AT&T's HotZone in Charlotte only covers a tiny portion of the city, along S. Brevard Street between the NASCAR Hall of Fame and East Trade Street and for AT&T customers waiting to use the nearby Lynx light rail.

What do you do when your wireless 3G network capacity is hopelessly overloaded and you don’t want to spend the money to upgrade the network to meet the daily demands your customers place on it?  You offload as much of that traffic as possible on less costly, conventional Wi-Fi network technology.

AT&T has discovered that Wi-Fi can turn an ugly congestion problem into a marketing opportunity.  The company has announced free, unlimited access to its increasing number of “Hotzones” to AT&T wireless customers, promising stronger signals and faster speeds along the way.  The three cities chosen for the launch of the neighborhood-blanketing Wi-Fi service are New York, Charlotte, N.C.,  and Chicago.

That New York and Chicago are on the list come as little surprise, but why Charlotte?

It turns out Charlotte is among the top-10 cities companies use to test market new products and services to get a better feel of how customers will react.  Charlotte has served as a test market for years.  FedEx used the city to test drop boxes inside U.S. post offices back in 2001.  Time Warner Cable brought its “Start Over” and “Caller ID on TV” services to Charlotte to get customer reaction.  AT&T first test marketed its 3G Microcell service in the area, so the company has a track record of choosing the community to test its newest offerings.

Stop the Cap! has been measuring reaction on our own to learn what Charlotte residents think about AT&T’s Hotzone.

First, many AT&T customers are still unaware that this Wi-Fi service has even made it to Charlotte.  For those who have learned about it, anything that improves AT&T’s service in uptown Charlotte is good news for them.

“Although AT&T in Charlotte has never suffered from the kind of congestion faced in larger cities, when you concentrate a lot of data users in one area, such as the Time Warner Cable Arena on East Trade, AT&T’s network can slow to a crawl,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Eric, who lives in Charlotte.  “I have ventured around that area several times and, to be honest, you can quietly hop on one of many business Wi-Fi hotspots for free now, but you can’t go too far before losing the signal.”

Eric says AT&T would be better off extending their Wi-Fi network across the city of Charlotte if they really want to offload 3G traffic.

“Wi-Fi is faster than their 3G service and it’s unlimited,” he notes. “I’d actually have a much more favorable impression of AT&T if they created city-wide Wi-Fi networks for their customers because it would add tremendous value and be a great reason to stick with AT&T for cell service.”

But Liam, who works in downtown Charlotte but lives near Freedom Park writes it’s a Band-Aid for a much bigger problem — AT&T underestimating the demand on their network.

“I am not sure how excited I should be about a Hotzone that runs up a street for about four city blocks,” he says.  “This is not midtown Manhattan where a service like that could make a huge difference for residents of skyscraping-condos and apartment buildings.  What about the rest of Charlotte?”

Liam was an AT&T customer but left for Verizon Wireless nearly a year ago.  He thinks AT&T isn’t a bad provider in Charlotte — in fact he thinks AT&T does a much better job in rural western North Carolina than Verizon does, but inside metro Charlotte, Verizon’s signals are more consistent.

“If this service does reach into Time Warner Cable Arena, it could make a big difference though, especially when that stadium is nearly full,” Liam notes. “Somehow I think we’ll see Time Warner Cable’s own Wi-Fi service operating there, for free, in the not-too-distant future.”

The Charlotte Observer‘s @Charlotte blog asked readers what they thought about AT&T’s Charlotte Hotzone in two articles.  Amidst a rhetorical war over the merits of AT&T and Apple’s latest iPhone, most comments welcomed the improved service, even if some are not sure exactly where that improved service can be found.

Reporter Eric Frazier wrote, “I was trying to find out for certain whether this zone will cover the office towers along Tryon Street, but a spokesperson for AT&T told me they can’t say whether specific buildings, such as the Bank of America headquarters, will or won’t be covered by the Hotzone.

Reverend Mike wants to know when he can get a Hotzone installed in his backyard, noting he was “glad to hear they are setting this up downtown.”

AT&T completed upgrades to its HSPA 7.2 network earlier this year and offers about double the potential speed its older 3G network provided Charlotte customers.

Is Rahm Emanuel the consigliere to a deal to sell out broadband consumers to big telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast?

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is said to so afraid of big phone and cable companies donating millions to Republican candidates, he told agencies like the Federal Communications Commission to go along with Verizon, AT&T, and Big Cable’s demands for an end to Net Neutrality and other pro-consumer broadband reforms.

That is the rumor industry expert Dave Burstein is hearing about the prospects of broadband reclassification actually happening at the FCC this year.

It seems Verizon’s CEO Ivan Seidenberg has become a frequent guest at the White House, appearing 16 times since President Obama took office.  Seidenberg is behind the notion that saddling giant telecommunications companies with Net Neutrality will force those firms to flood Republicans with unprecedented campaign contributions.  That’s fascinating news, especially since most politicians claim campaign contributions never make any difference in how they vote on issues.  Perhaps Verizon is just being extra charitable this year.  The Republicans, who fall lock-step in support behind the nation’s largest phone and cable companies, will be delighted to accept.

With politicians like Rahm Emanuel involved, the fix may already be in.  Rule number one in politics is to always follow the money.  Rule number two is that many politicians will always take the money and vote against their constituents’ best interests unless voters are paying attention.  When a politician is forced to weigh the consequences of accepting a fat check from a corporation and voting with them or infuriating their constituents to the point of potentially losing the next election, they’ll vote with their constituents.

Meanwhile, telecom companies are engaged in a divide-and-conquer strategy, with Verizon recently making gestures to Google, one of Net Neutrality’s strongest  proponents.  Burstein thinks that unless public interest groups and the public-at-large don’t force an end to these insider deals, Net Neutrality and other broadband reforms will become little more than a voluntary agreement not to be too evil (until they redefine ‘evil’ as ‘good’ and do it anyway):

Julius (Genachowski) has already agreed to almost everything [telecom lobbyists] really want, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels. [Stifel Nicolaus] says there is still some opposition so that nothing is final and that the public interest groups are ready to assail Julius. Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant.

This one is about power and money, not principle. The likely outcome is an agreement that will allow everyone to say noble things, will allow Julius to look himself in the mirror, and will essentially have no substance.  I hope I’m wrong.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bloomberg’s Shields Discusses Net-Neutrality Battle 8-3-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reviews the regulatory landscape with the FCC’s secret weekend meetings to find a deal on broadband rules.  (2 minutes)

For consumer groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge, already furious over secret backroom negotiations between FCC officials and the nation’s large phone and cable companies, any deal that culminates in providers being allowed to tamper with Internet traffic, choosing favorites along the way, is tantamount to a deal with Tony Soprano.

Tim Karr from Free Press wrote a guest editorial in the Seattle Times Sunday warning there is a corporate deal in the making to take over the Internet:

On the one side, elected officials and regulators have heard from millions of citizens demanding that Washington protect this rule that preserves the Internet’s open architecture.

On the other is a lobbying juggernaut that seeks to dismantle online openness so that phone and cable companies can rebuild the Internet as a gated community that serves their bottom line.

The problem is that policymakers aren’t holding the line for the public. They seem content simply to cut a deal between companies with the most political and economic clout.

If that doesn’t worry you, it should.

Because the deal they’re cutting is over who ultimately wins control of online information. And it goes without saying that you’re not in the running.

Google, Verizon, AT&T and others are reportedly nearing consensus on an agreement that could radically redesign the Web, allowing the carriers to build priority access lanes that admit only large companies that can pay the toll.

Where will that leave the rest of us? Stranded on the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road, with slower service, fewer choices and limited access.

Here’s the kicker. The Federal Communications Commission, the one agency tasked with protecting your interests online, may be poised to sign off on this plan. The agency is reportedly convening closed-door meetings with these companies to strike a deal that would let Internet providers implement a “paid prioritization” scheme.

According to The Washington Post, the FCC’s chief of staff wanted to “seize an opportunity to agree on ways that carriers could “manage traffic” on their networks.

If recent articles by Amazon and AT&T execs are any indication, paid prioritization would allow carriers to ransom access to their customers to the highest bidder. AT&T’s top lobbyist, James Cicconi, wrote that such extortion was “not only necessary but in the best interest of consumers.”

Don’t believe it. The beauty of the open Internet is that anyone with an idea has a chance to take on giant corporations without first having to bribe network owners for access. Net neutrality is the rule that guarantees this openness.

It’s because of Net neutrality that great ideas like YouTube (which began in an office above a pizzeria in San Mateo) and Twitter (which grew out of a daylong brainstorming session among podcasters) blossomed to revolutionize how we connect and communicate with one another.

The paid prioritization deal under consideration wouldn’t allow for the next YouTube. And the next Twitter would likely never make it off the drawing board.

This scheme would let companies like Comcast and AT&T favor their own video services, voice applications and social media. It would let Verizon build a wide moat around its Internet fiefdom, insulating itself from competition by upstart innovators that want to show consumers how things can be done better and more cheaply.

Columbia Law Professor (and Free Press board chairman) Tim Wu has said that letting carriers choose favorites is “just too close to the Tony Soprano vision of networking: Use your position to make threats and extract payments. This is similar to the outlawed, but still common, ‘payola’ schemes in the radio world.

“If allowing network discrimination means being stuck with AT&T’s long-term vision of the Internet,” Wu concludes, “it won’t be worth it.”

Should any of this come to pass, it will mark the end of any credibility for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who will have sold out to the interests of big telecom and, more importantly, proved himself little more than another inside-the-beltway-liar.  The implications for the Obama Administration’s credibility on broadband issues are devastating.

It was Genachowski himself who promised this would be the most open FCC ever and that he would see to it that the open principles of the Internet were safeguarded.  It’s more than a little difficult to see that happening while Genachowski’s staff secretly meets with telecom lobbyists to conclude a deal that will turn over control of Internet traffic to a broadband duopoly.

Illinois politicians raked in more than a half-million dollars in campaign contributions from AT&T, yet claim the money had no influence on their decision to let AT&T reduce investment in its landline network, still serving three-quarters of residences and businesses in the state.

Not a single “no” vote was cast in either state legislative body over the latest deregulation bill — a combined vote of 177-0 in the Illinois House and Senate.

But many lawmakers said “yes” to hefty campaign contributions from AT&T.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch counted the money:

The AT&T legislation relaxes state rules on the company regarding its maintenance of basic land-line phone service, essentially allowing it to focus more fully on its wireless business. The bill also gave the company more flexibility in changing the packages it offers to customers without awaiting regulatory approval.

The company presented the measure as crucial to the unfettered advancement of the wireless market. Critics worried that land-line users and others would see a reduction in service from the company, and safeguards were negotiated into the bill with the consumer organization Citizens Utility Board and others. Gov. Pat Quinn signed it into law June 15.

Citizens Utility Board (CUB) Executive Director David Kolata says his group is still worried that land-lines users, rural customers and others may end up left behind as a result of the legislation. He stopped short of blaming AT&T’s heavy campaign donations for the company’s success at getting most of what it wanted from the legislation, but he noted: “Those of us who had concerns about the bill really had no money on our side.”

AT&T gave about $594,000 to state-level Illinois politicians from Jan. 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, according to the most recent data compiled by Kent Redfield, a political scientist and campaign finance expert with the University of Illinois at Springfield. That puts the company among an elite core of high-powered donors — including Ameren, ComEd, the Illinois State Medical Society several major unions — who gave more than $500,000 during that time.

Lawmakers who receive significant money from donors, while helping usher their bills through Springfield, invariably maintain the support is a matter of shared goals, not a quid pro quo.

“They’ve been supportive of me for the last three or four terms,” state Rep. Kevin McCarthy, D-Orland Park, said of AT&T, which has given him more than $10,000 since 2006. McCarthy was the chief House sponsor of the telecom bill.

“I’m a pro-business Democrat,” he said. “I think it was a great bill for the people of our state. I appreciate their support.”

If only it were that simple.  AT&T’s contributions ebb and flow depending on legislative action items before the state legislature.  For instance, nothing provoked a bigger blizzard of AT&T money than the 2005 purchase of AT&T by SBC Communications.  Seeking regulatory approval for the merger, SBC/AT&T kicked in more than $1.17 million dollars to state legislators. Less than half that amount was handed to legislators the year before.

Money buys attention to legislative issues and can move a low priority agenda item to the front burner, especially if contributions are likely to arrive from all sides of an issue.

AT&T’s latest legislative accomplishment has bought the company the right to focus its attention on its wireless business, with financial requirements to maintain landline service quality eased.  While that might help urban residents in northern Illinois achieve better cell phone service, it could leave many rural, elderly and poor residents with deteriorating basic phone service at potentially higher prices and no broadband.

That is because AT&T’s deregulation campaign left the company off the hook for a requirement it deliver broadband to 90 percent of its landline customers outside of Chicago.

The Moline Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus had a problem with that:

CUB’s biggest objection, which we share, is that the measure as written lets AT&T off the hook from a state order to ensure that its network provide high-speed Internet access to 90 percent of its customers outside Chicagoland — including folks here in the QCA and just about every corner, and the vast middle, of the state. Telecom companies would have you believe that their industry is truly competitive. But in many areas it is not, particularly outside of large urban centers. Adds Mr. Kolata, “This should be of particular concern to residents of central and southern Illinois, as state regulators recently concluded that many areas in the land of Lincoln are ‘grossly underserved.'”

Ask any company, including this one, which has tried to get the monopoly service provider to cooperate in upgrading high-speed Internet access, or at least to get out of the way of others who would, what they think and you’re liable to get an earful. They know from experience that AT&T has shown little interest in any meaningful upgrade or expansion of its facilities in the Illinois Quad-Cities.

The telecom giant and its big communication company allies are calling this a jobs bill, but saying it doesn’t make it so. Indeed, the rewrite will have the opposite effect if it does not require the corporate giant to provide critical technology outside of Chicago.

AT&T’s landline rate plans force many Illinois residents to overpay for their phone service.  The CUB has a consumer fact sheet to help AT&T customers potentially save hundreds of dollars a year.

A Pennsylvania police chief is in hot water with his wife after AT&T combed through his calling records at her request and confirmed what she has suspected — he was calling an ex-lover on his cell phone and allegedly lying about it.

Garold Ray Miller, police chief of Industry, filed suit against AT&T for disclosing his call records to his wife, whose name was not on the cell phone account.

The lawsuit makes public the formerly private affair, and it’s now fodder for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

According to the complaint, Mr. Miller’s wife confronted him in the spring of 2008 in regard to his communicating with a woman about a criminal investigation.

“Miller denied having communicated with the woman in question, as he had known the woman growing up and had also dated her in high school, and he did not wish to alarm his wife,” the lawsuit said.

However, it continued, Mr. Miller’s wife insisted he was lying and later told him that she had gotten access to his phone records from AT&T to prove it.

“His wife also revealed that the [AT&T] representative conducted a number search on his records, in order for her to confirm her suspicions that he was communicating with this woman.”

The complaint goes on to say the relationship between Mr. Miller and his wife became severely burdened. Further, when they went out for drinks one night, “Miller’s wife became violently ill, confessing that she had been troubled by her suspicions.”

Because of the invasion of privacy by AT&T, Mr. Miller contends, he suffered psychological pain and suffering, as well as humiliation, shame, embarrassment, self-revulsion and damage to his self-esteem.

AT&T won’t comment on the case except to say it values its customers and takes its obligation to protect customer data very seriously.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTAE Pittsburgh Industry Police Chief Suing ATT For Releasing Phone Records To Wife 7-28-10.flv[/flv]

WTAE Pittsburgh covered the lawsuit between a Pennsylvania police chief and AT&T over the disclosure of his cell phone calling records.  (2 minutes)

Wal-Mart is expanding its prepaid wireless service Straight Talk to include new phones that will work on AT&T’s network.

Straight Talk, operated by TracFone,  currently resells Verizon Wireless service.  Adding AT&T coverage expands service into parts of the country where Verizon signals don’t make it.  AT&T’s network reaches larger parts of states like Wisconsin, West Virginia, and New Mexico than Verizon does.

Straight Talk phones that currently work with Verizon are not interchangeable with AT&T service, however.  Verizon uses the CDMA standard for its network, while AT&T uses GSM.  The two are not compatible.

Wal-Mart’s prepaid service is appealing to consumers who do not require the latest handsets and seek wireless service without a two year contract or expensive add-ons.  Straight Talk delivers cheaper cell service than Verizon does, with both using Verizon’s network.  The same will be true as AT&T service is added.

Straight Talk currently offers two service plans

Wholesale wireless service, typically sold to prepaid providers, delivers enhanced profits to big carriers like Verizon and AT&T without having to spend money on customer support.  Many prepaid providers sell older, more basic handset models that may have been in excess supply, are reconditioned/used, or are inexpensive to provide consumers.