Phillip “They Want to Save You Money By Charging You More” Dampier

The pro-Internet Overcharging forces’ meme of “pay for what you use” sounds good in theory, but no broadband provider in the country would dare switch to a true consumption-based billing system for broadband, because it would destroy predictable profits for a service large cable and phone companies hope you cannot live without.

Twenty years ago, the cable industry could raise rates on television packages with almost no fear consumers would cancel service. When I produced a weekly radio show about the cable and satellite television industry, cable companies candidly told me they expected vocal backlashes from customers every time a rate increase notice was mailed out, but only a handful would actually follow through on threats to cut the cord. Now that competition for your video dollar is at an all-time-high, providers are shocked (and some remain in denial) that customers are actually following through on their threats to cut the cord. Goodbye Comcast, Hello Netflix!

Some Wall Street analysts have begun warning their investor clients that the days of guaranteed revenue growth from video subscribers are over, risking profits as customers start to depart when the bill gets too high. Cable companies have always increased rates faster than the rate of inflation, and investors have grown to expect those reliable profits, so the pressure to make up the difference elsewhere has never been higher.

With broadband, cable and phone companies may have found a new way to bring back the Money Party, and ride the wave of broadband usage to the stratosphere, earning money at rates never thought possible from cable-TV. The ticket to OPEC-like rivers of black gold? Usage-based billing.

Since the early days of broadband, most Americans have enjoyed flat rate access through a cable or phone company at prices that remained remarkably stable for a decade — usually around $40 a month for standard speed service.

In the last five years, as cord-cutting has grown beyond a phenomena limited to Luddites and satellite dish owners, the cable industry has responded. As they learned customers’ love of broadband has now made the service indispensable in most American homes, providers have been jacking up the price.

Time Warner Cable, for example, has increased prices for broadband annually for the last three years, especially for customers who do not subscribe to any other services.

Customers dissatisfaction with rate hikes has not led to broadband cord cutting, and in fact might prove useful on quarterly financial reports -and- for advocating changes in the way broadband service is priced:

1. Enhance revenue and profits, replacing lost ground from departing video customers and the slowing growth of new customers signing up for video and phone services (and keeping average revenue per user ((ARPU)) on the increase);
2. Using higher prices to provoke an argument about changing the way broadband service is sold.

Pouring over quarterly financial reports from most major providers shows remarkable consistency:

• The costs to provide broadband service are declining, even with broadband usage growth;
• Revenue and profits enjoy a healthy growth curve, especially as increased prices on existing customers make up for fewer new customer additions;
• Earnings from broadband are now so important, a cable company like Time Warner Cable now refers to itself as a broadband company. It is not alone.

Still, it is not enough. As usage continues to grow in the current monopoly/duopoly market, providers are drooling with anticipation over the possibility of scrapping the concept of “flat rate” broadband, which limits the endless ARPU growth Wall Street demands. If a company charges a fixed rate for a service, it cannot grow revenue from that service unless it increases the price, sells more expensive tiers of service, or innovates new products and services to sell.

Providers have enjoyed moderate success selling customers more expensive, faster service, also on a flat rate basis. But that still leaves money on the table, according to Wall Street-based “usage billing” advocates like Craig Moffett, who see major ARPU growth charging customers more and more money for service as their usage grows.

Moffett has a few accidental allies in the blogger world who seem to share his belief in “usage-based” billing. Lou Mazzucchelli, reading the recent New York Times piece on Time Warner’s gradual move towards usage pricing, frames his support for consumption billing around the issue of affordability. In his view, usage pricing is better for consumers and the industry:

It costs real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand, and those costs are ultimately borne by the subscriber. So in the US, we have carriers trying to raise their rates to offset increases in capital and operating expenses to the point where consumers are beginning to push back, and the shoving has come to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which has raised the possibility of treating Internet network providers as common communications carriers subject to regulation.

I believe that flat-rate pricing is a major source of problems for network carriers and consumers. In the carrier world, the economics are known but ignored because marketers believe that flat rates are the only plans consumers will accept. But in the consumer world, flat rates are rising to incomprehensible levels for indecipherable reasons, with little recourse except disconnection. Consumer dissatisfaction is rising, in part because consumers feel they have no control over the price they have to pay. This is driven by their sense of pricing inequity that is hard to visualize but comes from implicit subsidies in the current environment. The irony is that pay-per-use pricing solves the problem for carriers and consumers.

Mazzucchelli reposted his blog piece originally written in 2010 for the benefit of Times readers. Two years ago, he measured his usage at 11GB a month. His provider Verizon Communications was charging him $64.99 a month for 25Mbps service, which identifies him as a FiOS fiber to the home customer.  Mazzucchelli argues the effective price he was paying for Internet access was $5.85 for each of the 11GB he consumed, which seemed steep at the time. (Not anymore, if you look at wireless company penalty rates which range from $10-15/GB or more.)

Mazzucchelli theorized that if he paid on a per-packet basis, instead of flat rate service based on Internet speed, he could pay something like $0.0000025 per packet, which would result in a bill of $31.91 for his 11GB instead of $65. For him, that’s money saved with usage billing.

On its face, it might seem to make sense, especially for light users who could pay less under a true usage-based pricing scenario like the one he proposes.

Verizon Communications is earning more average revenue per customer than ever with its fiber to the home network. That’s about the only bright spot Wall Street recognizes from Verizon’s fiber network, which some analysts deride as “too expensive.”

Unfortunately for Mazzucchelli, and others who claim usage-based pricing will prove a money-saver, the broadband industry has some bad news for you. Usage pricing simply cannot be allowed to save you, and other current customers money. Why? Because Wall Street will never tolerate pricing that threatens the all-important ARPU. In the monopoly/duopoly home broadband marketplace most Americans endure, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in the war for revenue and profits.

That is why broadband providers will never adopt a true usage-based billing system for customers. It would cannibalize earnings for a service that already enjoys massive markups above true cost. In 2009, Comcast was spending under $10 a month to sell broadband service priced above $40.

Mazzucchelli

Instead, providers design “usage-based” billing around rates comparable to today’s flat rate pricing, only they slap arbitrary maximum usage allowances on each tier of service, above which consumers pay an overlimit fee penalty. That would leave Mazzucchelli choosing a lower speed, lower usage allowance plan to maximize his savings, if his use of the Internet didn’t grow much. On a typical light use plan suitable for his usage, he would subscribe to 1-3Mbps service with a 10GB allowance, and pay the overlimit fee for one extra gigabyte if he wanted to maximize his broadband dollar.

But his usage experience would be dramatically different, both because he would be encouraged to use less, fearing he might exceed his usage allowance, and he would be “enjoying” the Internet at vastly slower speeds. If Mazzucchelli went with higher speed service, he would still pay prices comparable for flat rate service, and receive a usage allowance he personally would find unnecessarily large. The result for him would be little to no savings and a usage allowance he did not need.

Mazzucchelli’s usage pattern is probably different today than it was in 2010. Is he still using 11GB a month? If he uses double the amount he did two years ago, under his own pricing formula, the savings he sought would now be virtually wiped out, with a broadband bill for 22GB of consumption running $63.82. By the following year, usage-based pricing would cost even more than Verizon’s unlimited pricing, as average use of the Internet continues to grow.

That helps the broadband industry plenty but does nothing for consumers. Mazzucchelli might be surprised to learn that the “real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand,” is actually more than covered under today’s profit margins for flat-rate broadband. In fact, if he examines financial reports over the last five years and the statements company executives make to shareholders, virtually all of them speak in terms of reducing capital investments and the declining costs to deliver broadband, even as usage grows.

Verizon’s fiber network, while expensive to construct, is already earning the company enormous boosts in ARPU over traditional copper wire phone service. While Wall Street howled about short term capital costs to construct the network, then-CEO Ivan Seidenberg said fiber optics was the vehicle that will drive Verizon earnings for decades selling new products and services that its old network could never deliver.

Still, is Mazzucchelli paying too much for his broadband at both 2010 and 2012 prices? Yes he is. But that is not a function of the cost to deliver broadband service. It is the result of a barely competitive marketplace that has an absence of price-moderating competitors. Usage-based pricing in today’s broadband market assures lower costs for providers by retarding usage. It also brings even higher profits from bigger broadband bills as Internet usage grows, with no real relationship to the actual costs to provide the service. It also protects companies from video package cord-cutting, as customers will find online viewing prohibitively expensive.

One need only look at pricing abroad to see how much Americans are gouged for Internet service. Unlimited high speed Internet is available in a growing number of countries for $20-40 a month.

Usage-based billing is a dead end that might deliver temporary savings now, but considerably higher broadband bills soon after. It is not too late to turn the car around and join us in the fight to keep unlimited broadband, enhance competition, and win the lower prices users like Mazzucchelli crave.

Time Warner Cable has a usage meter up for some customers.

Time Warner Cable has reintroduced usage-limited broadband plans in Austin, Tex., three years after shelving an earlier market test that drew protests from local residents and civic leaders.

Time Warner Cable is offering three tiers of what it calls “Internet Essentials,” each offering different speeds of service, all with a 5GB usage allowance for a $5 monthly discount.

“It’s clear that one-size-fits-all pricing is not working for many consumers, particularly in a challenging economy,” regional vice president of operations in Texas Gordon Harp said. “We believe the choice and flexibility of Essentials will enhance value for lighter users, help us retain existing customers in a competitive marketplace and attract new customers to our superior Internet experience.”

But Stop the Cap! disagrees, noting the three variations of Internet Essentials all offer a tiny discount and come with a ridiculously low usage allowance.

With usage overlimit fees of $1/GB, currently limited to a maximum of $25, customers are playing Russian Roulette with their wallets. Just exceeding the allowance by 5GB a month eliminates any prospects of savings, and going beyond that will actually cost customers more than what they would have paid for unlimited Internet.

The company has added a usage tracker for Texas customers qualified to get the plan. It can be found under the My Services section of Time Warner Cable’s website.

Customers in Texas can choose from Grande Communications, AT&T or Verizon if they want to say goodbye to Time Warner’s endless interest in Internet Overcharging.  Image courtesy: Jacobson

Stop the Cap! recommends consumers strongly reject these plans. If customers are looking for a better deal on broadband, it is wiser to call Time Warner and threaten to take your broadband business to the competition. The savings that will result on a retention plan are sure to be better than the Internet Essentials discount, and no one will have to think twice about how they use their broadband account. Customers on an extremely tight budget can also downgrade to a slower speed plan that offers unlimited access, essential in any home with multiple broadband users.

Time Warner Cable does not help their position by significantly distorting the truth about their last experiment trying to limit customer broadband usage. In 2009, the company proposed changing the price for unlimited broadband to an enormous $150 a month. Customers protested in front of the company’s offices in several cities. Despite that, and the intense negative media coverage the company endured, Time Warner still believes its customers are itching to have their broadband usage limited:

Previous Experience with Usage-based Pricing

Time Warner Cable began testing usage-based pricing in 2009. Although many customers were interested in the plan, many others were not and we decided to not proceed with implementation of the plan. Over the past few years, we consulted with our customers and other interested parties to ensure that community needs are being met and in late 2011 we began testing meters which will calculate Internet usage.

We’d be interested to know what customers in the Austin area were consulted about the desire for usage-limited plans. Nobody consulted us either. We can imagine the “other interested parties” are actually Wall Street analysts and fellow industry insiders. We’re confident the overwhelming number of Time Warner Cable customers have no interest in seeing their unlimited use plans changed and company customer service representatives have told us there has been very little interest in the plans to date. For now, the company claims it won’t force people to take usage limited plans, but as we’ve seen in the wireless industry, yesterday’s promises are all too quickly forgotten.

With a usage meter now established, all it takes is an announcement Time Warner is doing away with unlimited broadband (or raising the price of it to the levels the company proposed in 2009), and customers are ripe for a broadband ripoff.

Time Warner Cable says it is “listening” to customers on its TWC Conversations website. We suggest you visit, click the tab marked Essentials Internet Plans, and let Time Warner Cable know you have no interest in these usage-limited plans and are prepared to go to war to keep affordable, unlimited Internet. With your voice, perhaps Time Warner Cable will finally realize that usage caps and consumption billing just don’t work for you or your family.

The Communications Workers of America says when it comes to “stealthy” bills like S.B. 1611 that deregulate telecommunications in California, “no price is too high — no lie is too big.”

AT&T and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are back again fighting for more deregulation of California’s telecommunications industry with a bill that will strip oversight of vital telecommunications services and stop punishing bad actors that leave customers without telephone service, sometimes for weeks.

California legislators are typically not responsive to the wholesale deregulation efforts that seem to draw support in more conservative states, so AT&T’s lobbyists are trying a more “incremental” approach in the state. But AT&T has also inserted “stealth” language into the bill that would dismantle consumer protections, allow companies to abandon unprofitable landlines, and strip away important oversight “checks and balances” needed to ensure good service.

Sen. Padilla’s top corporate contributor is AT&T.

S.B. 1611 illustrates that AT&T can buy its way into any legislator’s office, Democrat or Republican. The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Alex Padilla (D-20th Senate District) has received more contributions from AT&T than from any other corporation in both the 2006 and 2010 elections.

The bill ostensibly claims to limit its scope narrowly to “Voice over Internet Protocol” (VoIP) and “Internet Protocol enabled service.” That brings to mind services like “digital phone service” from cable companies or alternative telephone services like Vonage, magicJack or Skype.

S.B. 1611:

The bill would prohibit any department, agency, commission, or political subdivision of the state from enacting, adopting, or enforcing any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, standard, order, or other provision having the force or effect of law, that regulates VoIP or other IP enabled service, unless required or delegated by federal law or expressly authorized by statute. The bill would specify certain areas of law that are expressly applicable to VoIP and IP enabled service providers. The bill would provide that its limitations upon the commission’s regulation of VoIP and IP enabled services do not affect the commission’s existing authority over non-VoIP and other non-IP enabled wireline or wireless service….

To the layperson who generally believes services like Skype and Vonage might not deserve the same oversight as AT&T, Frontier, or Verizon — which provide Californians traditional landline service, consider Section 2 (a)(2) of the bill, which describes and defines VoIP and IP enabled service as anything that:

“Permits a user generally to receive a call that originates on the public switched telephone network and to terminate a call to the public switched telephone network” and “any service, capability, functionality, or application using existing Internet Protocol, or any successor Internet Protocol, that enables an end user to send or receive a communication in existing Internet Protocol format, or any successor Internet Protocol format through a broadband connection, regardless of whether the communication is voice, data, or video.”

This “narrow” deregulation bill just grew as wide as the Gulf of Mexico and can realistically allow any phone company in California to ignore state oversight and regulation forever.

Traditional telephone companies increasingly utilize exactly these technologies for calls placed over ordinary landline phones. Using broadband service to engage in two-way communications also qualifies. With this kind of defining language, virtually every telecommunications service in the state of California would win near-total deregulation and walk away from important oversight. The California Public Utilities Commission certainly understood the implications of this bill when the majority of commissioners came out in opposition to S.B. 1611.

Goodbye Universal Service: S.B. 1611 Allows Phone Companies to Abandon Rural and Economically Distressed California Communities

Several public interest groups also discovered language in the bill that is a perennial favorite of AT&T — eliminating universal service requirements that assure every citizen that wants a telephone line can get one. S.B. 1611 lays waste to Section 709 of the California Code which guarantees: “our universal service commitment by assuring the continued affordability and widespread availability of high-quality telecommunications services to all Californians.”

With that language gone, the state’s phone companies can unilaterally decide to abandon the customers they no longer want to serve. That could spell disaster in rural northern and eastern California, and leave low income residents with nothing but a dead phone line, unable even to call 911 in an emergency.

One AT&T Lobbyist for Every California Lawmaker

The importance AT&T places on influencing lawmakers is readily apparent when one realizes there are at least 120 AT&T lobbyists working in the state capital Sacramento, one for every California lawmaker.

But when one considers the track record of California phone and cable companies in the last few years, is less oversight and regulation the right answer?

• Verizon Sued for Providing DSL Speeds (Suitable for VoIP) They Can’t Deliver
• AT&T Gouges California With 25% Rate Increase
• California Landline Nightmare: Residents in Bakersfield in Tears Over Lousy Service
• Southern California Power & Phone Companies Blamed for Devastating Wildfires
• Verizon Bills Dead People: We’ll Settle for Half Because She’s No Longer Among the Living
• Frontier’s Goodbye Kiss: A $680 Final Bill for a Departing Customer
• Calabasas Residents Annoyed by “Corrupt and Deceptive” Charter Cable; Time Warner Cable Also Called Out
• Time Warner Cable Guy Arrives Late to Service Call, Leaves Claiming Homeowner Had “Bad Air”
• More Frontier Problems: Californians Wait Months on Refunds for Disconnected Landlines
• The Many Challenges of Charter Cable: Rate Increases for Seniors, Bankruptcy, Employees Attacked, Customers Hassled
• AT&T’s California Gold Rush: Company Lobbyists Spread the Money Far and Wide

“SB 1161 is a stealth vehicle for the gradual deregulation of telecommunications in California,” the Consumer Federation of California declared on their website. “Consumers need the CPUC to have the power to investigate complaints of bad service or unfair charges on bills, regardless of the technology used to provide phone service.”

Call to Action!

Consumers across California need to get on board immediately to stop S.B. 1611. You can file online opposition courtesy of Free Press, but it is far more effective to also directly phone your own legislator and leave a message to urge this bill be defeated. It literally takes only 2-3 minutes to call and the money and phone service you could save will be your own. Use this district finder to contact your representatives.

S.B. 1161 is scheduled for hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee this Wednesday, so time is of the essence!

In the eyes of many entertainment executives, pressing fast forward to skip past commercials recorded by your DVR is a crime, and they want it stopped.

We’ve made progress. In the 1970s and early 1980s, those same executives were arguing recording a television show itself was a crime.

The copyright infringement wars continue, beyond college students facing ruinous lawsuits from the recording industry or movie studios sending a blizzard of subpoenas to Internet Service Providers seeking the names and addresses of those suspected of using file swapping networks.

With the increasing concentration and combination of entertainment conglomerates, the reflexive need to “control” the medium and means of distribution is gaining a receptive audience in Washington and in the courts, threatening to influence what you can and cannot do with the programming you pay to watch.

The impact is also weighing on innovative new technology from small companies like Aereo and much larger ones like Dish Network that have attempted to launch new services that challenge the conventional ways Americans watch entertainment. The result for all concerned: lawsuits designed to stifle anything the media business perceives as an imminent threat.

Dish Network has a new DVR box that can automatically skip past commercials on selected networks. The satellite company’s new “Hopper” DVR automatically records eight days’ of prime time programming from the four major American broadcast networks, analyzes the programming to find commercials, and allows subscribers to watch the recorded shows “ad-free” just hours after the original broadcast.

Major entertainment moguls immediately denounced the feature as criminal theft.

“If there were no advertising revenues, the free broadcast television model in the United States would collapse,” wrote an alarmed News Corp. (owner of FOX Broadcasting) in its complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court. That network also accuses Dish of violating their contract with FOX and copyright infringement.

“Of course, you know this means war.” — Dish’s new AutoHop feature raises the ire of the entertainment industry.

“This service takes existing network content and modifies it in a manner that is unauthorized and illegal,” CBS said in a prepared statement, echoing earlier statements that have historically argued recording, modifying, or re-purposing broadcast content in any way is automatically a violation of federal law, copyright, or the terms and conditions under which the network makes programming available for viewing.

NBC and ABC filed their own complaints against the technology as well.

Technically speaking, subscribers who pay a cable or satellite provider for television programming are already paying extra for the programming they are watching, negating the usual arguments commercial sponsorship covers the cost of watching “free TV” (that isn’t always free) and skipping commercials is the same as stealing.

Commercial television business models in the United States increasingly rely on “retransmission consent” fees — money paid by your satellite, cable, or phone company to the programmer for permission to carry a channel on their lineup. Virtually all of those fees are passed along to consumers as part of their monthly bill.

Some station owner groups are willing to play extreme hardball to get viewers to pay up -and- win the right to put a piece of tape over their fast forward buttons to keep them from skipping commercials on their stations.

Dallas-based Hoak Media is an example. Viewers in Panama City, Fla. were without WMBB-TV, the Hoak-owned ABC affiliate, on Dish Network for a week. Hoak Media pulled the plug on viewers earlier this month after Hoak demanded a 200% increase in retransmission consent payments and the disabling of Dish’s AutoHop commercial-skipping technology. Thirteen other Hoak stations around the country were also pulled off the satellite TV service.

“WMBB and Hoak don’t respect customer control — they are telling customers they must watch commercials,” Dave Shull, senior vice president of programming for Dish, said in a news release. “Channel skipping has been around since the advent of the remote and we think Hoak has taken an incredibly hostile stance toward their viewers.”

WMBB’s station management appeared caught off guard by their owners back in Dallas. WMBB General Manager Terry Cole admitted he didn’t even know about the AutoHop feature Hoak was demanding be disabled. A week later, the dispute appeared settled and the stations were back on Dish.

Entertainment executives are hopeful their deep pockets and industry partnerships with content distributors will ultimately win the day. They have a few things they can count in their corner.

In 2002, some of the same companies protesting Dish filed suit against ReplayTV, which had its own automated commercial skipping technology. The case dragged its way through the courts, with mounting legal expenses eventually forcing ReplayTV out of business. Problem solved.

The use of deep pockets have also intimidated other innovative ventures such as Aereo, which delivers over-the-air New York City stations online to a paying local subscriber base.

Innovation like that is also a concern to the cable industry, which itself has been around since the 1970s. Developing an online alternative to the local cable company puts cable TV executives in the same position entertainment industry executives live to fear: a threat to the business model that has earned billions in profits. In those terms, some cable operators seem willing to support the entertainment industry, even at the expense of their own customers.

That may explain why Time Warner Cable applied for, and won, their own patent for technology that disables fast-forward functionality on digital video recorders.

“Advertisers may not be willing to pay as much to place advertisements if they know that users may fast forward through the advertisement and thus not receive the desired sales message,” the cable company explains in its patent application. “Content providers may not be willing to grant rights in their content, or may want to charge more, if trick modes are permitted.”

The technology would look for digitally embedded cue tones, which are today used mostly to let local stations and cable operators insert their own local advertising messages on a network feed, to block fast forwarding past those ads.

Time Warner Cable is not likely to implement the technology anytime soon, not if they expect customers to continue to pay well over $10 a month for a recording device that won’t allow them to skip commercials.

Comcast is taking a different approach, considering plans to insert billboard advertising messages that automatically appear on-screen whenever a customer hits their fast-forward button. Broadcasters and networks have no love for that feature either, claiming it changes the programming the consumer recorded and represents… yes, copyright infringement.

Courts will once again have to find a balance between consumers’ home recording rights and the rights of large entertainment and cable companies. With more courts increasingly favorable to the notion of corporate rights enjoying equal prominence with those of citizens, who ultimately wins the right to your fast forward button remains a toss-up.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst working for Sanford Bernstein, just loves Verizon Wireless’ new calling plans, which he believes will help Verizon grow profits when most Americans already have a cell phone.

Verizon’s move “is the most profound change to pricing the telecom industry has seen in twenty years,” Moffett told the Associated Press.

Bernstein believes that cell phone companies can keep boosting the all-important “average revenue per user,” or ARPU, by shifting price hikes for services consumers are now using the most. That means wireless data which Bernstein sees as a growth industry. In contrast, customers are using their phones less than ever for making phone calls and sending text messages.

Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam agrees, telling an investor conference customers will end up paying more money to Verizon than ever before.

Moffett

“Is it going to cost them more money? Yeah, but it will probably shift their wallet spend from things they do individually into a bucket of gigabytes,” McAdam said. “The relationship will change. This will be something much more ingrained in their life as opposed to something that’s attached to their hip.”

Verizon’s “Share Everything” may become ingrained in customers’ wallets when it launches June 28, eliminating voice minute and text message allowances but increasing pricing for data. The cheapest smartphone plan will now run $90 a month. For customers who already pay for unlimited voice minutes and texting and avoid using too much wireless data, the new price will be lower than current Verizon plans. But for those who traditionally choose a calling minutes allowance and send a limited number of text messages, prices under the new plan will be going up by $10-20 a month.

Verizon also hopes to capture an increasing share of wireless data for portable devices. Consumers have typically avoided 3G/4G-capable add-ons for devices in favor of Wi-Fi-only, to avoid the separate data plans that are usually required. Verizon hopes customers will consider spending more on wireless network-capable tablets and laptops that can be added to their existing Verizon accounts. Adding a tablet will cost an extra $10 a month, $20 for a portable 3G/4G wireless modem for a laptop. Data usage will be shared from their existing data plan.

Moffett expects the new plan from Verizon, and a forthcoming one expected from AT&T, to solidify both companies’ dominance in the wireless market.

“In a household with two or three AT&T or Verizon devices — say, a smartphone and a tablet or two, and one device from T-Mobile or Sprint. Sprint doesn’t stand a chance,” Moffett said.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Verizon Wireless Plans 6-12-12.flv[/flv]

CNBC talks with Public Knowledge’s Michael Weinberg about the “consumer benefits” of Verizon’s new wireless plans, which Weinberg suggests are few and fleeting.  (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Is Wi-Fi Dead 6-12-12.flv[/flv]

CNBC wonders if Wi-Fi is dead as Verizon and AT&T encourage customers to use 3G/4G wireless data instead of more local Wi-Fi networks.  (3 minutes)