The phone company gives its WeatherLine the boot.

Verizon and other phone companies are finding it increasingly profitable to get out of the information business, and the days of calling numbers for the current time of day or hiring someone to deliver local weather, sports scores or lotto numbers are increasingly behind us.

For decades local phone companies have run recorded announcement services, first as a free public service and then as a profit center.  The venerable “Time of Day” service, which in some areas was broadened to include the current temperature and an abbreviated weather forecast, was initially envisioned as a labor saver.  That’s because your grandparents used to call and bug the operator for the current time to synchronize their clocks, which tied up switchboards and potentially delayed emergency calls long before there was a “911” to call instead.

In the 1970s, phone companies began to realize they were giving away a lot of information for free, and with some numbers getting tens of thousands of calls a day, that meant leaving money on the table.  And so began “recorded information message charges,” typically around 8.3-25 cents cents a call (phone companies always round up no matter what) charged when customers dialed numbers with prefixes of 974 or 976.  Later still, the 900 area code would open the door to even more expensive pay-per-minute services.

Some phone companies charged for the local time and weather, others gave away the local forecast for free.

For Washington, D.C. residents, Verizon’s local weather line died a quiet death last week.  Callers to (202) 936-1212 now hear a message telling them the number has been disconnected.  And so ends an era.

It’s not to be completely unexpected.  Smartphone owners can get the time or weather just by looking at their phones.  The Weather Channel and NOAA Weather Radio provides much the same service 24-hours a day.  Some cities have competing weather lines each delivering the weather to interested callers.

But Verizon’s 936 number has become so ingrained in local residents’ heads, it’s now a valuable commodity one company wants to purchase.

Telecompute, which runs recorded information lines across the country, wants to pick up where Verizon left off.  They are attempting to negotiate with the phone company to acquire that magic 936 number for their own weather line, already running at (202) 589-1212.  But that’s no 936 number.

If you believe the Internet age has made the concept of recorded information lines obsolete, and Verizon certainly thinks that’s true, you might be surprised to learn Telecompute’s lesser-known, existing weather line receives over 2,000 calls a day.  That’s welcome news for Howard Phoebus, the veteran forecaster who will keep his job providing customers in the District, Virginia, and Maryland their daily forecast.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/976-8881 Commercial.mp4[/flv]

A commercial for a California 976 dial-a-date number.  Warning: 80’s feathered hair and fashions may cause allergic reactions in some viewers.  (1 minute)

Wildfires can result when overloaded utility poles topple in California's Santa Ana winds.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s Consumer Protection and Safety Division is recommending $99 million in fines against the local power utility and several phone companies for overloading power poles with cables which toppled and started a major wildfire in Malibu Canyon in 2007.

Even worse, the PUC alleges, the power company lied to investigators and destroyed evidence to cover up the cause of the blaze, which burned more than a dozen structures to the ground and destroyed dozens of vehicles.

Named in addition to Southern California Edison are phone companies: Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and NextC Networks of California. All are being blamed for loading up phone poles with excessive wiring for both traditional utility service and backhaul wired connections to serve area cell towers. The bulk of the proposed fine is likely to be lodged against Edison because of the evidence tampering allegations, but phone companies are also deemed liable.

At issue are the annual bouts of Santa Ana winds which can create gusts up to 80mph or higher. Most utility poles were designed to support a load of a few power cables, landline phone service, and cable television lines. But in many parts of canyon country, wireless phone companies rely heavily on utility poles to connect to their network of cell towers which are strategically located on ridges and mountains to serve populated valley regions below. While some cell phone companies now rely on fiber connections, many also still utilize a series of copper wire circuits to provide sufficient wireless capacity. In some cases, companies may hang several cables to meet bandwidth needs. The more cables, the more susceptible poles become to wind loads, which can literally snap poles in half or force them out of the ground in high wind gusts.

When electric lines topple, they can start fires that quickly grow out of control in remote areas.

Downed power lines are blamed for a number of wildfires in California, including the 2008 Sesnon fire in the San Fernando Valley. Fire investigators and local officials have pressured utility companies to mitigate the hazards from downed power lines by keeping excess cables and equipment off the poles.

Hans Laetz, a Malibu resident who has lived with what he calls “spindly-looking utility poles” for more than a decade was not surprised when life-threatening wildfires were blamed on downed lines.

“My family and my neighbors in Malibu are being placed at risk,” Laetz told the Los Angeles Times. “I drove under those poles on Malibu Canyon Road for 10 years, and I thought one of these days, one of those poles was going to fall. You could tell this was a disaster waiting to happen…. And then it happened.”

Edison denied the allegations it mislead investigators and called the proposed fine “excessive.”

Verizon has inserted a change in their privacy policy to allow the company to share the exact addresses of their customers with advertisers to target location-specific ads on websites browsed while using Verizon as your Internet Service Provider.  The new policy also applies to Verizon Wireless customers.

“…Verizon will soon participate in a program that will improve the ability of advertisers to reach our Verizon Online customers based on your physical address. The goal is to provide online ads that may be more relevant to you.

This program uses your address to determine whether you reside in a local area an advertiser is trying to reach.

This advertising program uses your physical address to help advertisers deliver ads to websites you visit while using Verizon Online. This program allows national brands and local businesses to tailor offers, coupons and incentives to your local area. Because the ads can be geographically directed, they may be more relevant to you.”

They know what you are doing online and where you live, and now they want to share.

In fact, they are even more relevant to Verizon’s bottom line, because the company can extract higher advertising charges for this level of targeting.  For example, eateries could purchase advertising directed only to specific homes they feel are most likely to patronize their establishments.  If a local department store wants to target only homes on streets statistically likely to deliver higher-income, big spending customers, Verizon could provide that service as well.  If advertisers want to reach seedy neighborhoods to pitch home security systems, Verizon can identify their customers in sketchy areas and direct ads accordingly.

Verizon also informs customers they are preparing to start tracking all of your visits to various websites, and they will sell that information to their advertisers as well.

If you are not interested in letting Verizon follow you wherever you go and allow them to share your home address with advertisers of all kinds, you can opt out:

Verizon broadband Internet access customers may opt-out of the geographically-based advertising program described above by following the instructions here. Verizon Wireless Internet customers may opt-out of the relevant mobile advertising program by following the instructions here or by calling us at 1-866-211-0874. If you opt out online, you will need your account user ID and password. Also, please note that you will receive ads whether you participate in these programs or not, but under these programs, ads may be more relevant to you.

Thanks to regular Stop the Cap! reader Corrine and Bill Pytlovany for alerting us.

A Verizon Wireless 4G/LTE customer that managed to consume nearly 56GB of data over a two-week period has found he has temporarily lost his 4G privileges during peak usage times on Verizon’s network.

Droid Life reports Verizon’s speed throttle apparently also works on the company’s much-faster 4G network, because the customer found his 4G speeds reduced to dial-up during peak usage periods.  The throttle reduces speeds so much, even browsing web pages becomes a painful experience.  Remarkably, the customer tells Droid Life he still has regular speed access to Verizon’s more congested 3G network, which he now uses when his 4G speeds are reduced.

Verizon Wireless specifically exempts 4G customers from wholesale enforcement of their speed throttle, but the company’s standard Acceptable Use Policy still gives Verizon broad latitude to deal with customers who create an “adverse impact” on their network:

Network disruptions and unfriendly activity: Using the Services for any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either Verizon Wireless Services or other parties’ Internet-based resources. This specifically but without limitation includes excessive consumption of network or system resources whether intentional or unintentional. This also includes “denial of service” (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user. Interference with or disruption of other network users, network services or network equipment is prohibited.

Such policies are commonplace at every Internet Service Provider, but they are typically enforced only in instances where a neighborhood or region is experiencing especially heavy traffic loads.  That seems to be the case with Droid Life‘s reader, because other customers report they have managed to rack up nearly 120GB in 4G usage over 10 days with no speed reductions.  Verizon reportedly told the throttled customer his speeds were reduced because his ‘excessive downloading’ was an “abuse of the network.”

To run up tens of gigabytes of usage over two weeks usually means the customer is using a tethering application or mobile hotspot app, services for which Verizon charges extra.  We don’t know if this customer is paying for those services or using one of the third-party apps Verizon frowns on.

The selective enforcement of speed throttles may be the result of an overeager Verizon employee subjectively cracking down.  It might also result from the subscriber using services on an especially congested cell site.  We cannot be certain, and Verizon isn’t commenting on the record.  The company officially claims it is standing by the terms of its original plans to throttle the top 5% of 3G users.

With the ongoing crackdowns on what providers deem to be “excessive usage,” it is safe to assume those attempting to use any wireless broadband plan as a home or office broadband replacement is risking the wrath of their providers who consider anything beyond 2-4GB of usage per month on an “unlimited data plan” to be “too much.”

The primary backers of the ABC Plan

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is scheduled to deliver a major announcement on reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) — a federal program designed to subsidize the costs of delivering telecommunications services to rural America.

The reform, long overdue, would transition a significant percentage of USF fees every telephone customer pays towards broadband deployment — a noble endeavor.  For years, Americans have paid more than $5 billion annually to phone companies large and small to maintain rural landline service.  Small co-op phone companies depend on the income to deliver affordable service in places like rural Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska.  But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also collect a significant share (around $800 million annually) to reduce their costs of service in the rural communities they serve.

That’s particularly ironic for AT&T, which time and time again has sought the right to abandon universal rural landline service altogether.

Genachowski’s idea would divert USF funding towards broadband construction projects.  The argument goes that even low speed DSL requires a well-maintained landline network, so phone companies that want to deploy rural broadband will have to spend the money on necessary upgrades to provide just enough service to earn their USF subsidies.  The lower the speed, the lower the cost to upgrade networks and provide the service.  Some may choose wireless technology instead.  Since the telephone companies have fought long and hard to define “broadband” as anything approaching 3-4Mbps, that will likely be the kind of speed rural Americans will receive.

At first glance, USF reform seems like a good idea, but as with everything at the FCC these days, the devil is always in the details.

Dampier: Another day, another self-serving plan from the phone companies that will cost you more.

While headline skimmers are likely to walk away with the idea that the FCC is doing something good for rural broadband, in fact, the Commission may simply end up rubber stamping an industry-written and supported plan that will substantially raise phone bills and divert your money into projects and services the industry was planning to sell you anyway.

Stop the Cap! wrote about the ABC Plan a few weeks ago when we discovered almost all of the support for the phone-company-written proposal comes from the phone companies who back it, as well as various third party organizations that receive substantial financial support from those companies.  It’s a dollar-a-holler astroturf movement in the making, and if the ABC Plan is enacted, you will pay for it.

[Read Universal Service Reform Proposal from Big Telcos Would Rocket Phone Bills Higher and Astroturf and Industry-Backed, Dollar-a-Holler Friends Support Telco’s USF Reform Plan.]

Here is what you probably won’t hear at today’s event.

At the core of the ABC Plan is a proposal to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas.  You win a gold star if you correctly guessed this proposal originated with AT&T and Verizon, who together will save literally billions in call connection costs under their plan.

With a proposal like this, you would assume most rural phone companies are howling in protest.  It turns out some are, especially some of the smallest, family-run and co-op based providers.  But a bunch of phone companies that consider rural America their target area — Frontier, CenturyLink, FairPoint and Windstream, are all on board with AT&T and Verizon.  Why?

Because these phone companies have a way to cover that lost revenue — by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.  In the first year of implementation, your rates could increase up to $4.50 per line (and that fee also extends to cell phones).  Critics have been widely publicizing the increased phone bills guaranteed under the ABC Plan.  In response, advocates for the industry are rushing out the results of a new study released yesterday from the Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford that claims the exact opposite.  Dr. Ford claims each customer could pay approximately $14 less per year in access charges if the industry’s ABC Plan is fully implemented.

Genachowski

Who is right?  State regulators suggest rate increases, not decreases, will result.  The “Phoenix Center,” unsurprisingly, has not disclosed who paid for the study, but there is a long record of a close working relationship between that research group and both AT&T and Verizon.

But it gets even worse.

This shell game allows your local phone company to raise rates and blame it on the government, despite the fact those companies will directly benefit from that revenue in many cases.  It’s a real win-win for AT&T and Verizon, who watch their costs plummet while also sticking you with a higher phone bill.

The USF program was designed to provide for the neediest rural phone companies, but under the new industry-written rules being considered by the FCC, just about everyone can get a piece, as long as “everyone” is defined as “the phone company.”  There is a reason this plan does not win the hearts and minds of the cable industry, independent Wireless ISPs, municipalities, or other competing upstarts.  As written, the USF reform plan guarantees virtually all of the financial support stays in the Bell family.  Under the arcane rules of participation, only telephone companies are a natural fit to receive USF money.

Genachowski will likely suggest this plan will provide for rural broadband in areas where it is unavailable today.  He just won’t say what kind of broadband rural America will get.  He can’t, because the industry wrote their own rules in their plan to keep accountability and oversight as far away as possible.

For example, let’s assume you are a frustrated customer of Frontier Communications in West Virginia who lives three blocks away from the nearest neighbor who pays $50 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband.  You can’t buy the service at any price because Frontier doesn’t offer it.  You have called them a dozen times and they keep promising it’s on the way, but they cannot say when.  You may have even seen them running new cable in the neighborhood.

Frontier has made it clear they intend to wire a significantly greater percentage of the Mountain State than Verizon ever did when it ran things.  Let’s take them at their word for this example.

The telephone companies have helpfully written their own rules for the FCC to adopt.

Frontier’s decision to provide broadband service in West Virginia does not come out of the goodness of their heart.  At a time when landline customers are increasingly disconnecting service, Frontier’s long-term business plan is to keep customers connected by selling packages of phone, broadband, and satellite TV in rural markets.  Investment in DSL broadband deployment has been underway with or without the assistance of the Universal Service Fund because it makes financial sense.  Our customer in West Virginia might disconnect his landline and use a cell phone instead, costing Frontier any potential broadband, TV and telephone service revenue.

Under the ABC Plan, Frontier can be subsidized by ratepayers nationwide to deliver the service they were planning to provide anyway.  And what kind of service?  The same 3Mbps DSL the neighbors have.

If your county government, a cable operator, or wireless competitor decided they could deliver 10-20Mbps broadband for the same $50 a month, could they receive the USF subsidy to build a better network instead?  Under the phone company plan, the answer would be almost certainly no.

Simon Fitch, the consumer advocate of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, which advises the FCC on universal service matters, says the ABC Plan is a consumer disaster.

“Although a stated goal of the FCC’s reform effort is to refocus universal-service funding to support broadband, the industry’s ABC plan requires no real commitment to make broadband available to unserved and underserved communities,” Fitch writes. “Companies would receive funds to provide broadband with upload and download speeds that are already obsolete. States would be given no real enforcement power.”

Fitch is certain companies like AT&T and Verizon will receive enormous ratepayer-financed subsidies they don’t actually need to provide service.

Back to AT&T.

In several states, AT&T is seeking the right to terminate its universal service obligation altogether, which would allow the same company fiercely backing the ABC Plan to entirely walk away from its landline network.  Why?  Because AT&T sees its future profits in wireless.  Under the ABC Plan, AT&T could build rural cell towers with your money to provide “replacement service” over a wireless network with or without great coverage, and with a 2GB usage cap.

At the press conference, Genachowski could still declare victory because rural America would, in fact, get broadband.  Somehow, the parts about who is actually paying for it, the fact it comes with no speed, coverage, or quality guarantees, and starts with a 2GB usage cap on the wireless side will all be left out.

Fortunately, not everyone is as enamored with the ABC Plan as the groups cashing checks written by AT&T.

In addition to state regulators, Consumers Union, the AARP, Free Press, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates are all opposed to the plan, which delivers all of the benefits to giant phone companies while sticking you with the bill.

There is a better way.  State regulators and consumer groups have their own plans which accomplish the same noble goal of delivering subsidies to broadband providers of all kinds without increasing your telephone bill.  It’s up to the FCC to demonstrate it’s not simply a rubber stamp for the schemes being pushed by AT&T and Verizon.