The arrival of the LTE/4G wireless standard in the United States, and its adoption by the country’s two largest super-carriers AT&T and Verizon was supposed to open the door for true equipment interoperability, allowing customers to take devices purchased from one carrier to another. In the past, incompatible network standards (GSM – AT&T and CDMA – Verizon Wireless) made device portability a practical impossibility. The arrival of LTE could have changed everything, with device manufacturers using chipsets that would allow an iPad owner to switch from Verizon to AT&T without having to purchase a brand new tablet.

A new lawsuit filed by a small regional cell phone company alleges AT&T conspired to create their own wireless fiefdom that would not only discourage their own customers from considering a switch to a new carrier, but also locked out smaller competitors from getting roaming access.

C-Spire, formerly Cellular South, filed suit in U.S. federal court accusing AT&T and two of their biggest equipment vendors — Qualcomm and Motorola, of conspiring to keep the southern U.S. carrier from selling the newest and hottest devices and hampering their planned upgrade to LTE. The company also accuses AT&T of blocking access to roaming service for the benefit of C-Spire customers traveling outside of the company’s limited coverage area.

According to the lawsuit, the interoperability benefits of LTE have been artificially blocked by some of America’s largest carriers that force consumers to only use devices specifically approved for a single company’s network.

Divide Your Frequencies to Conquer and Hold Market Share

The Federal Communications Commission licenses wireless phone companies to use specific frequencies for phone calls and data communications. An industry standard group, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), is largely responsible for defining the standards of operation for wireless technology networks like LTE. In the United States, the group is dominated by the two largest cell phone companies and the technology vendors that make their living selling chipsets and phones to those major carriers.

Smaller carriers specifically bought spectrum near frequencies used by larger companies AT&T and Verizon with the plan to sign roaming agreements with them. But now Verizon is selling off its "Lower A, B and C" spectrum and intends to focus its LTE network on Upper C "Band 13," which it occupies almost exclusively. Meanwhile, AT&T has carved out its own exclusive "Band 17" for its Lower B and C frequencies where it will be able to effectively lock out other carriers. (Cellular South is now known as C-Spire).

It is 3GPP that elected to organize wireless spectrum into a series of frequency “blocks” and “bands” that different companies utilize to reach customers. Verizon Wireless, for example, has its 4G LTE network on a large chunk of the 700MHz band known as the “Upper C-block” or “Band 13.” Verizon earlier won control of some frequencies on the lower “A and B blocks,” which gave smaller companies the confidence to invest in adjacent frequencies, believing they would be able to negotiate roaming deals with Verizon.

Verizon has since elected to mass its 4G LTE operations on its “Upper C block,” and is selling off its lower “A and B block” frequencies. That leaves Verizon with overwhelming control of “Band 13.” The companies manufacturing equipment sold by Verizon are manufacturing phones that only work on Verizon’s frequencies, not those used by Verizon’s competitors. This effectively stops a Verizon customer from taking their device (and their business) to a competitor’s network.

This limitation comes not from the LTE network technology standard, but from the wireless companies themselves and equipment manufacturers who design phones to their specifications.

It would be like buying a television set from your local NBC station and discovering that was the only station the set could receive.

Verizon effectively created its own wireless “gated community” comprised of itself and a single tiny competitor still sharing a small portion of “Band 13.” AT&T was stuck in a considerably more crowded neighborhood, sharing space with more than a dozen smaller players, some who have a clear interest in being there to coordinate roaming agreements with AT&T to extend their coverage.

Regional cell phone companies could not exist without a roaming agreement that lets customers maintain coverage outside of their home service area. Without it, customers would gravitate to larger companies who do provide that coverage.

But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also have a vested interest not selling access to the crown jewels of their network, giving up a competitive advantage.

AT&T noticed its larger competitor Verizon Wireless had effectively segregated its operations onto its own band, and if that worked for them, why can’t AT&T have its own band, too?

Using a controversial argument that AT&T needed protection from potential interference coming from television signals operating on UHF Channel 51, located near the “A Block,” AT&T managed to convince 3GPP to carve out brand new “Band 17” from pieces of “Band 12.” Coincidentally, “Band 17” happens to comprise frequencies controlled by AT&T.

C-Spire alleges AT&T has since asked manufacturers to create devices that only support “Band 17,” not the much larger “Band 12,” effectively locking out small regional phone companies from LTE roaming agreements and the latest phones and devices.

Not surprisingly, Qualcomm and Motorola, who depend on AT&T for a considerable amount of revenue, fully supported the wireless company’s plan to create a new band just for itself. C-Spire’s lawsuit claims the resulting anti-competitive conspiracy has now graduated to foot-dragging by those manufacturers, reluctant to release new phones and devices that support the greater “Band 12” on which C-Spire and other smaller carriers’ 4G LTE networks reside. That is particularly suspicious to C-Spire, which notes companies manufacturing devices supporting all of “Band 12” would have automatically worked with AT&T’s new “Band 17.” Instead, manufacturers chose to create equipment that only worked on AT&T’s frequencies.

C-Spire says both AT&T and Verizon have once again managed to lock customers to their individual networks, have created artificial barriers to block roaming agreements, and have pressured manufacturers to “go slow” on new phones and devices for smaller competitors.

Driving the Competition Out of Business

LTE: Required for future competition.

Smaller carriers have always been disadvantaged by manufacturers’ exclusive marketing agreements with AT&T and Verizon that bring the hottest new devices to one or the other, leaving smaller players with older technology or smartphones with fewer features. Even worse, both AT&T and Verizon have forced manufacturers to enforce proprietary standards that make it difficult for consumers to leave one company for another and take their phones with them. C-Spire and other regional companies have primarily managed to compete because they often sell service at lower prices. They have also survived because roaming agreements allow companies to sell functionally equivalent service to customers who do not always remain within the local coverage area.

But recent developments may soon make smaller competitors less viable than ever:

1. AT&T’s spectrum plans make it difficult for smaller companies to use their valuable 700MHz spectrum, the most robust available, for LTE 4G service. Instead, companies like C-Spire will have to use less advantageous higher frequencies at an added cost to remain competitive in their own local markets.
2. Equipment manufacturers, who answer to the billion-dollar contracts they have with both Verizon and AT&T, remain slow to release devices that work on smaller networks, leaving companies like C-Spire without attractive technology to sell to customers.
3. The ultimate refusal by AT&T and Verizon to allow LTE roaming or make it prohibitively expensive or technologically difficult to access could be the final blow. Why sign up for C-Spire if you can’t get 4G service outside of your home service area? C-Spire admits in its lawsuit it cannot survive if it cannot sign reasonable roaming agreements with AT&T or Verizon.

Cspire complaint filed against AT&T, Qualcomm and Motorola

Consolidation of the wireless industry into two or three mega-carriers is a dream come true… if you are one of those carriers (or Wall Street). But for everyone else, it’s a competition wasteland, where innovation and disruptive marketing wane into comfortable and predictable businesses where participants learn not to rock the boat. If they did, a lot of their accumulated money could fall overboard.

AT&T believes consolidation is already upon us, despite their setback in failing to acquire T-Mobile USA.

John Stephens, AT&T’s chief financial officer, tried to calm Wall Street’s fears that the government has signaled its intent to preserve robust competition.  At yesterday’s Nomura investment conference, Stephens said a reduction in the number of wireless companies in the United States is part of the natural order:

I think it is just logical that the industry is going to consolidate in some form or fashion. I think the marketplace has spoken to that with what it has done to pricing in the valuations on some of the companies. From an economic perspective and a highly CapEx-intensive business, I think it is logical to assume you’re going to have two or three and certainly not six and seven competitors in any marketplace. So I think consolidation is logical.

We’ve heard this argument before. It is commonly trotted out in opposition to community broadband initiatives when existing phone and cable companies fear a third player will ruin the market for everyone. AT&T joins the chorus with the same old excuses: the costs to build and run networks are too high for several players to comfortably compete. Consolidation reduces that pressure as customers are forced to choose among one or two providers, giving each a larger market share and healthier revenue to cover upgrades.

What companies like AT&T always obscure to their customers is the resulting pricing power, where price increases from one often lead to price increases from others. But Stephens has no trouble letting his investors know:

We are going to grow margins year-over-year. Last year’s margins were about 38.5% in wireless and our guidance says we are going to grow. I have said publicly, and some of my peers and coworkers have said publicly we expect we are going to have north of 40% margins this year in our wireless business and still believe that.

Margins = profits. In the absence of aggressive competition which forces companies to invest more in their networks, provide more value in their service offerings, or reduce pricing, increased profits are always the result.

Unfortunately, ZDNet’s editor in chief Larry Dignan seems to buy AT&T’s arguments and talking points, telling readers:

[…] It’s hard to argue against the idea. All industries boil down to two or three players eventually. The big question for wireless consolidation is timing. When will get to two or three carriers? And if so will this consolidation lead to price increases or will the mergers occur after wireless services is commoditized?

Stephens

It is actually very easy to argue against the idea, and the evidence is plainly visible if Dignan would take a look.

First, there is no evidence “all industries boil down to two or three players eventually.” Auto companies, banks, retailers of all kinds — even cell phone manufacturers all compete with more than just one or two other players in the market. A germinating monopoly or duopoly in any market is a signal federal regulators have failed to do the job assigned to them since the days of trust-busting railroads, oil, steel, and the securities business.

The drive to consolidation can be found first on Wall Street, where every industry is under pressure to cut costs, reduce profit-eroding competition, and return higher profits. The drumbeat for consolidation in the wireless industry starts there, is echoed in the executive offices of the cell phone companies themselves, and results in powerhouse deals that have picked off one competitor after another. That is why Cingular, Alltel, Cellular One, and Centennial Communications are no longer familiar names in wireless. They have all been swallowed nearly whole by AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

AT&T would argue that consolidation is a good thing, because through their willingness to sell, those companies indicated they wanted to exit the business. AT&T’s buyout of T-Mobile would have done everyone a favor because the company had lost interest in competing in the United States and wanted out.

The industry has held all of the cards of wireless consolidation until recently, primarily because supine regulators refused to provide a critical “check and balance” on industry pressure, accepting just about any premise to approve whatever wireless carriers wanted. Sure, a few companies had to divest certain assets, as Verizon Wireless did in certain Alltel markets. But AT&T ended up acquiring the majority of those divested territories. When AT&T bought Centennial Wireless, it had to divest a few markets in the southern United States. Verizon Wireless bought most of them. Customers were left in the middle, as always.

A remarkable thing happened when the federal government said no to AT&T over T-Mobile. Predictions of the smaller carrier’s imminent demise and its slow bleed to irrelevance has not happened. In fact, Deutsche Telekom picked its American asset up, shook the dust off, and is now investing in upgrades to keep the competition coming. At least $4 billion in improvements and some major network upgrades are on the way, and the company has even refreshed its marketing in a new, get-tough campaign against AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint. Now all three of those companies are watching to see what T-Mobile pulls next.

That is exactly the point.

The wireless world and Wall Street wants you to believe that consolidation is the only way the mobile phone marketplace of 2012 can work. Dignan has thrown in the towel, conceding they are likely right. But T-Mobile is proving they are exactly wrong. Instead of abandoning its asset, which DT still sees as valuable, it is investing in it to compete. Had the merger been approved, AT&T would never answer T-Mobile’s disruptive competition again. Rural America would still be waiting for better service. AT&T would have less pressure to keep prices down and upgrades up, and Wall Street would have turned its attention to the next targeted carrier ripe for the picking by AT&T or Verizon Wireless’ emerging duopoly.

Data provided by OSHA statistics

A new joint investigation by Frontline and ProPublica reveals serious lapses in safety for America’s cell tower workers, a career now considered one of the most hazardous and life-threatening in America.

In the last eight years, 50 climbers have died, with many more injured installing and servicing cell sites for AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile. The investigation finds many of these deaths and injuries were preventable, but as America’s profitable cell phone companies outsource jobs to cut-rate subcontractors (and the sub-contractors they often use themselves), safety measures take a back seat to low-ball bidding and profits.

Efforts to hold companies accountable are stymied by the byzantine layers of third party companies hired to do the work, an under-equipped federal safety agency, and difficulty assessing where the responsibility lies when things go wrong.

From ProPublica and Frontline:

From their perch atop the contracting chain, carriers typically set many of the crucial parameters for work on cell sites, including deadlines, pay rates and even technical specifications, down to the exact degree an antenna should be angled. An analysis of cell tower deaths by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” showed that tight timetables and financial pressure often led workers to take fatal shortcuts or to work under unsafe conditions.

“We’ve had a number of situations where we think that accidents were caused by companies trying to meet deadlines and … cutting corners on safety in order to meet those deadlines,” said Jordan Barab, OSHA’s deputy administrator.

But Barab said it’s difficult for the agency to hold cell companies responsible for safety violations involving subcontractors. In most cases, federal officials have interpreted OSHA regulations to mean that carriers can be held accountable only if they exercised direct control over subcontractors’ work or were aware of specific unsafe conditions.

OSHA has not sanctioned cell carriers for safety violations implicated in any subcontractor deaths on cell sites since 2003, a review of agency records by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” found.

Most of OSHA’s enforcement efforts have focused on a transient cast of small subcontractors, though they, too, typically have eluded significant penalties. Over the last nine years, the median fine levied for safety violations linked to a fatal tower accident was $3,750, an analysis by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” showed.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Frontline Cell Tower Deaths 5-23-12.flv[/flv]

Watch this segment from PBS Frontline exploring ‘Cell Tower Deaths,’ and what can be done to stop them.  (30 minutes)

Your contract with Sprint ends in June, but why wait, beckons the cell phone company, when you can upgrade your phone today (with a new two-year service agreement).

Two years earlier, providers wheeled and dealed upgrade-reluctant customers, particularly those considering their first smartphone, thanks to the bill shock that results when customers see a $30 mandatory data plan added to their monthly bill.  Sprint went one step further, handing 4G-capable customers Clearwire WiMAX — a technology even Russian cell phone companies can’t wait to abandon — and added a $10 premium data surcharge for the privilege.

In Sprint’s favor: their willingness to deal discounts on phone upgrades and their truly unlimited data plans. But while Sprint continues to bank on unlimited data, the bill on cheap phone upgrades may now be coming due.

The American wireless industry is increasingly taking a page from the airlines, adopting irritating fees and surcharges while curtailing the perks and rewards that used to come with customer loyalty and family plans that routinely run into the hundreds of dollars.

Equipment Upgrade Fees

Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile all have a nasty surprise in store for customers who have not upgraded their smartphones in the last year or so: the equipment upgrade fee.  Sprint and AT&T both charge $36 per phone, Verizon Wireless now charges $30, T-Mobile $18.

Verizon customers are especially peeved because that wireless company used to reward loyal customers with a $50 credit off any new phone at contract renewal time. Today, instead of getting “New Every Two” discounts, Big Red will charge you $30 for every new phone when you renew your contract.

Verizon’s excuse is that the new fee will be used to offer customer “wireless workshops” and “online educational tools,” according to Verizon spokeswoman Brenda Rayney. The company also claims the fees will cover more sophisticated consultations with “company experts” that are trained to provide advice and guidance on today’s sophisticated smartphones. In other words, these fees are supposed to compensate Verizon’s store and kiosk employees.

For people like my cousin, upgrading to a new Sprint phone at contract renewal time is an exercise in frustration. In addition to the $149-199 subsidized equipment price, Sprint now tacks on a $36 upgrade fee (per phone).  What miffs him is that Sprint is treating new customers better than existing ones, willing to waive one-time activation fees (coincidentally the same $36) for new customers, but steadfastly refusing to credit equipment upgrade fees for existing loyal customers.

Sprint will tell you they are not alone charging upgrade fees, and they would be right. All four major national carriers now charge the fees, effectively a penalty when customers decide to upgrade their phones.

Many also find it nearly impossible to get companies like Verizon Wireless to waive the fees, even when some of their best customers ask.

“Verizon Wireless was willing to throw away my 12 year account, earning them more than $500 a month in revenue, over the upgrade fee issue,” reports Stan Dershau. “Our contract expired this month and it was time for new phones, and Verizon absolutely insisted that we pay $150 in upgrade fees for new equipment on our account, even after the $600 they’ll collect from the smartphones we intended to buy.”

Dershau found absolutely nobody willing to relent on Verizon’s upgrade fees. Even supervisors told him the company has a no-waiver policy that is strictly enforced, and they could do little more than offer a token service credit even if Dershau threatened to take his business somewhere else.

“I haven’t decided what to do yet, but I canceled my upgrade plans for now,” he reports.

Dershau was always able to get Verizon to waive earlier fees because of the monthly business he brings them, but those days are over.

“It’s a whole different attitude with them now,” Dershau says. “They just want money.”

AT&T's fine print.

Ben Popken recently wrote about his efforts to avoid Verizon’s $30 upgrade fee, with mixed results.

Verizon’s suggested solution is to sell your old phones back to the company through their trade-in program, using the money to offset the equipment upgrade fee. But unless you own an iPhone, Verizon’s trade-in offers are strictly low-ball, often under $30 on non-Apple phones. That leaves you with a slightly lower upgrade fee and the loss of your old phone, which Verizon may recycle or resell refurbished to someone else.

Popken explains he found one convoluted way around Verizon’s fees:

First, start a new line of service with the new phone you want. Then, port your old phone number to a 3rd party service, like Google Voice (here’s a guide from Lifehacker on doing so). Lastly, cancel the line with the old phone and port the old phone number back onto the new phone, thus keeping the new phone, the old number, and dodging the fee. But there’s a catch. It only works if you wait three months to port the number back. If you do it before then, Verizon’s system treats it like you’re continuing the same service, and they hit you with the $30 upgrade fee. Curses.

Popken forgets, however, that Google itself charges a $20 fee to port cell phone numbers to Google Voice, eliminating 2/3rds of your potential savings.

In fact, outside of purchasing a phone at the full, unsubsidized price from a third party, Verizon’s $30 fee will be visiting your phone bill sooner or later, if you decide to upgrade.

The Phone Subsidy: Slaying North America’s Sacred Cow Wireless Business Model

Consumers who crave the newest smartphones should thank their lucky stars they live in Canada or the United States, where the wireless industry heavily discounts the upfront cost of the phone when customers sign a service contract. But phone companies like AT&T and Verizon are not giving you a gift. In return for fronting a discount of as much as $400, companies set their monthly rates higher to recoup that subsidy over the life of your two-year contract.

That worked fine when cell phone companies only paid a few hundred dollars for basic phones. But today’s most popular smartphones can cost companies $400 each, and that upfront revenue hit has annoyed Wall Street for years. Even worse, while providers hand you a discounted phone, they’ve already paid the asking price to companies like Apple and Samsung, who book that revenue immediately and never have to worry about a customer skipping out on their contract.

Wall Street has been putting pressure on companies to do something about the expensive phone subsidies, and companies are responding. The equipment upgrade fee, increased activation fees, and rising monthly service charges are all a part of a greater plan to discourage customers from upgrading their phones and increase profits.

Wall Street analysts love every part of it, especially if companies can do away with equipment subsidies -and- maintain today’s pricing:

“Optimism has increased that we are witnessing the leading edge of a more disciplined, and more profitable, future,” Craig Moffett, a telecom analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a recent research note. The question now, he wrote, is how much carriers can increase their profits thanks to “increased discipline and pricing power.”

The answer could be quite a lot. A marketplace experiment in Spain is being closely watched by wireless phone companies worldwide and could be coming to Canada and the United States before your next two-year contract is up for renewal.

In March, Telefónica SA, Spain’s largest cell phone company, stopped subsidizing smartphones for new customers. Vodafone, which co-owns Verizon Wireless, quickly followed.

As a result, Spanish customers looking for an iPhone will now pay $800 to purchase the phone at full price, or they can sign up for an “installment plan” that will add $45 a month to their cell phone bill for the next 18 months. Both companies say the new policy won’t apply to existing customers, in an effort to discourage them from switching companies.

Telefónica anticipates the changes will slash as least 25% off of their spending. Instead of fronting subsidies to attract new customers, the phone company will increase subsidies for existing customers who agree to stay. Unfortunately for Telefónica, early results are not promising. More than 500,000 customers left the same month the new policy was announced.

A handful of smaller Spanish players see the move by both major companies as a competitive opportunity to win over new customers. Orange, for example, has not stopped offering subsidies and as a result Telefónica has lost potential new customers who signed with Orange instead. The “churn rate” of customers coming and going remains a concern for company executives. But so far, Telefónica considers getting rid of phone subsidies more important than the customers they have forfeit over the new policy.

“We are pretty firm on our strategy of trying to change the paradigm of the sector, […] devoting the bulk of our efforts to our existing customers and, therefore, trying to move away from incentivizing churn of our customers either from us or from the others,” said company CEO Cesareo Alierta Izuel. “We are very firm on this new handset strategy. We need to fight to see if the trend is going to the right direction. And again, we think it is.”

The Wall Street Journal reports Telefónica’s bold plan has caught the attention of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, who sees it as a potential profit booster, and McAdam expects Verizon may cautiously follow the Spanish company’s lead.

“We’ll probably offer some things like that, and then we’ll see what the adoption is like,” McAdam said. “You can’t push this on customers before customers are ready for it.”

For now, some customers are not even ready for equipment upgrade fees. My cousin’s upgrade plans remain on hold for now, as are those of the Dershau family.

“I am not going to be browbeaten into paying these unjustified fees,” Dershau said. “Where does it stop?”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Dodging Verizon’s New 30 Upgrade Fee 5-9-12.flv[/flv]

Ben Popken talks about trying to avoid Verizon’s $30 equipment upgrade fee.  (3 minutes)

After intense lobbying, wireless phone companies won a significant reprieve from the watered-down 2010 Net Neutrality policies introduced by Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski.

Now some of America’s largest cell phone companies are considering plans that would offer special “toll-free” access to favored partners’ content, while leaving everyone else subject to the companies’ usage capped data plans.

Much of the discussion about exempting certain content from data allowances is taking place at this week’s CTIA Wireless trade show in New Orleans.

Some highlights:

• T-Mobile USA is planning to expand video streaming services offered to subscribers, but with a twist. Content creators could pay to have their shows streamed to customers, and in turn, T-Mobile would not charge that traffic against the customer’s monthly usage allowance. Whether T-Mobile would maintain an ownership interest in the content is unknown, but “preferred partners” would receive exceptional visibility through aggressive promotional campaigns T-Mobile would launch.  So would T-Mobile, which plans advertising and promotional messages inside that content;
• Verizon Wireless said it was looking to create “toll-free” data services that would be subsidized by content providers. Video, games, and even apps could be promoted to consumers as “data usage”-free, meaning it won’t count against your monthly usage allowance. But Verizon recognizes the concept would be controversial and run afoul of Net Neutrality concerns.
• AT&T has already signaled its interest in creating a “content-provider-pays” model where users get free access to content if content providers pay AT&T’s traffic charges.

All three carriers earlier abandoned all-you-can-eat flat rate data plans, and Net Neutrality proponents claim these latest moves are attempts by wireless phone companies to further monetize data traffic.

The Wall Street Journal reports the plans, in some cases, fly in the face of rhetoric about spectrum shortages and a wireless data traffic crisis (underlining ours):

T-Mobile’s Mr. Duea said the goal of new video offerings that don’t count against data plans would be to get customers interested in consuming more data, and set T-Mobile’s plans apart from those of other carriers.

"Data floods" and "spectrum shortages" don't stop T-Mobile.

Current FCC Net Neutrality rules require wireless carriers to not block competing services from companies like Skype and Google, nor censor content. Both Verizon and MetroPCS are challenging those rules in federal court. But wireless carriers are already exempt from giving preferential treatment to certain types of data or traffic, which opens the door to “toll-free” data services.

Net Neutrality supporters believe these practices will uneven the playing field for content creators and innovative new online start-ups, who may not be able to afford the prices carriers charge for first class treatment. It also influences consumer decision-making by encouraging customers to use the “toll-free” services to preserve their monthly data allowance.

Companies like Ericsson and Cisco have plans to market technology that will allow carriers to divide up data traffic into different traffic lanes, some fast and free to use, others subject to a customer’s monthly data allowance, and certain undesirable traffic shunted to low priority slow lanes.

A Verizon Wireless executive ironically blamed the need for “toll-free” pricing partly on the wireless industry itself, which has almost universally abandoned unlimited data plans.

“As we move away from flat rate pricing, there is room for an 1-800-type of service where certain destinations could offset the cost of the network to get customers to those destinations,” said Verizon’s chief technology officer Tony Melone. “There are Net Neutrality issues that have to be addressed, too.”

Melone added the company wasn’t quite ready to launch the “toll-free” traffic lanes just yet, but claimed certain content providers were discussing deals with the company to participate if and when the new toll booths are opened for traffic.