Last week, Verizon’s Tom Maguire responded to some of our earlier coverage about Verizon’s decision to abandon landline service on portions of Fire Island devastated by last fall’s Hurricane Sandy. We have received several complaints from readers about our decision to grant space to Verizon to present their views without reciprocation. While we understand those concerns, Stop the Cap! believes readers deserve both sides of a discussion that AT&T and Verizon will soon seek to have with customers across many of their rural service areas. For that reason, we invited Verizon’s participation. This is our response:

Raise your hand if you want Verizon’s Voice Link to replace your traditional telephone service and lose your only wired broadband connection.

Almost no one has. Despite the arguments from Verizon Communications and AT&T that wireless is the answer to troublesome copper wiring and maintaining rural telephone service, dozens of Fire Island, N.Y. customers have been sufficiently provoked to file comments with state regulators, making it clear they want no part of the loss of their landline and its accompanying, affordable broadband service. In more than 135 public comments with the Public Service Commission at press time, Stop the Cap! could only find one comment from a Fire Island resident who had no issues with Verizon’s wireless landline replacement. He was upset Verizon had not wired a nearby yacht club for broadband service.

Both AT&T and Verizon have publicly advocated that rural customers would be better served moving from traditional wired landline service to their respective wireless 4G LTE networks. AT&T characterizes it as “an upgrade” that switches customers to an “all IP” 21st century network. Verizon has been less bold in its public policy statements, framing its position mostly in economic terms  — does it make sense to invest large sums to upgrade or repair damaged infrastructure that serves a relatively small number of customers?

Until recently, customers have been free to make the choice between a landline and wireless service themselves. Now, the residents of Fire Island and some barrier islands off the coast of New Jersey have a very different choice: They can accept Verizon’s Voice Link landline replacement, sign up for cell service that has proved troublesome in both areas, or give up phone service altogether. Verizon has made it clear it is not prepared to replace the destroyed infrastructure on portions of the islands, it will not invest in major upkeep and repairs to network facilities that may have been compromised but are still functioning for now, and will likely never offer its fiber FiOS network in the affected areas.

Stop the Cap! has expressed repeated concern that the decision to abandon wired infrastructure in favor of wireless is based primarily on profit motives, is short-sighted, and represents a downgrade in the quality of an important, regulated utility service, particularly in rural and out-of-the-way places that have few, if any alternatives. Fire Island is shaping up to argue our case, based on the testimony of those actually living and working on the island.

Customers Don’t Want the ‘Solution’ Verizon is Offering

Voice Link is not proving a welcome permanent resident on Fire Island for many customers.

The reasons are clear: inadequate wireless service is common on the island, Voice Link does not perform or sound as good as the landline it replaces, and Verizon’s wireless broadband alternative will cost many residents their unlimited-use DSL service in favor of a wireless capped option that could cost more than $100 a month.

Verizon’s strongest argument is that landline service has fallen out of favor in the United States, with customers increasingly disconnecting home phones in favor of cell phones. If Verizon’s statistics are correct, 80 percent of the voice traffic on the island is already handled by Verizon Wireless. (Verizon does not specify if that traffic comes from permanent residents or temporary visitors, a point of contention with residents.)

Maguire was very careful to limit Verizon’s advocacy of Voice Link in terms of its capacity to handle voice calls. That is because Voice Link is currently incompatible with a whole range of important services that have worked fine with traditional landlines for years.

Maguire’s words are important: “Verizon’s commitment is to provide our customers with voice service,” — the kind you had in the late 70s. Voice Link fails faxing, home medical monitoring, home alarm systems, dial-up service, credit card transactions, and home satellite equipment that connects to the telephone network.

Voice Link is no upgrade for Fire Island. It represents turning back the clock, especially for broadband customers.

Maguire claimed in his editorial the company was only considering Voice Link for the universe of customers where the copper network was not supporting their requirements, with the exception of Sandy-impacted Fire Island and some New Jersey barrier islands. But that does not tell the whole story. In a filing with the New York State Public Service Commission, Verizon makes it clear it intends to introduce the same solution in other parts of New York:

It also seeks to deploy Voice Link in other parts of the State, both as an optional service in areas where the company also offers tariffed wireline local exchange service, and (subject to the Commission’s approval) as a sole service offering in particular locations and circumstances.

While Verizon has sought to appease regulators by volunteering to offer an equal level of service for the same or less money, there are questions about whether a regulator has any oversight authority over Voice Link.

“It is a remarkable concept in utility regulation that a regulated utility may determine that costs are unreasonable and as a result choose to provide alternative, and potentially unregulated service to affected customers,” said Louis Barash of Ocean Beach. “Verizon proposes to permit the PSC to regulate that activity, but it is not clear that the Commission has such authority. And it certainly isn’t clear that the Commission would have any authority to reverse its decision, or otherwise to sanction the company, if Verizon failed to comply with its undertakings.”

Broadband & Competition Matters: Forcing Customers Off Unlimited DSL in Favor of Near-Exclusive, Usage-Capped, Verizon Wireless Broadband

Offering broadband is a vital part of any telephone company’s strategy to add and keep customers. Yet Verizon’s DSL customers on the western half of Fire Island will have their broadband service canceled unless wired service (copper or fiber) is available. Verizon’s only alternative is a usage-capped, prohibitively expensive Verizon Wireless mobile data plan that may or may not perform well on the signal-challenged island. There is literally nowhere else for customers to go.

Verizon’s own statistics confirm none of its wireless competitors handle significant traffic on and off the island.

Maguire: “A multimillion dollar investment with no guarantee that residents of the island will even subscribe to our services makes no economic sense. In fact, that’s probably why Verizon is the sole provider on the island. None of the companies we compete with in other parts of New York offer services on the island.”

Maguire’s evidence:

“The company discovered that 80 percent of the voice traffic was already wireless.  If other wireless providers were factored in, it is likely that the percentage is closer to 90 percent.”

That means Verizon’s wireless competitors collectively have a traffic share of less than 10%.

Verizon’s Plan & Public Safety

Residents advise visitors they better have Verizon Wireless and a robust phone that works well in challenging reception areas if they expect to use it while on the island. AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile customers are often out of luck. That poses an immediate and direct threat to public safety, according to public safety officials.

“The cellphone service on Fire Island progressively gets worse every year as more and more people are bringing smartphones out there,” explained Dominic Bertucci, chief of the Kismet Fire Department. “There are some days where you can barely get a signal.”

The Brookhaven Town Fire Chiefs Council, which represents the leadership of 39 fire departments and fire companies in the region is vehemently opposed to Voice Link and considers it a safety menace, especially during frequent summer power outages when the island’s population is at its peak.

“Without a copper wire phone service, a service that still functions even during a power failure, how can we insure that the residents can call for help?” asks president John Cronin. “How will they call for the lifesaving services that are provided by the fire and EMS units of Fire Island? The corporate desire for greater profit cannot be made at the expense of the safety of the residents of Fire Island.”

“Wireless service is not reliable,” adds Fair Harbor resident Meredith Davis. “Imagine being in an emergency and having ‘spotty’ reception which happens out there all the time on cell phones. That is not safe and not okay.”

“If you are unfamiliar with Fire Island, there is very little medical service and the only way off the island is a scheduled ferry service or, for some people who have permits and trucks, a very long drive,” explains lifelong Fire Island resident Nora Olsen. “When someone needs to be rushed to the hospital, they are evacuated by helicopter, which makes timely emergency calls of the essence to save lives. So you can imagine how important it is to have reliable phone service. It should be up to the individual to decide if they want to switch to a wireless service. They should not be forced into it by Verizon. The people who are most likely to want to stick with the phone service they have been used to all their life — senior citizens — are the most likely to need to use the phone to call for help.”

A number of residents also claim Verizon has overblown the real extent of damage on the island and is not operating in good faith.

“In the larger communities of Ocean Beach and Seaview, I have met no one yet that has their connectivity lost,” said resident Karen Warren. “So for Verizon to assert that the infrastructure is largely destroyed and to repair it would be an enormous expense is simply not true. To add insult to injury, before coming out and finding out that our lines were in fact intact, Verizon offered to ‘replace’ our existing DSL data service with LTE Jetpak wireless broadband. The performance and reliability with only a single device connected was horrendous.”

“[Verizon is] pushing us toward a higher-cost and lower-value solution,” Warren concluded.

Getting specific information about the current state of Verizon’s network on Fire Island and repair/replacement costs are hard to come by. Verizon filed an application with the PSC declaring much of the information confidential or a trade secret, refusing to share it with the public. The company was concerned some might access the Public Service Commission website, find the case number about Fire Island, navigate to the specific Verizon filing containing information about their infrastructure… and then vandalize it.

Barash suspects Verizon might be hiding something, especially considering the company requested to bypass usual waiting periods and public notification requirements:

Verizon asserts that it would cost “$4.8 million for a voice-only digital loop carrier system comparable to the networking serving the eastern part of the island.” It is by no means clear, however, that such a system is the minimum required to restore/repair the western part of the system to the service it had pre-storm. Certainly Verizon’s application makes no representation to that effect. This estimate apparently contemplates an entire new system for the western portion of Fire Island, notwithstanding that a meaningful percentage of the copper wire system is still operational.

Moreover, Verizon’s position on the required scope of repairs has been a constantly shifting target. Verizon apparently advised Commission Staff, and Staff repeated at the April 18 Commission Hearing, that the western Fire Island telephone system was “damaged beyond repair by the storm.” Verizon apparently has abandoned that claim; this application indeed is premised on the assumption that the system can be repaired. Furthermore, in its first (May 3) submission to the Commission, Verizon stated that “five of the six cables that run between Fire Island and the mainland – the five that serve the western portion of the Island – were also badly damaged by the storm.” Just a week later, it has abandoned that claim as well, and instead in its amended Certification asserts “Five of the six cables that run throughout Fire Island were badly damaged by the storm.” It is hard to accept at face value Verizon’s estimated repair costs when even at this late date it does not seem to have a handle on exactly the damage that needs repair.

A full Hearing, with notice to affected customers, is necessary to develop facts sufficient to make such determinations and to be reasonably certain the Commission is acting based on reasonably verifiable facts.

Residents deserve a full voice and full disclosure in discussions that will directly impact their vital telecommunications services for years to come. Verizon’s corporate officials will not have to live with the results. Neither will the staff at the PSC.

Stop the Cap! has chosen to directly participate in the New York State Public Service Commission regulatory process and has filed two formal comments thus far. The first outlines Verizon’s greater strategy to abandon landline service in rural areas outlined by Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam in 2012. We also provided the Commission the prices Verizon Wireless intends to charge Verizon DSL customers switching to wireless broadband service. The second objects to Verizon’s excessive request for secrecy and exposes cell coverage issues on Fire Island.

A Verizon Wireless upgrade that was supposed to fix bugs and introduce multi-screen, multi-window multitasking and new camera and image-related features to the popular Samsung Galaxy S3 instead has killed the phone’s 4G performance and dramatically decreased battery life. There are also reports some Verizon Wireless customers are finding themselves auto-enrolled in an unwanted caller ID with name add-on feature ($2.99/month) that leaves the phone connected to 3G or 4G service even when using Wi-Fi.

It was not an auspicious moment for Big Red, never fast with phone updates, particularly when Sprint customers earlier received a similar upgrade with no ill-effects.

Your editor spent two days last week attempting to mitigate Verizon’s mistakes, including several hours inside multiple Verizon Wireless store locations and talking to their national customer support center. In the end, it resulted in not one, but two factory refurbished phone exchanges and a $20 service credit for data service effectively disabled by a firmware upgrade.

This nightmare has a name: JZO54K.I535VRBMD3 — a software update so plagued with bugs, Verizon reportedly pulled it over the weekend after customers complained it ruined 4G wireless data service, along with the phone’s performance. The 128MB update has been available for about a week for those regularly checking their phones for software updates, and some customers began being prompted to install it last Friday.

So how can you tell if you are affected? Choose Settings -> About Device and check the “Build Number” visible at the bottom of the screen. If it ends in VRBMD3, you may be impacted. Not every customer is reporting problems, which may mean some phones are not affected or the performance degradation has been dismissed as a temporary reception problem or has only subtly affected low-bandwidth applications and has gone unnoticed.

Symptoms

1. Your wireless data signal strength meter on the phone suddenly shows much poorer reception than before the update;
2. Your battery life has declined significantly and the battery is very warm to the touch;
3. You have trouble loading web pages or accessing multimedia content with long buffering pauses or sudden loss of reception in places where signals used to be adequate;
4. Messaging services seem unstable with frequent disconnects;
5. Your phone drops from 4G to 3G service and stays connected at 3G (or less) speeds until you reset the phone;
6. Using “Speed Test” apps result in “Network Communication Issue” errors or extremely long test times with very high ping rates, very slow/inconsistent download speeds, and trouble measuring upload speeds;
7. You find icons for both Wi-Fi and 3G or 4G wireless service at the top of your phone at the same time;
8. You suddenly find your account billed for Caller ID plus Name service at $2.99 a month, despite not requesting this service.

The more of these symptoms you experience, the greater the chance Verizon’s update for the S3 has temporarily left your phone a shadow of its former self.

Verizon officially recognized the wireless connectivity problem May 31 when it released an internal bulletin acknowledging the software update is responsible. The company claims it has since stopped sending it out to S3 owners (we have not been able to confirm this ourselves).

Verizon blames Samsung for the defective update. Samsung blames Verizon, telling customers software upgrades are vetted, approved, and distributed exclusively by Verizon. Customers are left over a barrel until one or both companies assume responsibility and issue corrected firmware, which could take weeks.

Verizon Wireless’ technical support told Stop the Cap! the phone’s firmware is at the heart of the problem, and although it can sometimes get phones to be more tolerant of the software update, no number of factory resets, SIM card refreshes or replacements, or settings changes will fully correct the problem. Many customers can expect continued degraded 4G performance comparable to 3G speeds (or much worse) either because of slowed performance or an unstable connection until a fix is available.

The problem with multiple icons for both Wi-Fi and 3G or 4G service has to do with a single new app Verizon has forced on their customers. “Caller ID plus Name” was added to your app list in the latest update and is responsible for the dual data connections and reported instances of customers being auto-enrolled and billed for the service, even if they never specifically ran the app.

Bloatware is bad enough, but badly performing forced apps are worse. You can permanently disable the offending app and solve the double icon problem with this simple fix:

Enter Settings -> Application Manager, and select the “All” applications tab along the top. Find “Caller ID plus Name” in the list, select it, and you will see a button to “disable” the app. This may not resolve the problem of the app auto-enrolling you for a paid feature that costs $2.99 a month, so watch your bill.

Affected customers with degraded service have several options:

1. If your phone is still under warranty, and most Galaxy S3 phones are, you can request a free handset replacement. Since Verizon created the problem, ask for a free shipping upgrade to overnight FedEx delivery. Your refurbished phone will arrive without a battery, SIM card, or back cover. Use the ones included with your original phone and your replacement handset should automatically activate. Immediately after powering up, your phone will offer a series of two or three Verizon firmware updates that you can defer. Until it can be verified Verizon has stopped pushing the defective update to customers, we recommend you avoid performing these firmware updates. If you don’t, and Verizon pushes the defective update to your replacement phone, it will likely perform no better than your original;
2. Request service credit for degraded/lost data service. Remember to also request credit, if applicable, for any Mobile Hotspot option, GPS travel, or other Verizon add-on that depends on a stable data network connection;
3. Indicate your displeasure that Verizon did not more thoroughly test the update before pushing it on customers.

Here are the suggested fixes Verizon may attempt on your phone, but we do not believe they correct the underlying problem — only updated software will:

• Removing the battery and “Refreshing/replacing the SIM card” may help refresh roaming rules or possibly correct a corrupted SIM card. Some customers reported this helped them get back data service they completely lost after the update, so it might help in certain cases, but probably will not correct the unstable 4G connection;
• Clearing the cache and cookies from the web browser is unlikely to have any effect on this problem;
• Changing the Mobile Networks setting to/from “Global” to “LTE/CDMA.” A few customers reported they got back some data service after toggling these options. The default on the Samsung Galaxy S3 running firmware from last fall was (and still remains) Global. We suspect the switch toggles the radio off and on, forcing a reconnect, which can bring back a 4G connection after the phone downshifts to 3G. But we don’t believe this will correct the speed/stability problem;
• A “factory reset” is frankly a waste of time. This will leave your phone with the same defective firmware. If you had symptoms before, you will likely still have them after resetting your phone.

If you are reluctant to part with your phone and avail yourself of any option other than requesting a service credit while Samsung and Verizon point fingers over who is responsible and and when a fix will arrive, you can make life with your phone a bit easier with these tips:

1. Stay on Wi-Fi when possible. Wi-Fi data performance was not affected by this software update;
2. Expect 30-40% reduced battery life. We suspect this (and the hot battery) is caused by the phone trying to deal with unstable 4G service, as if it was in a fringe reception zone. Keep a charger handy;
3. Try and get your phone to downshift to 3G by finding a weak reception spot (like a basement) and hope the phone drops (and remains) on 3G until it is rebooted. It appears 3G data speeds are not affected by the software bug;
4. Expect problems when using high bandwidth applications on Verizon’s LTE 4G service. We found video next to impossible to view on 4G, but audio streaming did seem to perform at lower bit rates.

Expect web browsing on 4G to be problematic on complex web pages, which may load incompletely. Try and do your browsing on mobile versions of websites or wait until you can find Wi-Fi.

Would it bother you if the advertiser on that big billboard you just drove past could find out if you later visited that business in response? Should a store like Best Buy or Sears be able to know if you are only using their showrooms to see a product you will eventually buy online? Should your phone company be able to store your complete travel history for years and then create new products and services to pitch aggregated travel observations to anyone willing to pay?

Verizon Wireless does not think you will have a problem with any of this, because it has quietly begun selling this information through its Precision Market Insights (PMI) service.

AT&T is likely not too far behind with a similar service of its own, potentially earning millions from a comprehensive data trove tracking customer locations, travel history, and web browsing habits for an undetermined length of time.

The Wall Street Journal reports shareholder demand for higher profits is pushing cell phone companies to find new revenue streams, even at the potential risk of alienating customers and privacy advocates.

PMI clients may find out more about you than you realize, even though phone companies promise they will not sell personally identifiable information about their customers.

The Phoenix Suns are PMI clients, and by tracking game attendees, Verizon Wireless was able to tell the sports team:

• 22% of game attendees are from out-of-town;
• Most spectators had children at home, ranged in age from 25-54 and earned more than $50,000 a year;
• 13% of baseball spring training attendees in the Phoenix area also went to Suns games;
• Area fast food restaurants running Suns promotions saw an 8.4% uptick in business from Verizon Wireless customers.

Such information can let the sports team target advertisers and offer evidence-based statistics that any campaign will increase sales, and by how much. Malls can use PMI to find certain types of customers that have a history of lingering in mall stores. Billboard owners can see if their ad messages resulted in higher in-store visits.

Customers using a phone under a commercial or government account are exempt from the tracking program. All residential customers are automatically opted in to take part, unless they specifically opt out.

Privacy advocates are concerned carriers are storing personal customer usage data for an undetermined amount of time, and in a form that could be personally identifiable, even if the provider decides not to sell data with that granularity to third parties. That could make cell phone companies prime targets for government/law enforcement subpoenas.

Last year, Verizon sent a notice to customers opting them in to the program unless they specifically opted out. Stop the Cap! covered the story back then, helping customers wishing to opt out.

[flv width=”504″ height=”300″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Cell Companies Track Customers 5-22-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal reports wireless carriers were at first slow to sell data on their customers’ usage habits, but not anymore. Shareholders want new sources of revenue, and wireless companies are packaging and selling customer information to get it.  (2 minutes)

The New York Public Service Commission has granted limited approval for a Verizon Communications plan to replace traditional landline service on the western half of Fire Island with a wireless voice service some users complain is unstable and unreliable.

Verizon claims its landline network on Fire Island has been damaged irreparably in places, and argued it needed to immediately deploy a wireless alternative before the arrival of thousands of tourists on the island, a popular summer destination.

On May 3, Verizon asked the commission to approve the use of Voice Link, which provides fixed wireless phone service, anywhere in the state if the company can prove there is an equal competitor or if existing copper-based facilities are damaged or too costly to upgrade.

Stop the Cap! reminded local politicians, union representatives, and consumer advocates Verizon’s CEO earlier promised it would decommission its copper wire networks in rural areas in favor of wireless, mostly for financial reasons. The New York State Attorney General’s office took careful note of McAdam’s commitment to abandon copper in their objection letter to the commission.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam in 2012:

The vision that I have is we are going into the copper plant areas and every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper. We are going to just take it out of service and we are going to move those services onto FiOS. We have got parallel networks in way too many places now, so that is a pot of gold in my view. And then in other areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there. We are going to do it over wireless.

Verizon’s efforts to rush a tariff change without adequate public notice or formal hearings brought complaints from affected customers, unions, and area politicians.

The Communications Workers of America called Verizon’s emergency “self-made.” The company could have begun repair work on Fire Island as early as last November, but instead only came to regulators earlier this month with its Voice Link proposal, while much of the western half of the island remains out of service.

CWA officials are concerned Verizon is using Hurricane Sandy as an excuse to carry out its broader agenda of abandoning rural New York’s landline infrastructure in favor of wireless service.

“Playing on sympathy for the plight of customers whom it has left without service for more than six months, Verizon proposes to implement broad, generic rules that go to the core of its obligation to serve,” said CWA vice president Chris Shelton.

The union considers Verizon’s wireless alternative less adequate than the wireline facilities Verizon wants to abandon. The CWA wants the PSC to study Voice Link’s performance during times of peak cellular usage times, power outages, adverse weather, and inadequate reception.

Thomas Barraga, a legislator in Suffolk County, says his constituents with Voice Link service are already unhappy with its performance and reliability.

“Residents and business owners who had Voice Link installed after Sandy say the connection is unstable and unreliable, and doesn’t provide for DSL Internet or fax service,” Barraga wrote in a letter to the PSC.

“Internet service is so much a part of everyday life it should be consider a basic service and they should be mandated to provide this as well,” writes Fire Island resident Robert Gonzalez. “They should provide this for the same fees and usage rates as they had previously been charging.  As of today they are price gouging.  Prior to Sandy we paid approximately $50 per month for unlimited Internet access.  Now they are putting low limits on our usage for the same $50 per month with severe penalties for going over.  You can opt for higher usage plans at a much greater cost and they are not offering an unlimited plan.”

Stop the Cap! also continues to hear from Fire Island residents about their dissatisfaction with the service. Among the newest complaints we have received:

• “It doesn’t work with collect calls and you cannot dial “0” for operator assistance;”
• “I have to dial 10 digits for all calls, seven digit dialing no longer works even though it did before;”
• “Call Waiting and Caller ID often do not work, and my unit does not ring for incoming calls about 30% of the time and people have to keep calling me back;”
• “When you attempt to take a call when on the line with someone, you cannot get them back after answering a new call;”
• “I cannot use this with my home alarm system at all and the monitoring company keeps notifying police because they think my phone line was cut;”
• “If we had a major storm with three days of power being out, Verizon’s claim Voice Link will work for two hours without power means I would have to feed it up to 72 ‘AA’ batteries, costing more than what the phone line costs me every month;”
• “What does this do to our future? It makes us second class citizens without access to the Internet except through very expensive wireless capped usage plans that cost much more.”

The PSC ruled that allowing Verizon to deploy Voice Link on Fire Island during the peak tourist season will make sure adequate phone service is up and running as quickly as possible. But the commission also made it clear it is unwilling to approve Verizon’s request to extend the service further into rural New York without a thorough review of its performance and customer reaction.

America is on the verge of a wireless traffic data jam so bad, it could bring America to its knees.

Or not.

Stop the Cap! notices with some interest that while wireless carriers continue to sound the alarm about a spectrum crisis so serious it necessitates further compressing the UHF television dial and forces other spectrum users to become closer neighbors, the same giant phone companies warning of impending doom are negotiating with online video producers to offer customers “toll-free,” all-you-cat-eat streaming video of major sports events that won’t count against your usage allowance.

ESPN is in talks with at least one major carrier (AT&T or Verizon Wireless) to subsidize some of the costs of its streamed video content so that customers can watch as much as they want without running into a provider’s usage limit. Both Verizon and AT&T have signaled their interest in allowing content producers to pay for subscribers’ data usage. In fact, they don’t seem to care who pays for the enormous bandwidth consumed by streaming video, so long as someone does.

At a recent investment bank conference Verizon Wireless chief executive Dan Mead explained the next chapter in monetizing data usage will allow the company to rake in more revenue from third parties instead of customers already struggling with high wireless bills.

“We are actively exploring those opportunities and looking at every way to bring value to our customers,” said Mead.

Content producers are increasingly frustrated with the stingy caps on offer at AT&T and Verizon Wireless because customers stop accessing that content once they near their monthly usage limit. One large provider admitted to ESPN that “significant numbers” of customers are already reaching their cap before the end of their billing cycle, after which their online usage plummets to limit the sting of overlimit charges.

Offering “toll-free” data could dramatically increase the use of high bandwidth applications and increase profits at wireless providers based on new fees they could collect from content producers. Customers would still be subject to usage limits for all non-preferred content, a clear violation of Net Neutrality principles.

But in case you forgot, wireless carriers won exemption from Net Neutrality, arguing their networks lack the capacity to sustain a Net Neutral Internet experience. These same companies claim without more frequencies to handle the massive, potentially unsustainable amount of wireless traffic, the wireless data apocalypse could be at hand in just a few years. It was also the most-cited reason AT&T and Verizon discontinued their unlimited use data plans.

But unlimiting ESPN video? No problem.

In January 2010, Verizon Wireless was singing a very different tune to the FCC about the need to control and manage high bandwidth applications like the “toll-free” streaming video service ESPN proposes (underlining ours):

Wireless broadband services face technological and operational constraints arising from the need to manage spectrum sharing by a dynamically varying number of mobile users at any time. Thus, unlike, for example, cable broadband networks, where a known and relatively fixed number of subscribers share capacity in a given area, the capacity demand at any given cell site is much more variable as the number and mix of subscribers constantly change in sometimes highly unpredictable ways.

Are wireless carriers now part of the problem?

For example, as a subscriber using a high-bandwidth application such as streaming video moves from range of one cell site to another, the network must immediately provide the needed capacity for that subscriber, while not disrupting other subscribers using that same cell site. Of course, the problem is magnified many times over as multiple subscribers can be moving in and out of range of a cell site at any given moment. Moreover, the available bandwidth can fluctuate due to variations in radio frequency signal strength and quality, which can be affected by changing factors such as weather, traffic, speed, and the nearby presence of interfering devices (e.g., wireless microphones).

These problems compound those resulting from limited spectrum. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized in proclaiming an upcoming spectrum crisis, “as wireless is increasingly used as a platform for broadband communications services, the demand for spectrum bandwidth will likely continue to increase significantly, and spectrum availability may become critical to ensuring further innovation.”

A wireless carrier cannot readily increase capacity once it has exhausted its spectrum capacity. Thus, wireless broadband providers are left to acquire additional spectrum (to the extent available) or take measures that use their existing spectrum as efficiently as possible, which they do through a combination of investing in additional cell sites and network management practices that optimize network usage and address congestion so as to provide consumers with the quality of service they expect.

Regulators need to ask why wireless companies are telling the FCC there is a bandwidth crisis of epic proportions that requires the Commission to exempt them from important Net Neutrality principles while telling investment banks, shareholders and content producers the more traffic the merrier, as long as someone pays. Customers also might ask why their unlimited use data plans were discontinued while carriers seek deals to allow unlimited viewing with their preferred content partners.

What is the real motivation? The Wall Street Journal suggests one:

“Creating a second revenue stream for mobile broadband is the holy grail for wireless operators but collecting fees from content companies would probably make the FCC take a close look into the policy implications,” said Paul Gallant, managing director at Guggenheim Securities. An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ ESPN Toll Free Data 5-9-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal takes a closer look at a plan to manage an end run around Net Neutrality by allowing preferred content partners to offer streaming video services exempt from your usage cap. (4 minutes)