Verizon is charging customers for text messages sent to mobile broadband devices, even though the devices themselves have no effective way to view the messages.  That allegation is the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed against the wireless carrier by Hagens Berman LLP, a law firm representing consumers who were unfairly billed for text messages from July 28, 2004 to the present.

The lawsuit, originally filed August 4, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeks compensatory damages and an injunction prohibiting Verizon from billing customers for text messages sent to mobile broadband devices.  The law firm sent out a reminder this week for customers either billed in the past or still being billed they still have a chance to join the lawsuit.

Verizon’s mobile broadband devices allow its customers to access the Internet through Verizon’s wireless network. Each device is assigned a unique 10-digit telephone number and therefore, text messages can be sent to the 10 digit number associated with the device. However, according to the lawsuit, the devices have no screens and users have no effective way to view them.

If Verizon billed you for text messages you cannot access in connection with your Verizon Mobile Broadband device, you can request further information or join the case at the firm’s website or by email at [email protected].

Verizon Wireless will end its unlimited data smartphone plan on July 6th, pushing future customers to choose usage tiers priced at $30 for 2GB, $50 for 5GB, or $80 for 10GB.  But existing customers with either 3G or 4G phones can keep their existing unlimited data plans indefinitely, according to leaked Verizon memos.

Droid Life has become information central about the end of unlimited data at Verizon, thanks to some good connections with employees willing to share internal company memos.  They’ve learned Verizon also plans to make some other price adjustments effective July 7th:

Tethering pricing (in addition to your existing data plan, charged separately):

• 2GB — $20/month
• 4GB – $50/month
• 7GB – $70/month
• 12GB – $100/month

Overlimit fee: $10 per gigabyte.

Tablet plan pricing changes: Delete $20-1GB tablet plan, replaced July 7th with a $30-2GB plan.

From a Verizon memo to employees:

Data Pricing Evolution…The Present
Our legacy data pricing structure was designed to address a somewhat different customer need profile than what we are seeing and can expect in the future.

Consider this. Data usage has more than doubled over the last three years. Consumers and business users alike are doing more and more with their mobile devices. The notion of “send and end” has migrated to “managing multiple aspects of one’s lifestyle through mobility.” Whether it’s social media (85%+ of Smartphone users), mobile internet (88%+ of Smartphone users), or email/applications (71%+ of Smartphone users), this usage has one thing in common—dramatically increased demand for data and media consumption.

As a result, we are evolving our approach around how we package our data solutions and pricing to our customers. Coming soon, Verizon Wireless will move from our existing pricing format to a structure designed to allow customers to choose the right data solution that best aligns with their needs.

The Value Benefit Equation…
With the new usage based pricing plans, the vast majority of our customers will be able to enjoy their typical level of data consumption for the same value that they outlay today. Additionally, for those who have greater requirements for data, we will have solutions that they can tailor to their unique needs.

Perhaps more importantly, given our strong desire to continue to provide enhanced capability and value to our customers, the new data pricing will apply to both our 3G AND 4G LTE networks. So in essence, for those customers in our ever and rapidly expanding 4G LTE network coverage footprint, users will gain the benefit of the fastest and most advanced 4G LTE network in the U.S. all for the same usage based value. More speed. More functionality. Same value.

When Verizon first spoke about AT&T ending its unlimited use plans, we noted company officials seemed hesitant to sign on to AT&T’s specific pricing model.  We interpreted that to mean AT&T was being too stingy in Verizon’s eyes.  Stupid us. Instead, Verizon is going to charge $5 more than AT&T for most of its data plans, presumably milking its much-better reputation for service and reliability.

The existing price for Verizon’s unlimited smartphone data plan is $29.99 per month.  After July 7th, one penny more buys you only 2GB on Verizon’s network.

Customers can lock in unlimited data if they sign up for service before the end of the day on July 6th.  All existing customers who want to keep their unlimited data plan can, apparently even when changing phones, for the foreseeable future.  But nothing is forever with AT&T or Verizon.  We suspect “forever” will expire when average smartphone data usage approaches the 2GB limit their future $30 plan will feature.  Currently, the vast majority of smartphone users consume less than 750MB of data per month.

Unless Canada deregulates the media industry further, a “technological storm” by “audiovisual Wal-Marts” will harm or destroy Canada’s media companies.  No doubt looking directly at Netflix, those were the views of Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Peladeau at the outset of hearings held this week by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on media ownership and vertical integration issues.

Canada’s media landscape is rapidly consolidating at a rate that will allow even ordinary Canadians with a passing interest in the issue to recognize the handful of remaining media moguls and identify them by name.  Phone companies that own major Canadian television networks, cable operators that own cell phone companies, and mergers among the dwindling pack have left consumers soaking in Shaw, Rogers, Bell, and Quebecor — whether they flip on their televisions, make a cell phone call, read a newspaper, or download something from the Internet.  Talk about vertical integration!  Now the supersized are back for more deregulation so they can trade programming rights between themselves, fend off the devil — Netflix, and of course continue to buy each other out.

There is one exception, of course.  Allowing party crashers.  While all of the incumbent players want the rules loosened up on their respective media and telecommunications operations, they are hellbent on keeping foreign competition out of Canada — the only real deep pockets sufficient to break up a convenient cartel of phone and cable companies.  Rogers and Shaw stay on their respective sides of a line dividing eastern Canada’s turf for Rogers and western Canada’s territory for Shaw.  Bell and Telus do much the same.  Quebecor provides cable for Quebec, and a handful of much smaller players fight for any remaining crumbs.

For Americans, it would be the equivalent of turning over your telephone, broadband, cable, television, newspapers, magazines, and radio stations to Rupert Murdoch or ex-media baron Ted Turner.

For Canadians, these hearings come just a tad too late.  Shaw Communications is absorbing their latest buyout — Canwest Media’s TV assets, which are hardly meager.  Shaw will run more than two dozen local broadcast TV outlets, 30 cable and satellite networks, and Global — a major broadcast network.  Bell is still popping Rolaids over its digestion of the enormous CTV and smaller upstart A-Channel network.  When it’s finished, “A” will become “CTV Two.”

The Globe and Mail notes between them, Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Quebecor control:

• 86 per cent of cable and satellite distribution;
• 70 per cent of wireless revenues;
• 63 per cent of the wired telephone market;
• 49 per cent of Internet Service Provider revenues;
• 42 per cent of radio;
• 40 per cent of the television universe;
• 19 per cent of the newspaper and magazine markets;
• 60 per cent of total revenues from all of the above media sectors combined.

As far as growth goes, as Alan Keyes used to proclaim, “that’s geometric!”

But it’s still not enough now that Netflix has arrived in Canada.  Despite the fact the operation has been challenged by punitive usage caps restricting viewing (or lowering its video quality), Netflix and new technology companies like it are the 21st century boogeymen for these multi-billion dollar media corporations.  The only way to defend against it?  Deregulate to allow them to trade viewing rights, grow larger, and charge whatever they like.  Somehow that seems to miss the point: Netflix is popular because it costs less, allows people to stream the shows they actually want to watch at a time of their choosing, and let’s families drop some overpriced premium channels and video rental fees along the way.

Bell’s dollar-a-holler researcher expanded on why large media conglomerates miss the point, even if he did so unintentionally.

According to University of Alberta economics professor, Jeffrey Church, “vertical integration is beneficial for consumers.” Sit down as you read why:

• it reflects efficiencies, spurs competitive innovation and is a global trend;
• telecom, media and Internet markets in Canada are “highly competitive;”
• our ‘small media economy’ needs a few deep-pocketed national champions to compete globally and invest heavily in innovation at home;
• instances of harm are mostly imaginary and few and far between;
• it helps keep “consumers . . . within the regulated system” (Shaw’s submission, p. 4).

Like cattle.

Billboards sprinkled across Ft. Wayne, Ind., telling residents, “Frontier is pulling the plug on FiOS — Switch to Xfinity,” has infuriated Frontier Communications, who says it will continue to provide FiOS service in the area, at least for broadband, indefinitely.  Now the independent phone company has sent a “cease and desist” letter to Comcast officials demanding the billboards come down.

Frontier spokesman Matt Kelley accused Comcast of spreading false rumors in an effort to drum up business.

“Frontier is not planning on pulling the plug,” Kelly told WANE-TV. “We are going to continue providing FiOS service in Allen County and we have no plans to remove it.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne FiOS Not Going Away 6-9-11.mp4[/flv]

WANE-TV in Ft. Wayne led its newscast with the dispute between Frontier Communications and Comcast over fiber optic television.  Is the plug really being pulled? (Loud Volume Alert!) (3 minutes)

But Comcast officials note Frontier has been pushing existing customers hard to switch to satellite television service, and Frontier earlier announced dramatic rate increases for its fiber cable television service — rates much higher than other competitors.

Comcast issued a statement about the dispute:

“Comcast continues to invest in these markets, while Frontier has taken a number of steps to discourage new customers from signing up for its service and encourage current customers to seek alternative services from satellite. We are using these ads to make consumers aware of our Xfinity TV service as a better choice for consumers.”

HissyFitWatch: Oooh... Comcast!

From our own Stop the Cap! investigation, both companies are partly correct.

We called Frontier this afternoon posing as a new FiOS customer in Ft. Wayne trying to sign up for television service.  The only option available, we were told, was satellite television service.  While Frontier was happy to sign us up for telephone and fiber broadband, the company representative told us she could not take our order for FiOS TV because, “it’s not available in your area.”

But Comcast’s claims about FiOS lack the very important detail that FiOS broadband and phone service will be offered by Frontier without any interruption — only television service appears to be at issue, and remains available to current customers.

We heard from several Ft. Wayne customers who are unhappy with Frontier’s handling of FiOS.

“While Comcast is being clever, the fact is Frontier wants TV customers to switch to satellite, which is simply a stupid idea,” says our reader Kevin.  “Why would I want a satellite dish when I have fiber.”

Lee, another Frontier customer, believes the company broke its promise of no rate increases after buying out Verizon’s local operations.

“They promptly raised the TV rate by around $30, and if you are a new FiOS customer, expect to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for installation,” he says.

Last week, Frontier’s deadline for Comcast to pull down the billboards passed, but as of today those billboards are still on full display.  Comcast’s response to Frontier?

“We received their letter.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Deadline day for billboard back-and-forth 6-17-11.mp4[/flv]

WANE-TV in Ft. Wayne updates viewers.  Frontier’s unilateral deadline for Comcast to pull down their billboards came and went.  The billboards are still there.  Now what? (2 minutes)

Cramming

After years of mystery phone charges for long distance services, ringtones, software backup, and phone entertainment customers never signed up for, the Federal Communications Commission today announced it was getting tough with more than $11 million in fines against some of the companies responsible.

Phone cramming — the practice of signing you up for paid services you never ordered, wanted or needed, has been a perennial problem ever since telecommunications reform allowed third parties to charge for their dubious services on monthly telephone bills.  In return, phone companies collect a substantial piece of the action, leading some critics to charge Ma Bell has a financial interest in keeping phone cramming alive and well.

Helping increase the confusion, most cramming charges are listed under innocent-sound names like “long distance discount plan,” “protection plan,” or “ring choice.”  Most are buried under “other charges” found on the back of the bill or somewhere on the second page.  The monthly charges can range from $2-20 — the smaller the amount, the less likely it will be questioned by a cramming victim.

Some of these charges have been collected from unsuspecting customers for years.

Now FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has proposed fining the worst offenders $11.7 million for violating the agency’s cramming rules.

“We’ve seen people getting charges for yoga classes, cosmetics, diet products, and, yes, psychic hotline memberships,” Genachowski said. “These mystery fees are often buried in bills that can run 20 or so pages, and they are labeled with hard-to-decipher descriptions like USBI.”

The targets of the fines: Main Street Telephone; VoiceNet Telephone, LLC; Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC; and Norristown Telephone, LCC.

Customers who do ferret out cramming charges run into roadblocks trying to get their money back.  Telling customers they themselves authorized the charges, several crammers refuse to provide refunds or only agree to stop future charges, while keeping the money they already collected.  Other customers seeking refunds from phone companies find themselves in a loop of “buck-passing,” as companies like Qwest redirect callers to the crammers to get charges credited back.

The Senate Commerce Committee will hold hearings on phone cramming soon and issue a report on the ongoing problems this practice causes customers, according to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WISH Indianapolis Phone Cramming Durham 12-17-10.flv[/flv]

WISH-TV in Indianapolis has spent years tracking the exploits of former-local businessman Tim Durham, who allegedly wiped out the savings of thousands of people, was blamed by one victim for the death of his elderly mother, and was implicated indirectly in a phone cramming operation.  (13 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSTP Minneapolis Victims of Bill Cramming 1-7-11.flv[/flv]

KSTP-TV in Minneapolis provides raw video of Greg Carlson of Eagan and Matt Rohn of Northfield sharing their stories about being crammed by USBI for long distance on their Qwest bills.  (6 minutes)