Verizon's Herd Mentality

Saturday will be the final day Verizon Wireless customers will be able to sign up for one-year service contracts and still get a discount on new equipment.

Effective April 17, customers will have just two choices for service — the ubiquitous two year contract with a steep early termination fee or month-to-month service priced artificially high to recover equipment subsidies off-contract customers do not receive.

Verizon claims the changes will “reduce consumer confusion,” which suggests customers couldn’t make up their minds between contracts for one year or two.  But the company claims most subscribers managed soon enough, usually choosing two year contracts to maximize discounts on equipment.

Some media outlets suggest the change is to discourage customers from abandoning Verizon Wireless for AT&T by holding them to longer two year contract terms.  But with AT&T losing customers to Verizon, that is an unlikely reason.

More likely is the company’s ongoing “simplification” of service plans, which has the unfortunate side effect of herding customers into plans that may not serve them well.  Verizon earlier did away with their popular “New Every Two” handset bonus plan which rewarded loyal customers renewing their contracts with additional $50 discounts.  The company also has cut back on other discounts on equipment, driving an increasing number of customers to third party retailers like Wirefly.

The one year service plan was established to let customers get some discount on wireless equipment without tying them down to a 24 month service commitment.  Since wireless providers build in cost recovery of the subsidies they “give” customers, you effectively pay back those discounts over two years by in the form of overpriced service plans.  Month to month “off-contract” customers do not get the benefit of any discounts for new equipment, but pay the same high prices for service everyone else does.

If your contract has recently expired, or you never had one, you might do better with Page Plus or Wal-Mart’s “Straight Talk” which both rely on Verizon’s network, but sell service at much lower prices, without a contract.

Rep. Avila with Marc Trathen, Time Warner Cable's top lobbyist (right) Photo by: Bob Sepe of Action Audits

Over the course of an hour this afternoon, North Carolina’s Senate Finance Committee discussed the implications of H.129, legislation proposed, written, and lobbied by Time Warner Cable and some of their phone friends across the state.

On hand was Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable), who tried to turn her competition-busting bill into an emotional epiphany about jobs and the benefits private providers bring to a state now ranked dead last in broadband.

Pass me a tissue.

Nobody doubts Ms. Avila is looking out for the interests of the state’s big cable and phone companies.  Unfortunately for her district, she isn’t looking out for the broadband interests of her constituents, forced to pay some of America’s highest prices for low end service.

As Avila pals around with lobbyists from Time Warner Cable and the state’s cable trade group (more lobbyists), consumers in places like Orange County in north-central North Carolina see themselves on broadband maps but find they cannot actually get service from any providers.

As the hearing progressed into two-minute statements from parties interested in the outcome, the disconnect between well-paid lobbyists and corporate front groups like Americans for Prosperity with elected officials and consumers on the ground surveying a bleak broadband landscape said a lot.

Cable companies and their lobbyist friends sought to portray community broadband projects as fiscal failures — one suggested that was a global reality, despite the fact many countries have embarked on nationwide broadband plans that directly involve government to help build infrastructure.  The global leader in broadband, South Korea, is a perfect example.  With collaboration between the government and the private sector, Korea will have 1 gigabit broadband service across much of the country within a few years.  That’s because South Korea does not believe broadband is simply a convenience, they see it as a social and economic necessity.

The other side sees it as a private moneymaker that can charge rapacious prices because it’s not an essential service.

Shining a bright light on this reality was Americans for Prosperity, who delivered their own speaker at today’s hearing.  As the group complained about government ‘overreach’ providing incentives in the 1930s for rural power and phone service, it quickly became apparent there are some in this debate willing to let rural Americans sit in darkness, without a phone line (much less broadband), to make a free market point: if private companies can’t or won’t deliver the service, you don’t deserve it and shouldn’t have it.

One wonders where this thinking will ultimately take us.  Will community gardens be opposed for taking vegetable profits away from private corporate farms?  Flea markets on public fairgrounds should be banned because they unfairly compete with eBay, Dollar Tree or a supermarket?  The irony is these “small government conservatives” are all for big government legislation to keep potential competitors at bay.  For them, broadband cannot be a locally-determined community project — just something you buy from a company that may or may not have an interest in serving you.

Just ask the gentleman from Orange County, who appeared as the final speaker.  He spent his two minutes complaining about faulty cable and phone company-provided broadband coverage maps that claim service where none exists.  After spending money on equipment, he learned CenturyLink had no interest in actually providing him with DSL.  In fact, when he asked both the phone and cable company when that might change, the impression he was left with was “never.”

Whether members of the state legislature understand the irony of CenturyLink spending a fortune making sure Orange County never delivers the broadband service the company won’t provide itself is something voters across the state will need to impress on them.

They should be told, in no uncertain terms, to oppose H.129 and leave community broadband alone in North Carolina.

Stephenson can use hit upsized alarm system to sleep better at night.

While AT&T is just weeks away from implementing Internet Overcharging schemes on its DSL and U-verse customers, the company’s CEO is raking in perks defended in the company’s 2011 proxy statement as necessary to be “robust and competitive enough to attract and retain key talent.”

Yet USA Today notes CEO Randall Stephenson, 50, doesn’t appear to be going anywhere — he has been with AT&T since the first term of the Reagan Administration.

In addition to more than $20.2 million in compensation, Stephenson’s perks and goodies amount to $417,000 in 2011.  Some of the highlights:

• Free personal use of the company jet ($180k)
• Paid life insurance premiums ($164k)
• A home security system ($31k)
• Car leases ($29k)
• Financial planning to help figure out what to do with all the cash ($14k)

What did your employer give you last year?

Signal boosters use an outdoor antenna to reach distant cell tower sites, while using an indoor antenna your mobile device can lock onto for improved reception.

If the Federal Communications Commission has its way, Americans annoyed with lousy cell phone reception will soon be able to purchase a new generation of signal boosters capable of delivering service to fringe reception areas ignored or bypassed by providers.  And unlike home cell-phone extenders, they won’t use your home broadband connection while also eating up your voice and data allowance.

A signal booster, not to be confused with a “femtocell” some wireless carriers sell or give to customers, acts like an amplified super-antenna — giving a boost to phones and mobile broadband signals in difficult reception areas.

This devices have been around and legal to use for a several years in North America, much to the consternation of cell phone companies and some public safety officials who deal with occasional interference problems created by misused or malfunctioning equipment.  The FCC is trying to find ways to mitigate interference problems while still allowing customers to benefit from signal boosters.  There are documented cases of rescuers relying on the equipment in remote disaster areas, and rural residents have managed 911 calls that would have been impossible without signal boosting technology.

Despite the agency’s efforts, several cell phone companies — particularly AT&T, object to the Commission’s plans to allow the independent use of signal-boosting equipment on “their” frequencies and networks.  Because cell phone boosters agnostically enhance every company’s signal within its frequency range and does not require users to pre-register phones to get access, AT&T stands to lose revenue if they are not the exclusive authority on selling, approving, and registering the use of miniature relay stations that boost their network’s coverage area.

AT&T currently sells customers femtocells which reduce dependence on the carrier’s overburdened 3G network — offloading traffic onto home and workplace wired broadband connections, which includes both voice calls and data.  But only a small percentage of customers get the equipment for free, often extending their contracts in the process.

Some providers and emergency responders have documented instances where these devices have created interference problems for cell tower sites and for emergency radio traffic that co-exists on the same frequency bands signal boosters occupy.  In some cases, inappropriate use of signal boosters has blocked emergency traffic, shut down cell sites, or reduced their coverage.  That is why the FCC wants the next generation of signal boosters to be able to intelligently interact with cell sites and other traffic users and reduce their power or discontinue service if they begin to create interference problems.

AT&T’s suggested safeguards go well beyond what most other carriers want from the FCC:

First, AT&T proposes that wireless licensees have “ultimate control” over any signal boosters operating on their networks under a presumptive authorization.  Specifically, signal booster operators must activate their devices with the licensee prior to initial use. In addition, the booster must possess technology to permit the licensee’s network to identify the device as a booster and identify its location at all times. Further, the licensee must have “dynamic control over the boosters’ transmit power” and have the authority and ability to turn off the booster for any reason at any time. Alternatively, AT&T proposes that the booster have “automatic gain control functionality that adjusts the power provided to the booster based on distance to the relevant base station.”

Second, AT&T proposes that signal boosters may only be operated on a channelized basis on the frequencies authorized for use by the wireless licensee whose signal is being boosted. AT&T suggests that manufacturers could meet this requirement by selling carrier-specific narrowband boosters or by designing “intelligent” boosters that limit transmissions to the spectrum licensed to the carrier whose signal is being boosted.

Third, AT&T proposes that signal boosters be designed with oscillation detection and will terminate transmission when oscillation occurs.

Fourth, AT&T proposes an expanded certification process for signal boosters that are to be used pursuant to a presumptive authorization. Specifically, the booster would be subject to (1) the Commission’s equipment certification process; (2) an industry-driven certification process;105 and (3) individual licensee approval to ensure compliance with the licensee’s proprietary confidential network protocols.

Fifth, AT&T proposes that any presumptive authorization standards be applied prospectively and that the Commission bring enforcement action against parties that sell, market, or use devices that do not meet the presumptive standard.

Wilson Electronics is a major manufacturer of cell signal boosters.

Equipment manufacturers are not impressed with AT&T’s ideas.  One tells Stop the Cap! if adopted, signal boosting equipment would cost more than double today’s average price of $200-400.

“AT&T has built so many requirements into their proposal, they know the result will be a product too expensive to sell to consumers,” the source tells us.  “And the part where AT&T wants the right to authorize and register the equipment gives them the option of charging a fee for doing so, turning the product into yet another way for AT&T to make money.”

Equipment manufacturers agree that there have been instances of interference problems, and they are willing to work with the Commission to find solutions, but not at the risk of adopting proposals some suspect are designed to destroy the signal booster business.

“AT&T is a control freak, plain and simple,” the source says.  “If they don’t own it or control it, it’s offensive to them.  It must be eliminated.”

More than one equipment manufacturer has noted, not for attribution, they find AT&T’s complaints a bit ironic.

“This is the same company that is already notorious for dropping calls,” said the source.  “You would think they would look favorably on anything that could deliver ‘more bars in more places,’ because AT&T sure isn’t doing it these days.  Just ask their customers.”

iPad Owners:  Don’t get too comfortable with the channel lineup on Time Warner Cable’s free app for watching streamed HD video of some of your favorite cable networks.  What you see today may be gone tomorrow (or replaced by something else.)

Time Warner Cable’s ongoing effort to implement their TV Everywhere-vision have run headlong into a legal quagmire as some content owners object to the new service.

Back in March when the app first appeared, the cable company was offering a few dozen channels of national cable feeds, with a heavy emphasis on news and mainstream cable networks.  But then Viacom, News Corp., and Discovery Communications protested, claiming the cable operator had not negotiated streaming rights for their networks.  Viacom and Time Warner Cable are currently suing one another over the matter.

Although some programmers use the excuse streamed video could reach “unauthorized viewers who do not have a cable subscription,” viewing restrictions imposed by Time Warner Cable makes that unlikely.  The cable operator requires viewers to watch from a Time Warner Cable Wi-Fi broadband connection.  Wi-Fi hotspots don’t work; neither does access from 3G or 4G mobile broadband networks.  The cable company says that restriction is by design.

“We believe that the location inside the home grants us the rights, provided the method of delivery is over a traditional cable network which is exactly what we’re doing,” Time Warner Cable’s Alex Dudley told NY1, Time Warner’s 24-hour news channel in New York City. “This is not programming delivered over the Internet; this is delivered over our network just like your cable television is delivered, and then to your Wi-Fi router where it reaches your iPad.”

So it is really about money.  Programmers want extra compensation from the cable company for streaming their content, and the cable company doesn’t want to pay extra.

While negotiators and the courts untangle the mess, the cable operator has been adding some channels while deleting others.  The big losers: Animal Planet, Black Entertainment Television, Country Music Television, Comedy Central, Discovery Channel, FX, MTV, National Geographic, Nickelodeon, Spike, TLC and VH1 — are all currently off the lineup.

The winners: C-SPAN, which gets all three of its channels streamed.  A variety of other “enlightened” (Time Warner Cable’s words) cable networks have given the green light to be a part of the project.  Recently added: AMC, Bio, Bloomberg, CNBC World, Chiller, Current, Disney XD, ESPN News, G4, Golf Channel, History International, HSN, IFC, Jewelry TV, Lifetime, NY1, Oxygen, QVC, Reelz, Sleuth, Soap Channel, Style, and Tru TV.  (In New York City, Galavision, History en Español, PBS Kids Sprout, and We are also included.)

For channels like Bio, Chiller, Current, and Reelz — buried in Digital Channel Siberia on the cable dial only to be found by the most ardent channel surfers — getting a prominent place on an app with just a few dozen channels competing for viewers is exposure gold.

We’ve tested the app here at STC HQ and found the picture quality and responsiveness to be excellent.  Channel changing is nearly as fast on the app as it is on our set top box — quite an accomplishment.  But the restrictions imposed by Time Warner really limit the app’s usefulness.  After all, if you want to watch television at home, why reach for an iPad when your television remote control is nearby.  But for those without digital cable boxes, or who want to wander around the house while watching, Time Warner’s app is useful, and better yet — free to those who already subscribe to cable television.