Wireless carriers want you to pay them extra if you use your phone’s built-in Wi-Fi hotspot feature to share wireless data with your other devices.  Now Verizon and T-Mobile are joining AT&T in shutting down some loopholes that allowed third party applications to deliver tethering service at no additional monthly charge.

The first step in locking down tethering is removing easy access to applications that allow it to happen.  As of this week, access to the most popular tethering apps, including Easy Tether, Internet Sharer, Klink, PDAnet and Tether for Android have been blocked from the Android Market, which means customers can only install these applications using a complicated process to manually install the software.

The next step, already underway at AT&T, is to identify and warn customers using these “unauthorized” apps that they are violating the terms of their wireless contract.

AT&T customers began receiving text messages warning them that the company’s own tethering plan would be automatically added to their accounts if tethering continued.  Verizon has not gone that far yet, but T-Mobile has, sending warnings and blocking access for customers who are not paying an additional $14.99 a month for the service, currently unlimited.

Verizon Wireless customers will have to pay $20 a month for up to 2GB of access, each additional gigabyte priced at $20.

AT&T customers can add tethering for an additional $15 (for 200MB), with additional plans delivering more access for more money.

Google, responsible for administering the Android Market, notes it is not “blocking” the app, merely making it “unavailable for download at the request of wireless carriers” — a distinction without a difference for most consumers.

5-10-2011 Correction:  AT&T’s website claims you need the 4GB DataPro plan for Smartphone tethering, which provides an allowance of 4GB of data for $45 a month, with a $10/GB overlimit fee per GB over.

 

AT&T’s alternate reality of the wireless universe is on full display as the company makes statements promoting its proposed merger with T-Mobile that, in some cases, retreat from the facts or otherwise distort them.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson has been visiting with journalists, often from the business press, to talk up the merger’s potential.  The company has supplemented those PR tours with a 400-page filing with the Federal Communications Commission that has won converts among some non-profit groups, many of which receive direct funding from AT&T.

Stop the Cap! felt a fact check was in order, so we reviewed Stephenson’s recent claims made in an interview with USA Today:

Claim:  In the last four years, the volume of (traffic on) these (wireless broadband) networks is up 8,000%. We believe that we’re going to go up, in five years, eight to 10 times from where we are today. We don’t have the spectrum position to accomplish that.  T-Mobile’s spectrum is very compatible with ours. In cities like New York, we put the two companies together, and we get a very quick lift in capacity of about 30%. That means fewer dropped calls, better service quality, and it gives us a path to do something that neither one of us could do independently, and that is deploy fourth-generation mobile broadband to 95% of the U.S.

Fact: Although wireless broadband traffic is up, AT&T holds more wireless spectrum than any other carrier, a good deal of it unused.  In fact, some of AT&T’s competitors and critics suggest the company is hoarding spectrum, and its insatiable appetite for more could get fulfilled if the company can sell Congress on its “shortage theory.”  Although some of that spectrum is being reserved for the company’s future LTE network, critics contend AT&T spent a lower percentage of its revenue on network expansion (despite being the exclusive holder of the Apple iPhone during the period) than its competitors.

Between 2008 and 2010, AT&T’s FCC filing said it spent $21.1 billion in capital expenditures to upgrade its wireless network.　That’s less than the $22.1 billion spent by Verizon Wireless over the same period. As a percentage of revenue, AT&T’s total was a little higher, at 13%, to Verizon’s 12.8%. Even so, given its congestion problems, AT&T should have spent significantly more. Complaints about congestion were apparent at least two years ago, yet in 2009 AT&T increased wireless capital expenditures by only 1% to Verizon’s 10%.

AT&T has admitted it has faced congestion issues in several large cities — an especially serious problem for a company using GSM technology, which combines voice and data traffic onto a single wireless pipe.  When the network gets overcongested, data sessions fail and voice calls drop.  CDMA networks like Verizon and Sprint have two virtual pipes, one for data and one for calls.  If one gets congested, it doesn’t necessarily harm the other.

Additionally, although T-Mobile will provide some additional capacity in selected urban markets, some of their towers are remarkably close to AT&T’s own towers, effectively making them redundant.  Because T-Mobile uses different spectrum, in some cases AT&T customers will see no benefit from the combination of the two networks, unless they buy new equipment capable of accessing both.

AT&T using T-Mobile as the key to deploying fourth-generation mobile broadband is more than a little hard to believe, considering the German-owned carrier is dwarfed by AT&T.

Claim: Anybody who opens the newspaper or watches TV sees this as a fiercely competitive industry — maybe the most competitive in the United States.  The large majority of Americans, when they go to buy cellphone service, have a choice of at least five providers. In 18 of the top 20 markets, the customer has a choice of five different competitors. It’s a fiercely competitive market today. It will be a fiercely competitive market after this deal is done. We don’t see that changing.

Free Press characterizes AT&T's claims of more competition by absorbing a competitor to be the equivalent of chucking your smartphone down the rabbit hole.

Fact: If ad purchases were evidence of a robust, competitive market, we could say phone and cable companies were hot competitors.  Both advertise heavily, but charge similar prices for similar service — a classic case of duopoly market pricing power. In the cell phone business, the overwhelming majority of Americans subscribe to either AT&T or Verizon Wireless.  Sprint is a distant third at around 12%.  After T-Mobile, all other carriers represent just 1-2% of the remaining market share.  Many cities don’t have access to smaller providers like Cricket, US Cellular, or MetroPCS, either.  In those areas, the choices are usually AT&T, Verizon, and perhaps Sprint.

How does this marketplace concentration impact customers?  Loss of innovation.  Typically, smaller carriers have to innovate to attract attention and compete successfully with larger providers.  AT&T and Verizon have long track records of locking up access to the most innovative phones, so smaller providers have to create unique service plans, offer lower prices, or provide attractive bundles.  Sprint sells unlimited access in a marketplace full of restrictive data caps or calling minute allowances.  T-Mobile provided some of the least expensive plans around, especially for families.  Cricket offers pay-per-day prepaid calling plans that can make a wireless phone affordable for anyone.  US Cellular has stellar customer service.

All competitors are not equal.  Anyone who lives or visits rural areas understands the implications of relying on Cricket, MetroPCS, or even Sprint for cell phone service well off the main highway.  With coverage being a major factor, many quickly decide there are only two realistic choices for robust service — AT&T and Verizon.

AT&T’s myopia aside, eliminating T-Mobile, one of the market’s most fiercely innovative providers, will do nothing to benefit consumers.

Q&A Claims:

Q: There are small companies in the market, but one commentator said that they’re like grocery stores trying to compete with Walmart.

A: Everybody has their analysis. We can evaluate the numbers nine ways to Sunday. At the end of the day, the Justice Department will do the fact gathering and data gathering and will evaluate it market by market, then make those determinations. Based on our analyses, this is a deal that should be approved.

Q: If the market is so competitive, why might two companies have 70% of the business?

A: We all make technology decisions. We all put marketing plans into place. We all make decisions that drive how effective we are in the marketplace. I think we’ve done pretty well. I think Sprint has done a remarkable job over the last couple of years and will do very well tomorrow.

Q: Consumers only have two places where they can get an iPhone.

A: But there are RIM (BlackBerry) devices. There are Windows (Phone) 7 devices. Android devices tend to be doing very well throughout the market — in fact, we are having a lot of success with Android. Metro PCSand a lot of our competitors are having a lot of success there. So there are plenty of options for the customer.

Q&A Facts:

1. AT&T’s in-house analysis decides what is best for AT&T, not for individual American consumers.  The Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission are subject to political pressure and are not independent arbiters of competitive fairness.
2. Sprint has lost customers for years and is only now attracting some of them back.  While charitable to Sprint, Stephenson’s remarks are not welcomed by them.  They consider this deal anti-consumer and anti-competitive.
3. Perhaps with the exception of the Evo, available first from Sprint, almost every other cutting-edge phone launches exclusively with AT&T and/or Verizon.  Other carriers get to sell these popular phones much later, or sell stripped down models that don’t deliver the same features.  Just review the phones available to Cricket and MetroPCS customers and compare them with what is on offer from Verizon and AT&T.

Claim:  History tells you that prices in this industry have come down for 10 years. In the last 10 years, there’s been a significant number of business combinations in this industry, and prices have come down by 50%. And prices continue to come down. We have a history, when we acquire one of these companies, we map their rate plans into AT&T. So if somebody chooses to stay on that rate plan, those rate plans are available. I don’t see why we would change it for this case. It’s just a customer-friendly thing to do.

Fact: More and more customers are no longer simply buying voice plans, on which Stephenson’s claims are based.  Instead, they are upgrading to smartphones, where they discover carriers’ mandatory add-on fees for data services.  Although prices for voice plans have not increased, rates for text messaging, data, and other add-ons have.  That can add $25 a month or more per phone.  Many carriers are reducing their discounts on new phones while adding new “junk fees” to their bills to cover “regulatory costs” as well.

AT&T also doesn’t specifically promise to retain T-Mobile’s innovative rate plans.  Instead, they propose to grandfather existing customers on those plans until they purchase new phones or switch carriers.  That does not mean existing AT&T customers can jump to a T-Mobile plan.  It also doesn’t mean those plans will still be available for new customers.

AT&T has a track record of not being particularly customer-friendly, either.

Claim: T-Mobile will continue to operate their business exactly like they have. They’ve demonstrated that they’ve had a lot of success. They market directly against AT&T. I envision them to continue marketing against AT&T in the marketplace.

Fact: T-Mobile is so successful, they have been shopping around for a buyer for some time to allow them to exit the business.  A success story that is not.

Claim: Q. If the deal goes through, would you offer all of the AT&T handsets to T-Mobile? A: Of course. If you’re a T-Mobile customer, that’s one of the great advantages. The handset selection that AT&T offers would become available to T-Mobile customers.

Fact: This proves our point T-Mobile customers do not have access to the latest and greatest equipment available to AT&T customers.

AT&T has also claimed the deal will create new jobs and stimulate economic growth.  Tell that to the T-Mobile employees who will be collecting unemployment shortly after being deemed redundant by AT&T.  Virtually all of T-Mobile’s current service areas overlap AT&T.

Free Press’ Tim Karr compares the consolidation of the cellular industry to the railroad mergers of the 19th century.  By locking up competition, carriers can raise prices and call the shots in the marketplace.  While a handful of competitors could eke out their 1-2% market share in such a duopoly, all will be starved for capital and considered a risky bet in light of the domination by AT&T and Verizon.

Karr is asking Americans to put their elected officials on notice they don’t want this anti-consumer merger:

So should it be left to Washington and one exceedingly powerful company to decide the fate of our communications? (If you’re thinking “no,” you can help stop this merger by contacting the members of the Antitrust Subcommittee and urging them to grill AT&T next Wednesday.)

If Congress, the FCC and Department of Justice hear from enough people like you and me, they can muster the courage to ask the right questions of AT&T.

Next Wednesday’s hearing on the Hill is our first chance to expose this merger for the nightmare that it is, and save our smartphones from following AT&T down the rabbit hole.

Obtaining broadband in rural America can be a real challenge, but few rise to the occasion more than Stop the Cap! reader Paul, who lives in Blaine, Tenn.  Paul so wanted broadband service, he was willing to pay for his own telephone poles and equipment to get Frontier Communications to provide him with DSL service, even though he technically lives in AT&T territory.

Paul’s saga, documented on his blog, began in 2009, when his satellite fraudband provider Optistreams could no longer manage reliable uploading of images and maps for his employer, despite the fact he was paying nearly $150 a month for the service.  Satellite providers are having a tough time providing customers access to an increasingly multimedia rich Internet.  With low usage caps and ridiculously low speeds, most satellite customers we’ve heard from report their experiences to be frustrating, at best.  For Paul, in rural Grainger County, it had become intolerable. Verizon, the best possible wireless option, delivered one bar to the farm country Paul lives in — unsuitable for wireless data service.

Paul called his local phone company, AT&T, and inquired about when the company would extend its DSL service to his part of Blaine.

AT&T answered Paul succinctly:  “[We will] never provide DSL within 20 miles of your location.”

Paul’s property is situated right on the boundary between AT&T and Frontier Communications’ service areas.  AT&T provides service at Paul’s home, but Frontier Communications’ territory starts just 1,400 feet away, on the other end of his property.  In-between is a telecommunications no-man’s land.

Paul pondered emigrating his service from the Republic of AT&T to the Fiefdom of Frontier, which does offer DSL nearby.

AT&T told Paul he could leave them anytime he liked, taking his broadband business to Frontier.  Besides, nothing precluded him from doing that with or without AT&T’s consent, informed AT&T’s Eastern District Counsel.

Declaring allegiance to Frontier would be no easy matter, however.  Would Frontier allow him to settle down as their broadband customer?

“After a bunch of arguing with Frontier District Manager Mike Bird he sent District Engineer John Simpson out to my home,” Paul says.  “Simpson informed me that I was in AT&T territory and that ended all conversations.  I stated that AT&T had advised they had no problem and further there was no government regulation.  Didn’t matter I was told, that was that.”

Few, if any phone companies will agree to trespass on another provider’s turf, except under the most special circumstances.

Paul contacted Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to escalate the matter, and followed up with an official complaint to the Federal Communications Commission.

Federal agencies like the FCC become particularly responsive when a United States Senator is involved in monitoring the dispute.  AT&T responded to the complaint telling the Commission Paul had effectively fled their service area and was now a customer of Frontier Communications.  Frontier ignored the FCC initially, and instead sent Paul a letter affirming they would be willing to provide him with DSL, but at a “go away” installation price of $10,000.

When providers confront unprofitable customers difficult to serve, it is often easier to give them a sky high installation price with the hope it will discourage them from pursuing the matter.  Frontier claimed the costs of running infrastructure to reach Paul would amount to $9,977.44 — check or money order, please.

From Gregg Sayre, Frontier’s Eastern Region Associate General Counsel:

“As you know, you are in the service territory of AT&T.  AT&T is correct that we legally can provide service to you outside of our local service territory.  Unfortunately, the cost of serving you… if fully absorbed by Frontier, would overshadow the potential profits.  …In this case it does not make economic sense for us to undertake a line extension at our expense into AT&T’s service territory to reach your location, and the law does not require us to do so.”

“I countered with the fact that we would run the poles along the roadway and they could pay our pole attachment agreement.  They balked,” Paul writes.  “We, in turn, stated we would bring our own infrastructure to them underground and across a friend’s farm and did such for a quarter of the price.  This included running our own network interface at their pole and our house.”

In the end, Paul paid out of pocket for 1,600 feet of direct burial cable running across two farms and a county road.  He assumes responsibility of his cable, Frontier is responsible for the network from their pole back to the central office.

After the robust investment in time, money, and energy, what Paul ended up with wasn’t worth a dollar:

That’s worse than most satellite providers.

In fact, Paul has documented much of the time he is without any service at all — offline at least 38 of the last 50 days.

“Our average speed until they installed a new D-SLAM was 92kbps down and 125kbps up,” Paul writes.  It wasn’t just a problem for him.  Among Frontier’s loyal subjects already a part of their service area, customers also reported similar slow speeds.  Paul organized a door-to-door campaign to bring a united front of complaints to company officials.

Paul notes the local Frontier technicians have been responsive and understanding, but Frontier officials higher up are simply dragging their feet on needed upgrades.  Finally, $200 in service credits later, Frontier is promising to install a fiber cable to reduce the distance between the central office and the more distant points in the exchange where Paul and his neighbors live.  While that might help bring Paul’s speeds up, Frontier is notorious for overselling their network, leaving customers in large regions with slow service at peak usage times.  This has particularly been a problem in nearby West Virginia.

Paul says Frontier is largely unresponsive to individual complaints.

“I racked up well over 170 repair tickets in six months,” Paul shares.  “I organized my rural area and we hammered their call center. Did that do anything? Well, I can’t honestly say it did.”

With Frontier, it takes media exposure and embarrassment or the work of individual employees willing to persistently push higher-ups to authorize real solutions to customer problems, not temporary Band-Aids.

Broadband over a telephone network that is decades old requires substantial investments to function well.  In rural areas where customers have few choices, phone companies delivering service on the cheap too often leave paying customers with a quality of service highly lacking.

At around 7:00pm ET, Republicans in the North Carolina State Senate are expected to ram through H.129, Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) anti-consumer, anti-community broadband bill.

You can listen to the Evening of Infamy right here: North Carolina Senate Audio.

With the cooperation of most of the state’s Republicans, and a handful of Democrats taking cable’s money, North Carolina intends to solve their state’s broadband availability problems in a novel way: by redefining those without broadband service as having broadband after all.

Through an amendment, H.129 will essentially declare the service as widely available if even a single resident in a particular census block has access to something resembling broadband.  That could be 768kbps DSL from CenturyLink.  If one person has the service, the thinking goes, everyone can get it, even if they can’t.

The Senate intends to deal with North Carolina’s broadband crisis by changing the definition of the word ‘crisis‘ into ‘accomplishment.’ Instead of allowing communities to provide service in unserved areas, simply declare all areas as being served, thereby negating the need for community broadband.  Another victory for the free market, and it was dirt cheap not to provide the service, too!

So when broadband-deprived North Carolina consumers call Time Warner, CenturyLink, or AT&T, they can be told:

“No, it’s not that we don’t have any broadband service to sell you, we’re simply providing it in a unique new way — by delivering it to someone else!  (Can’t you move in with them?)”

Problem solved.

As one legislator said earlier, “[TWC and CenturyLink] are calling all the shots.”

Today should be your last day for doing business with AT&T’s DSL and U-verse services.  If you feel strongly about your broadband usage being counted and limited, it’s time to bail out of AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, which took effect earlier today.

From this day forward, AT&T DSL customers are limited to 150GB of usage and U-verse customers top out at 250GB before the overlimit fee kicks in — $10 for every 50GB customers exceed the cap, billed in $10 increments. It’s classic AT&T Math, where $1.01 of usage is rounded up to $10.00.

AT&T certainly got off on the wrong foot on day one.  We’ve received more than a dozen messages today from customers who find AT&T’s usage meter offline, showing this message:

“We’re sorry, but we’re unable to display your Internet usage at this time.”

Do you think AT&T would accept that excuse if you enclosed a note telling AT&T you are unable to pay your Internet bill at this time?

On an ongoing basis, we intend to hold AT&T’s feet to the fire until they rescind this unwarranted overcharging scheme.  While company officials claim it is intended to protect their customers from a handful of “heavy users,” they also argue they have plenty of capacity for everyone.  The company cannot have it both ways.

Therefore, this week’s message to be shared with your friends and family is:

AT&T’s Broadband Network Is Not Good Enough to Handle Your Broadband Needs: Shop Elsewhere

AT&T’s wired broadband network, just like their bottom-rated wireless service, cannot handle their customers’ broadband needs.  The company proved that today by having to introduce a broadband rationing scheme, limiting customer usage.  Despite being America’s largest telephone company ISP, AT&T apparently cannot handle the traffic, telling DSL customers to lay off after 150GB and their “advanced” U-verse network customers to get offline after 250GB of use.  Evidently the company isn’t willing to invest some of their enormous profits to provide an ongoing level of broadband service their customers deserve to get, especially when compared with their closest cousin: Verizon.

“While Verizon is installing fiber optics to many of their customers’ homes and providing unlimited, blazing fast Internet service, AT&T admits through their own actions their network isn’t good enough to provide that same level of service to their customers — so now they are limiting the use of it,” says Phillip Dampier, editor at consumer group Stop the Cap! “If I was an AT&T customer, I’d shop around for an alternative provider that has a network robust enough to actually deliver the service customers pay good money to receive.”

AT&T’s U-verse service was touted to customers as delivering a next generation of broadband and television service that could provide healthy competition to cable television.

“AT&T wants U-verse to compete with the big cable companies, but usage caps tell us they can’t manage to do that,” Dampier says. “If their network is so great, why do they need to slap limits on customers?”

AT&T’s representatives claim the limits are intended to reduce congestion from a handful of heavy users, a claim that does not make sense to Stop the Cap!

“AT&T’s existing terms and conditions allow them to deal with any customers who create problems for other users on their network,” Dampier said. “Instead of expanding capacity or dealing with the so-called ‘handful’ of troublesome users, they have slapped an Internet Overcharging scheme on all of their customers.”

Stop the Cap! points out the irony AT&T has plenty of capacity for hundreds of television channels, but doesn’t have enough capacity to provide a worry-free High Speed Internet experience.

“AT&T’s U-verse has no problems finding space for more shopping channels, foreign language networks, and niche channels, but can’t find their way clear to leave customers’ unlimited Internet accounts alone,” Dampier adds.  “Their priorities are all wrong — giving you channels you didn’t ask for while taking away the service you do want.”