AT&T wants to sell its iPhone customers an overpriced insurance plan to cover damaged or lost phones.

Offered by mobile phone insurer Asurion, AT&T’s MobileProtect policy will be priced at $13.99 per month, with a steep deductible — $99 for an 8GB iPhone 3G to $199 for a 32GB iPhone 3GS.  If you lose or damage your phone, Asurion will repair or replace it with a refurbished equivalent or better iPhone model (their choice).

At those prices, iPhone insurance (and collectively most cell phone insurance plans) do not represent a good deal for consumers for several reasons:

1. The upfront cost is very high in relation to the value of the phone.  Over a typical two-year AT&T contract, Asurion will collect $335.76 to insure a $700 phone;
2. Asurion’s very high deductible reduces the company’s payout exposure by up to $200.  Assuming you break your phone in the last month of a two year contract, Asurion will have $535 of your money to work with, making their cost to replace the phone just $164.
3. Asurion does not guarantee customers will get a brand new iPhone.  Replacing a lost or broken iPhone with a refurbished model can significantly reduce Asurion’s costs and leave you with a questionable replacement;
4. The deal does not extend to current iPhone owners who have older phones that statistically would likely generate a higher percentage of claims.  In fact, customers will have to purchase coverage within 30 days of purchasing a brand new iPhone, giving Asurion the likelihood mechanical problems will be handled by Apple’s traditional warranty, reducing the insurer’s exposure to expensive claims.

There are a number of alternatives.  First, protect your phone with a suitable case or cover — scratches and impact damage are among the most common issues afflicting iPhones.  A few may afford some protection from water damage if the phone gets slightly wet, although a dunk in a pool or deep puddle is probably going to present a challenge for any case or covering.

Second, consider alternative insurance from companies like Squaretrade.  The company’s iPhone insurance costs $8 per month for 24 months, or $96 paid in full for an iPhone 3G. For a 32GB iPhone 3GS, it’s $9.99 per month, or $144 for 24 months of coverage.  Accidental damage claims have a $50 deductible.  But Squaretrade can cost even less when you take advantage of regular discount codes that provide up to 40 percent off.  Just do a Google search for Squaretrade coupons and discount codes, especially around holidays.  You have up to 90 days after purchasing your iPhone to buy Squaretrade coverage.

Squaretrade does not cover loss or theft, however.  You should check with your insurance agent for a personal property policy.  Most offer coverage for personal cell phone loss or theft for under $40 per year.  Many are sold as standalone policies that do not carry a traditional deductible commonly found on homeowner’s policies.  Better yet, making a claim under many of these types of policies generally will not impact your homeowner’s insurance policy, an important consideration when your claims history can impact your renewal rate.  Ask your insurance agent for details about what their cell phone insurance policies cover and what impact any claims might have on your other policies with the company (and their renewal rates.)  Many insurers will sell these policies on a standalone basis to customers who do no other business with the insurer, so shop around.

If your iPhone goes missing, virtually all insurers require a police report and most will either mail you a brand new iPhone or reimburse you for the purchase of an identical new phone you buy yourself at the non-subsidized price.

If none of these ideas appeal to you, consider establishing a savings account and deposit $14 a month into it, specifically to cover a portion of your costs to replace your iPhone if it is damaged or lost.  Although it won’t cover the full cost of the replacement, that $14 a month will always be your money.  If nothing goes wrong and you keep your phone in good condition over 24 months, that $335+ in accumulated savings is yours to keep.  That’s a better deal than giving it to Asurion.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVI St Louis Cell Phone In Water 5-26-10.flv[/flv]

KTVI in St. Louis ran this silly segment about what you can do if your cell phone takes an involuntary dip in the pool.  (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Heath Shuler Campaign Ad.flv[/flv]

Congress doesn’t seem to know right from wrong, but we do.

It’s not right when big insurance companies write health care laws when millions can’t afford to see a doctor.

It’s not right when big oil companies write energy laws as gas prices skyrocket.

It’s not right when Congress passes trade bills that send our jobs overseas.

Congress won’t change until we change the people we’re sending to Washington.

–Rep. Heath Shuler’s 2006 campaign commercial

That was less than four years ago.  Apparently these days Rep. Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) believes it -is- right for large telecommunications companies to censor online content, slow down Internet services they don’t want you to use, and allow the phone and cable industry to control broadband policies in this country.

Shuler’s abandonment of his mountain values was made easier with $23,000 in campaign contributions from a grateful industry.

Shuler

When those telecom checks cleared the bank, Shuler went to work for big telecom companies, becoming a leading opponent of consumer-friendly Net Neutrality.

For his supporters who once had high hopes for the Democratic congressman first elected in 2006, it’s been one disappointment after another.

Last fall, Shuler was a co-signer of a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Net Neutrality.  To reiterate the point, many of the same co-signers of last fall’s letter were back on board with a second letter sent last month.

The latest letter was a godsend to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other Net Neutrality opponents who are using it to suggest there is considerable bipartisan opposition to broadband reform.

Many of his constituents are not impressed with Shuler’s legislative record these days.  One of them is Dave Houck:

I have long since had it with Mr. Shuler.  I admit it, I have no more patience for him.

[…]

I campaigned for you, and phone banked for you, and made cash contributions.  Today I find out that you are against net neutrality, that you signed a letter to the FCC Chairman supporting AT&T and other large corporations — choosing corporations over the people.

In 2010 I will be voting for anybody who runs against you, Democrat or Republican, as you have consistently demonstrated in the three years you have been in Congress that you are quite simply not up to the job of representing the people of Western North Carolina.  You and the “Blue Dog Coalition” are surrogates for corporate interests; you do not have the interests of the people of North Carolina at heart.  Or at least that’s the message you are sending to me.

I’m just fed up.

North Carolina's 11th District is currently served by Rep. Heath Shuler

Similar sentiments from upset residents in his district are voiced all over Shuler’s Facebook page.  Why not add yours?

Then give his office a call or drop him an e-mail.

Ask Rep. Shuler how standing with big phone and cable companies against consumer broadband protection could ever represent western North Carolina mountain values.

Tell him trusting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable with our broadband future is like trusting BP to protect the Gulf Coast.

Let him know you were disappointed with his decision to sign the first letter opposing Net Neutrality last fall, but now you are simply appalled he’s done it again.

It’s not right when big phone and cable companies have the power to write their own legislation and stop pro-consumer protections like Net Neutrality.  Where is the Rep. Shuler who campaigned on doing the right thing in 2006?

If Shuler won’t change his mind on an issue as important as this, perhaps we need to take his own advice and change the person the 11th district sends to Congress.

North Carolina Legislature

We collectively sighed last Wednesday when the Senate Finance Committee temporarily pulled S1209, but the victory is short-lived.  Sources tell us S1209 is scheduled to return this Tuesday, one day after the long Memorial Day weekend.

We are not happy with some of the rumors that have been circulating around the Legislative Building in Raleigh.  One suggests S1209 will be modified into a one year, renewable moratorium on municipal broadband while a joint task force ponders questions about financing of municipal broadband, broadband adoption and speed, and overall competition in North Carolina.  Without a clear sunset provision, the legislature can renew the moratorium indefinitely, assuring incumbent phone and cable companies of a continued easy ride into our wallets.

Much has also been said by Sen. Clodfelter regarding the legality of municipal broadband in North Carolina.  Some of his earlier comments suggest he’d be a proponent for a moratorium while the state legislature thrashes out the legal questions.

But the courts have already effectively dealt with this question and handed victory to municipalities.  Why bother with a moratorium when in 2005, Laurinburg, North Carolina won its court battle against big telecom companies.  The judge ruled:

“Laurinburg’s network is run over fiber optic “wires or cable,” providing a “system” for “transmit[ting]” and “receiv[ing]” electronic signals capable of being converted to “audio” and/or “video” streams of information. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-319(b). We believe this fits within a broad construction of the definition of a CTS. Therefore, we hold that Laurinburg is acting within its municipal authority to run its network, and was not acting ultra vires in contracting with School Link to provide the network’s ISP service.”

Doesn’t the legislature have better things to do than to spend all of this valuable time doing work for big phone and cable companies?

We need you to again write and call your legislators. We have been told by numerous sources that your input has been very effective in pushing back S1209.  The more North Carolina consumers speak out against this anti-consumer bill, the less likely it will ever become law.

Here are the points you need to raise in your next letter or phone call:

1. Why is the legislature still spending time on this unnecessary, anti-consumer legislation?  S1209 is wanted by large phone and cable companies.  You want your town or city to have every option open to deliver better service if a consensus is reached for it in your community.  The current system already provides effective checks and balances.  We don’t need S1209.
2. Studying broadband issues is fine, but placing a moratorium on municipal broadband projects in the meantime is completely unacceptable.
3. Corning’s plant in Hickory, North Carolina produces 40 percent of the world’s supply of fiber optic cable.  Passing S1209 impedes fiber projects in North Carolina, hurting our own workers and state economy.
4. North Carolina needs all the broadband expansion it can get.  We are ranked 41st out of 50 states.  Passing S1209 preserves mediocre broadband service in our state indefinitely.

For some of you, this will be your third or fourth call or e-mail.  Perhaps it’s time to remind legislators you are becoming increasingly concerned that measures like S1209 continue to be debated.  While Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink/Embarq’s legislative priorities continue to get plenty of time and attention in Raleigh, they don’t get a vote in the next election.  Remind them you do, and your continued support hinges on whether you can feel confident members represents your interests, not those of big cable and phone companies.

Remember the three rules when contacting your legislators:

• Be polite.
• Be persuasive.
• Be persistent.

Well-informed constituents who can defeat industry talking points represents the nuclear option against bad telecommunications legislation.

Now get on the phones and e-mail and get busy.  Remember — one e-mail message per address.  No carbon copies!

Here is the list:

The Denver Post this morning did a major disservice to its readers in a heavily slanted editorial objecting to the reclassification of broadband service to restore the FCC’s traditional oversight authority over Internet providers.

In their piece For Web and Broadband Regulation, Less is More, the editors at the Post delivered less facts and more industry talking points.  It even mislead readers by quoting from two Republican FCC commissioners, completely ignoring the Democratic majority that would likely prevail in a vote on the matter.

The editorial forgets to mention why this debate is taking place.  Readers should have been made aware the broadband industry the Post celebrates as successful under a light touch regulatory philosophy effectively-won total deregulation in a game changing court decision that stripped the FCC’s authority to provide checks and balances over today’s duopoly broadband market.

Ed Whitacre, AT&T

Comcast sued after the FCC punished the company for deliberately interfering with customers’ broadband speeds for certain Internet applications (despite Comcast’s initial denials).  The Post characterizes such behavior on the part of the nation’s largest cable company as “only a couple documented issues, which were quickly resolved.”  How does the Post think these were resolved?  The FCC used the authority it now no longer has to pressure Comcast to stop.  What stops the next “documented issue?”

AT&T’s former chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre gave Americans plenty to worry about in 2005 when the nation’s largest phone company infamously declared that popular web sites should not be expected to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”  That attitude is still being defended today by millions of dollars in lobbying, fake grassroots astroturf campaigns, and industry bought-and-paid-for “research studies.”  Why spend all that money on a “resolved” issue?

But the most offensive part of the Post‘s piece was a completely dishonest attempt by the editors to imply there is widespread bipartisan opposition to common sense broadband regulation like Net Neutrality.

We had the opportunity Wednesday to talk with two FCC commissioners about the dual proposals for reform. They voiced concerns about an FCC move to redefine broadband networks as highly regulated telecommunications services.

Meredith Attwell Baker, who was nominated to the commission by President Obama, called the reclassification dangerous, adding it was a “brand new model.” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, nominated by President George W. Bush, worried about the unintended consequences that might come out of an additional layer of regulation.

On the right side of the Commission, the two Republican members Meredith Attwell Baker, a former telecom industry lobbyist and Robert M. McDowell.

How clever of the Denver Post to dangle the implication that Baker, being appointed by Obama, is somehow an ally.  She is not.  The Post only spoke with the two Republican minority commissioners for its editorial.  Atwell was appointed by Obama under long-standing FCC rules which require that only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.  There is no practical difference between Atwell and McDowell.  Why didn’t the newspaper speak to at least one of the majority Democrats on the Commission, all of which are expected to support Chairman Genachowski?  Because that would have dramatically weakened the provider’s editor’s arguments and talking points.

Of course, there is nothing “brand new” about Title II authority.  It has been used successfully to oversee today’s increasingly deregulated landline marketplace to protect rural Americans who don’t have competitive choices should their phone company provide abysmal service.  What was new was the defective mechanism used by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, under the Bush Administration, to oversee broadband using what the courts determined was phantom authority.

There is nothing about those regulations “ill-suited” to restoring the FCC’s lost authority, which is the ultimate game plan here.  Providers have fed talking points, which editors at the Denver Post apparently devoured, suggesting everything from unintended consequences to the sky falling down should the FCC be able to implement its National Broadband Plan on its terms.  Providers want the power to control and implement broadband deployment on their terms — the same ones that have left millions without any real broadband options at all, and the rest of us with slow service at high prices.

We hope that process ends with succinct and limited rules that apply to broadband providers, but leave them relatively unfettered so the Internet continues to be a place for entrepreneurs, thinkers and dreamers to pursue their ideas.

These are all noble goals, but they cannot be achieved if a handful of giant broadband providers start extorting fees from content producers and engaging in other abusive behaviors.  The Post seems to think America is a world-leader in broadband, yet we are not.  This country is now handily beaten by several Asian nations and even cities within the former Soviet Union and its east European bloc.  Just this week Ookla released a speed index report that tells the truth about America’s broadband experience:

Here are the top 10 U.S. cities and their corresponding 30-day average speeds:

1. San Jose, Calif. 15.02 Mbps
2. Saint Paul, Minn. 14.53 Mbps
3. Pittsburgh, Pa. 14.18 Mbps
4. Oklahoma City, Okla. 12.12 Mbps
5. Brooklyn, N.Y. 12.10 Mbps
6. Tampa, Fla. 12.05 Mbps
7. Bronx, N.Y. 12.01 Mbps
8. New York, N.Y. 11.85 Mbps
9. Denver, Colo. 11.68 Mbps
10. Sacramento, Calif. 11.34 Mbps

The global top 10:

1. Seoul, South Korea 34.49 Mbps
2. Riga, Latvia 27.88 Mbps
3. Hamburg, Germany 26.85 Mbps
4. Chisinau, Republic of Moldova 24.31 Mbps
5. Helsinki, Finland 20.58 Mbps Mbps
6. Stockholm, Sweden 19.97 Mbps
7. Bucharest, Romania 19.68 Mbps
8. Sofia, Bulgaria 18.99 Mbps
9. Kharkov, Ukraine 18.15 Mbps
10. Kaunas, Lithuania 17.46 Mbps

With evidence like this, the editors at the Post need to get out from behind those telecom talking points and visit today’s real broadband world.

A classic phone hundreds of thousands of Americans are still paying a monthly equipment fee to lease

Do you or someone you love still have an old looking rotary dial or traditional bell ringer phone mounted to the wall or installed in the bedroom?  Are you sure they still aren’t paying a rental or leasing charge for that phone?  Many customers, particularly the elderly, have no idea they need not continue to pay fees up to $90 a year for a phone manufactured at a time when color television was a novel concept.

A legacy of the old Ma Bell phone monopoly, telephone companies used to own every piece of equipment attached to their lines.  Individual customers would pay a monthly fee to lease telephone equipment that was approved by the phone company to work with their service.  By the early 1980s, nearly every American home had a kitchen wall phone and one or more extensions, usually installed in the living room or bedroom.  Manufactured by companies like ITT, Stromberg-Carlson, AT&T or Comdial, these phones were built to last… and pay for themselves many times over by unaware consumers who don’t realize the days of renting phones are long gone.

After the breakup of AT&T, most phone companies began telemarketing campaigns trying to convince consumers to buy their formerly leased phones.  Those who did now own these classics outright.  Many who didn’t returned them and bought their own new phones.  But more than a million consumers did neither, and continue to pay phone equipment rental fees to this day.  Even as phone companies abandoned the phone rental business, not everyone got the message.

Most phone companies sold off their remaining leased customers to third party companies long ago, including QLT Consumer Lease Services in Miami and Ft. Worth.  QLT has several hundred thousand customers paying quarterly lease fees for telephones often years old.  The company itself admits the majority of its customers are retired, elderly consumers.

QLT markets refurbished bell ringer phones at some surprisingly high prices:

• A traditional desk or wall retro-rotary dial telephone, which many under 30 have never seen before, costs $4.45 per month to rent.
• The glitzy-for-its-day lighted dial Princess phone costs $6.95 a month.
• Big button touchtone phones run $8.85 a month.

Those quarterly fees add up

QLT informs customers they cannot buy the phones at any price — they must lease them.

QLT claims its customers appreciate the familiar phones from an earlier era, and the bell ringers are louder, too.  Customers can exchange a broken phone within a day after the company is notified, if they can figure out how to install the replacement.

But it’s an extraordinarily high price to pay for classic phones, especially when replacements can be purchased outright for less than $20.  But many QLT customers don’t realize they have that option.  While the company also pitches decidedly non-phone-related services like roadside assistance plans and health care discount cards, it doesn’t spend any time or effort informing customers they can buy their own phones.

So next time you visit your older relatives and see a classic phone, perhaps it would not a bad idea to ask if they’re still paying for it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WBAL Baltimore MD Many Older Residents Still Renting Phones 5-25-10.flv[/flv]

WBAL-TV in Baltimore found one woman still paying $90 a year for a phone that had been attached to her kitchen wall around the time Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president of the United States.  (4 minutes)