Verizon Communications formally closed its acquisition of Alltel in January 2009, but some former customers are only now feeling the impact as they transition to… AT&T.

That’s right, AT&T.

Although Verizon acquired the bulk of Alltel’s national customer base, the federal government ordered Verizon to sell off its future Alltel customers in communities where the company would likely be the overwhelmingly dominant player.  Verizon sold off most of these orphaned customers, numbering over a million, especially in the Mountain Time Zone, to AT&T.

The transition from Alltel to AT&T would be a bumpy one because the two companies use different wireless technologies, meaning every customer would have to be provided with a new phone.  Alltel’s customers remaining with Verizon didn’t experience this, because both companies use CDMA technology.

AT&T agreed, as part of the deal, to supply every one of its new postpaid/contract Alltel customers with brand new GSM phones (although AT&T was unwilling to provide free advanced smartphones like Apple’s iPhone).  Prepaid customers were less lucky — they only received discounts off new phones.

Stop the Cap! has talked with more than a dozen affected customers in Arizona, New Mexico, Michigan, Utah, Wyoming, Iowa and Colorado about their experiences as they transition to AT&T service.  With AT&T now proposing to merge with T-Mobile, which could also mean some new phones for T-Mobile customers, we wanted to learn what customers thought about being moved from one carrier to another, what their experience was before the transition and after, and whether they intend to stay with AT&T.

Our panel included a young man from Utah who used his phone at home and outside of the state as he performed mission work for the Mormon Church in rural Florida.  We also spoke with a retired couple living in Arizona who chose Alltel because of their unlimited calling circle option to stay in touch with friends and family in Minnesota.  Also participating: a travel agent in Michigan, a realtor in New Mexico, a self-employed contractor in Colorado, a farmer in Iowa, and several others who shared their stories with us in e-mail.  By mutual agreement, we’re keeping their last names private because some have pending disputes with AT&T.

Breaking the News: Alltel Sells Out Their Customers to Verizon

When Karen, a realtor from New Mexico first heard word that Alltel was selling out to Verizon, she wasn’t sure exactly what that meant.  There was considerable confusion in her part of southern New Mexico mostly because the local media does a poor job of covering telecommunications stories.

“In New Mexico, everything in the media is centered around what is going on in Albuquerque and everything else is given little attention, except in the local newspaper,” Karen says.  “But whether you are in Las Cruces or Roswell, the quality of the story depends on the quality of the poorly paid reporter.”

Karen was not worried about the sale at first, because she was aware Verizon had a good reputation for cell phone service.  She had originally selected Alltel because they had good rates and friendly customer service.

“If I ever had a problem with my phone, Alltel would always fix it, even if it was out of warranty,” Karen explains.  “That meant a lot to me because they didn’t have to do that, but it was why I always renewed my contract.”

Heath, who runs a home-based contracting business in southern Colorado, didn’t like what he was hearing from the start.  Neither did Marion and Will, a retired couple living outside of Phoenix.

“We had our dealings with Verizon back in Minnesota when we lived there and we never liked them because they cost too much,” Will says.  “Alltel was a great choice for us because they had a calling circle plan that let you make unlimited calls to certain numbers, and we talked with our daughter back in Minnesota daily using our cell phone.”

Confusion about the deal only got worse when Alltel (and in some cases Verizon) notified our panel members they would not be Verizon customers after all — they were being sold off to another cell phone company.

Alltel -> Verizon -> AT&T -> Frustration

Micah, our reader in Utah first contacted us more than a year ago to express his confusion about why he was not only losing his Alltel account, but now he was somehow ending up as a customer of AT&T, a carrier he definitely wants nothing to do with.

“I figured I could at least live with Verizon because they are everywhere, but as I started performing my mission work for the church in rural central Florida, I learned from my parents I was actually going to end up a customer of AT&T, something I definitely never wanted,” Micah says.  “AT&T is terrible in Utah and worse here — nobody wants AT&T unless you are in Orlando or Daytona Beach.”

Alltel Markets Sold to AT&T (click to enlarge)

“At first we thought, cool, new phones for everyone,” Shanie told Stop the Cap! from her home in Muskegon, Mich. “AT&T has been promising major expansion of service here in western Michigan since they notified us they were taking over for Alltel, but then we started learning the details.”

While Shanie’s family of four would be given four new phones, their choices of new phones were limited, although AT&T called them “comparable.”  Many of AT&T’s smartphones were not covered, even if families already owned smartphones purchased from Alltel.

“We also discovered if you wanted one of these advanced phones, it meant a new two-year contract with AT&T, effectively forcing us to stay with them longer,” Shanie says.

Jed, a farmer outside of Sioux City, Iowa says AT&T did a poor job keeping him informed.  Jed stopped receiving all communication from Alltel (other than a bill) and never heard a word from AT&T.  Instead, one of his neighbors warned him that his Alltel phone was going to quit working by the middle of May.  Jed was upset because the deadline for him to choose a new free phone had passed and he never had the opportunity to make a choice, never having been notified about any of the changes.

“The newspaper might have said something about it, but we don’t get the paper here and nobody has much time to spend watching television,” Jed shared.  “We would have thought AT&T would have notified us, but they apparently forgot we were here.”

Last week, a new phone arrived from AT&T in the mail, unsolicited.

“What a way of doing business — we thought at first it was some sort of fraudulent purchase and we almost didn’t accept it from the driver,” Jed said.

AT&T has been sending out new phones all month to customers across several states, encouraging them to call and activate them on AT&T’s network.  Once customers do that, their old Alltel phones will quit working.  That was a problem for Shanie’s daughter at college in Grand Rapids.  When mom activated her phone, the primary one on the account, her daughter’s Alltel phone stopped working.

“AT&T has you call a toll-free number to activate the phone, but first they require y0u to accept the terms and conditions for doing business with AT&T, which can include contract extensions for some people,” Shanie said.  “I had no idea activating my phone would end service on all of the other Alltel phones on the account.”

Alltel customers in these states had new AT&T phones shipped to them on this schedule.  The second date refers to the service transition cutoff date:

Bailing Out for Alternatives

Jody, a soon-to-be-ex AT&T customer in New Mexico, says there was plenty of fine print to wade through when he prepared for the switch from Alltel, and he didn’t like what he saw.

“AT&T is very tricky about how they handle customers who want to depart Alltel and avoid becoming an AT&T customer,” Jody says.  “You cannot cancel your Alltel contract and avoid an early termination fee, but you can cancel AT&T within 30 days of switching and escape a hefty exit fee.”

Indeed, AT&T’s transition website says Alltel customers who want to switch providers will face an early exit penalty as long as their Alltel phones remain active.  Those who switch and activate their new AT&T phones get a 30 day window to drop AT&T and avoid an ETF:

If, after moving to AT&T service, you choose to discontinue your AT&T service, you will have a 30-day period to opt out of your AT&T contract without an ETF. After that 30-day period, standard AT&T terms apply including any applicable ETF.

Old name, New Company

Jody got his new phone and promptly canceled his AT&T service.  He switched to CellularOne, a company with a legacy name but a very local network.  It has its own cell towers only in northern Arizona and parts of New Mexico.  For everywhere else, it depends on a roaming agreement with… AT&T.

Jody’s CellularOne plan still offers completely unlimited calling, texting, and data for around $80 a month, and that includes AT&T’s nationwide network.

“CellularOne offers a much better deal than AT&T, but you can only choose from three lower end smartphones — no iPhone to be had here,” Jody says.

Heath in Colorado wants out of AT&T as well.

“They drop calls all the time and their network strength is awful in my neighborhood, and I depend on my cell phone and don’t have a landline,” Heath says.  “I don’t know why we had to be stuck with AT&T who apparently de-commissioned Alltel’s towers, which used to deliver a rock solid signal here.”

But not everyone is heading for other carriers.  Sam in Farmington, New Mexico says AT&T is bringing 3G to his community and mobile broadband speeds have been much faster than what Alltel used to deliver.

“AT&T’s data plans are overpriced, but if you can hang onto your existing Alltel plan but use it on AT&T’s network, it’s not so bad,” Sam says.  “Unfortunately, you cannot upgrade to an iPhone and keep Alltel’s plans — you have to pick one of AT&T’s.”

The Future for T-Mobile Customers

Although T-Mobile shares the same GSM network technology AT&T uses, the two companies have different frequency allocations for their respective networks.  T-Mobile customers seeking access to AT&T’s network will probably need new phones to access it. While AT&T claims T-Mobile’s own largely urban network will supplement AT&T’s own coverage, customers may need new equipment for that to be true as well, unless AT&T co-locates their own cell antennas on T-Mobile towers.

Former Alltel customers tell Stop the Cap! AT&T didn’t offer the latest and most popular phones for their swap, and some customers too far away from an AT&T store had to get a new phone without being able to try it.  AT&T allowed customers to exchange phones within 30 days, which helped some of our readers, but most felt the entire idea of being forced to switch to AT&T an inconvenience.  Most were also disturbed that one of the competitors in their area was disappearing, and considering Alltel served largely small cities and rural areas, there was already a lack of choice for most.  In total, three of our readers are staying with AT&T, two left for CellularOne, one chose to switch to a prepaid plan, and the rest went with Verizon after all.  If Alltel were still around, every customer we talked with for this piece would have stayed with them.

Signal boosters use an outdoor antenna to reach distant cell tower sites, while using an indoor antenna your mobile device can lock onto for improved reception.

If the Federal Communications Commission has its way, Americans annoyed with lousy cell phone reception will soon be able to purchase a new generation of signal boosters capable of delivering service to fringe reception areas ignored or bypassed by providers.  And unlike home cell-phone extenders, they won’t use your home broadband connection while also eating up your voice and data allowance.

A signal booster, not to be confused with a “femtocell” some wireless carriers sell or give to customers, acts like an amplified super-antenna — giving a boost to phones and mobile broadband signals in difficult reception areas.

This devices have been around and legal to use for a several years in North America, much to the consternation of cell phone companies and some public safety officials who deal with occasional interference problems created by misused or malfunctioning equipment.  The FCC is trying to find ways to mitigate interference problems while still allowing customers to benefit from signal boosters.  There are documented cases of rescuers relying on the equipment in remote disaster areas, and rural residents have managed 911 calls that would have been impossible without signal boosting technology.

Despite the agency’s efforts, several cell phone companies — particularly AT&T, object to the Commission’s plans to allow the independent use of signal-boosting equipment on “their” frequencies and networks.  Because cell phone boosters agnostically enhance every company’s signal within its frequency range and does not require users to pre-register phones to get access, AT&T stands to lose revenue if they are not the exclusive authority on selling, approving, and registering the use of miniature relay stations that boost their network’s coverage area.

AT&T currently sells customers femtocells which reduce dependence on the carrier’s overburdened 3G network — offloading traffic onto home and workplace wired broadband connections, which includes both voice calls and data.  But only a small percentage of customers get the equipment for free, often extending their contracts in the process.

Some providers and emergency responders have documented instances where these devices have created interference problems for cell tower sites and for emergency radio traffic that co-exists on the same frequency bands signal boosters occupy.  In some cases, inappropriate use of signal boosters has blocked emergency traffic, shut down cell sites, or reduced their coverage.  That is why the FCC wants the next generation of signal boosters to be able to intelligently interact with cell sites and other traffic users and reduce their power or discontinue service if they begin to create interference problems.

AT&T’s suggested safeguards go well beyond what most other carriers want from the FCC:

First, AT&T proposes that wireless licensees have “ultimate control” over any signal boosters operating on their networks under a presumptive authorization.  Specifically, signal booster operators must activate their devices with the licensee prior to initial use. In addition, the booster must possess technology to permit the licensee’s network to identify the device as a booster and identify its location at all times. Further, the licensee must have “dynamic control over the boosters’ transmit power” and have the authority and ability to turn off the booster for any reason at any time. Alternatively, AT&T proposes that the booster have “automatic gain control functionality that adjusts the power provided to the booster based on distance to the relevant base station.”

Second, AT&T proposes that signal boosters may only be operated on a channelized basis on the frequencies authorized for use by the wireless licensee whose signal is being boosted. AT&T suggests that manufacturers could meet this requirement by selling carrier-specific narrowband boosters or by designing “intelligent” boosters that limit transmissions to the spectrum licensed to the carrier whose signal is being boosted.

Third, AT&T proposes that signal boosters be designed with oscillation detection and will terminate transmission when oscillation occurs.

Fourth, AT&T proposes an expanded certification process for signal boosters that are to be used pursuant to a presumptive authorization. Specifically, the booster would be subject to (1) the Commission’s equipment certification process; (2) an industry-driven certification process;105 and (3) individual licensee approval to ensure compliance with the licensee’s proprietary confidential network protocols.

Fifth, AT&T proposes that any presumptive authorization standards be applied prospectively and that the Commission bring enforcement action against parties that sell, market, or use devices that do not meet the presumptive standard.

Wilson Electronics is a major manufacturer of cell signal boosters.

Equipment manufacturers are not impressed with AT&T’s ideas.  One tells Stop the Cap! if adopted, signal boosting equipment would cost more than double today’s average price of $200-400.

“AT&T has built so many requirements into their proposal, they know the result will be a product too expensive to sell to consumers,” the source tells us.  “And the part where AT&T wants the right to authorize and register the equipment gives them the option of charging a fee for doing so, turning the product into yet another way for AT&T to make money.”

Equipment manufacturers agree that there have been instances of interference problems, and they are willing to work with the Commission to find solutions, but not at the risk of adopting proposals some suspect are designed to destroy the signal booster business.

“AT&T is a control freak, plain and simple,” the source says.  “If they don’t own it or control it, it’s offensive to them.  It must be eliminated.”

More than one equipment manufacturer has noted, not for attribution, they find AT&T’s complaints a bit ironic.

“This is the same company that is already notorious for dropping calls,” said the source.  “You would think they would look favorably on anything that could deliver ‘more bars in more places,’ because AT&T sure isn’t doing it these days.  Just ask their customers.”

iPad Owners:  Don’t get too comfortable with the channel lineup on Time Warner Cable’s free app for watching streamed HD video of some of your favorite cable networks.  What you see today may be gone tomorrow (or replaced by something else.)

Time Warner Cable’s ongoing effort to implement their TV Everywhere-vision have run headlong into a legal quagmire as some content owners object to the new service.

Back in March when the app first appeared, the cable company was offering a few dozen channels of national cable feeds, with a heavy emphasis on news and mainstream cable networks.  But then Viacom, News Corp., and Discovery Communications protested, claiming the cable operator had not negotiated streaming rights for their networks.  Viacom and Time Warner Cable are currently suing one another over the matter.

Although some programmers use the excuse streamed video could reach “unauthorized viewers who do not have a cable subscription,” viewing restrictions imposed by Time Warner Cable makes that unlikely.  The cable operator requires viewers to watch from a Time Warner Cable Wi-Fi broadband connection.  Wi-Fi hotspots don’t work; neither does access from 3G or 4G mobile broadband networks.  The cable company says that restriction is by design.

“We believe that the location inside the home grants us the rights, provided the method of delivery is over a traditional cable network which is exactly what we’re doing,” Time Warner Cable’s Alex Dudley told NY1, Time Warner’s 24-hour news channel in New York City. “This is not programming delivered over the Internet; this is delivered over our network just like your cable television is delivered, and then to your Wi-Fi router where it reaches your iPad.”

So it is really about money.  Programmers want extra compensation from the cable company for streaming their content, and the cable company doesn’t want to pay extra.

While negotiators and the courts untangle the mess, the cable operator has been adding some channels while deleting others.  The big losers: Animal Planet, Black Entertainment Television, Country Music Television, Comedy Central, Discovery Channel, FX, MTV, National Geographic, Nickelodeon, Spike, TLC and VH1 — are all currently off the lineup.

The winners: C-SPAN, which gets all three of its channels streamed.  A variety of other “enlightened” (Time Warner Cable’s words) cable networks have given the green light to be a part of the project.  Recently added: AMC, Bio, Bloomberg, CNBC World, Chiller, Current, Disney XD, ESPN News, G4, Golf Channel, History International, HSN, IFC, Jewelry TV, Lifetime, NY1, Oxygen, QVC, Reelz, Sleuth, Soap Channel, Style, and Tru TV.  (In New York City, Galavision, History en Español, PBS Kids Sprout, and We are also included.)

For channels like Bio, Chiller, Current, and Reelz — buried in Digital Channel Siberia on the cable dial only to be found by the most ardent channel surfers — getting a prominent place on an app with just a few dozen channels competing for viewers is exposure gold.

We’ve tested the app here at STC HQ and found the picture quality and responsiveness to be excellent.  Channel changing is nearly as fast on the app as it is on our set top box — quite an accomplishment.  But the restrictions imposed by Time Warner really limit the app’s usefulness.  After all, if you want to watch television at home, why reach for an iPad when your television remote control is nearby.  But for those without digital cable boxes, or who want to wander around the house while watching, Time Warner’s app is useful, and better yet — free to those who already subscribe to cable television.

It's "Return of the Astroturf Groups"

It did not take more than a few hours for the first non-profit and “minority advocacy” groups to hurry out press releases applauding the announced merger intentions of AT&T and T-Mobile.

Winning approval of the merger in Washington will take a full court press by lobbyists and organizations that claim to represent “the public interest,” even if the merger will likely raise prices for the constituents they ostensibly represent.  Too often, these groups also fail to openly disclose they have board members that work for the telecommunications industry or welcome large financial contributions made by one or both companies.  That makes it difficult for the average consumer to discern whether matters of arcane telecommunications policy are truly of interest to these organizations or whether they are simply returning a favor to the companies that write them checks.

The Communications Workers of America, the union representing many AT&T employees, has been applauding the announced merger on their website, “Speed Matters.”  It’s hard to blame the union for supporting the merger — it opens the door to union membership for T-Mobile employees.  The union does a good job representing their workers, and their interests often are shared by consumers.  For instance, the CWA has smartly opposed Verizon landline sell-0ffs to third party companies, which have tended to bring bad results for ratepayers.  But their website does trumpet some sketchy organizations not well known outside of the dollar-a-holler advocacy industry.

Take “The Hispanic Institute” (THI).  This obscure “group” chose a name for itself suspiciously similar to the much larger and more prominent National Hispanic Institute.  That’s where the similarity ends, however.

The Hispanic Institute believes the AT&T and T-Mobile merger will bring harmony and joy to the Latino community clamoring for mobile broadband:

“The proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile will move us closer to universal mobile broadband deployment. When we consider how essential mobile technology is to empowering communities, we conclude that this proposal is good for Hispanic America. It provides an opportunity to amplify the growth in mobile broadband adoption by both English and Spanish speaking Americans.”

AT&T regularly contributes substantially to Urban League programs.

In fact, the only thing most Latinos will find after the merger is higher prices for reduced levels of service.  T-Mobile’s aggressive pricing and innovative (and sometimes disruptive) packages are well-known in the industry, and they are a frequent choice of budget-minded consumers, including many members of the Latino community.  It does little good to expand mobile broadband service that many cannot afford.  Reduced competition always leads to higher prices, a fact of life missed by THI.

Perhaps THI’s misguided support for the merger was an aberration.  But then again, maybe not.  The group also promotes a pharmaceutical industry-funded scare site designed to convince Americans that prescription drugs imported from Canada are dangerous and unsafe.  Calgary is apparently the new Calcutta, when you have a vested interest in stopping people from saving a fortune on their medication by buying it north of the border.

Perhaps that was also just “an error in judgment.”  But little doubt remains after you read their spirited defense of the bottom-feeding payday loan industry (even though they claim they are not.)

Friends of Big Pharma, Payday Loan Gougers, and A Bigger AT&T are no friends of mine… or yours.

The Urban League is a regular recipient of AT&T cash.  In return, the group is no stranger to advocating for the phone company’s political agenda.  One of their chapters belongs to the ultimate in Astroturf groups — Broadband for America.  How many organizations cautiously optimistic about a telecom industry merger would rush out a press release about it?  They did:

“The pending merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA holds potential opportunity for an expanded, diverse workforce … We plan to carefully observe the upcoming regulatory process and look forward to a transition that is guided by AT&T’s commitment to diversity and equal opportunity. We have every reason to be optimistic,” said Marc Morial, president and CEO.

Speed Matters somehow forgot to mention AT&T is a major member of the Alliance they quote in support of the merger.

Of course he does.

Then there is the ultimate in echo chamber advocacy courtesy of the Alliance for Digital Equality:

“The merger of T-Mobile USA and AT&T will enable rapid broadband coverage for most of the nation — including many lower-income and rural communities that have been largely underserved — through an expanded 4G LTE deployment to 95% of the U.S. population within six years. This is a huge step forward in making President Obama’s vision of reaching 98% of Americans a reality.

“What’s more, wireless broadband has shown tremendous promise in bringing our communities of color into the digital age — something that an increasing number of studies and reports have shown we have got to improve upon if we are going to bridge the digital divide that exists in this country. This merger puts the right technologies into the communities that need it, at the right time… and at the right price.” — Julius Hollis, Chief Executive Officer

Missing from these glowing words is an admission that AT&T is a major member of the Alliance.

It’s the coalition of the willing to sell out consumers.

Phillip Dampier

I could spend all day refuting sloppy ‘accepted as true with no fact-checking’-reporting done by news organizations on the issue of Internet Overcharging.  Facts not in evidence:

• Assumptions that what is “fair” in wireless must be fair on wired networks;
• Everyone is doing it around the world so North America should do the same;
• People are not paying “their fair share” for the growing amount of usage.

It’s all a big bucket of wrong, and the only thing getting rolled over month after month are consumers.

Yesterday, it was GigaOM telling us “Comcast DSL” (?) had no usage caps at all.  (They do — 250GB per month, and they sell cable broadband, not landline DSL.)

Today, it’s ComputerWorld‘s Matt Hamblen, who blows it right in the first paragraph:

Data caps on nearly all wireless and wired networks in the U.S. seem likely to be in place soon, despite the latest unlimited data offers from Verizon Wireless and Sprint.

Impressive crystal ball gazing there.  Nearly all networks will be capped?  Even though Sprint is banking its near-future on selling unlimited use plans and the economics of wireless are considerably different than wired broadband, Hamblen boldly predicts near-universal usage caps, even as most providers have no formal caps at all.

Hamblen’s journey starts with a survey of capped broadband offerings on the wireless side.  Spectrum issues and the nature of wireless technology makes providing unlimited use plans more challenging, especially when users consider their mobile broadband service a home broadband replacement.  Some have even left peer-to-peer software running in the background 24 hours a day.  It was this, according to Clearwire, that did in that provider’s unlimited service, which is now heavily speed-throttled in many areas.

Stop the Cap! has argued repeatedly current generation wireless broadband will never be a suitable replacement for traditional wired broadband, unless your use is confined to web browsing, e-mail, and occasional multimedia.  The capacity isn’t there and the technology is susceptible to serious speed loss in congested areas.  That is not to say future wireless technology might not change this reality.  The political debate over re-purposing unused UHF television channel frequencies for wireless broadband is just getting underway in Washington.

But trying to draw arguments from the wireless world for usage caps across wired broadband networks is where the line ends.

Hamblen predicts because AT&T wants to gouge its wired broadband customers (many who are now cancelling service and heading back to the cable company, when possible), now everyone will be going to the Internet Overcharging party:

Data caps on both wired and wireless customers are widespread, even if they annoy some smartphone early adopters in the U.S. Ars Technica listed the policies of 11 different wired network data caps for several different countries.

Hamblen’s report isn’t simply false — it’s sloppy.  Wired broadband usage limits are not widespread in the United States, and despite Ars Technica‘s sampler, the trend globally is away from usage-capped wired broadband, not towards it.  Evidently Hamblen didn’t bother to read Matthew Lasar’s piece, which includes references to BT in the United Kingdom moving towards unlimited use service in the near future, Canadian consumers’ victories against usage-based billing preserving unlimited use plans from resellers, and Australia’s own ever-increasing usage allowances.

In fact, even Lasar missed the fact several Australian ISPs now sell unlimited use plans themselves — something unheard of just a few years ago.  As in Britain, some users who consume over 300GB in a month may find their speeds reduced at peak usage times, but only until capacity improvements allow the throttles to be removed.  Even South Africa, one of the most challenging places to deliver 21st century broadband, has providers delivering unlimited use service.

Hamblen then moves on to another inaccurate argument — consumers will simply reserve their high bandwidth downloads on smartphones for the office Wi-Fi network, that will also face usage caps.

Except virtually every usage cap that does pop up in the United States applies to residential accounts only.  Commercial accounts are exempt, as are the Wi-Fi networks powered by them, especially for cable broadband-based service that is increasingly popular with small and medium sized companies.

Although Wall Street wants usage caps and regularly says they are inevitable, that does not make them reality.  Consumers certainly do not want them and will cancel service with a provider if an uncapped alternative exists.  While certain providers, their backers on Wall Street, and some dollar-a-holler groups defending them all have a financial interest in pushing memes about Internet Overcharging, members of the media should not.