Some of America’s largest media companies are starting to get nervous over reported stipulations Comcast and NBC-Universal must meet in order to win FCC approval of their merger deal.

The Wall Street Journal reports ‘all-lobbyists-on-deck’ as companies fear collateral damage to their own nascent online video businesses.

At issue is the FCC-proposed condition that would require Comcast to offer NBC programming to any online video service that has reached a similar deal for content from at least one of NBC’s competitors, such as Walt Disney Co. or News Corp.

That could create a highly competitive online video marketplace, with open access to video programming — content many companies want to tightly control.

Last week, lobbyists from Disney, News Corp., and Time Warner pelted the FCC with filings fearing Comcast-NBC deal stipulations could also impact their businesses, potentially risking exclusivity deals with firms like Netflix or Apple.  At the worst, such rules could permit the development of virtual ‘online cable systems,’ delivering hundreds of hours of programming daily — more than enough to potentially invite customers to turn away from traditional cable-TV or satellite packages.

Perish the thought, suggest some Wall Street analysts who are prepared to downgrade companies that cannot maximize revenue from a controlled online video marketplace.

The three companies, among others, have suggested language that limits any stipulations exclusively to the Comcast-NBC deal, or changing the terms to impact their own operations less.

Public interest groups continue to press their views that the proposed deal delivers nothing to consumers but higher bills and fewer programming choices.

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, joined with more than two dozen public interest groups urging a more careful review of the deal:

“We believe that a merger of this size and scope will have a devastating effect on the media marketplace,” a letter to President Barack Obama and Congress says. “It will result in less competition, higher consumer costs and fewer content choices. It also will give one company unprecedented control over innovative new media that offer news, information, entertainment and cultural programming through emerging technologies.”

Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union, said this proposed merger could have major consequences for consumers: “This merger would combine a major television network and film studio with the nation’s largest cable company and residential broadband provider, which could be a recipe for disaster. This merged giant has great potential to lead to higher cable and broadband rates for consumers, less competition in online video, and less diversity among the programming choices for viewers. There are no clear benefits to consumers from this merger.”

Comcast has agreed to several stipulations that are supposed to protect consumers.  Among them, a three-year requirement Comcast provide standalone Internet service to consumers for $49.95 a month.  But the deal says nothing about Comcast’s Internet Overcharging scheme — an arbitrary usage cap on their broadband service.

Comcast would also agree to adhere to Net Neutrality rules (as defined by the FCC) for up to seven years.  Since those rules are closely aligned to what Comcast volunteered to follow earlier, there was little reservation agreeing to them going forward.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Deal May Hang on Showing Rivals Online Video 12-23-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News’ Todd Shields explains the proposed conditions the FCC seeks to impose on the Comcast-NBC merger deal.  (12/23/2010 — 4 minutes)

"This will never end well."

Stop the Cap! and our allies Free Press teamed up to expose Frontier’s usage limits for what they are — a broadband ripoff.

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran an excellent piece on Frontier’s latest embarrassing screw-up: driving their declining landline broadband customers away with unjustified and arbitrary usage caps.

One new piece of the story: Frontier could bring its usage rationing sideshow to a community near you.  As Stop the Cap! informed readers from the beginning, the company has quietly been tracking customers’ usage, looking for outliers they can suggest are using too much.  Now the company says it is ready to drop the hammer on heavy users.

Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager — Frontier Communications:

“The company letters were sent to customers that are using an excessive amount of the network. Well beyond any reasonable amount for an average user and significant enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

The letters are meant to communicate to these customers that their usage is in excess and we would like to work with them to adjust their plan or their usage. In most cases our customers were not aware of their usage patterns and are willing to work with us to adjust their plans to fit their lifestyles. We do not have a customer capacity on our network. We are looking to work with these customers to help prevent degradation on our network to ensure the customer experience.

The pricing structure was put in place to help us maintain the network experience for all customers. If you choose to use a significant amount of bandwidth we believe you should pay for the service accordingly.

The letters were sent to four markets across the company. We routinely review network usage patterns and these users jumped out as consuming an inordinate amount of bandwidth, enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

All of Frontier markets are reviewed for usage patterns as the markets receiving the letters were reviewed. These specific markets were not targeted.

The customers using an excessive amount of data negatively impact the network for other users. Preventing us from providing adequate bandwidth to all of our users during peak and non-peak times.”

There is less and less to like about Frontier Communications, despite the fact they plan to deliver broadband service to rural Americans unlikely to see it from anyone else.  We’re glad someone is willing to provide the service, but 1-3Mbps broadband with arbitrary usage limits and potentially confiscatory pricing ($250 a month for residential customers), is a trade the devil might make.

Stop the Cap! will continue to organize opposition to Frontier’s foolish pricing schemes wherever they appear.  We will help customers find an alternate provider wherever possible, preferably one that remembers a customer should be treated like gold, not mined for it.

In suburban Sacramento, we highly recommend SureWest — a fiber-to-the-home service provider that not only has no Internet Overcharging scheme, but provides service at speeds that frankly embarrass Frontier’s last-century DSL.  They will even cover up to $200 of any early cancellation fee Frontier charges (and if Frontier tries, we want to know about it).

Our reader, Mr. Brown, was pleasantly surprised to find that SureWest’s speeds just blow Frontier out of the water.  He’s saying goodbye to his 6/0.5Mbps DSL line from Frontier and hello to 25/25Mbps service from SureWest that will also save him $10 a month!  He is also happy to see the back of Frontier’s Overcharging Nanny telling him to get off the Internet.

“[These caps] are a slippery slope and Internet providers need to know that action such as these will result in lost profits,” Mr. Brown wrote on KOVR’s website.  Departing customers typically drop -all- of their Frontier services, costing the company landline revenue as well.

Indeed, Frontier continues to lose more landline customers than its adds, and bungling policies like overcharging for Internet service will only accelerate the departure of angry customers.

Unfortunately, Frontier’s failures extend way beyond their broadband service.

The golden parachute for some, just not for you.

Frontier’s way of doing business has:

• given customers one more reason to cancel their landline service;
• ruined a fiber-to-the-home service that a child should be able to market successfully;
• irritated subscribers with “price protection agreements” that are little more than tricks and traps — delivering all of the protection to Frontier’s bottom line and making you pay the price;
• destroyed what few reasons remain for customers to waste their time with DSL broadband wherever cable or municipal providers exist;
• delivered big dividends and results only to shareholders, siphoning away important financial resources needed to upgrade their facilities.

In Everett, Washington Frontier cannot even manage the steady flow of customers canceling FiOS video service after news of a shocking $30 a month rate increase.  After telling customers they should “upgrade” their Frontier service to DirecTV satellite, those customers that tried encountered news that DirecTV never heard of the promotion Frontier was offering:

Two hours on the phone, six customer service people and a disconnected call — it wasn’t the introduction to DirecTV that one local man had hoped.

A FiOS television customer, Rick Wright sought to take advantage of an offer made last week by Frontier Communications and its partner, DirecTV.

[…]When Wright called initially, the Frontier customer service person was familiar with Frontier’s offer and transferred Wright to DirecTV to get an installation date before cancelling his FiOS TV service. At DirecTV, Wright spoke to six people over a two-hour span before being disconnected. Wright called back to DirecTV the following day only to be told that he was misinformed about the offer. Frontier spokeswoman Stephanie Beasly said Thursday that she was taking care of Wright’s problem.

On Friday, more than a week after Frontier first announced its new offer, Wright said his television service still remained up in the air. Several other FiOS television customers in Snohomish County reported difficulty in getting the free DirecTV offer.

Late last week, Frontier acknowledged some miscommunication between the company and its partner, DirecTV. On Thursday, Beasly said she believed those issues had been resolved. She did not return a request for further information Friday.

DirecTV spokeswoman Jade Ekstedt suggested in an e-mail that FiOS customers should contact Frontier directly for assistance.

“The offer … is a valid Frontier Communications promotion that includes DirecTV service, and DirecTV always works with its partners on valid offers that they introduce into market,” Ekstedt wrote, when asked whether DirecTV is honoring Frontier’s offer.

Complaints are arriving at a steady pace, reports the Washington State Attorney General’s office.

This is a story that never ends well.  But don’t worry — the executives responsible for the notorious bungling have their spots on the compensation lifeboats already reserved.  Too bad customers will likely go down with the ship.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacramento Call Kurtis Bill May Triple For Excessive Internet Usage 1-13-11.mp4[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento worked with Stop the Cap! and Free Press to develop this story about Frontier’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)

Verizon Wireless has seen some success getting their off-contract customers who have stubbornly refused to upgrade their phones to jump on board the smartphone craze… by lowering their prices.

The entry fee for smartphones on most carriers includes the up front cost of the device (often $199 for the most coveted phones) and a $30 monthly mandatory data plan.  That’s a price too high for many consumers to pay in this economy, and the result has been an increase in the number of customers letting their two-year contracts expire.

AT&T has tried to reduce the bite with a paltry $15 monthly plan that only includes 200MB of usage per month, which is nearly pointless for smartphone users who want to really use the multimedia features the phones were designed to provide. Verizon responded with a holiday season promotional offer charging $15 a month for an even lower 150MB per month, with widespread speculation the “limited time only” part of the offer will soon become “available every day.”

But for most smartphone customers who plan to regularly use data-hungry applications, neither “budget plan” will suffice.  That leaves one alternative for Verizon customers — the $29.99 unlimited plan.  Ouch.

To prod price-sensitive customers, Verizon has offered family plan members the option of upgrading their old phones to new smartphones, and has sweetened the deal with a $10 price break.  While technically a credit on the “additional line” charge, some Verizon employees pitch the discount as a reduction in price for the mandatory data plan.  Where $30 a month sounds obscene, $20 a month sounds somewhat better.

The offer has proven sufficiently successful that Verizon has now extended it until Jan. 30 (note just prior to next month’s iPhone introduction) and any customer who has not upgraded their phone in the last 180 days qualifies.  A new, two year contract is required and the offer is good if you want to add a new secondary line.

Unfortunately, the offer does not extend to the primary line.  Verizon would probably see an even larger number of upgrades if the offer extended to every legacy phone on a customer’s account.

The $9.99 credit applies for 24 months.  Over the life of the contract, that is worth $240 in savings per smartphone, which isn’t bad from America’s Cadillac wireless carrier.

Life's for sharing... just not on our wireless network.

British T-Mobile wireless broadband users got — how shall we put it — an “abrupt” and uncharacteristically rude notice about a change in the company’s “Fair Use” policy that takes effect in February (underlining ours):

Browsing means looking at websites and checking email, but not watching videos, downloading files or playing games. We’ve got a fair use policy but ours means that you’ll always be able to browse the internet, it’s only when you go over the fair use amount that you won’t be able to download, stream and watch video clips.

So what’s changing? – From 1st February 2011 we will be aligning our fair use policies so our mobile internet service will have fair use of 500MB.

What does this mean? – We’ll always let you email and browse the internet and you’ll never pay more than you agree to. We do have a fair use policy but ours is there to make sure we deliver the best service possible to all our customers.  This means that you’ll always be able to browse the internet.

So remember our Mobile Broadband and internet on your phone service is best used for browsing which means looking at your favorite websites like Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, BBC News and more, checking your email and looking for information, but not watching videos or downloading files.

If you want to download, stream and watch video clips, save that stuff for your home broadband.

T-Mobile's warning to customers to avoid watching videos on their network flies in the face of their own smartphone promotions.

As our regular reader “Jr” observes, broadband carriers want customers to use their broadband connections to browse web pages and read e-mail — and little else.  Rarely has a carrier come right out and said it, though.

Not only has T-Mobile “aligned” their fair use policies to deliver you less service (down from 1-3GB per month), but they’ve kept the same high price.  T-Mobile is the same company that routinely markets smartphones and other multimedia-equipped handsets specifically for the services they don’t want you to use on their network.

T-Mobile illustrates once again how Internet Overcharging schemes really work:

1. They implement a usage cap and suggest it is “generous” and that the majority of customers will never come close to hitting it;
2. They gradually reduce the usage allowance when revenue needs eclipse the needs of customers;
3. They still claim the new, lower limit is still “generous.”
4. They suggest almost nobody is likely going to hit the limit, no matter what it is.

Of course, had T-Mobile customers really come nowhere near the old limits, what problem was resolved lowering it?  T-Mobile claims the vast majority of customers don’t exceed 200MB of usage per month, an exceptionally low amount in comparison to other carriers.

The telecoms regulator Ofcom told ZDNet UK on Monday that, “if consumers are being notified of a change likely to cause them material detriment, the provider must give the customer one month’s notice of the change, and at the same time they must also inform the customer of their right to terminate their contract without penalty if the proposed change is not acceptable to the customer”.

As the changes take effect from 1 February, T-Mobile has given less than one month’s notice.

“We encourage unhappy consumers to speak with their provider about their concerns,” Ofcom’s spokesperson said. “If the problem relates to a particular term or condition that you feel is unfair, then you can log your complaint with Ofcom. We monitor complaints about the behaviour of communications providers and if there is a high volume of complaints about a particular issue, we do investigate and take action as required.”

(Thanks to our reader “PreventCAPS” for sharing the story with us.)

Disgruntled AT&T customers, and those with infinite patience for Apple’s iPhone on Verizon Wireless’ network — your long wait appears to finally be over.

After nearly a year of speculation, Verizon Wireless is expected to announce the imminent arrival of the coveted smartphone on the nation’s largest wireless carrier at a press event tomorrow.

The Verizon version of the iPhone could come at a price premium, with some anticipating the entry level version of the phone could be priced as high as $249 — $50 higher than with AT&T.  The usual two year contract applies.

Analysts predict a muted stampede, at least at first, by unhappy AT&T customers.  As many as two million customers itching to dump AT&T could jump to Verizon in 2011, but they’ll pay dearly to do so.  First, their existing AT&T iPhone won’t work on Verizon’s network, so that means a new phone and a new, two year contract with Verizon to get the best price.  Second, AT&T locked many of its customers into two year contract extensions with the release of the last iPhone in June.  No amount of whining by iPhone users, which has worked to score early upgrades and discounts in the past, will get AT&T to make the price of divorce less expensive.  The company’s price to sever ties: more than $200 for most in-contract customers with the latest version of the popular phone.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Verizon iPhone Package 1-10-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC discusses the pros and cons of Verizon’s adoption of Apple’s iPhone in these two reports.  (8 minutes)

Verizon iPhone users will also give up something else: an iPhone that can multitask.  AT&T’s GSM network allowed customers to browse web pages and run applications while you talked on the phone.  Verizon’s CDMA network doesn’t support that.  As long as you talk on your phone, your data applications won’t update.  It’s an either/or proposition, at least for now.

Still, expect the iPhone to be a Verizon hit like none other.  Carl Howe, an analyst for the Yankee Group, expects Verizon to sell 16.5 million iPhones in 2011, with more than half — 9 million — coming from Verizon’s own subscriber base.

The question is — can Verizon’s three bedroom house support the entire extended family showing up on their network doorstep?

AT&T’s network suffered from the onslaught of data-hungry iPhone devotees.  As millions of Americans adopted the phone, an AT&T exclusive, the company’s wireless network groaned under the usage.  With calls dropping, data trickling, and customer service irritating, AT&T scored rock-bottom in consumer ratings.

Some wonder if the same fate could afflict Verizon’s network.  Verizon currently has the lowest percentage of smartphone customers using its network among the four major carriers.  Verizon’s pricing is typically considered the culprit.  Customers insisting on the iPhone ended up with AT&T.  But those seeking Android phones had more choices — Sprint’s unlimited data plans at aggressive price points, T-Mobile’s value-oriented family shareplans, or Verizon’s robust network coverage at Cadillac pricing.

Putting the iPhone, already a premium-priced phone some consumers can’t live without, with Verizon’s reputation for high quality service, is expected to be a winning combination, and 16.5 million customers joining Verizon’s existing 30 million smartphone customers in a single year could have a dramatic impact.

“Unless Verizon has done a lot of network upgrades in advance, it may see many of the same capacity problems that have plagued AT&T,” Howe says.

The news AT&T is about to lose its exclusivity for the phone was taken in stride by some company executives, one who used the occasion to take a swipe at Verizon’s slower speed 3G network.

AT&T public relations head Larry Solomon pointed out Verizon’s 3G network relies on 3.1Mbps EVDO Rev. A technology while AT&T delivers 7.2Mbps on its HSPA 3G network.

The iPhone is built for speed, but that’s not what you get with a CDMA phone,” Solomon told Electronista. “I’m not sure iPhone users are ready for life in the slow lane.”

Verizon Wireless is expected to unveil the new phone Tuesday morning, with its in-store availability expected within a few weeks.  For fans of unlimited usage, there is one more piece of good news: Verizon is expected to continue offering unlimited data usage plans to its new iPhone customers.  AT&T cashiered its own unlimited data plan last spring, forcing customers to keep usage under 2GB per month if they don’t want an even higher bill.  Verizon is reportedly confident its network can sustain the traffic, and will leave its data hungry customers alone… for now.

Apple Insider produced this chart comparing Verizon and AT&T's smartphone pricing.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Bloomberg Verizon iPhone Package 1-10-11.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV in Washington delivers the news about the imminent arrival of the iPhone on Verizon’s network in a consumer-friendly fashion, while Bloomberg delves deeper into exactly what impact the move will have on existing and future customers of both AT&T and Verizon.  (9 minutes)