Phillip “I don’t have $1 million in AT&T and Verizon stock” Dampier

Before Tom Wheeler, President Obama’s pick to head the Federal Communications Commission, can find his seat at the federal agency overseeing the nation’s telecommunications industry, he will need time to sever the extensive ties he maintains as an ex-lobbyist and investor in the companies he will soon oversee.

To avoid an even bigger appearance of a conflict of interest, Wheeler has agreed to dump at least $1 million in personal stock in AT&T and Verizon, as well as divest himself of holdings in 76 other media and tech companies including Time Warner, Comcast, Google, Sprint, Deutsche Telekom and News Corp.

Wheeler is also submitting his resignation from the board of Earthlink, an Internet Service Provider, and will also sell off his shares in that company. He will also have to step down from Core Capital, a venture capitalist investor firm with extensive holdings in the telecom industry.

In our view, Wheeler has shown he couldn’t be more of a telecom industry insider unless he also served on the board of AT&T. Wheeler’s extensive holdings depict someone who has maintained a direct financial interest in the industry for years, even after ending his leadership at the National Cable Television Association and leading the nation’s biggest wireless industry lobbying group, the CTIA.

These kinds of deep industry ties are a serious concern for the average consumer. As we’ve reported before, Tom Wheeler has said almost nothing on his blog about consumer interests, writing views from the perspective of an industry lobbyist and investor. Watching him disgorge well over a million dollars in direct investments in AT&T and Verizon — companies he’d oversee in his new role — does not ease our concern he remains a consummate insider. He is well-positioned to move back through the D.C. revolving door at the end of the Obama Administration to reinvest in the companies his tenure at the FCC could potentially make or break.

Wheeler’s appointment represents another broken promise from the Obama Administration:

“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.”

Not allowing Wheeler to oversee regulations or contracts with the companies who helped pay his salary and earn him a fortune from his investments would leave the new FCC chairman little to do beyond opening the mail. But of course, that campaign promise from the Obama-Biden campaign has long since been broken and forgotten by most.

Despite the clear conflicts of interest, President Obama remains fully behind his new FCC chairman pick.

“Tom knows this stuff inside and out,” Obama said.

No doubt.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Real News Obama Nominates Cable Industry Lobbyist and Campaign Bundler New Head of FCC 5-12-13.mp4[/flv]

Former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson blasts the nomination of Tom Wheeler, an ex-industry lobbyist and insider, for the role of new chairman of the FCC. (From: TheRealNews) (16 minutes)

Wireless Industry: We’re running out of spectrum!
Wireless Industry: We’ve got plenty to room for unlimited ESPN!

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.

The buffet is open.

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)

Verizon casts off its rural landline network for some customers.

Verizon landline customers reporting problems with their service in Pennsylvania may be soon targeted for Verizon’s wireless landline replacement — Voice Link — according to two sources sharing an internal memo with Broadband Reports.

The May 7 memo states that a significant number “selected customers” will be migrated off Verizon’s copper landline network to the Voice Link wireless service. One of the sources recognized the move as an end run around regulators:

“It has become painfully obvious to both our employees and customers that Verizon wishes to divest themselves of all regulated services,” says the source. “Abandoning our regulated wire line customers in favor of fixed point LTE may seem like a clever move but it violates “The Negroponte Principle” and will ultimately bump-up against the immutable laws of spectrum conservation physics.”

“It’s a shame that corporations like Verizon can build a FTTCS based wireless empire with regulatory subsidies provided by their wireline customers and then force them onto the unregulated wireless side,” argues the insider. “Questions of ethics and legality abound and perhaps regulatory over-sight is warranted here.”

Verizon may not get too much oversight from Pennsylvania regulators hoodwinked by the telecom company in the past.

Voice Link is a voice-only wireless home phone replacement that lacks certain calling features, Caller ID with Name for one, and requires the homeowner to provide power (and backup batteries in the event of a power failure). Customers are also dependent on quality reception from the nearest Verizon Wireless cell tower and that it remains in service during severe weather events or prolonged power outages.

Some of the customers likely targeted are still waiting for DSL broadband service from Verizon. If those customers are identified as Voice Link prospects, they will be waiting for broadband forever because Voice Link does not support data services and Verizon cannot supply DSL over a scrapped landline network.

Stop the Cap! has also learned today that the Federal Communications Commission has no problem with Verizon’s unilateral action to switch landline customers to wireless.

A FCC representative told our reader Anne, who is currently fighting Verizon over its plans to abandon landline service on the New Jersey Barrier Island, that they consider Voice Link a functionally equivalent landline service. In a response that could have come directly from Verizon customer service, the FCC helpfully describes the new service Anne already understands and does not want:

Q. What if Verizon is NOT replacing copper with fiber, but is going strictly to wireless?  There will be no landlines whatsoever.  Is that acceptable?

A. “Yes that is acceptable and it is called Verizon Voice Link.  It is a wireless device that plugs into the telephone lines in your home, allowing customers the ability to use their home telephone to make and receive calls.” — FCC Representative Number : TSR54

“This second FCC response, like the first one, ignores the issue, is unprofessional and is insulting,” says Anne. “Obviously, I already know what Voice Link is.”

Verizon FiOS is off limits to rural customers. Wireless voice and satellite broadband is in your future.

Verizon Communications has big plans for its “miraculous” wireless home phone replacement which will soon find itself in rural homes across Verizon’s service area as part of a larger plan to dismantle rural America’s wired telephone network.

Just as company executives promised more than a year ago, Verizon wants to transition rural customers to fixed wireless phone service that could mean the end of wired broadband for millions of Verizon customers still using DSL.

Verizon senior vice president Tom Maguire told Communications Daily Voice Link is Verizon’s answer for customers it cannot easily transition to fiber optics. He is thrilled about the prospects of getting rid of deteriorating copper networks in favor of an inexpensive wireless alternative.

“I’m super jazzed about this because I think it will be good for everybody,” he said. “I think it’ll change a lot.”

For rural Verizon customers, the changes could be profound, dramatic, and not exactly a win-win scenario:

• No more wired phone service, which means medical monitoring, many home security systems, and inexpensive dial-up service that all rely on landline technology will be rendered unusable;
• No more unlimited use DSL service, no business broadband service, no credit card processing or other electronic business transactions that depend on a wired connection;
• No enforced quality of service standards, rate oversight, or guarantee of access to quality voice service;
• No prospect of advanced fiber optic FiOS services, including high bandwidth video and broadband.

Verizon is making it clear Fire Island and the New Jersey Barrier Island are just the first steps towards the retirement of copper, either in favor of fiber optics in high profit/low-cost areas or wireless in rural areas not worth upgrading.

Maguire claims Fire Island residents did not want the company to tear up yards or streets to replace its damaged copper wire network with newer technology like fiber. But Fire Island residents and administrators tell Stop the Cap! they were never asked. Instead, residents are being told Voice Link is likely their only option for traditional phone service on the western half of the island, and some customers are unhappy they will never get FiOS broadband upgrades Verizon says are financially untenable to provide.

Verizon has quietly tested Voice Link in Florida, giving customers the option of keeping their wired service or switching to the wireless alternative. But the test may have been stacked in Voice Link’s favor, as the choice was given to voice-only customers having chronic service problems with Verizon’s deteriorating copper wire network.

Going forward, many rural customers may not have a choice. For those who want Internet access, Verizon isn’t promising its wireless network is up to the task. Their suggested alternative?

Verizon’s solution for rural broadband.

Get a satellite dish.

Maguire acknowledged Voice Link customers won’t be able to fax or do certain activities, but he said the telco never pretended they would. Verizon won’t be offering data services with Voice Link, but if Fire Island customers want more options, they can potentially choose satellite, he said.

Maguire believes that customers living with a deteriorating copper landline network will gravitate quickly towards a wireless phone replacement.

Verizon arranged a blind test of Voice Link for 40,000 customers in another company’s territory with unbranded devices. When the copper wire network performed normally, customers preferred the quality of traditional landline service. But after it rained, the poorly maintained network made all the difference.

“The copper sounded like hell, it was noisy and static-y,” Maguire said.

Maguire did not say if Verizon blind tested whether customers preferred traditional landline service, Voice Link, or its fiber optic FiOS network.

Verizon hopes to begin introducing its Voice Link service in other markets as early as June.

Verizon says customers are responsible for maintaining and replacing backup batteries used with its FiOS service.

Beep.  Beep.  Beep.

Verizon FiOS phone customers will one day hear that ominous sound in their home and begin searching for the source. The audible alarm isn’t coming from the smoke detector or your computer’s uninterruptible power supply. It is coming from a square white box mounted in your garage or basement with a Verizon logo on it.

The Verizon Optical Network Terminal (ONT) Battery Backup Unit (BBU) provides up to eight hours of backup power for your FiOS voice services in the event of a commercial power failure.

Verizon considers its battery your problem, even though you lease the equipment from Verizon as part of your monthly service. After one year of standard warranty coverage, customers are responsible for maintaining the battery and for any damages that might occur if one fails to replace or remove it. Verizon’s website warns not promptly removing the spent battery could result in leaking corrosive battery acid which might damage the BBU itself. You would be held responsible for any repair or replacement costs.

Some Verizon FiOS customers cannot understand why they should pay to maintain equipment Verizon still technically owns.

“They require us to lease the equipment (set-top boxes, wireless router, backup battery device, etc.) so they are responsible,” believes one disgruntled customer. “If they would sell it to us or allow us to provide our own I could see us paying for it.”

Verizon representatives say they fully disclose customers are responsible for maintaining the battery. But customers complain it is buried in the fine print. Many more are unhappy to learn Verizon charges at least $45 for a replacement battery that seems to last only about two years.

Joanne Gaugler is on her third battery in seven years, and that one is now on its way out.

“The battery I have now has been beeping for a long time,” Gaugler wrote.

Not only does the battery beep incessantly, but the company also begins sending e-mail messages warning customers they need to replace it to avoid the possibility of damaging their equipment.

“When I called about this problem ten months into my FiOS service, the representative had me remove and reinstall the battery, claiming it was probably a loose connection and that I did not need a new battery,” says Stop the Cap! reader Jim Connor. “When I called back about the same problem 13 months into my FiOS service — one month out of warranty — the representative insisted I buy a new battery.”

Connor said Verizon charges an exorbitant amount for the replacement.

“Another profit center for Verizon, because they charge $35 for the battery and another $9 to ship it, before taxes,” Connor writes. “I ended up paying $10 less at a local battery replacement store, but Verizon got all bothered I did not buy it from them, warning it could ‘damage my service.'”

Verizon strongly discourages customers from buying replacement batteries from anyone other than themselves and disclaims any responsibility for damages caused by “an improper battery.” Verizon also offers customers free battery replacement if you happen to buy a Verizon Protection Pak plan, which starts at $19.99 a month.

There is nothing special about Verizon’s backup battery, a standard issue 12-Volt 7.2Ah SLA (Sealed Lead Acid) model often found in home alarm systems. Frugal Verizon FiOS customers can find equivalent batteries online for less than half the price Verizon charges, often with no upfront sales tax or shipping.

A Stop the Cap! search for “GS Portalac PX12072” or “GT12080-HG” (from labels on current batteries) on websites like Amazon or eBay quickly uncovered several highly rated alternatives that cost as little as $18 with identical specifications.

Batteries of this type have a shelf life of 3-5 years, and an in-service useful life of 1.5-3 years, after which they should be replaced and recycled.

Another alternative is to simply remove the battery altogether. That will result in no backup landline service in the event of a power failure, but your cell phone may already offer a suitable alternative.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDKA Pittsburgh Verizon FiOS Battery 5-09-13.mp4[/flv]

KDKA in Pittsburgh reports around 10 Verizon FiOS customers a day are flooding into local Batteries Plus stores looking for new batteries for the company’s equipment.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Install Replacement Battery 2012.flv[/flv]

Now that you have a replacement battery in hand, here is a Verizon-produced video explaining how to safely install it.  (4 minutes)