Verizon Wireless has a problem with customers who look for the cheapest possible plans for their most capable phones.  Those days are over, as the company introduces ‘mandatory’ data plans for customers using what they define as “enhanced multimedia phones.”

Going forward, phones that meet these four qualifications will be defined as such:

Enhanced Multimedia Phone

1. “Enhanced” HTML Browser
2. REV A
3. Launched on of after September 8, 2009
4. QWERTY keyboard

The first phone to achieve this distinction is the Samsung Rogue, due for release on September 9th.

Customers who try to purchase this, or other phones that “qualify” for this status will be required to choose either a service plan that already bundles “unlimited data” (defined as 5GB per month), or choose from one of these mandatory add-on plans:

A-la-carte data – No usage allowance — $1.99/megabyte
25 megabytes per month — $9.99/month
75 megabytes per month — $19.99/month

The one option not available to customers is a block on all data services, to prevent any billing at any of these prices.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Verizon Wireless' Data Pricing "Refresh" (Courtesy: Boy Genius Report)

What will also no longer be an option is the $15 VCAST Vpak add-on, providing streaming video and includes unlimited data.  Customers signing up for VCAST Vpak before September 8th will be grandfathered in and be able to keep this add-on.  After September 8th, customers will find a $10 VCAST Video on Demand package on offer instead.  It provides unlimited video access, but no data allowance.  Customers will have to buy one of the add-on plans mentioned above.

Verizon Wireless’ internal marketing slides, leaked to The Boy Genius Report, speak to Verizon’s motivation for making these changes — money.  One slide notes that “over 60% of new activations would require a data plan next year” if the customer wanted access to both data and video on their new phone.  Additionally, the change “alleviates HTML capable handset subsidy pressures,” which essentially means they will be able to sell a more advances handset for less money, knowing they’ll make up the difference with a mandatory data plan charged over the life of a two year contract.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Marketing Slide Shows Verizon Pushing Customers to Unlimited Data Option as a Better Value

Verizon defends the changes by noting prior to the mandatory data plans, customers who used their browser-capable phones had to either pay the $1.99/megabyte a-la-carte rate, choose a premium unlimited data plan, or get VCAST Vpak.  The company feels the 25 and 75 megabyte options may work for customers with light usage, but enough that would bring their data usage over five megabytes per month ($10 on the a-la-carte option).

Realistically, this is another example of a data provider providing consumption billing options at ever-greater pricing.  With the loss of the VCAST Vpak option, consumers are now pushed into more expensive options, and will likely be heavily marketed bundled services that include data, just to avoid the pricey mandatory 25/75 megabyte add-ons.

Customers should anticipate marketing of bundled plans and little, if any, mention of the “a-la-carte” option that does not add a monthly fee to the customer’s bill.  Indeed, the slides obtained from BGR don’t show the a-la-carte option at all on the “Choosing the best plan” slide.  Instead, it pushes customers to the unlimited data option “for just one penny more” for customers choosing the popular second level Verizon Wireless Select plan (with the data plan add-on), which includes 900 talk minutes.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Verizon Select's Popular 900 Minute Option, Before the $9.99+ data add-on becomes effective.

Some Verizon Wireless customers relive better days, as they remain grandfathered on truly unlimited data plans chosen before the era of usage caps.  It’s just additional evidence that when usage capped broadband hits the scene, it’s only a matter of time before prices increase, and the usage cap allowances decrease.

A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.”

Judge Douglas Howard Ginsburg

The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling more than 30% of the nation’s pay-TV subscribers, was originally written in 1993 by the FCC because the agency feared a concentrated cable television marketplace would stifle innovation, lock out potential new independent programmers, and discourage new forms of competition.  The cable industry immediately called the cap an overreach, and in 2001, found a friendly reception in court, with a ruling demanding the FCC reconsider the rule in light of competition from satellite television.

The FCC determined satellite competition was inadequate alone to justify reversing the 30% ownership limit, and essentially kept the limit in place, mostly at the urging of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who regularly tangled with the cable industry during the Bush Administration.

The decision striking down the 30% rule came in a harshly worded ruling from Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.

“In light of the changed marketplace, the government’s justification for the 30 percent cap is even weaker now than in 2001 when we held the 30 percent cap unconstitutional,” Judge Ginsburg wrote for a three-member panel of the court.

Ginsburg wrote the FCC was egregiously derelict in its revised rulemaking because it failed to heed the court’s direction, requiring the court to vacate the rule.

The ruling is a “significant gain for cable and apparent big victory for Comcast,” said Andrew Lipman, a Washington- based partner in the media, telecommunications and technology practice at Bingham McCutchen LLP.

The Philadelphia Inquirer noted some Wall Street analysts were pleased with the court’s decision:

Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett called the decision a “moral” victory for Comcast, which contended that the market-cap rule was politically motivated by the Federal Communications Commission and wouldn’t overcome a court challenge. The rule was passed under former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Speculation about what companies Comcast could likely snap up began immediately, ranging from a conceptual merger with Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest cable company, to quick buyouts of smaller players like Cablevision or now-bankrupt Charter Cable.

Consumer groups were alarmed by the court ruling.

“This is not the end of the fight,” Andrew Jay Schwartzmann, president and chief executive officer of the Media Access Project, a nonprofit policy advocacy group, said in a statement. “Big cable’s anti-competitive ownership structure has increased prices and limited choices for the American public. Therefore, we will consult with the FCC on whether Supreme Court review is feasible. If not, we’ll be asking Congress to pass new legislation to ensure more choice and lower prices for cable TV service.”

Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, noted that the intent of the original 1992 Cable Act was to promote competition and consumer choice.  Yet in most cities, consumers face a cable cartel.

“Today consumers experience perpetual price hikes by large operators that already have market dominating purchasing power to decide the fate of new channels. The promises of lower prices through competition from satellite and telecom companies in the video business have never been realized. We encourage the FCC not only to revisit cable ownership limits, but to examine a variety of policy proposals to achieve Congress’s goal to bring consumers more competition and more choice in the cable industry.”

ABC News reported that while Comcast won this legal battle, it has a way to go in the court of public opinion.

Cable providers Comcast, Time Warner and Charter draw low marks on the American Customer Satisfaction Index, tracked by the University of Michigan. On a scale of 0 to 100, Comcast and Time Warner each scored 59 this year. The satellite provider DirectTV ranked first at 71, with Cox Communications cable at 66 and DISH Network at 64.

J.P. Morgan Securities likes what it sees from Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nation’s largest cable companies.  It has begun coverage of both companies, calling them ripe for growth potential.

Analyst Mike McCormack was particularly impressed with the cable companies’ success in selling bundled products to customers — packages containing video, telephone, and broadband service.  McCormack also noted that cable companies’ capital expenditures to provide services to customers continue to decline, allowing earnings and free cash flow to increase.

In a note to investors, the Wall Street firm said both companies had great potential to increase revenue from customers signing up for voice and data services, which the firm feels has low penetration rates.  Comcast was praised for its position to expand the “average revenue per user (or subscriber)” as higher speed data products gain popularity.

McCormack was much less positive about cable’s biggest rivals — telephone companies.  McCormack said cable was in a stronger position because telephone companies are continuing to lose an increasing number of traditional wired phone line customers, and earnings from the “maturing and increasingly competitive” wireless industry are likely to be lower.

The wireless mobile phone industry, especially prepaid mobile service, continues to undergo a price war which is positive for consumers, but seen as increasingly negative by Wall Street.

Opponents of Net Neutrality regularly dismiss concerns about providers blocking, interfering with, or rejecting content as little more than scare-mongering.  Even in the case of competitors, they assure us, no provider would ever consider getting between the customer and the services they choose to use.  Therefore, we don’t need Net Neutrality provisions enacted into law.

Wouldn’t you know, Cablevision-owned Newsday, a newspaper on Long Island, just unknowingly illustrated what happens when a company puts its own competitive and ownership interests ahead of not only the customer, but also newspaper common sense.

As any newspaper reader knows, the local cable and phone companies are not shy about advertising their products.  For years, Verizon has been spending several hundred thousand dollars a year to run full page ads touting its FiOS service on Long Island.  Such regular advertisers are hard to find these days in the ailing newspaper industry.  Last year, Newsday itself was put up for sale, acquired by Cablevision for $650 million dollars.

Now that the local cable company owns Newsday, they’ve decided to reject advertising from Verizon for its FiOS service. Verizon is now Cablevision’s biggest competitor, providing fiber optic service for television, broadband, and telephone service across Long Island.

The New York Times reports that Newsday has basically told Verizon “don’t call us, we’ll call you” when the phone company inquired about advertising space.

Newsday won’t comment about the reasons why Verizon’s ads were rejected, other than issuing a generic statement:

“We do not comment on specific ads except to say that Newsday, like every other media company, including The New York Times, accepts or rejects advertising at its own discretion,” said Deidra Parrish Williams, a Newsday spokeswoman.

Eric Rabe, a senior vice president of Verizon, told the Times that was fine with him, noting that’s money from Verizon’s pockets not going to feed Cablevision’s pervasive presence across Long Island.

The Dolan family, which runs Cablevision, dominates Long Island, running the cable system, a popular news channel – News 12, and is still the primary place consumers go to acquire broadband service.  Now they also own the biggest newspaper on Long Island as well.

This hasn’t been the first instance that Cablevision-owned Newsday has gotten embroiled in ethical controversy.  The Times notes:

In January, the top three editors at Newsday did not report for work for a few days amid reports that they had been fired or had resigned in a dispute with Cablevision over the paper’s coverage of the New York Knicks basketball team, which is also owned by the company. The editors returned to duty, and neither they nor the company offered a full explanation of what had happened.

Newsday also recently rejected advertising from the Tennis Channel, which is upset with Cablevision because it will not carry the channel.  The Tennis Channel was rebuffed by Newsday when it tried to buy ads inviting viewers to find the network on Verizon FiOS or satellite.

Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader at the journalism foundation Poynter Institute, was troubled by Newsday‘s antics.

“Newspapers accept ads at their own discretion, but they generally set the bar pretty high for rejecting advertising, because they don’t want to be seen as denying access to free speech,” she said. She added that appearing to deny an ad for competitive business reasons, rejecting an ad that is not obviously offensive or failing to explain the rejection, could undermine a paper’s credibility.

Could a company that considers it has the discretion to reject competitors’ access to its properties also extend that notion to its broadband service?  If a competing video provider used broadband to deliver access to its channel lineup, would a competitive threat like that be welcome on Cablevision’s Optimum Online?  How about criticisms of the company or its assets?

Newsday has chosen loyalty to its owner over lucrative advertising revenue to help sustain the paper.  That has disturbing implications for the broadband world as well.

Enacting Net Neutrality protections into law guarantees a company never finds itself in a quandary over where loyalties lie.  These protections guarantee that providers do not hamper, block, or interfere with the online services customers want to utilize.  No “competitive reasons” need ever be used as an excuse to block service from consumers.

Cablevision has not engaged in any online bad behavior to date, but why wait around to find out what the future holds?

Less than half of Americans surveyed by PC Magazine report they are very satisfied with the broadband speed delivered by their Internet service provider.

PC Magazine released a comprehensive study this month on speed, provider satisfaction, and consumer opinions about the state of broadband in their community.

The publisher sampled more than 17,000 participants, checking their actual broadband speeds, and questioned them about their overall satisfaction with their online access.

The findings indicate consumers live with what provider they can get.  Even lower rated providers scored “satisfactory,” in part because consumers don’t have many choices with which to compare.

Click to enlarge

In the war between coaxial cable modem vs. copper wire DSL technology-of-the-1990s battle, PC Magazine declared the cable industry the winner, consistently delivering faster speeds more reliably than possible with telephone company DSL.  Overall, the average cable speed was “688 Kbps, while the average DSL lets you surf at just 469 Kbps—cable connections, on average, are 47 percent faster.”  Those speed measurements are based on actual web page and content delivery, not on marketed available speed.

In fact, users rated DSL an unsatisfying service, with only 20% of rural and suburban customers very impressed with DSL.  But for many who have no other choice, 50% think it’s good enough.

Or better than nothing.

One DSL provider did extremely well speed-wise in PC Magazine‘s survey, however.  Frontier Communications was rated as the fastest DSL provider in the nation, averaging “real-world” speeds of 724 Kbps, according to the survey.  But even they could only score a 20% customer satisfaction rating, with 30% dissatisfied.

There was one technology that did much, much worse.  Satellite broadband, the last possible choice for many Americans between dial-up and going without, is provided by companies like HughesNet and WildBlue, and they are unmitigated disasters in consumers’ eyes.

Just 6% of Hughes customers were satisfied, with a whopping 74% dissatisfied.  That’s because satellite broadband is extremely slow, averaging just 145 Kbps, heavily capped, and very expensive.  But for some rural Americans who live too far away from their local phone company central office, and will never see cable television, it’s likely their only choice.  Even mobile broadband signals won’t reach many of these consumers.

So what is the good news from all of this?  There is one technology that, hands-down, beats all of the rest — fiber optics to the home.  The nation’s top-rated ISP in PC Magazine’s survey is Verizon FiOS, with 71% satisfied, and just 6% dissatisfied.  Other fiber optic providers, mostly smaller local, regional, or municipal systems, scored 61% satisfaction.  Just one cable company matched that rating – Cablevision’s Optimum Online.

AT&T, with a combination of DSL and their newer U-verse platform, did considerably worse, with 38% satisfied and 24% dissatisfied.

Clearly, subscriber satisfaction comes highest from fiber optic broadband.

Click to enlarge

In statewide rankings, it all boils down to where you live.  The more populated states and those with large cities often scored higher than those with lots of wide open rural areas.  The larger the community you live in, the better the chance for fast, quality service.  In states like Wyoming or South Dakota, where more than 57% of customers reported dissatisfaction, it’s more about living with what you’re stuck with.