Phillip Dampier

Verizon Wireless’s next generation LTE wireless broadband network threatens to bring expensive “usage-based billing” to millions of Americans using technology products that depend on wireless networking to communicate  — from the handheld tablet you use to enjoy USA Today over morning coffee, the car that delivers news, weather and traffic reports to and from work, to the portable television you use to catch up with the game while running around town.

At the Consumer Electronics Show, Verizon chief technology officer Dick Lynch warned that Verizon is likely to abandon any notion of flat rate usage pricing, particularly when Verizon doesn’t get a piece of the action from the sale of the devices that connect to their network.

Instead, Verizon Wireless will adopt a wireless version of Internet Overcharging — usage-based billing that isn’t entirely “usage-based.”

A true consumption billing system charges consumers only for what they use — don’t use the service that month and customers would pay little or nothing for service that billing period.  Instead, providers maximize revenue with arbitrary “usage allowances” which are part of the steep monthly service fee.  The unused portion of the allowance typically does not roll over, in effect lost at the end of the month.  That means you pay for not using their network.  Imagine if your electric company charged you for leaving the lights on 24/7, but you were out of town that month.  If you exceed your allowance, the overlimit penalty kicks in, and most providers set those prices high enough to sting you while rewarding them.

“The problem we have today with flat-based usage is that you are trying to encourage customers to be efficient in use and applications but you are getting some people who are bandwidth hogs using gigabytes a month and they are paying something like megabytes a month,” Lynch said. “That isn’t long-term sustainable. Why should customers using an average amount of bandwidth be subsidizing bandwidth hogs?”

Lynch

The first step to broadband pricing enlightenment is to recognize the only true “hog” here is the broadband provider with an endless appetite for your money.  Usage-based pricing schemes carry the one-two punch for consumers, with no pain for providers:

1. They discourage usage, as consumers fear using up their monthly allowance and getting socked with an enormous bill filled with penalties and overlimit fees;
2. The corresponding reduction in usage lowers the providers’ capital spending requirements to meet consumer demand, and increase profits dramatically from those who find allowances too limiting and are willing to pay the exorbitant pricing providers charge those who exceed them.

Does Verizon actually believe that $60 a month for their wireless broadband service represents a fair price for someone using “something like megabytes a month?”  Can Verizon show it is losing money on its wireless broadband service?  I think not.

Predictably, Lynch provides a “between-the-lines” slap at government intervention to force open wireless networks to additional competition in the equipment marketplace:

“The whole paradigm of how we sell devices into the public is changing,” Lynch said. “At the same time that we announced LTE, we announced an open development initiative where we encouraged third-party developers to deploy devices on our network.”

That initiative was hardly the result of a sudden change of heart from Verizon.  It came from pressure Washington applied over the “closed network” practices the American wireless industry has followed for years.  Handsets and the applications that run on them have traditionally been closely controlled by providers.  Features built into smartphones and other handsets were disabled or limited by providers before the phones were sold to the public.  Usually, this forced customers to use the services either provided directly by their wireless company, or one of their “affiliated partners.”

Verizon Wireless is signaling the consequence of a more competitive, open market for wireless products and services: usage limits and a higher bill. That’s because you didn’t buy that device at a Verizon store at their asking price, and you’ve been using it too much.

Consumers would make a grave mistake in blaming a more activist watchdog role by the federal government to force open the wireless industry to competition and innovation by third parties.  Despite Verizon’s hints that those pesky regulators in Washington are to blame for your usage being limited and your bill being higher, the blame really belongs with the carriers pocketing those proceeds.

Since regulators will get the blame regardless, isn’t it time to go all out for American consumers by transforming the wireless provider marketplace?  Here are our suggestions:

1. An end to the ongoing consolidation of existing wireless players into a shrinking number of what will soon be two or three “too big to fail” national providers;
2. Insistence on additional competition coming from new, independent players, not simply those directly affiliated with the dominant four carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile);
3. Justification for confiscatory data pricing made possible from the highly concentrated wireless marketplace, particularly in smaller cities and communities.

Verizon and AT&T have both engaged in a lot of scare talk about usage and their costs to manage it.  We’d believe them, except we read their financial reports and neither company is hurting.  We’d even be willing to meet them halfway and advocate additional allocations of spectrum to provide the bandwidth an increasingly wireless world will demand, but not at their asking price with those pesky terms and conditions that ration service to consumers at top dollar prices.

Comcast blocks C-SPAN programming for those who are not Comcast customers

Public interest groups today began an offensive against the cable industry’s attempts to stave off potential online video competition with an industry dominated and controlled online video platform that guarantees consumers won’t cut cable’s cord.

Free Press, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union are sending letters to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission calling for a probe into the industry’s “TV Everywhere” project, designed to weed out non-cable subscribers from accessing online video programming.

The undertaking, which the industry claims will eventually rival Hulu in size and scope, seeks to provide their broadband customers with on-demand access to as much programming as possible, as long as they subscribe to a corresponding video programming and broadband service package.

Known in the industry as a “pay wall,” the system would assure pay television companies affiliated with the project that they will not lose subscribers from customers cutting the cord to watch programming online for free.  Consumer groups call that collusion, and accuse the industry of secretly meeting to outline the TV Everywhere concept and may be violating anti-trust laws in the process.

“The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves,” said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska and senior adviser to Free Press. Ammori’s report: TV Competition Nowhere: How the Cable Industry Is Colluding to Kill Online TV, is included in the mailing to the federal agencies.

Ammori says the industry has a long history of controlling behavior.

“Over the past decade, they have locked down and controlled TV set-top boxes to limit competing programming sources; they have considered imposing fees for high-capacity Internet use in ways that would discourage online TV viewing; and they have pressured programmers to keep their best content off the Internet,” Ammori writes.

In addition, these companies, which already dominate the Internet access market, have threatened to discriminate against certain online applications or have already been caught violating Network Neutrality. Indeed, the FCC issued an order in 2008 against Comcast for blocking technologies used to deliver online TV, noting the anti-competitive effect of this blocking. While it may be economically rational for cable, phone and satellite companies to squash online competitors, the use of anti-competitive tactics is bad for American consumers and the future of a competitive media industry.

The latest method of attack aimed at online TV, however, may be the most threatening — and is also likely illegal. Competition laws aim to ensure that incumbent companies fight to prevail by providing better services and changing with the times, not by using their existing dominant position and agreements to prevent new competitors from emerging.

TV Everywhere has a simple business plan, under which TV programmers like TNT, TBS and CBS will not make content available to a user via the Internet unless the user is also a pay TV subscriber through a cable, satellite or phone company. The obvious goal is to ensure that consumers do not cancel their cable TV subscriptions. But this plan also eliminates potential competition among existing distributors. Instead of being offered to all Americans, including those living in Cox, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable regions, Fancast Xfinity is only available in Comcast regions. The other distributors will follow Comcast’s lead, meaning that the incumbent distributors will not compete with one another outside of their “traditional” regions.

In addition, new online-only TV distributors are excluded from TV Everywhere. The “principles” of the plan, which were published by Comcast and Time Warner (a content company distinct from Time Warner Cable), clearly state that TV Everywhere is meant only for cable operators, satellite companies and phone companies. By design, this plan will exclude disruptive new entrants and result in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers.

This business plan, which transposes the existing cable TV model onto the online TV market, can only exist with collusion among competitors. As a result, TV Everywhere appears to violate several serious antitrust laws. Stripped of slick marketing, TV Everywhere consists of agreements among competitors to divide markets, raise prices, exclude new competitors, and tie products. According to published reports and the evident circumstances, TV Everywhere appears to be a textbook example of collusion. Only an immediate investigation by federal antitrust authorities and Congress can prevent incumbents from smothering nascent new competitors while giving consumers sham “benefits” that are a poor substitute for the fruits of real competition.

Ammori

The benefits of controlling the marketplace of video and online entertainment is a lucrative one, earning players billions in profits each year.  Losing control of the business model risks the industry repeating the mistakes of the music industry, which overpriced its product and alienated consumers with annoying digital rights management technology and lawsuits.  It also risks a repeat of the newspaper industry which many in the cable industry believe made the critical mistake of giving away all of their content for free.

With online video services like Hulu generating enormous online traffic from its free video programming, the cable industry fears they might already be headed down the road newspapers paved.  TV Everywhere is part of a multi-pronged defense plan according to Ammori.

Indeed, what the industry cannot control themselves, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and “consumption billing” can handily manage.

Ammoni notes:

Cable and phone companies have proposed cap-and-metered pricing for Internet service that appears to target online TV. Unlike the current all-you-can-eat monthly fee-plans, cap-and-metered pricing would charge users based on the capacity used. As a result, downloading or streaming large files will be more expensive than smaller files. In March 2009, Time Warner Cable announced metered pricing trials in four cities that would have made watching online TV cost prohibitive.

AT&T is testing a metering plan on its wireline U-verse service with hopes for national expansion. Even under generous allowances for bandwidth, users could not watch high-definition programming for many hours a day.

In response to trials by Time Warner Cable, a House bill was introduced in Congress, and Time Warner Cable dropped its immediate plans under consumer pressure. The company stated the plans would be reintroduced following a “customer education process.”

“Online TV is this nation’s best shot at breaking up the cable TV industry oligopolies and cartels. Permitting online distributors to compete vigorously on the merits for computer screens and TV screens will result in increased user choice, more rapid innovation, lower prices and a more robust digital democracy,” Ammoni concludes.

Several staff members working for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), the regulatory agency reviewing the proposed Frontier purchase of Verizon territories in Washington state, have reversed their opposition to the Frontier-Verizon deal because of concessions they believe will better serve consumers impacted by the deal.  But the provisions don’t come close to protecting consumer rights and do not sufficiently protect local telephone and broadband service.

The WUTC must be told that broadband expansion from a service provider that insists on a 5 gigabyte usage limit in its Acceptable Use Policy makes such expansion barely worth the effort.  The WUTC must insist on a permanent exemption from any usage limits for Washington state consumers, especially because many may find Frontier DSL to be their only broadband option for years to come.  To allow a company with such a paltry limit to be the monopoly provider of broadband puts Washington residents and small businesses at a serious economic disadvantage in the digital economy.

Would you choose to reside or locate your business in a community with one broadband provider offering a limit so low, your broadband usage will be limited to web page browsing and e-mail?

High Speed Internet Access Service

Customers may not resell High Speed Internet Access Service (“Service”) without a legal and written agency agreement with Frontier. Customers may not retransmit the Service or make the Service available to anyone outside the premises (i.e., wi-fi or other methods of networking). Customers may not use the Service to host any type of commercial server. Customers must comply with all Frontier network, bandwidth, data storage and usage limitations. Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier will be a part of the lives of almost 500,000 state residents, including those in Wenatchee and other parts of North Central Washington.  That covers a lot of rural residents with no hope of cable competition or other broadband options.  Verizon is the second-largest local telephone service provider in Washington, serving cities such as Redmond, Kirkland, Everett, Bothell, Woodinville, Kennewick, Pullman, Chelan, Richland, Naches, Westport, Lynden, Anacortes, Mount Vernon, Newport, Oakesdale, Republic and Camas-Washougal.  Currently, Verizon has approximately 1,300 employees in Washington, who would be transferred to Frontier once the deal is complete.

Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to assuring residents they can get the kind of broadband service they need in the 21st century, especially from a company that could easily find itself swamped in debt.  Let’s look at what Frontier has offered:

• Invest $40 million to expand high-speed Internet access in Washington.
• Submit quarterly financial reports to identify merger savings.
• Branding and transition costs to be paid by stockholders, not ratepayers.
• Increase financial incentives to prevent a decline in service quality.
• Adopt Verizon’s existing rates and contracts for at least three years.

Frontier would also be required to pay residential customers $35 for missed service repairs or installation appointments. That’s $10 more than Verizon now pays. Current Verizon customers would also have 90 days after the transition to choose another provider without incurring a $5 switching fee. Low-income customers who qualify through the Washington Telephone Assistance Program will also receive a one-time $75 credit if the company fails to offer appropriate discounts or deposit waivers.

Our take:

• Investing $40 million in low speed DSL service with a 5GB usage allowance saddles residents with yesterday’s technology with a usage allowance that rations the Internet.
• Customers don’t care about merger cost reductions because they’ll never enjoy those savings, but they’ll feel their impact if they include layoffs and reduction in investment.
• Consumers will be more concerned about what happens to their phone and broadband service when the “transition” results in service and billing problems.  Will stockholders pay inconvenienced customers?
• Vague promises of increased financial incentives for a company to do… its job, without declines in service quality, exposes just how unnecessary this deal is.  Why not offer incentives for Verizon to stay?
• Freezing rates for three years doesn’t prevent massive increases to make up the difference in year four and beyond.

The WUTC staff had it right the first time when it opposed the deal.  A healthy, financially secure Verizon is still a better deal than a smaller independent company saddled with debt.  Frontier seals the fate of Washington state residents from the benefits of fiber optics wired to the home, delivering high speed broadband for the future because Frontier doesn’t do fiber to the home on its own.  With a tiny usage allowance, just waiting for the company to decide to enforce it means you won’t be using your broadband account too much anyway.

The WUTC is accepting comments and you need to start calling and writing.  Make sure to tell the Commission it must secure a permanent exemption for Washington from any Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption/usage-based Internet billing and any usage limits Frontier defines in its Acceptable Use Policy.  Better yet, tell them Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to making you feel good about Verizon turning over your phone service to a company that is traveling the same road three other companies took all the way to bankruptcy.

Customers who would like to comment on the provisions can call toll-free: (888) 333-9882 or send e-mail to [email protected]. The deadline for comments is January 10th.

AT&T Mobility has been sending out their blogger team to try and clean up the damage from CEO Ralph de la Vega’s not-too-subtle hint that the days of unlimited iPhone data plans are numbered:

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation, rumor and pure speculation floating out there during the last day on this topic.

[…]

We carry more smartphone data traffic than any other U.S. provider, with traffic growing 5,000 percent over the past three years. As a result, we are working aggressively and investing heavily in our network to support this tremendous growth. Our $17 – $18 billion CapEx spend for 2009 includes:

• Nearly doubling the wireless spectrum serving 3G customers in hundreds of markets across the country, using high-quality 850 MHz spectrum.  This additional spectrum expands overall network capacity and improves in-building reception.
• Adding about 2,000 new cell sites, expanding service to new cities and improving coverage in other areas.
• Adding about 100,000 new backhaul connections, which add critical capacity between cell sites and the global IP backbone network.  We’re doubling the number of fiber-served cell sites this year.
• Enabling widespread access to our Wi-Fi network – the largest in the country with more than 20,000 hotspots in all 50 states – allowing them to take advantage of the best available AT&T mobile broadband connection.
• Rolling out even faster 3G speeds with deployment of HSPA 7.2 technology, with availability in six markets planned by the end of the year.
• Preparing for field trials of next generation, LTE wireless networks next year, with deployment planning to begin in 2011.  This schedule aligns with industry expectations for when a wide variety of compatible 4G wireless devices should be available.

We have seen very positive results from our efforts thus far.  In one of the most common measures of reliability – dropped calls – AT&T’s national performance is within two-tenths of 1 percent of the highest score among major providers as measured by an independent firm, with only 1.32 percent of calls dropped nationally.

Ralph de la Vega

AT&T’s blogger team says it isn’t true that de la Vega is definitively saying he’s “capping” services.

But de la Vega never said in his original statements that he was advocating “capping” service.  He said, “there’s got to be some sort of a pricing scheme that addresses … usage.”  Scheme is right.  That’s code language for consumption or usage-based billing, something the blogger team doesn’t rule out.  A strict usage cap simply says a customer cannot exceed a specified amount.  Most consumption billing schemes monetize data consumption, not with a true pay-for-use system that bills by the megabyte, but rather a fixed monthly price with an allowance and overlimit penalties for exceeding it.  AT&T already uses consumption-based billing for its prepaid and postpaid mobile broadband plans, so extending it to the iPhone isn’t exactly novel.

The iPhone customer has been treated as a profit engine by AT&T since the phone was first introduced.  Compelling customers to purchase a mandatory data plan that was originally priced at $20 and was raised to $30 was the price iPhone customers had to pay for bragging rights.  Should AT&T impose consumption billing, that price may go much higher.

AT&T must believe iPhone users are willing to pay that price or dramatically cut usage.  Either way, AT&T milks the very last nickle out of its exclusivity arrangement that some industry observers believe will expire in the early summer of 2010.  When that happens, AT&T must be quietly pondering what customers will do once they can buy an iPhone from other carriers.

Leafing through January’s issue of Consumer Reports, I find one possible answer in the magazine’s annual survey of America’s best and worst cell phone providers (subscription required for detailed results).  More than 50,000 subscribers rated their wireless carrier, and AT&T turned in dismal ratings, usually ending up at the bottom except in some cities where Sprint achieved that dubious honor.  AT&T’s problems, reported in cities from coast to coast:

• No service where service should exist
• All circuits busy
• Dropped calls
• Static

Results have been so poor, the magazine recommended that those affected should call AT&T and demand credit.  Many customers have gotten at least three months’ worth of service credits valued at more than $200 for doing so.

Logical conclusion: customers love the iPhone but hate the network it is tied to.  With de la Vega’s recent data usage temper tantrum, it’s just one more reason to be annoyed with AT&T.

For customers who entertain the notion of owning an iPhone, but simply refuse to leave their current provider to obtain it, that’s nearly $3,000 left on the table over the life of a two-year contract.  That should concern both Apple and AT&T.  For Apple, it means potentially losing new iPhone customers to impr0ved competing phones, such as those running Google’s Android operating system.  For AT&T, once the Berlin Wall of exclusivity falls and two year contracts expire, years of consumer frustration with their network could lead to a stampede for the exits.

Apple iPhone

AT&T Mobility, the still-exclusive provider of Apple’s iPhone in the United States, is floating trial balloons about the imminent end of “unlimited data” plans for iPhone customers.  Although the company has always defined their wireless broadband service as “unlimited” even though the fine print says they really mean “up to 5GB of usage per month,” the mandatory data plan forced on iPhone customers has retained its “unlimited means unlimited” definition.  We’ve never verified a customer thrown off of AT&T’s network for using too much data on their iPhone.

AT&T has managed the iPhone as both a success story and a major challenge to its network.  People will go to all sorts of trouble to acquire and keep an iPhone, including putting up with less 3G coverage and more congestion-related dropped calls and other service problems in some larger cities.

Considering the enormous revenue boost the iPhone has brought to AT&T, customers might wonder why the company simply doesn’t pour additional money into building more network capacity.  AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega doesn’t agree.

He believes the answer isn’t going to be found in just upgrading AT&T’s network.  Instead, he wants to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme like consumption billing and do away with the “unlimited” plan altogether.

AT&T claims that three percent of smart phone customers consume 40 percent of network capacity, a substantial percentage if compared with the amount of data a mobile broadband dongle can help a laptop or netbook consume.  Of course, those numbers are AT&T’s and do not come with independent verification.

For de la Vega, consumption pricing “is inevitable.”  That allows AT&T to reduce demand on its network and manage upgrades at a level more comforting on that quarterly financial report.

“What’s driving [high] usage are things like video or audio that plays around the clock,” de la Vega said at an analysts conference. “We have to get to those customers and get them to recognize they have to change their patterns, or there are things we will do to change those patterns.”

Customers forced to ration their usage with the threat of a higher bill can work… for AT&T.

AT&T may be about to test the limits of the iPhone enthusiast.  After all, they’ve already been pushed into a two year contract for a premium-priced phone, enrolled in a high priced service plan with a compulsory data package add-on, and have to live with AT&T’s less-than-stellar coverage in several areas.  Will AT&T be able to punish its customers further by taking away their unlimited data plan and replace it with consumption billing and see if they’ll break?

We’re likely about to find out.

AT&T wants to embark on a part-conservation, part-education campaign to get customers to reduce usage.

“We need to educate the customer … We’ve got to get them to understand what represents a megabyte of data,” de la Vega says. “We’re improving all our systems to let consumers get real-time information on their data usage.”

That’s the AT&T version of the gas gauge, the usage meter that means more profits for them and less service for you.

A question customers might want to ask Apple and AT&T: If the sole provider of the iPhone in the United States is a hard luck case of an over-congested network and an inability to invest profits to expand it, perhaps it’s time that exclusive contract comes to an end, allowing other mobile providers to ‘share the burden.’  Then customers can decide if AT&T’s rationing, consumption billing, and education campaign is right for them.