Home » Competition » Recent Articles:

PC Magazine Hands Out Fastest Wireless Data Awards, But Does It Matter?

Won first place nationally for the best 4G LTE network with the fastest overall speeds and best performance.

PC Magazine went to a lot of effort to test the data speeds of America’s wireless providers, traveling to 30 U.S. cities sampling both 3G and 4G wireless networks to see which carrier delivers the most consistent and fastest results.

After 240,000 lines of test data, the magazine declared the results a bit “muddy.”

They have a point.

Depending on which carrier’s flavor of “4G” is being utilized, where reception was strongest, how much spectrum was available in each tested city, and how many people were sharing the cell tower at the time of each test, PC Magazine was able to deliver the definitive results. And it was effectively a draw.

Verizon Wireless achieved victory in 19 cities, AT&T won in ten others, and T-Mobile came in pretty close behind, and that carrier does not even operate an LTE 4G network. But taking all factors into account, including upload and download speeds, whether or not test downloads actually completed, and whether streamed media was tolerable, Verizon Wireless won first prize nationwide.

But by how much?

Not enough to matter, if you are using Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.

But the results do offer some things to think about.

  1. MetroPCS is a mess. Despite the fact this smaller carrier is building its own 4G LTE network, results were simply terrible. Either its backhaul network from cell towers offers lower capacity or its backbone network is screaming for an upgrade.
  2. Cricket was not willing to participate in the test. Their network, still 3G, delivers dependably “meh” results in the places where they actually provide coverage. The company has been reducing data allowances on their mobile broadband plans and raising prices on others. In one conference call with investors, company executives admitted they have been losing mobile broadband customers and expect that to continue at the prices they are charging.
  3. Sprint needs their forthcoming 4G LTE network more than ever. Their 3G data service turned in mediocre results and their 4G WiMAX network was yesterday’s news a year ago. Sprint’s 3G network is also notorious for dead-end downloads, a situation I have witnessed on friends’ phones for several months.
  4. Verizon Wireless remains far ahead of AT&T in covering more cities with their 4G LTE network. But more customers are also starting to use Verizon’s newer network, and the more customers piling on, the slower the speeds get for everyone. AT&T turned in some superior speed results in several cities, but those networks are often used less than the competition, for now.
  5. No network is good if you cannot afford to use it. As America’s wireless carriers keep raising prices and reducing usage allowances to keep data usage under control, there will be a breaking point where customers decide the money they spend for wireless data just is not worth it, especially if they live in a place where Wi-Fi is free and easy to find.
  6. What you test today will probably be different tomorrow. Wireless networks are constantly evolving and changing, with a wide range of factors contributing to their overall performance. Perhaps a more useful test would have been measuring how wireless carriers respond when their networks need upgrading and how long it takes them to respond to changing usage patterns. Verizon seems particularly aggressive, AT&T less so based on these results. The real surprise seems to be how well T-Mobile’s older technology is performing, and how quickly Sprint is now falling behind. On Cricket and MetroPCS, “you get what you pay for” seems to apply.

Editorial: Comcast’s Blatant Disregard for the Truth About Broadband Speeds

When a company like Comcast grows so big, it no longer cares whether its marketing claims are true or false, perhaps it is time to put those claims to the test in court or before a state attorney general for review.

Recently, Comcast’s claim it runs the fastest Internet Service Provider in the nation came under scrutiny by the Better Business Bureau. The simple truth is, Comcast is not the fastest ISP in the nation — not even close. But because PC Magazine ran a limited test of some national broadband providers and found Comcast barely making it to the top, the cable giant has been running ads across the country that are disingenuous and incomplete at best, completely misleading and false at worst.

Phillip “Comcast is not too big to deserve a FAIL Dampier

The National Advertising Division of the BBB, a self-regulating industry-controlled body, found the advertising deceptive, which says a lot for a group that lives or dies on the whims of the industries that support its operations.

NAD previously determined that Comcast cannot, based on its current offerings, make an unqualified claim in national advertising to be faster than the competition. NAD noted that while Comcast is the fastest Internet option for 94 percent of the 52 million households in its competitive footprint, it is not the fastest where Verizon FiOS is available.

Consumers need deep pockets to read the actual report that mildly criticizes Comcast. The NAD keeps the public out of its business with a subscription rate of $550 a year to read detailed individual case reports. We learned about the case from one of our readers who shared a copy.

Among the false claims Comcast is still making:

  • “It’s official.  We’re the fastest.” — Officially, Comcast is not the fastest.
  • “…the fastest downloads available.” — False.
  • “FiOS Does Not Live up to Expectations….With Speeds of Up to 105Mbps, XFINITY was rated as the fastest Internet provider in the nation by PC Magazine.” — But FiOS speeds are faster than Comcast. PC Magazine did not test Verizon FiOS.

Comcast agreed to consider making changes to their advertising to comply, but that now appears to be a non-starter.

In Chattanooga, Tenn., EPB Fiber broadband beats the pants off Comcast. No, it’s actually worse than that. EPB embarrasses Comcast’s comparatively slow broadband service. While Comcast was looking for a way to manipulate customers into using its Xbox online video app to avoid their unjustified usage cap, EPB customers were bypassing that problem altogether by choosing EPB’s fiber to the home service that doesn’t have usage caps and delivers speeds up to 1Gbps.  Comcast, (remember they are “America’s fastest”) tops out at 105Mbps.

One would think Comcast would be hurrying their blatantly false advertising off the air and out of sight in Chattanooga, but the company has refused.

The Times Free Press reports Comcast won’t be making any changes to their ads, and has actually doubled-down with more blatantly false marketing claims. Why? Because EPB is too small of a player for Comcast to be concerned with telling the truth:

Jim Weigert, vice president and general manager of Comcast in Chattanooga, said the request won’t apply to this area and advertising will stay the same.

“I don’t see any changes at all,” he said. “Our use of that designation as the fastest ISP and fastest commercial ISP is still the same and will still be used the same as it is today.”

Weigert said local networks such as EPB, which delivers maximum download speeds about 10 times faster than those of Comcast, is too small of a player to affect the region’s advertising or PC Magazine‘s designation.

“Those awards exist, and we just need to make sure we’re using it properly and quoting it properly,” he said. “It doesn’t reference EPB at all because they’re not national. They’re not big enough to get that attention.”

In other words, actual facts about broadband speed don’t matter. With standards like this, it is only a matter of time before we’ll be seeing program length commercials for snake oil.

Beyond the fact Comcast is morally and ethically wrong here, I’m not sure I would want my company admitting to customers truth should come in second. With that kind of attitude, Comcast customers should put their wallets in their front pockets, leave the kids home and lock their car doors before visiting a Comcast Cable Store.

Deborah Dwyer, public relations supervisor for EPB, notes the Comcast ads are self-serving and “cause pretty significant confusion among the public.”

At least the public that still believes what Comcast Cable tells them represents the truth.

Verizon Wireless Declares War on Average Data and Text Users

Kuittinen

Forbes Magazine has been pondering Verizon’s radical shift to eliminate buckets of voice minutes and text messages, while increasing prices on wireless data just when mobile broadband is expected to become the new profit center for wireless phone companies. It appears Verizon is well on the way to milking the data cash cow.

Tero Kuittinen notes Verizon Wireless has been on a rate increase binge, primarily by eliminating cheaper plans in favor of those with bigger buckets for voice and text services customers simply don’t need. What used to cost $50 a month two years ago for a respectable minute plan jumped to $70 for a smartphone with data, and now will increase another $20 to $90 a month, and give customers a smaller data allowance.

Verizon Wireless argues customers will get more bang for their buck, and for heavy voice, mobile hotspot and texting users, they may be right. But for the average customer who watches their voice minutes and keeps texting to a reasonable level, prices are going nowhere but up, whether you want unlimited voice and texting or not.

Q. Will Verizon Wireless herd all of its customers to unlimited voice calling at a higher price? A. Yes!

Why is Verizon taking the risk of alienating consumers by forcing them into a major price hike?

  • This is a clever move to try to cut Skype and WhatsApp down before they erode Verizon’s voice and texting revenue any further. Consumers can still use Skype and WhatsApp – but there is less incentive, because you are forced to pay for unlimited voice and text anyway.
  • The campaigns to lure consumers into buying tablet data plans have not worked. Most people opt for WiFi only tablets. The new Verizon plan basically forces all consumers to pay a higher monthly bill – and then offers them an option to add a tablet data connection for just $10 extra. Adding mobile data to your tablet becomes much more alluring. You’re paying $90 base price anyway – what’s another ten bucks?
  • Verizon believes Sprint and T-Mobile are now so weak they offer no effective competition. Most consumers are so suspicious about their coverage area and/or device ranges that Verizon does not need to worry about defections too much.

America has yet to hear from the other half of the Attizon duopoly, Kuittinen warns, and AT&T is usually cited as the less-consumer-friendly choice in wireless. Kuittinen believes neither company particularly cares about what consumers ultimately think about the new plans, because their only alternatives have more limited coverage, don’t always have access to the hottest new devices, and have 4G networks that don’t keep up particularly well with their larger rivals. (Clearwire on Sprint, anyone?)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDTN Dayton Verizon Tricked Me 6-13-12.f4v[/flv]

WDTN’s morning news show weighed in on Verizon Wireless’ new “Share Everything” plan. Verizon got scathing reviews from the Dayton, Ohio news show, with one host concluding Verizon Wireless has tricked her with an unlimited data plan it now wants to take away.  (2 minutes)

Justice Department Launches Antitrust Investigation Into Data Caps

Holder

The Justice Department has been quietly conducting a wide reaching investigation into whether cable operators are using Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and metered billing to squash online video competition, according to a report in this morning’s Wall Street Journal.

The Antitrust Division has spoken to major online video providers like Netflix and Hulu as well as cable operators, including Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

At issue are data caps — limits on how much a subscriber can use their broadband account.  Justice officials are exploring whether major broadband providers like Comcast and AT&T are using usage limits to protect their video businesses from cord-cutting — canceling a cable subscription to watch shows online.

Providers of online video like Netflix are particularly concerned about operators showing favoritism to their own video platforms. Comcast, for example, exempts partnered content from its usage allowance while continuing to count Netflix viewing against its cap. Comcast’s Xbox “free pass” is attracting particular attention in the Justice probe, in part because it could violate the merger agreement with NBC-Universal which requires the company to not discriminate against third party video content.

Some cable operators claim usage caps protect their networks from heavy users overwhelming their facilities. Comcast claimed its decision not to count Xbox video traffic against the operator’s monthly usage cap was fair because the video content did not travel across the Internet. Now the company has temporarily suspended  usage caps altogether in preparation for testing a new usage limit that also carries overlimit penalty fees.

Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski last month publicly announced his support for usage limits and metered billing, describing both as innovative and enabling customer choice. The Justice Department probe would indicate otherwise, because it suggests customers are finding their options increasingly limited, possibly in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The Justice Department is also investigating the industry’s TV Everywhere project, which provides access to cable network online video exclusively to those with an existing cable television package. Most cable networks specifically prohibit online streaming of their live content, which itself might run afoul of antitrust rules.

The Journal notes Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday suggested he would like to be a cord-cutter himself, picking and choosing only the channels he wants to watch. At a recent Senate hearing, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said cable bills were “out of control” and consumers want alternative options to watch shows online. Holder responded, “I would be one of those consumers.”

Broken Promises: The Telecommunications Trust That Doesn’t Deliver

Phillip Dampier June 11, 2012 AT&T, Broadband Speed, Comcast/Xfinity, Competition, Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't, Verizon Comments Off on Broken Promises: The Telecommunications Trust That Doesn’t Deliver

AT&T, Verizon, and cable companies like Comcast have quietly created the 21st century equivalent of the railroad monopoly, and are using their market power to raise rates, block competition, and supply inferior service to customers.

That conclusion comes courtesy of former telecom industry analyst Bruce Kushnick, who today serves as a consumer watchdog for the telecommunications industry’s broken promises and bad service.

Kushnick is chairman of New York-based Teletruth, a customer advocacy group that is spending a lot of time demanding Verizon finish the fiber optics network it promised would be available throughout states like New Jersey.

Kushnick has just completed a new e-book, the “$200 Billion Broadband Scandal” chronicling how the telecommunications industry has used power and influence to outmaneuver regulators and make promises they cannot or will not keep, for which they are never held accountable.

Kushnick’s view of the current state of broadband and telecommunications in the United States:

  • For the last 20 years, the nation’s major telecom companies have played the public and regulatory officials for fools – wrangling dramatic rate increases while making promises about fiber-optic cable they haven’t delivered.
  • The communications infrastructure is the most important thing to build back the nation’s economy.
  • The caretakers of America’s essential infrastructure have scammed us, big time, and it’s going to get worse.
  • The Federal Communications Commission is in the pocket of the phone companies.

Kushnick

Kushnick scowls over news Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable are about to cross-market cable and wireless phone service, calling it a textbook case of “Antitrust 101.”

Despite promises that the phone companies would bring extensive competition to America’s cable monopoly, the two competitors have effectively declared a truce.

In Kushnick’s view, phone companies like AT&T and Verizon are breaking their promises to regulators and consumers.

“Illinois Bell was supposed to rewire the state (with fiber-optic cable), starting in 1993 at an initial cost of $4 billion,” Kushnick said.

Instead, AT&T moved in and bought out the phone company and has dragged its feet on fiber deployment, along with most other big phone companies.

Kushnick told the Journal Star phone companies are going cheap avoiding fiber optic infrastructure while still ringing up huge profits.

“Every state is different. Pacific Bell stated they would spend $16 billion by 2000 on 5.5 million homes. Bell Atlantic claimed it would spend $11 billion on 8.75 million homes,” he said.

Verizon New Jersey said it would wire 100 percent of that state by 2010. Now there’s political action in New Jersey to hold the telecom accountable for failing to meet that goal, said Kushnick.

How do the companies get away with missing deadlines? “The phone companies have control of the regulators and a strong PR machine. The public is often unaware of what claims were made five or 10 years ago,” he said.

Kushnick is very aware. Take AT&T’s U-Verse service, so heavily advertised during NBA playoff games, for example. “(U-Verse) isn’t even fiber optic to the home but uses the old copper wiring,” he said.

While Kushnick puts a spotlight on the problem, the public would do well to bone up on what’s going on when it comes to the broadband services they pay so dearly for.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!