoly service provider to cooperate in upgrading high-speed Internet access, or at least to get out of the way of others who would, what they think and you’re liable to get an earful. They know from experience that AT&T has shown little interest in any meaningful upgrade or expansion of its facilities in the Illinois Quad-Cities.

The telecom giant and its big communication company allies are calling this a jobs bill, but saying it doesn’t make it so. Indeed, the rewrite will have the opposite effect if it does not require the corporate giant to provide critical technology outside of Chicago.

AT&T’s landline rate plans force many Illinois residents to overpay for their phone service.  The CUB has a consumer fact sheet to help AT&T customers potentially save hundreds of dollars a year.

Wal-Mart is expanding its prepaid wireless service Straight Talk to include new phones that will work on AT&T’s network.

Straight Talk, operated by TracFone,  currently resells Verizon Wireless service.  Adding AT&T coverage expands service into parts of the country where Verizon signals don’t make it.  AT&T’s network reaches larger parts of states like Wisconsin, West Virginia, and New Mexico than Verizon does.

Straight Talk phones that currently work with Verizon are not interchangeable with AT&T service, however.  Verizon uses the CDMA standard for its network, while AT&T uses GSM.  The two are not compatible.

Wal-Mart’s prepaid service is appealing to consumers who do not require the latest handsets and seek wireless service without a two year contract or expensive add-ons.  Straight Talk delivers cheaper cell service than Verizon does, with both using Verizon’s network.  The same will be true as AT&T service is added.

Straight Talk currently offers two service plans

Wholesale wireless service, typically sold to prepaid providers, delivers enhanced profits to big carriers like Verizon and AT&T without having to spend money on customer support.  Many prepaid providers sell older, more basic handset models that may have been in excess supply, are reconditioned/used, or are inexpensive to provide consumers.