GCI delivers unlimited downloads of customers' money.

GCI spokesman David Morris either does not know what his own company does to abuse its customers or he openly lied about it in statements to the media:

GCI said it hasn’t yet charged anyone fees for exceeding the data limits (some customers dispute this), but the company began contacting its heaviest data users this summer to move them to new, limited plans. The company is also upgrading Internet speed for its customers this year at no extra cost.

GCI said it hasn’t decided when to enforce the data limits on everyone else. The crackdown might not happen until next year, according to Morris.

Apparently Morris is living in a time warp, because “next year” is this year.

After our article earlier this morning, Stop the Cap! started receiving e-mail from angry GCI customers with bills showing outrageous overlimit fees running into the hundreds of dollars GCI claims they are not charging.

Our reader Steve in Alaska sums it up:

“GCI is a bad actor that abuses its customers with bait and switch broadband, baiting customers with expensive unlimited bundled plans and then switching them to limited plans with unjustified fees,” he writes. “A legal investigation exploring whether this company is violating consumer protection laws is required, especially after misrepresenting the nature of these overcharges in the Alaskan media through its spokesman.”

GCI is apparently iterating the credit card industry’s tricks and traps.

Our reader Scott’s latest broadband bill shows just how abusive GCI pricing can get:

GCI: the Grinch That Stole the Internet (click to enlarge)

Scott was floored by GCI’s Festival of Overcharging, which turned a $55 a month bill for broadband into nearly $200.  It exemplifies everything we’ve warned about over the past two years with these pricing schemes:

Well it finally happened, I got hit with GCI internet bill shock, $196.58 total for my 8Mbps plan with 25GB usage.

My usage prior to this has always been around 15-20GB/mo according to them — just the usual web surfing/e-mail with a little online gaming over the weekends (Eve Online) but not much.

Something ratcheted up my usage to nearly twice that (I did buy one game off Steam for digital delivery), which still would have been perfectly reasonable given the $75.00/mo plan I chose — that’s double what most people pay for unlimited in the lower 48 states. I only moved to this plan because their $135/mo bundle plan wasn’t affordable due to the required overpriced digital phone + taxes.

I tried calling their customer service and just got the company line about how expensive it was to provide their service, and I must have an open Wi-Fi router or “downloaded” too many YouTube videos, iTunes, or other content. He also stressed five or six times lots of customers go over their limits thanks to Netflix streaming and you really can’t use it with GCI Internet service.

To date I’ve never gotten a straight story from them on how this is managed, or from their marketing material which never mentioned overage until recently, or their reps that used to say you’d get a phone call to warn you if you went over their limits. The rep I spoke to most recently claims you’re supposed to call them daily or every other day – or login to a special portal online to monitor usage.

Either way this company has no sense of customer service, nor does it operate in the interest of Alaskan consumers that are cut off from the lower 48 and need reliable and affordable Internet services.

Stop the Cap! recommends making a copy of David Morris’ comments and notifying GCI you are not paying their overage fees because they are “obviously in error,” at least according to the company’s own spokesman.  Then get on the line with the State of Alaska’s Consumer Protection Unit and the Better Business Bureau and demand your overlimit fees be credited or refunded.  We’ve even got the complaint form started for you.  GCI values its A+ Better Business Bureau rating, so chances are very good they’ll take care of you to satisfactorily close the complaint.

GCI’s claims that with Internet usage limits, the company can deliver its customers faster speeds.  But Stop the Cap! argues those speeds are ultimately useless when GCI allows you to use as little as 3 percent of your service before those overlimit fees kick in.

A Broadband Reports reader ran the numbers before speed upgrades made them even worse:

GCI, an Alaskan Internet Service Provider, is getting pummeled by angry customers as they continue to learn the company has launched an Internet Overcharging scheme that limits their broadband use.  Some customer claim the company is actively trying to trick those previously enrolled in unlimited plans into limited service tiers with tantalizing “free speed upgrades.”

Stop the Cap! reader Thomas was one of more than a dozen readers who complained to the Anchorage Daily News about the broadband ripoff.

He is outraged by the bait and switch tactics employed by GCI that sold customers on expensive bundled service packages that promised “unlimited Internet” service the company is now trying to take away.

Thomas first learned GCI had slapped limits on his broadband account… from Stop the Cap! GCI never bothered to inform him, or many other customers, about the new usage limits.  After he read our earlier story, he called GCI and learned he was a victim of Internet Overcharging.

GCI’s limits range from 40-100GB on plans ranging in price from $45-105 per month.

GCI, like most Internet Overchargers, tries to blame its customers for the imposed limits.

GCI estimates that 5 percent of its Internet customers are consuming 70 percent of the company’s available bandwidth. These users share a portion of their Internet cable with other GCI customers, and they have been slowing down the other households’ Internet speed, GCI spokesman David Morris told the Anchorage newspaper.

In an effort to prove their contention that usage limits improve service, GCI handed out free speed upgrades along with usage allowances and attempted to conflate the two.

In reality, most broadband slowdowns come from overselling access and being unwilling to invest in appropriate capacity upgrades to meet the growing needs of customers.  For companies like GCI, imposing usage limits to scare users away from high bandwidth services is cheaper and more profitable than meeting customer demand.

“Most of the under-30 crowd that I know use Netflix and Hulu streaming services so we can watch what we want, when we want. Cable TV does not give us the flexibility we want,” Sean Hogan, an Anchorage accountant, told the newspaper.

“I’m getting charged $180 per month and I don’t even want the phone or cable,” said Mike White, an Anchorage customer who upgraded his data-usage plan recently because he was worried about violating GCI’s limits.

GCI claims its new limits allow customers to do many things they had no interest in doing under their old unlimited plans, like sending millions of e-mail messages or browsing tens of thousands of web pages.  To make the limits sound generous, they made a chart:

Of course, these limits ignore the reality customers do most or all of these things, and if they use their high speed connection to download files or watch the increasing amount of video content delivered in High Definition, they’ll blow through some of GCI’s limits with little effort.

Despite GCI’s claims of generosity, its customers think otherwise, and many are moving to curb their usage to avoid potential penalty fees or service termination the company could impose with enforcement of their caps:

Morris said that most of GCI’s customers will discover that their Internet usage is far below the new limits. Depending on the plan, the limits range between 50 and 125 gigabytes per month.

Chris Bruns, an Anchorage father and college student, isn’t so sure. “I’m in the high-30 (gigabyte) range every month,” he said.

GCI’s cheapest substitute for an unlimited plan is 40 gigabytes — the equivalent of downloading and watching 60 movies per month on your computer.

Bruns found out recently — after calling GCI to ask some questions about his family’s Internet speed and usage — that his previously unlimited plan, called Ultimate Xtreme, now had a 40 gigabyte ceiling.

“I was pretty miffed. It came as a surprise,” he said.

“When we signed up, we specifically got the unlimited plan because we knew we used it a lot,” he said.

He said he has since curbed the family’s Internet usage to be on the safe side. He said he and his wife regularly download movies for themselves and cartoons for their two children on Netflix to watch on their computer. Using Netflix is a way to keep the kids from seeing “garbage” on TV, Bruns said.

Ed Sniffen, a consumer-protection attorney in the Alaska Department of Law, may a victim of GCI’s bait and switch broadband himself.

Sniffen said he has had an unlimited-data plan with GCI and didn’t know on Tuesday afternoon whether he received a notice about the new policy. He said anyone who has a concern should contact the Law Department’s consumer-protection office.

The story in the newspaper prompted an enormous response — some 265 comments and counting.  A sampler:

GCI provides terrible service compared to companies in the lower 48 at exorbitant prices. They are a monopoly that needs to be tweaked.

GCI’s Network costs are FIXED. They are raping and pillaging us.

“GCI said it hasn’t yet charged anyone fees for exceeding the data limits…” — GCI lies. Just a few months ago I was charged nearly $100 for exceeding the bandwidth limit. Since then, I’ve upgraded my package to a ridiculous amount of bandwidth (at a ridiculous price) just so I can avoid that problem.

This is crazy. You go anywhere in the lower 48 and almost every Internet provider out there has some sort of unlimited plan, and it doesn’t involve payment with an arm, a leg, a kidney, or a first-born child. GCI needs to get this crap sorted out.

I got an offer to double my Internet speed and usage for a few bucks extra, and free cable (the good package, not the basic cable). Two months later, I still haven’t seen anyone show up to do anything, and I’m still getting charged out the tail end for overage charges. I keep requesting to up my Internet (I have a college student who takes some Internet classes) but they never do it. The only reasons I switched from ACS were because when it rained we had no phone OR internet (they said the problem was with our lines – our landlord at the time needed to fix it, but the contractor said it was ACS’s line problem – THEY needed to fix it.)  If there was another alternative to phone/Internet, I would so be there.

I was out and out LIED to by a GCI Rep. I was told if I changed my plan I would receive higher speeds with NO OTHER CHANGE for the same price. I questioned the GCI rep about this in detail several times before agreeing. The next day I no longer had unlimited downloads. I was LIED to and RIPPED OFF by GCI.

GCI’s statement that they have not charged overlimit charges is incorrect as over ten individuals that I know including myself have been hit with bills ranging from $300 to $2000 for one month of service.

With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)

Verizon prepaid customers can buy this basic phone from Walmart for just $15.88. But if you want to use this phone on a postpaid plan, Verizon charges up to $200 for the same phone unless you renew your contract.

As AT&T and Verizon discover an increasing amount of their revenue and profits come from their respective wireless divisions, they’re testing the waters to determine just how much more consumers are willing to pay for cell phone and wireless broadband services.

Verizon Wireless has spent the past year closing loopholes of various kinds and herding an increasing number of customers into mandatory data plans which can add up to $30 a month per phone to your monthly bill.  AT&T wants more if you plan on early upgrades for your cell phone.  A quick review:

Verizon Wireless Locks Down Prepaid Phone Models: Anyone who has shopped for a prepaid phone has probably noticed them dangling from hooks in Walmart and other stores at prices starting around $20.  Most of these prepaid phones are basic models or those deemed cutting edge a few years ago.  Take the LG 5600 — the Accolade.  It’s a phone your father would be comfortable with, covering the basics and designed primarily for making and receiving phone calls.  Verizon Wireless’ retail price for its “postpaid” customers (those who get and pay a bill every month) is $199.99 for the Accolade.  Of course, if you sign a new two-year contract, the phone is free.  But you can find the exact same phone, labeled for Verizon’s prepaid service at prices as low as $15.88.

Verizon claims the deep, deep discounts on prepaid phones are made back from the higher prices prepaid customers pay for airtime.  Some enterprising Verizon postpaid customers have sought these models out to replace or upgrade a worn out or broken phone without having to sign a new two-year contract.  Some other prepaid companies have also activated Verizon’s prepaid phones on their own network, including Page Plus.

Verizon has put the kibosh on both practices.  Customers seeking to activate a prepaid phone on a postpaid account must first use the phone in prepaid mode for a minimum of six months prior to its conversion to postpaid use.  Until very recently, some customers discovered a loophole around this requirement — registering a prepaid phone first on Verizon’s website and then activating it by dialing *228.  So long as a phone had never been activated, it often could be used on a postpaid account from the date of purchase.  But now Verizon tracks which phones are intended for postpaid and prepaid use, and that loophole has been closed.

Page Plus, which resells Verizon’s network, also had to stop activating Verizon prepaid phones almost a year ago.

As a result, those who want discounted cell phone service but keep Verizon’s robust network coverage have been forced to buy handsets at retail pricing, purchase one of several mostly refurbished phones direct from Page Plus, or activate an older phone no longer in use.

Avoiding the Data Plan: What drives an increasing number of Verizon off-contract customers towards “creative solutions” for upgrading their more than two year old phones is resistance to the expensive data plan required for most of their newest and best phones.  For these customers, renewing a contract means a plan change that includes $30 a month extra for data services or a phone downgrade to a basic model to avoid a data plan. Verizon’s remaining data-plan exempt handsets are:

• Verizon Wireless CDM8975
• LG Accolade™
• LG Cosmos™
• Pantech Jest™
• Samsung Gusto™
• Verizon Wireless Salute™
• Verizon Wireless Escapade®
• Samsung Haven™
• Samsung Intensity™
• Samsung Convoy™
• Motorola Barrage™

Would you renew a two-year service contract if you had to downgrade your next new phone to a basic model to avoid a mandatory data plan?

For large families accustomed to mid-level phones, the prospect of being stuck with a Jitterbug-like-downgrade or a $30 data plan has kept many from renewing their contracts, sticking with what they already own.

When AT&T announced the end of its flat rate smartphone plan, it said the lower pricing on smaller allowance data packages would represent “savings” for consumers reluctant to upgrade.  It’s hard to accept the same company that set prices so high for data usage in the first place has consumer interests at heart with usage-limited alternatives, especially when they no longer offer an unlimited option for customers who want one.

Verizon also plans to drop its unlimited plan in the near future.  Also on tap is a gradual shift away from so-called “mid-level” phones that consumers can purchase with a reduced rate, but still-mandatory $10 data plan.  Verizon increasingly will push customers between two stark choices — a high-powered, battery-eating smartphone that will give you a heart attack if you drop it or a very basic, stripped down phone with features commonly found on handsets five years ago.

This kind of pricing is driving some cash-strapped consumers to prepaid alternatives, such as Page Plus and Straight Talk on Verizon’s network and Wal-Mart’s new family prepaid plan on T-Mobile.  This is especially true if customers just want to talk and text.

AT&T’s Increases ‘Early Upgrade Price’ for Data-Friendly Smartphones by $125

Boy Genius Report obtained a copy of an AT&T memo to its sales force notifying them the price for “Early Upgrade Pricing,” traditionally charged customers who must have the latest and greatest, or accidentally lose or destroy their existing phone, is going up — way up, from $75 to $200:

Beginning Oct. 3rd, Early (Exception) Upgrade pricing for Smartphones will increase from the two-year price plus $75 to the two-year price plus $200.  This change does not apply to iPhone or Basic and Quick Messaging Phones.

Example: BlackBerry Torch $199.99 two-year price + $200 Early Upgrade fee = total price $399.99, a savings of $100 off the No-Commitment price of $499.99.

In return for just a $100 discount, customers sign a new two-year contract that begins with the phone’s replacement.  That contract includes the usual early termination fee of $325, which decreases by $10 per month.  AT&T watchers speculate the price change was designed to stop resale of relatively new phones on sites like eBay or Craigslist, where sellers charge near-retail prices and eat the formerly low penalty for an early upgrade.  It also makes the price of getting the very newest phones that much higher.

Courtesy: Boy Genius Report

Cell Phone Lobby Resists Requirement for Early Warnings Alerting Customers Their Data Allowance Is Almost Gone: “It Will Cause Customer Confusion and Frustration”

Liz Szalay had to dip into her 401(k) retirement account to pay the family’s $2000 Verizon Wireless bill, gone wild with data fees her 14-year old son ran up searching for and downloading songs.

“I would never have allowed my son to accrue such charges, if I had known,” Szalay, a secretary in Niles, Michigan, told Bloomberg News. “What I did to prevent this from happening in the future was have his Internet access completely blocked by Verizon, but not before they made off with a boatload of money.”

Had Szalay received a text and/or e-mail message warning her one of the phones on her account was approaching 80 percent of its monthly data allowance, or was already at risk of racking up huge fees, it would have been possible to stop the damage before it began.

Sen. Udall wants legislation to warn consumers before they run up enormous wireless bills. The industry calls such warnings "confusing and frustrating" for consumers.

Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, wants to make sure she gets that warning.  Udall drafted legislation that would require companies to warn customers when they have used 80 percent of their allotment.

“It’s difficult for the carriers to get up and argue against greater transparency on bills and notifications,” Christopher King, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Baltimore told Bloomberg. “It’s becoming an issue on the front burner of regulators’ minds.”

The industry’s lobbyists are trying to block the legislation anyway.

The CTIA, the wireless industry lobbying group, is fiercely trying to kill Udall’s bill, claiming warnings will cause “customer confusion and frustration” and that carriers already offer customers the opportunity to check their usage by visiting carrier websites or via a text message.

The lobbyist solution requires consumers to be vigilant and check daily to make sure they don’t exceed any limits.  Udall’s idea puts the onus on phone companies to warn customers, who often have family members that have no idea what kind of cash bonanza they can provide a wireless provider just by using data features built into their phones.

Szalay’s son has a phone that doesn’t require a data plan, but incurs an enormous $1.99 in charges for every megabyte accessed online.  Verizon’s own website notes customers can consume 183 megabytes of data streaming music just five minutes a day for a month.  That’s $364 in data charges.  Five minutes downloading games — 440 megabytes or $875 in data fees.  One need not use their phone for hours a day to incur enormous fees for data usage.  Szalay’s son could have managed the $2,000 bill he caused using his phone for less than 15 minutes each day.

Verizon does not allow customers hit with these bills to retroactively sign up for a data plan to cover the costs, which are the same to Verizon whether a consumer incurs them on an unlimited $30 monthly data plan, or on a pay per use plan with a stinging penalty rate.

And the company objects to any government official telling them to warn customers before the overlimit fees kick in.

“We have several measures in place that allow our customers to monitor their usage and protect against overages — this is a proactive approach on Verizon’s part,” Verizon’s Smith told Bloomberg in an e-mailed statement.

How to Protect Yourself

Both Verizon and AT&T are masters of extracting a maximum amount of money from customers’ pockets.  Verizon is increasingly risking its high rating for customer service and quality by finding new ways to nickel and dime even long time customers to death.  AT&T already has earned a bad reputation and can’t drop much further unless it adopts Sprint’s old strategy of driving its own customers away.  Only through education and careful consideration of your family’s actual usage can you safely navigate around these shark-like wallet biters.

1.  Avoid cell phone company insurance plans unless you are concerned about theft.  With “early upgrade” plans, even at AT&T’s $200 price, it may not be worth paying an expensive monthly fee for insurance.  Also consider Squaretrade, a third party warranty/replacement provider.  They charge considerably lower prices than most (Google around for coupon codes offering up to 30 percent off).  If your phone breaks or is damaged, and you are not on a contract, you might find a suitable refurbished replacement through websites like eBay.  Just make sure the phone wasn’t designated for prepaid service to avoid activation hassles.

2.  If you want Verizon network quality, but don’t want to pay Verizon’s diamond-platinum pricing, consider doing business with one of the new prepaid providers offering month-to-month service that uses the same network as Verizon itself.  Walmart sells Straight Talk, but also consider Page Plus, which offers 1,200 minutes of call time, 1,200 texts, and 50MB of data use for $29.95 per month.  The only downside is that most prepaid providers don’t sell family plans, meaning each user pays the same price.  Walmart’s new prepaid plan changes that with the introduction of a shared family plan, with additional lines given discounted pricing.  But the discounts are not as good as postpaid plans offer, and the service relies on T-Mobile, which is not well-regarded for coverage outside of metropolitan areas.

3.  Smartphones, in addition to being expensive, often deliver horrible battery life.  Some won’t even make it through an entire business day.  Before seeking out one of these premium phones, consider whether you will actually use their features.  Is it worth the price of a $30 a month data plan if you only occasionally use the phone for wireless Internet?  Bragging rights come with a $200 up front price tag and a two year contract that will run up to $720 just for the data plan over two years.  If you drop it, lose it, or it gets stolen, the retail price for most of these phones is north of $500.

4.  Carriers design “gotcha” data pricing into their assumed revenue models.  They know even with online tools, nobody wants the hassle of checking their allowance for data every day, especially when most stopped checking their voice minutes allowance years ago.  While carriers occasionally waive gigantic bills, especially when the media gets involved, you can restrict data access on some or all of your phones if you do not have a data plan and don’t care about this feature.  You should support Senator Udall’s bill as well.  Carrier excuses that a warning message will cause confusion and frustration are laughable.  Getting a $2,000 wireless bill in the mail will cause far more of both.  That the industry objects to even this common sense approach illustrates just how rapacious wireless companies are for additional profits.

5. Educate everyone on your plan about the implications of using the phone to download music and games or watch video.  Unless you are on a flat rate plan, you may want to simply tell your family not to use their phones for these kinds of services without asking permission first.  This gives you an opportunity to check your allowance before Verizon gets a chance to reduce your bank balance.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cell Phone Savings 10-12-10.flv[/flv]

We have four reports covering consumer news on cell phones that can save you money:  KSHB-TV in Kansas City takes a look at Walmart’s new prepaid family plan using T-Mobile’s network, WIVB-TV in Buffalo reports Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) wants carriers to stop international roaming charges when customers end up making and receiving calls on a Canadian provider’s network from the American side of the border, WFTS-TV in Tampa provides tips on getting lower rates from your cell phone company and WTEV-TV in Jacksonville helps customers analyze cell phone bills for savings.  (6 minutes)

Fashionably late, Verizon Wireless intends to change its wireless smartphone data plans to end unlimited usage in the next four to six months, according to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.

Seidenberg said Verizon Wireless’s new data plans, which he says will probably arrive in time for the holiday shopping season, will differ from AT&T’s but he refused to elaborate.

“We’re not sure we agree yet with how they valued the data,” he said at an investor conference Thursday.

The change has been widely anticipated in the wireless industry, as Verizon Wireless and AT&T, the nation’s largest and second largest carriers, charge nearly identical pricing for their wireless services.  Both carriers formerly charged smartphone customers $29.99 per month for unlimited wireless usage.  AT&T eliminated unlimited usage with two new plans unveiled in June with the introduction of the latest Apple iPhone.  One charges customers $15 a month for up to 200Mb of usage, and another charges $25 for up to 2GB of usage per month.  Customers exceeding the limits pay $15 for an additional 200Mb or $10 per gigabyte in additional fees.

Critics charge Verizon’s decision to slap usage limits and overlimit fees on customers is just another attempt to gouge wireless customers, made possible by the two providers’ market power.

Wall Street Journal reader Candace Kalish commented on the new limited usage attitude Verizon seeks to embrace:

What the carriers want is a tiered system with outrageous penalties for slight overages. The banks, car renters, airlines, and credit card issuers do very well with this. It is the most profitable business model since it requires careful underuse or disproportionate costs on the part of their customers. This is why they require people to guess their usage and impose punitive marginal costs on single byte transfers.

[…]I think the carriers’ actions indicate a much greater concern with short term profits rather than long term innovation and even great profitability.

[…]Since carriers impose rates on a take it or leave it basis, I don’t see rates improving much in the near future. I’ll stick with my ancient $30 a month plan and a cheap flip phone with an iPod Touch. When competition kicks in, possibly in the next 10 to 20 years, and they offer more for my money, I’ll consider a smarter phone. Right now the market is still what they used to call a natural monopoly, and the pricing structure proves it.

Seidenberg

Seidenberg made it clear the new Internet Overcharging schemes will arrive in time for the company’s introduction of its fourth generation data network – Long-Term Evolution, more commonly known as LTE.  Earlier, Verizon hinted to its investors it intends to market its LTE service at a premium price, anticipating customers will be willing to pay a higher price for faster service.  This, despite the fact LTE will deliver Verizon dramatically increased capacity at a lower overall cost, in terms of bang for the spectrum buck.

Company officials are still considering whether LTE pricing will carry a per megabyte charge with little or no usage allowance or a more common usage allowance plan with overlimit fees.  Either way, few expect wireless will offer an effective competing alternative to wired broadband service, unless one’s monthly usage is below 5GB.  Above that amount, overlimit fees could quickly accumulate, leaving customers with wireless bill shock.

Dave Burstein, publisher of DSL Prime, commented back in January about wireless data pricing:

Charging at the this level, if the other wireless carriers go along, is a blatant attempt to protect their other services. [A government agency] filing points out the likely reason: “The Commission also must keep in mind that the two largest US wireless providers, Verizon and AT&T, also offer wireline services in major portions of the country, raising the question of whether these providers will market these services as replacements for wireline services.”

If his prices carry the day, the […] broadband plan will accomplish very little. The [plan] implicitly counts on wireless for competition, because new wired networks are highly unlikely and their plan doesn’t change that. Wireless voice in the U.S. is a weak cartel, data a relatively strong cartel. [Verizon’s] signals may inspire the other carriers to also drastically cut the basic data allowance.  Or not.

If there’s a significant cut in the 5GB wireless allowance, then the broadband plan needs a huge redirection to measures that work [in] a telco-cable duopoly. That’s so tough I don’t know if Washington can do that.

Thanks to our regular reader Bones for sending word.