Some of AT&T’s prepaid GoPhone customers are howling over the company’s “new and improved” data packages that now require customers to purchase a qualified voice package if they also want affordable wireless data.

AT&T’s press release:

AT&T today announced the following new data packages with double the data or more for the same price for GoPhone customers, available April 22.

• 1GB for $25
• 200MB for $15
• 50MB for $5

All data packages are available on the $50 Unlimited Talk & Text nationwide plan for GoPhone smartphones and the $25 Unlimited Text with 250 minutes nationwide GoPhone plan.

At first glance the new data plans seem to offer double the data allowance of AT&T’s older plans, which were available to any prepaid customer who wanted to avoid AT&T’s default data rate: 1 cent per 5KB.  While that amount seems tiny, in fact it’s not.  A gigabyte of usage without a data plan costs over $2,000. That is quite an incentive to enroll in one of AT&T’s data packages.

Only now AT&T’s most value-conscious customers can’t.

AT&T’s “new and improved” prepaid plans now require customers to first enroll in a $25 or $50 voice plan before they are allowed to purchase a data package.  That leaves AT&T’s “pay as you go” customers out in the cold.

A customer used to spending $15 a month on a data package with a 10c per voice minute plan with no daily access fee will now pay at least $50.  The required 250 minute voice plan with unlimited text runs $25 a month.  The data package costs an additional $25.

Rory Smith called that “rubbish.”

“Effectively this makes the service completely useless as I only need a small amount of data and rarely use my phone for voice calls or SMS messages,” Smith wrote.

“By doing this they are requiring you to enter a talk plan and pay for minutes you will never use, all just to force consumers into paying more,” another customer remarked. “It really seems like AT&T is trying to squeeze every penny they can out of their prepaid plans.”

AT&T's new prepaid pricing plans

Some analysts worry AT&T’s quest for data profits are pricing them out of the prepaid data-only market.

Current Analysis analyst Deepa Karthikeyan wrote in a report that AT&T will likely prompt customers to start shopping around and they are likely to encounter daily plan options that deliver somewhat better pricing at rival carriers.  Daily plan customers typically want the cheapest plan possible so they can pay a-la-carte for the specific features that interest them.  AT&T’s move forces customers to pay a $25 entry fee just to qualify for a data plan, which in some cases is the only reason the customer has the phone.

Some of AT&T’s competitors with comparable plans:

• T-Mobile: $3/day Pay As You Go – First 200MB at 3G speed -or- $30 up to 5GB at 4G speed plus 100 minutes, unlimited texting
• Virgin Mobile: $35 up to 2.5GB data, 300 minutes, unlimited texting
• Verizon: $50 unlimited talk, texting, minutes
• Straight Talk: $45 unlimited talk, texting, 2GB data with roaming on small GSM carriers
• Red Pocket: $60 unlimited talk, texting, 2GB data and 200 international minutes
• H20 Wireless: $60 unlimited talk, texting, 1GB data and $10 international calling

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem. Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.” — Martin Cooper, inventor of the portable cell phone

Despite the fear-mongering by North America’s wireless phone companies that a spectrum crisis is at hand — one that threatens the viability of wireless communications across the continent, some of the most prominent industry veterans dispute the public policy agenda of phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, Bell, and Rogers.

Martin Cooper ought to know.  He invented the portable cell phone, and remains involved in the wireless industry today.  Cooper shrugs off cries of spectrum shortages as a problem well-managed by technological innovation.  In fact, he’s credited for Cooper’s Law: The ability to transmit different radio communications at one time and in the same place has grown with the same pace since Guglielmo Marconi’s first transmissions in 1895. The number of such communications being theoretically possible has doubled every 30 months, from then, for 104 years.

National Public Radio looks back at the earliest car phones, which weighed 80 pounds and operated with vacuum tubes. Innovation, improved technology, and lower pricing turned an invention for the rich and powerful into a device more than 300,000,000 North Americans own and use today. (April 2012) (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A traditional car phone from the 1960s.

The earliest cell phones have been around since the 1940s.  St. Louis was the first city in the United States to get Mobile Telephone Service (MTS).  It worked on three analog radio channels and required an operator to make calls on the customer’s behalf. By 1964, direct dialing from car phones became possible with Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS), which also increased the number of radio channels available for calls.

In the 1970s, popular television shows frequently showed high-flyers and private detectives with traditional looking phones installed in their cars.  But the service was obscenely expensive.  The equipment set customers back $2-4,000 or was leased for around $120 a month.  Local calls ran $0.70-1.20 per minute.  That was when a nice home was priced at $27,000, a new car was under $4,000, gas was $0.55/gallon, and a first run movie ticket was priced at $1.75.

With many cities maintaining fewer than a dozen radio channels for the service, only a handful of customers could make or receive calls at a time.  The first “spectrum crisis” arrived by the late 1970s, when car phones became the status symbol of the rich and powerful (the middle class had pagers). Customers found they couldn’t make or receive calls because the frequencies were all tied up.  Some cities even rationed service by maintaining waiting lists, not allowing new customers to have the technology until an existing one dropped their account.

Instead of demanding deregulation and warning of wireless doomsday, the wireless industry innovated its way out of the era of MTS altogether, switching instead to a “cellular” approach developed in part by the Bell System.

[flv width=”412″ height=”330″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Testing the First Public Cell Phone Network.flv[/flv]

In the 1970s, when the first cell phone “spectrum crisis” erupted, the Bell System innovated its way out the the dilemma without running to Congress demanding sweeping deregulation.  This documentary, produced by the Bell System, explores AMPS — analog cell phone service, and how it transformed Chicago’s mobile telephone landscape back in 1979.  (9 minutes)

“Arguing that the nation could run out of spectrum is like saying it was going to run out of a color.” David P. Reed, one of the original architects of the Internet

Instead of one caller tying up a single IMTS radio frequency capable of reaching across an entire city, the Bell System deployed lower-powered transmitters in a series of hexagonal “cells.”  Each cell only served callers within a much smaller geographic area.  As a customer traveled between cells, the system would hand the call off to the next cell in turn and so on — all transparently to the caller.  Because of the reduced coverage area, cell towers in a city could operate on the same frequencies without creating interference problems, opening up the system to many more customers and more calls.

Inventor Martin Cooper holds one of the first portable mobile phones

In Chicago, Bell’s IMTS system only supported around a dozen callers at the same time. In 1977, the phone company built a test cellular network it dubbed “AMPS,” for Advanced Mobile Phone System.  AMPS technology was familiar to many early cell phone users.  It was more popularly known as “analog” service, and while it could still only handle one conversation at a time on each frequency, the system supported better call handling and many more users than earlier wireless phone technology.  By 1979, Bell had 1,300 customers using their test system in Chicago.

AMPS considerably eased the “spectrum crunch” earlier systems found challenging, and subsequent upgrades to digital technology dramatically increased the number of calls each tower could handle and allowed providers to slash pricing, which fueled the spectacular growth of the wireless marketplace.

Yesterday it was voice call congestion, today it is a “tidal wave” of wireless data.  But inventors like Cooper believe the solution is the same: engineering innovation.

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem,” Cooper told the New York Times. “Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.”

Cooper believes in the cellular approach to wireless communications.  Dividing up today’s geographic cells into even smaller cells could vastly expand network capacity just like AMPS did for Windy City residents in the late 1970s. Using especially directional antennas focused on different service areas, placing new cell towers, innovating further with tiny neighborhood antennas mounted on telephone poles, or building out Wi-Fi networks can all manage the data capacity “crisis” says Cooper.

New technology also allows cell signals to co-exist, even on the same or adjacent frequencies, without creating interference problems. All it takes is a willingness to invest in the technology and deploy it across signal-congested urban areas.

Unfortunately, network engineers are not often responsible for the business decisions or public policy agendas of the nation’s largest wireless companies who are using the “spectrum crisis” to argue for increased deregulation and demanding additional radio spectrum which, in some cases, could be locked up by companies to make sure nobody else can use them.

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY Times Mobile Carriers Warn of Spectrum Crisis.flv[/flv]

The New York Times offers this easy-to-follow primer on wireless spectrum and why it matters (or not) in the current climate of explosive growth in mobile data traffic.  (3 minutes)

“Their primary interest is not necessarily in making spectrum available, or in making wireless performance better. They want to make money.” — David S. Isenberg, veteran researcher, AT&T Labs

Innovation, not wholesale deregulation, allowed the Bell System to solve the spectrum crisis of the 1970s by creating today's "cell system" that can re-use radio frequencies in adjacent areas to handle more wireless traffic.

Spectrum auctions bring billions to federal coffers, but actually deliver a hidden tax to cell phone customers who ultimately pay for the winning bids priced into their monthly bills.  It also makes it prohibitively expensive for a new player to enter the market.  Already facing enormous network construction costs, any new entrant would then face the crushing prospect of outbidding AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Bell or Rogers for the frequencies essential for operation.

As the New York Times writes:

When a company gets the license for a band of radio waves, it has the exclusive rights to use it. Once a company owns it, competitors can’t have it.

Mr. Reed said the carriers haven’t advocated for the newer technologies because they want to retain their monopolies.

Cooper advocates a new regulatory approach at the Federal Communications Commission — one that mandates wireless phone companies start using today’s technology to amplify their networks.

Cooper points to one example: the smart antenna.

Smart antennas direct cell towers to focus their transmission energy towards the specific devices connected to it.  If a customer was using their phone from the southern end of the cell tower’s coverage area, why direct signal energy to the north, where it gets wasted?  New LTE networks support smart antenna technology, but carriers have generally avoided investing in upgrading towers to support the new technology, expected to be commonplace inside new wireless devices within two years.

T-Mobile calls these technology solutions “Band-Aids” that won’t address the company’s demand for more frequencies to manage its network.  But that kind of thinking applied to the mobile phone world of the 1970s would have maintained the exorbitantly expensive IMTS technology discarded decades ago, since replaced by innovation that made more efficient use of the spectrum already on hand.  That innovation also transformed wireless phones from a tool (or toy) for the very wealthy to an affordable success story that now threatens the traditional wired phone network in ways the Bell System could have never envisioned.

[flv width=”412″ height=”330″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Its a Whole New System.flv[/flv]

It’s A Whole New System: AT&T and other wireless phone companies might want to learn the lesson the Bell System was trying to teach their employees back in 1979: Meet Change With Change.  This company-produced video implores the phone company to do more than the same old thing.  No, this video is not “PM Magazine.”  It is about innovation and actually listening to what customers want. With apologies to Mama Cass Elliot, there was indeed a New World Coming — the breakup of the Bell System just five years later.  Don’t miss the diabetic-coma-inducing, sugary-sweet jingle at the end.  Then reach for a can of Tab.  (10 minutes)

Schuyler County

The fastest thing in Schuyler County, N.Y., isn’t broadband — it’s the Watkins Glen International speedway.

County officials hope to change that, voting unanimously this month to approve an agreement with the Southern Tier Network to bring a regional fiber optic system into the county.

The not-for-profit local development corporation established to build and manage the regional fiber network doesn’t sit well with some county residents, however, including one retired Verizon employee who dismissed the project.

Odessa resident Karen Radenberg called fiber optics technology “old school” and said no private company will connect to the fiber network to expand broadband service.

Radenberg urged the county to consider that communications companies have now moved on to using 4G wireless technology instead of fiber.

“That’s ridiculous,” countered Legislature Chairman Dennis Fagan (R-Tyrone).

Fagan

Fagan pointed to nearby Ontario County’s fiber middle-mile and institutional network which has signed companies, including Verizon, as customers.  Verizon reportedly uses the Ontario County network to deliver backhaul connectivity to its cell tower network in the area.  Ontario County is served by several different landline companies including Frontier Communications, Verizon, and Windstream.  Time Warner Cable is the dominant cable provider, but large sections of the county are deemed too rural for cable television service.

Fagan said the new fiber network will improve the chances private companies will expand broadband across the county, but also help deliver an important upgrade to the region’s emergency responder communications system.  The extremely hilly terrain across much of the southern tier creates problems because of signal gaps.  The new fiber network will allow the county to build radio repeaters into areas where the existing network of microwave communications towers cannot reach.

Schuyler County currently has no plans to sell Internet connectivity to the public, but hopes existing private cable and phone companies — including Time Warner Cable and Verizon Communications — will consider utilizing the network to expand service.  Neither company has shown much interest expanding service to new areas recently, most likely because expansion costs will not be recouped fast enough.

If the county network reduces the cost to expand service, more homes and businesses may now fall within a “Return on Investment” formula that could mean the difference between broadband and dial-up.

The Consumerist awards AT&T the "Bronze Poo" Award for Third Worst Company in America. (Image: The Consumerist)

A video game company reviled by game fans and the perennially-shoddy Bank of America managed to beat out America’s lowest rated phone company in The Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America” annual award contest, but not by much.

As Electronic-Arts tries to explain away its top-worst rating, AT&T easily took third place after a consolation round decidedly eliminated Walmart.

Congratulations to the folks aboard the Death Star! As soon as we get some proper bronze-colored paint, we’ll be packing up your Bronze Poo and sending it off in the mail. It will, of course, include a 620-page end-user agreement that preempts any class-action lawsuits by AT&T employees.

Some Consumerist readers wondered why game fans rushed to beat EA over the head over its anti-consumer tendencies when Ma Bell was still ripe for some kicking:

The Consumerist notes their award epitomizes the last 12 months for AT&T.

“First it attempted to leap-frog to the head of the wireless pack by swallowing T-Mobile whole, only to fail miserably after many months and at a cost of several billion dollars,” the piece reads. “Then it came tantalizingly close to vying for the coveted Worst Company In America Golden Poo trophy, only to be given the smack-down by a video game company. At least it won’t be leaving the tournament empty-handed.”

“Disruptive” is perhaps too timid a word to use for Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstrom, the man who brought Excedrin-strength headaches to the music industry with file-swapping software Kazaa and streamed video across the net for free with Joost.  Now he wants to blow up America’s business model for expensive wireless data by literally giving it away to wireless phone users.

FreedomPop has a “freemium” business model of its very own — give away 1GB of 4G data through Clearwire to iPhone owners willing to use FreedomPop’s WiMAX-fitted phone case with the hope users will throw more business their way for around $10/GB after the first gigabyte is gone.

Zennstrom

Clearwire has been in the mood to make deals with all-comers to leverage its WiMAX network that carriers like Sprint plan to abandon for LTE 4G service in the not-too-distant future.  By giving away 1GB of free usage (and it remains unclear whether this is a “one-off” deal or if the meter resets to zero every month), the company is set to draw plenty of free press.

FreedomPop is likely to appeal to price-sensitive customers who don’t want to pay providers $30 a month for 2-3GB of usage when a much smaller, cheaper data plan combined with the free service will do.

The WiMAX case, which will fit over Apple’s iPhone, also acts as a mobile hotspot, supporting up to eight concurrently-connected devices.  No change of phone is required as users can connect to the service through Wi-Fi.

Customers will have to place a deposit on the case, likely less than $100, refundable when returned in good condition.

With most people not exceeding 1GB of usage per month, the only cost will be the “bare minimum” data plan customers are required to take with AT&T, Verizon Wireless, or Sprint, which currently runs $15-20 for a few hundred megabytes.

Clearwire’s WiMAX doesn’t deliver coverage to all points in the United States, and its speeds are considerably lower than 4G LTE service.  But free is free – a concept NetZero hopes to use to pitch a similar free 4G Clearwire WiMAX service.  The primary difference is your granted usage allowance.  FreedomPop will provide 1GB — NetZero 200MB.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ How Skype Co-Founder Hopes to Make Money Giving Away Mobile Broadband on FreedomPop 3-23-12.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal explores the business model of FreedomPop.  How can giving away 4G data succeed financially?  (4 minutes)