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

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

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

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

Moffett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WRC Washington Bitten by Gigabytes 5-21-12.flv[/flv]

WRC-TV decided to visit with local Washington, D.C. consumers and ask them if they knew what a “gigabyte” was and how many they were using on their cell phone data plan.  Few knew, and even fewer wanted to know, preferring to pay a flat price for worry-free, unlimited data service. Unfortunately, AT&T and Verizon have discontinued their unlimited data plans (Verizon is preparing to throw people off of grandfathered plans when customers upgrade their phones), and T-Mobile throttles customer speeds to near-dial-up after their monthly allowance is reached. Only Sprint sells truly unlimited data, but many customers find Sprint’s data speeds lacking. Consumer reporter Liz Crenshaw visits with Public Knowledge to help educate consumers about what the average 2GB plan really buys.  (3 minutes)

They're not so great at broadband mapping, but they are excellent at connecting the political dots to get their contract renewed.

The telecommunications industry-dominated Connected Nation, a group created to spur industry-friendly broadband expansion, is at the center of a scandal that cost taxpayers nearly $4 million to produce a broadband availability map critics contend is error-ridden and incomplete.

The non-profit Kentucky company, which historically has close ties to some of the nation’s largest phone companies, has learned how to play political games to win lucrative contracts while producing less-than-useful results, according to a new investigation by the Miami Herald.

When Florida’s Department of Management Services (DMS) decided Connected Nation’s performance in the state was lacking, it decided to let the state’s contract with the group expire and seek other bidders.

That is a remarkable turnaround for an agency that three years earlier took bids from the group’s state chapter — Connect Florida, who estimated the cost of mapping broadband in the state at around $7.1 million.  Another bidder, ISC of Tallahassee was a real bargain, offering to do the project for $2.8 million.  Connected Nation won. So much for awarding contracts to the lowest bidder.

It turned out the judges scoring the two groups were split, until a former BellSouth (AT&T) executive serving as a judge on the panel put his thumb on the scale, awarding an astounding 51 points to Connected Nation, itself shown to have past ties to AT&T.  The other judges scored no more than 15 points in either direction.

Undercut Connected Nation's bid by millions but still lost.

ISC, a homegrown Florida business, was stunned. Managing Partner Edwin Lott told Public Knowledge in 2009:

“Florida’s small businesses are working harder than ever to survive in this challenging economy. ISC, like other small businesses around the country, have had our hopes raised with Congress’s efforts to stimulate the economy with the Reinvestment Act and other initiatives. It originally appeared these initiatives were going to provide regional funding to sustain and promote jobs in the communities served by local and state governments.

“Our raised hopes were dashed as Connected Nation appeared to use its ‘connections’ in Florida to ensure its success in what was supposed to be a competitive procurement.”

DMS officials have apparently learned their lesson (at taxpayer expense), but Connected Nation isn’t going quietly. The non-profit group unleashed a high-powered lobbying campaign directed at the state legislature in Tallahassee to get its contract renewed to continue mapping Florida’s broadband future.

Williams

It worked, but only after the group’s critics at DMS were effectively bypassed. The legislature approved and Florida governor Rick Scott signed legislation that transferred broadband mapping away from the agency altogether, launching a new one — the Department of Economic Opportunity, to handle broadband matters effective July 1.

At least this time, taxpayers will have to pay less. Connected Nation’s latest bid was half of its original price, undercutting other bidders.

Rep. Alan Williams, a Tallahassee Democrat told the Herald price does not matter as much as political connections in the state legislature.

“Is this a favor to Connected Nation and a lobbyist or is this really good government?’’ Williams asked. “Is this really being accountable and efficient to the state of Florida the way the governor wants to be?”

Sen. Don Gaetz (R-Niceville) told the newspaper Florida state government is rife with insider influence peddling, and that appears to be the case with Connected Nation’s contract.

The group’s potent lobbying team included Lanny Wiles, the husband of the governor’s campaign manager; Al Cardenas, the former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and head of the Conservative Political Action Committee; and Slater Bayliss, a one-time aide to former Gov. Jeb Bush.

The entertainment industry, in cooperation with the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers, joined forces to open a new copyright enforcement center that critics charge sidesteps judicial process, leaving consumers forced to prove they are innocent after they’ve been accused of being guilty.

On Monday, the Center for Copyright Infringement named its executive director and board, and intends to gradually begin serving as a clearinghouse for copyright infringement complaints brought by the nation’s music and movie companies.

CCI has representatives from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communications collectively working to streamline enforcement of copyright law and control Internet piracy.

Often known as the “Six Strikes Plan,” CCI participants will coordinate piracy notification warnings for suspected illicit downloads of copyrighted content from peer-to-peer file sharing networks.  Hollywood studios and recording labels will identify those they suspect are involved in illegal file swapping and participating ISPs will notify customers tied to the infringing IP addresses up to six times before reducing a customer’s Internet speed, temporarily disabling the account, or terminating service.

The CCI hopes to bypass the court system and adopt a self-regulation, “in-house” approach to Internet piracy.  Some courts have proven increasingly-reluctant to hand over identifying information to copyright holders based on the sometimes-flimsy evidence of illegal downloading included in supporting affidavits.  Judges in some courts have also become leery of a cottage industry of “settlement specialists” that threaten expensive litigation for alleged copyright infringement that can be resolved with a quick cash settlement.

Judge James F. Holderman of the Northern District of Illinois ruled against one litigant who demanded ISPs divulge the identities of every participant exchanging bits and pieces of a copyrighted work in a so-called “BitTorrent swarm,” because they were involved in a conspiracy.  Holderman dismissed that argument.

Such tactics have allowed some settlement specialists to demand settlement payments from a larger group, substantially boosting revenue at little cost to them.

CCI’s executive director Jill Lesser says laws no longer favor copyright holders.

“While laws that protect intellectual property remain strong and enforcement efforts continue, technology has tipped the balance away from the interests of most creators and artists,” Lesser said. “The ease of distribution of copyrighted content has helped create a generation of people who believe that all content should be free.”

CCI’s so-called “Copyright Control System” will bypass the courts entirely, as entertainment companies coordinate directly with major ISPs agreeing to enforce copyright compliance.

Lesser says consumers will still have a fair process to challenge notices of alleged infringement.  But it will cost at least $35 for consumers to argue their case.  Additionally, as a self-regulated, industry-controlled body, consumers’ rights of appeal are undetermined.  The arbitration process will be administered through the American Arbitration Association.

Why would ISPs want to become involved in a copyright control regime?  To reduce their own expenses and legal risks.  Copyright holders and their agents have peppered service providers with compliance and identification demands for years, creating full time positions processing the paperwork.  By adopting a clearinghouse and developing a streamlined process to handle complaints, service providers can cut costs and avoid possible litigation against themselves.

Still, both the entertainment industry and ISPs seem to be open to listening to consumer advocates.  Lesser was formerly involved with People for the American Way, a group sensitive to privacy rights.  Serving on the advisory board are Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge and Jerry Berman, founder of the Center for Democracy and Technology.  Neither have direct authority over the group’s enforcement efforts, but Sohn told Ars Technica she hoped her involvement would give a voice to consumer interests and maintain transparency in the enforcement process.

Comcast Monday announced it was exempting its new Xbox streaming video service from the company’s long standing 250GB monthly usage cap, claiming since the network doesn’t exist on the public Internet, there is no reason to cap its usage.

Net Neutrality advocates immediately denounced the cable operator for violating Net Neutrality, giving favorable treatment to its own video service while leaving Netflix, Amazon, and others under its usage cap regime.

Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn:

“The Xbox 360 provides a number of video services to compete for customer dollars, yet only one service is not counted against the data cap—the one provided by Comcast.” Sohn said. “This is nothing less than a wake-up call to the Commission to show it is serious about protecting the Open Internet.”

Stop the Cap! believes Comcast also inadvertently undercut its prime argument for the company’s 250GB usage cap — that it assures “heavy users” don’t negatively impact the online experience of other customers:

We work hard to manage our network resources effectively and fairly to ensure a high-quality online experience for all of our customers. But XFINITY Internet service runs on a shared network, so every user’s experience is potentially affected by his or her neighbors’ Internet usage.

Our number one priority is to ensure that every customer has a superior Internet service experience. Consistent with that goal, the threshold is intended to protect the online experience of the vast majority of our customers whose Internet speeds could be degraded because one or more of their neighbors engages in consistent high-volume Internet downloads and uploads.

The threshold also addresses potential problems that can be caused by the exceedingly small percentage of subscribers who may engage in very high-volume data consumption (over 250 GB in a calendar month). By applying a very high threshold on monthly consumption, we can help preserve a good online experience for everyone.

Comcast argues around the exemption of the Xbox service by reclassifying it as somehow separate from the public Internet.  The company then tries to claim the Xbox app functions more like an extra set top box, not as a data service.  But, in fact, it –is– a data service delivered over the same cable lines as Comcast’s broadband service, subject to the same “last-mile congestion problem” Comcast dubiously uses as the primary justification for placing limits on customers.

Cable providers who limit broadband use routinely use the “shared network experience” excuse as a justification for usage control measures.  Since cable broadband delivers a fixed amount of bandwidth into individual neighborhoods which everyone shares, a single user or small group of users can theoretically create congestion-related slowdowns during peak usage times.  Cable operators have successfully addressed this problem with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which supports a considerably larger pipeline unlikely to be congested by a few “heavy users.”

Comcast’s argument the Xbox service doesn’t deserve to be capped because it is delivered over Comcast’s own internal network misses the point.  That content reaches customers over the same infrastructure Comcast uses to reach every customer.  If too many customers access the service at the same time, it is subject to precisely the same congestion-related slowdowns as their broadband service.  Data is data — only the cable company decides whether to treat it equally with its other services or give it special, privileged attention.

Even if Comcast argues the Xbox streaming service exists on its own segregated, exclusive “data channel,” that represents part of a broader data pipeline that could have been dedicated to general Internet use.  The fact that special pipeline is available exclusively for Comcast’s chosen favorites, while keeping usage limits on immediate competitors, is discriminatory.

Comcast customers who have lived under an inflexible 250GB usage limit since 2008 should be wondering why the company can suddenly open unlimited access to some services while refusing to adjust its own usage limits on general broadband service.

Stop the Cap! believes Comcast has forfeit its own justification for usage caps and network management techniques that can slow customer Internet speeds.  We have no problem with the company offering unlimited access to the Xbox streaming service. But the company must treat general Internet access with equal generosity, removing the unjustified and arbitrary usage cap it imposed on customers in 2008.  After all, if the company can find vast, unlimited resources for a service it launched only this year, it should be able to find equal resources for a service it has sold customers (at a remarkable profit) for more than a decade.

Anything less makes us believe Comcast’s usage caps are more about giving some services an unfair advantage — violating the very Net Neutrality guidelines Comcast claimed it would voluntarily honor.

Stop the Cap! strongly believes usage caps are increasingly less about good network management and more about controlling and monetizing the online experience, seeking marketplace advantages and new revenue streams from consumers who already pay some of the world’s highest prices for broadband service.  As we’ve argued since 2008, Internet Overcharging through usage caps and usage based billing is also an end run around Net Neutrality.  The evidence is now apparent for all to see.

[Thanks to our readers Scott and Yannio for sharing developments.]