Apple's iPhone 4

As expected, Steve Jobs introduced America to the new Apple iPhone 4 today at Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco.  Karl Bode at Broadband Reports did a great summary on what’s new, so I won’t reinvent the wheel:

As everyone had expected, Apple just announced the long-awaited iPhone 4. According to his Jobsness, the phone is 24% thinner than the iPhone 3GS and as expected has a more powerful primary 5MP camera with flash — and a new camera on the front that will be used primarily for video chat. The phone’s stainless steel frame (sandwiched by glass) is being partially used as an antenna, something that may prove helpful for connectivity issues.

Other specs: Dual mics, 802.11n WiFi, GPS, compass, accelerometer, Quad band HSDPA (7.2Mbps), gyroscope (perfect for gaming, insists Jobs). The company says they’ve also improved the device’s battery. It can now handle 7 hours of 3G talk, 6 hours of 3G browsing, 10 hours of Wi-Fi browsing, 10 hours of video, or 40 hours of music. The phone also records HD video (720p at 30fps, insists Steve), and the new flash will stay on during video recording.

Amusingly, Apple ran into network connectivity issues while trying to demonstrate the phone’s higher resolution screen (join the club, Jobs). According to Apple, the phone comes in white or black, with the 16GB version costing $199 and the 32GB version costing $299. The phone will be available on June 24, with pre-orders beginning on June 15.

Karl also notes, as others have confirmed with us, AT&T is so eager to get this new phone into your hands (along with a new two-year contract), they are waiving the usual two-year waiting period before customers can upgrade their phones.  If your contract expires anytime this year, you can obtain the phone at the subsidized price.

But should you?

For many, the iPhone 4 will represent an incremental upgrade, especially if you aren’t a power user.  In this economy, is it worth $200-300 for a new phone and a new service commitment?

The upgrade for current customers, who can keep their unlimited data plan, may make sense -if- you receive tolerable service from AT&T and feel the latest phone would directly benefit you.  You should consider, however, that signing a new contract will lock you into another two year marriage with the company that drove more Americans crazy with bad service, dropped calls, slow data, and irritating customer service than any other.  A divorce will cost you up to $325 per phone. Their 3G coverage isn’t all that, either.

It also gives the company that loves to cap more of your money.

Unfortunately, waiting for the iPhone to arrive at Verizon Wireless is increasingly less likely to be a panacea for AT&T’s Internet Overchargitis.  That’s because AT&T and Verizon are the Mary Had a Little Lamb of big telecom:

Everywhere that AT&T went,
AT&T went, AT&T went,
Everywhere that AT&T went
Verizon was sure to go.

It’s a safe bet that by the time Verizon brings forth the coveted iPhone, it will have an Internet Overcharging scheme matching AT&T’s.

If you are seeking to upgrade to a smartphone, it’s increasingly likely you’ll find a better deal with Sprint or T-Mobile, both of which have no plans for AT&T’s pricing schemes.

The best way to get a company like Verizon or AT&T to pay attention is to avoid their products when they charge too much.  A dramatic reduction in demand for AT&T’s iPhone among new customers, for example, would send a clear message to Wall Street that their love of usage caps is hurting shareholder value in a big way.  They follow the money.  If existing customers hang on to their $30 unlimited plans while other customers head elsewhere to avoid AT&T’s Internet rationing, you’ll see an overnight conversion among many industry players suddenly demanding a return to the unlimited buffet.

Or better yet, how about giving every customer a choice of both types of plans — pay less for limited service or pay today’s prices for unlimited.

[flv width=”636″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Apple – iPhone 4 6-2010.mp4[/flv]

Apple proclaims the arrival of iPhone 4, calling it a revolutionary upgrade.  Apple released this video showcasing iPhone 4’s video capabilities that AT&T has now effectively hobbled with a wireless Internet rationing plan that punishes customers who try to use the phone’s new features.  (6 minutes)

Phillip Dampier

S1209 would have sailed through the North Carolina Senate 39-5 this afternoon had it not been for Sen. Joe Sam Queen who objected to the third reading of the bill.  Senator David Rouzer (R-Johnston, Wayne) also changed his vote from “no” to “yes” which would have ultimately left the count at 40 for and 4 against.  After that, the Senate adjourned and will take up the bill once again on Monday.  What a job well done… for the cable and phone companies.

Brian Bowman reports that none of the Wake County senators opposed the bill or asked that the moratorium be removed.

Out of the entire North Carolina Senate, there are just four good guys?:

Senator Joe Sam Queen (Haywood, Yancy, Avery, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell) [email protected]
Senator Steve Goss (D-Alexander, Ashe, Watauga, Wilkes) [email protected]
Senator James Forrester (R-Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln) [email protected]
Senator John Snow (D-Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain, Transylvania) [email protected]

Be sure to send all four of these folks your enormous thanks for doing the right thing.  Apparently that is becoming more and more difficult these days.

For those who forgot why this fight matters, here’s a reminder.  Watch it.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Martha Abraham, Mars Hill NC.mp4[/flv]

The people in Mars Hill, N.C. cannot afford to forget.

Now let’s talk reality for a moment.  I’ve been involved in legislative battles on issues regarding telecommunications policy all the way back to the late 1980s when I was fighting for home satellite dish-owner rights.  Back then it was a struggle against big cable, too.  It took several tries, but we eventually won that one.  Along the way, a lot of the same legislative trickery involved in S1209 reminded me of similar experiences back then.  We shouldn’t make the same mistake twice.  Let’s take a look:

The revised S1209 establishes a subcommittee to study municipal broadband funding issues while buying the industry a one year reprieve from any other cities or town going their own way.  The members on this fact-finding endeavor are specifically defined:

• A cable service provider.
• A wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A local exchange provider that is not a wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A local exchange provider that is a wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A city that operates a cable system and an electric power system as a public enterprise.
• A city that operates a cable system as a public enterprise and does not operate an electric power system as a public enterprise.
• A city that is a member of a joint agency established under G.S. 160A-462 for the operation of a cable system as a public enterprise.
• The North Carolina League of Municipalities.

Now, can anyone reading tell me who is -not- on the list?  Have you guessed?

-You- are missing from this list!

Everyone else is in the back room — cable and phone companies, cities, and a lobbying group representing cities.  But not one North Carolina consumer who lives with broadband challenges day in and day out has a place at that table.  What do they know anyway?

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Brooks Townes Weaverville NC.mp4[/flv]

Brooks Townes in Weaverville doesn’t have a seat at the table, either.

How ironic that everyone holding a seat claims their interests coincide with ordinary citizens like you and I.  After all, we’re supposed to be what this fight is all about.  Sometimes, our interests will meet.  Other times, especially when it comes to legislative strategies, they might not.

An Uncomfortable Revelation Caught On An Open Mike

Thanks to WUNC’s Laura Leslie, you can listen yourself as Senator Clodfelter, not realizing his mike was on, tells Senator Blue, “Now I’ll tell you that the … what I call the crazies who circulate around this issue are not going to like this [S1209 revision with a moratorium], but the municipalities are all on board. They negotiated it, they negotiated it so it’s not possible….” Blue asks Clodfelter how long he’s been talking with the groups representing municipalities. Clodfelter’s response: “We’ve been meeting daily — twice daily, so they’re all on board with this precise text.” The recording ends with Clodfelter presumably tapping his mike. Is this thing on? You bet it is. (June 2, 2010) (50 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

We already know what Senator Clodfelter feels about the people who are appalled at yet another embarrassing year of legislators falling all over themselves to do big cable and phone companies another favor.  In his mind, we’re the “crazies” — the indignant citizens fed up with the time, money, and effort not spent building 21st century broadband networks, but instead devising strategies to prevent building them.

Corning has a plant in North Carolina that manufacturers endless miles of fiber optic cable that 40 members of the North Carolina Legislature just said they don’t need.  Send it somewhere else.

Those 40 senators just told citizens — who are still using dial-up Internet access in the Appalachians, or who can’t afford the asking price for service in Spring Creek, or who only get excuses from AT&T why certain homes in Alamance County can have broadband, but they cannot — they really don’t care.  What AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Embarq wants is much more important.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Layten Davis Spring Creek NC.mp4[/flv]

…More important than the needs of folks like those in Spring Creek.

So while they propose to hold a debate over the merits of the free market vs. community’s doing-for-themselves when the free market fails them, countless thousands of North Carolina’s residents go without or are still hearing modem tones as they connect at speeds dozens of times slower than everyone else.

With a legislature hellbent on stalling or stopping projects that ameliorate this serious problem, no wonder North Carolina’s broadband rankings are falling fast.  In 2007, the Census Bureau ranked North Carolina 35th in broadband adoption.  A year later, the state was down to 41st.  At least you can be proud you’re not West Virginia, right?

But then again, there are eight more positions to drop, so there is still room to make things even worse.

Now I ask myself, what could have possibly happened to deliver 40 votes into the hands of big cable and phone company interests.

Could it have been the time honored trick of dividing and conquering the opposition?  For cities who want to deliver service, the threat of “either/or” seemed particularly effective.  Either take our one year moratorium -or- face the ludicrous original legislation that required a community-wide referendum if Mrs. Nickels over on Fairfax Drive needs a new cable installed at her home to get a better picture.  Either way, because certain folks didn’t say no way to either choice, it’s a victory party for Time Warner Cable, with no need to BYOB — they’ll provide it themselves.  Besides, say the bill’s supporters, we’re offering a chance to hear your voice and views on our stall-tactic fact-finding subcommittee.  Senator Clodfelter even thanks you for being reasonable and adult about all this.

AT&T thanks you as well.

Just keep those “crazies” out of the room.

Cable and phone companies get seats, so they can continue to deliver their talking points that don’t actually deliver broadband to any underserved area of North Carolina. Haven’t they said enough already?  As Senator Queen asked, where is the broadband service for my communities?

In the end, the fact finding mission (cough) will deliver a watered-down report that will find its way into the nearest recycling bin.  The cities’ strong views on municipal broadband will be diluted because they’ll have four competing voices from private industry saying the exact opposite.  Besides, after yesterday’s performance in the Senate Finance Committee, does anyone really believe members like Senator Hoyle care what the subcommittee will have to say?  He can just make it up as he goes along, just as he did when supposedly quoting the mayor of Salisbury.

After all the years spent watching negotiations over legislation, allow me to share this one piece of advice — collaborate and compromise with interests that seek to bury you at your own risk.  Big money interests will call you every name in the book for standing and fighting for your principles (and a few legislators too), but if you make it known it’s time for the other side to start compromising — by actually delivering service and charging a reasonable price for it, there wouldn’t have been a need to engage in this battle in the first place.

That’s why this “crazy” website didn’t back down when Time Warner Cable brought its “new and improved” Internet Overcharging scheme to the table after consumers rebelled against the original plan.  The cable company promised a listening tour, to take advice from reasonable consumers, and to modify its plans accordingly.  Some folks played the game on their field — debating numbers back and forth about what an appropriate amount of rape and pillaging of our wallets was tolerable.  Time Warner changed a few numbers and blessed us with a counteroffer that would have only tripled broadband prices for the same level of service.  Couldn’t we be reasonable and take their offer?

We said no and stood by it, even if it meant going down with a fight.  By not backing down, we won the battle knowing full well the war wasn’t actually over yet.  But you can’t win a battle, much less a war, if you surrender and refuse to fight.

In the end, we were right and they were wrong.  We even proved they were never really interested in listening in the first place.

The correct way forward is to remain 100 percent committed to opposing S1209, so long as it stalls, bans, slows, or sets onerous conditions on providing broadband relief.  That means calling every senator between now and Monday and then doing the same in the House.

The three words you need to remember are real simple:

Kill this bill.

If you are spending time negotiating over who gets to sit in what chair on the subcommittee, you are not paying attention.

Kill this bill.

If you are trying to split the difference over how long the moratorium is going to last, you do not understand.

Kill this bill.

If you are trying to extract some extra concessions to reduce the rape and pillaging of your citizens, stand up, take a deep breath, go outside, and then tell the first person you see to call their representatives and tell them to:

Kill this bill.

If you are a consumer, you’re probably already upset.  In a polite, persuasive, and persistent way, tell your elected officials you understand S1209 has been modified thanks to a compromise, but nobody bothered to compromise with you.  You aren’t interested in this bill in any form, and you know that legislator is going to do the right thing and vote no to:

Kill this bill.

If they vote yes, all they’ve managed to kill is your faith in them as your elected representative.  That’s something that can be taken care of at the next election.

Maybe people like me are crazy to dare to presume that our elected officials work first and foremost for “we the people” and not for the phone and cable company.  Maybe it’s nuts to spend so much time and energy fighting legislation that is so obviously written by and for the industry that cuts a check to the first representative willing to put their name on it and introduce it.  We’ve seen the merits of those who tried the same thing last year.  Only one of them is no longer with the state legislature, brought down on ethics charges.  How surprising.  This year’s fight is lead by a retiring senator who will never endure the satisfaction voters might get disconnecting him from the legislature for selling them down Telecom River.  That is not too surprising either.

AT&T’s days of unlimited wireless data plans for smartphone customers officially end June 7th when the company launches new wireless data plans that all come with usage caps attached:

• DataPlus $15 a month and limited to 200 megabytes  of data.  If you exceed it, your overlimit penalty is $15, good for an additional 200 megabytes.
• DataPro $25 a month gets you just 2 gigabytes of data.  The overlimit penalty for those exceeding it is $10 which buys an additional 1 gigabyte of usage.

AT&T Smartphone customers will also be able to add tethering under the $25 DataPro plan for an extra $20 per month, with DataPro’s usage allowance applied.

Current AT&T customers can remain on their current unlimited Smartphone data plan indefinitely, even if they change or upgrade phones according to AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel.  That concession probably helps AT&T preserve anticipated demand for next week’s new iPhone launch.  Without it, customer demand could be tempered by the realization a phone upgrade could cost you your $29.99 unlimited usage plan.  If you were considering getting an AT&T phone with unlimited data, you have until June 6th to sign up for service under that plan.  After that date, you’re out of luck indefinitely.

AT&T is promoting the end of unlimited wireless broadband as a benefit to customers, claiming that 98 percent of its Smartphone customers use on average less than 2GB of data per month.  But that represents today’s usage.  AT&T’s decision to eliminate an unlimited option they claim 98 percent of their customers never exceeded would be curious without understanding the next generation of Smartphones will provide dramatic improvements in high bandwidth video streaming that will dramatically start eating into those low usage allowances.  The company’s next generation of faster wireless broadband will also include low limit plans, which makes them untenable as a home broadband replacement for all but the most casual users.

For new iPad customers, the $25 per month 2 GB plan will replace the existing $29.99 unlimited plan. iPad customers will continue to pre-pay for their wireless data plan and no contract is required. Existing iPad customers who have the $29.99 per month unlimited plan can keep that plan or switch to the new $25 per month plan with 2 GB of data.

AT&T offers up the common practice of boasting about how much you can do with a usage-limited account, based on the thousands of e-mails you'll never send, the 500 pictures you'll never take, or the 20 - one minute YouTube clips you'll never watch. Notice they never seem to include figures for streaming multimedia applications like music, movies, and TV shows or playing more bandwidth-intensive games. To do so would only upset customers further.

AT&T says customers can continue to use unlimited amounts of data when they access it over the company’s Wi-Fi network hotspots.

Wall Street is happy with AT&T’s elimination of unlimited plans, sensing higher profits and reduced costs will follow.

“The new plans appear well designed to reduce undue network stresses,” Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein told The Wall Street Journal.

Analyst Philip Cusick at Macquarie Securities also told the Journal AT&T may see lower growth in data revenue in the short term as a result of the new changes, but will gain leverage over the heaviest data users, improving its ability to manage its network and charge for capacity. Tiered plans may also pull more customers into data plans, he said.

But because current customers can choose to remain on the grandfathered unlimited plan, existing heavy data users accused of chewing up AT&T’s wireless network can continue to do so as long as they remain customers.  AT&T will only be capping future customers who sign up on or after June 7th.

For those outraged by AT&T’s decision, fleeing to Verizon Wireless for unlimited data may not be an option for too much longer either.

Verizon Wireless Chief Executive Lowell McAdam indicated in an interview with the Journal last month that he, too, is looking at pricing based on use.

“The old model of one price plan per device is going to fall away,” McAdam told the newspaper, adding that he expects carriers to take an approach that targets a “bucket of megabytes.”

One company that doesn’t plan to end an all-you-can-eat wireless data buffet is Sprint, which now sees its unlimited data plan as a potential marketing asset.

A Sprint spokesperson spoke the words you were already thinking:

“We’re giving customers a better value. With data usage growing, customers don’t want to worry about going over their limits.”

Some customers upset that AT&T only sold an unlimited plan welcomed the lower cost options because they didn’t spend a lot of time using the data features of their phones, but several wondered why the company didn’t simply introduce lower cost options -and- leave the unlimited plan in place for those who wanted it.

Overall, AT&T is getting an earful from angry customers over the announcement — even those who don’t exceed 2GB per month.  They sense greed and overcharging.   A sampling:

If 3% are using data “a lot” now, then in another two years, it’ll be 15% and then 60%. Simply put, this is gouging customers, where pricing is decided by dudes in a board room looking at charts and graphs and sales numbers, figuring out how to gouge people for maximum profit.

Obviously AT&T is killing the unlimited plan to cut down on usage and to raise their profits. I also believe it is heavy handed to eliminate the unlimited access plan. If anything, offer other plans and raise the price of the unlimited plan. It will be interesting to see of the other players follow suit and also kill their unlimited plans (can you say “price fixing”? Sure you can!).

AT&T is always full of good ideas, like that Microcell thing. Hey, we can’t give you good service you paid for, so we are going to ask you for more money for this piece of equipment to supplement the service you are not getting.

Just another greedy ploy to make more money. They are selling air. The charges are ridiculous and this is one industry that should be under government control.

My spouse and I pay half of what AT&T would charge us for excellent Palm smartphones on Sprint. We also get turn-by-turn GPS included–something AT&T AND Verizon both charge extra for. Sprint’s network is top-notch. I can’t fathom why people continue to waste money on Verizon and AT&T.

If you’ve got a smartphone or you tether your computer, you really have no idea how much bandwidth your device is consuming. Even worse (or better if you are the phone company) customers can’t control the bandwidth that their devices consume. How often does your email client check for new messages? Can you even stop your computer from downloading a security update? What about that last application you installed, can you stop it from calling home every time you launch it? Do you even know that it does track and report your usage? That’s a huge difference between phone services and data services. You KNOW when you’ve dialed a number and talked for 10 minutes. You can’t control all the data consuming applications and services on your devices… and trying to bill customers for something that they can’t control the usage or cost must be illegal. Surely someone will address this problem soon. Surely.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN ATT Goodbye to unlimited data 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

CNN Money reports on AT&T saying goodbye to unlimited data plans for iPhones and iPads.  (1 minute)

AT&T wants to sell its iPhone customers an overpriced insurance plan to cover damaged or lost phones.

Offered by mobile phone insurer Asurion, AT&T’s MobileProtect policy will be priced at $13.99 per month, with a steep deductible — $99 for an 8GB iPhone 3G to $199 for a 32GB iPhone 3GS.  If you lose or damage your phone, Asurion will repair or replace it with a refurbished equivalent or better iPhone model (their choice).

At those prices, iPhone insurance (and collectively most cell phone insurance plans) do not represent a good deal for consumers for several reasons:

1. The upfront cost is very high in relation to the value of the phone.  Over a typical two-year AT&T contract, Asurion will collect $335.76 to insure a $700 phone;
2. Asurion’s very high deductible reduces the company’s payout exposure by up to $200.  Assuming you break your phone in the last month of a two year contract, Asurion will have $535 of your money to work with, making their cost to replace the phone just $164.
3. Asurion does not guarantee customers will get a brand new iPhone.  Replacing a lost or broken iPhone with a refurbished model can significantly reduce Asurion’s costs and leave you with a questionable replacement;
4. The deal does not extend to current iPhone owners who have older phones that statistically would likely generate a higher percentage of claims.  In fact, customers will have to purchase coverage within 30 days of purchasing a brand new iPhone, giving Asurion the likelihood mechanical problems will be handled by Apple’s traditional warranty, reducing the insurer’s exposure to expensive claims.

There are a number of alternatives.  First, protect your phone with a suitable case or cover — scratches and impact damage are among the most common issues afflicting iPhones.  A few may afford some protection from water damage if the phone gets slightly wet, although a dunk in a pool or deep puddle is probably going to present a challenge for any case or covering.

Second, consider alternative insurance from companies like Squaretrade.  The company’s iPhone insurance costs $8 per month for 24 months, or $96 paid in full for an iPhone 3G. For a 32GB iPhone 3GS, it’s $9.99 per month, or $144 for 24 months of coverage.  Accidental damage claims have a $50 deductible.  But Squaretrade can cost even less when you take advantage of regular discount codes that provide up to 40 percent off.  Just do a Google search for Squaretrade coupons and discount codes, especially around holidays.  You have up to 90 days after purchasing your iPhone to buy Squaretrade coverage.

Squaretrade does not cover loss or theft, however.  You should check with your insurance agent for a personal property policy.  Most offer coverage for personal cell phone loss or theft for under $40 per year.  Many are sold as standalone policies that do not carry a traditional deductible commonly found on homeowner’s policies.  Better yet, making a claim under many of these types of policies generally will not impact your homeowner’s insurance policy, an important consideration when your claims history can impact your renewal rate.  Ask your insurance agent for details about what their cell phone insurance policies cover and what impact any claims might have on your other policies with the company (and their renewal rates.)  Many insurers will sell these policies on a standalone basis to customers who do no other business with the insurer, so shop around.

If your iPhone goes missing, virtually all insurers require a police report and most will either mail you a brand new iPhone or reimburse you for the purchase of an identical new phone you buy yourself at the non-subsidized price.

If none of these ideas appeal to you, consider establishing a savings account and deposit $14 a month into it, specifically to cover a portion of your costs to replace your iPhone if it is damaged or lost.  Although it won’t cover the full cost of the replacement, that $14 a month will always be your money.  If nothing goes wrong and you keep your phone in good condition over 24 months, that $335+ in accumulated savings is yours to keep.  That’s a better deal than giving it to Asurion.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVI St Louis Cell Phone In Water 5-26-10.flv[/flv]

KTVI in St. Louis ran this silly segment about what you can do if your cell phone takes an involuntary dip in the pool.  (3 minutes)

The CTIA is the wireless industry's lobbying group

While the phone and cable companies attempt to fight off broadband reclassification at the FCC, the wireless industry has been pulling its own weight in an effort to convince legislators everything is wonderful in wireless, and no consumer protection regulations are necessary.

The CTIA, the wireless lobbying group, has been blogging on overdrive lately, trying to sell the idea Americans are already soaking in broadband options and competition that keeps prices low and innovation high.  Why regulate an industry that isn’t broken?

If only it were true.

While Americans in larger communities do have choices for broadband, for most it’s a matter of picking the phone or cable company for service.  That’s called a duopoly.  In the wireless marketplace, it’s hardly much better.  The nation’s largest wireless phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, have essentially colluded with near-identical pricing and service plan requirements that demand customers add mandatory “options” like data plan add-ons that raise wireless bills higher than ever.

The smaller providers eke out an existence mildly competing over pricing, but with their inherent coverage limitations or history of providing poor customer service, many consumers won’t consider doing business with them.  Relying on most wireless providers for broadband threatens the kind of huge bills you see on TV news reports, as carriers limit consumption to 5GB per month, and most charge enormous overlimit fees to customers exceeding the limit.

The Federal Communications Commission recently found one in every six Americans suffer “bill shock” syndrome — that all-too-familiar panicky feeling when you open a cell phone bill and discover an extra zero on the end of the dollar amount due.  More than a third of people who experienced bill shock said their bills jumped by at least $50 — around 23 percent said the increase was $100 or more.

Settles

That amounts to more than 30 million Americans, but the CTIA’s “see no evil, hear no evil” blog carries on claiming life is good for wireless consumers.  Besides, writes Steve Largent, president of the CTIA, consumers who took their complaints to the Better Business Bureau had them resolved 97.4 percent of the time.

Of course, that begs the question why consumers had to approach the BBB about their poor service experience in the first place.

I’m not the only one asking questions.  Craig Settles, an industry analyst, co-administrator of Communities United for Broadband and author of the report “Fighting the Next Good Fight: Bringing True Broadband to Your Community,” is also pondering the industry campaign to block broadband reform.

Settles penned a piece in today’s Roll Call exposing the fallacies from the industry’s PR machine:

The state of broadband — for consumers, businesses and nonprofits — isn’t the rosy picture the industry powerhouses attempt to paint. Ignoring this reality can lead to bad policy decisions and bad legislation.

[…]

Most states may technically have 60 to 80 Internet access providers. However, in practically every state, the combined statewide market share of all but the top five or six providers might total 5 percent, if you’re lucky. In at least half of the states, data show the combined market share of the top two providers ranges from 70 percent up to 95 percent. That represents near or actual duopolies, most often with one wireless and one cable provider as the undynamic duo.

Life at the local level, which is where your true subscriber options exist, further challenges the industry’s claim that people have choices. If you count “having choices” as living in an area where several companies advertise broadband service, or consider dial-up speed as broadband, OK.

But go door to door in rural counties and small towns. The reality you often find is one major carrier providing fair to poor service to some and no service to the rest, plus some small local providers with 2 percent or 3 percent market share struggling to provide decent service in the face of endless efforts to smite them from the planet. If you’re in one of the few states with four or five providers that each have statewide market share of 8 percent to 15 percent, it’s likely each provider is concentrated in a portion of the state, creating a local reality that’s worse than state statistics.

Settles notes that claims of “billions invested” only invites more questions about what carriers are doing with all that money.  Settles questions whether its wise to brag about spending $20 billion on infrastructure costs when municipal broadband projects in states like North Carolina, with IT staffs of fewer than 12, have built superior networks delivering 10 times the speed of its competitors.

The CTIA loves to tout the innovation wireless providers bring to customers, but in many cases they are claiming credit (and often getting a cut in the action) for someone else’s innovation, especially from the third-party apps market.

Too often the real innovations in wireless broadband have often come in spite of carriers that have sought to block, control, or “manage” someone else’s vision.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Freedom CTIA Ad Spot 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Watch as the CTIA wireless lobby tries to sell Americans on wireless innovation, much of which didn’t come from wireless companies at all.  (1 minute)