CA3LE6UY

"Seeing that Comcast added about 400,000 passings over the past year, and more than that the prior year, the requirement is irrelevant," <a href="http://www.multichannel.com/article/462763-Analysis_FCC_Sets_Low_Broadband_Bar_For_Comcast.php">says</a> Leichtman Research Group president Bruce Leichtman, talking about an FCC NBC/Merger condition requiring Comcast deploy service to an additional 400,000 homes. Meaningless conditions for show have become a trademark of modern regulators trying to pretend they're pro-consumer, and even trade magazines and cable sector analysts are noting that a huge portion of the Comcast conditions don't actually do anything at all. Looking at just normal Comcast network expansion, it has far exceeded this new requirement and will <a href="http://www.multichannel.com/article/462763-Analysis_FCC_Sets_Low_Broadband_Bar_For_Comcast.php">likely continue to do so</a>:

Quote

The 400,000 home expansion isn't the only condition of that type (read: totally and obnoxiously empty). A condition added by the Department of Justice requires that Comcast provide "at least 11 Mbps service" in all markets -- something they already do with the exception of a few tiny, old acquired systems. Many other conditions, like "protecting diversity," are also ambiguous enough to be considered filler. One impressive condition continues to be Comcast's promise to deliver $10 broadband to 2.5 million low income households, though we'll be interested to track the success and enforcement on that front.

Source: DSLReports.com

In 2009, Slate author Farhad Manjoo <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2231646">penned an article</a> insisting AT&T should ditch their $30, unlimited data plan. At the time >we pointed out how, like many people, Manjoo was confusing reasonable per-byte pricing (paying for what you use) with what carriers really are interested in -- which is flat rate pricing with low caps and high per byte overages. Regardless, in June of last year Manjoo (and the investment communty) got what they wanted, when AT&T introduced caps as low as 200 MB and per gig overages as high as $10, some of the most restrictive plans in the industry.

Some people (like Manjoo) applauded the shift, not quite understanding they were applauding an entirely new overpriced data paradigm. While some variety of reasonable caps, throttling and/or network management are certainly necessary on wireless networks, AT&T's 200 MB cap was simply absurd in the age of wireless video. Fast forward to 2011 -- a month before the Verizon iPhone launch -- and Manjoo is <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2281841/pagenum/all/">back with a new piece</a> again attacking the concept of unlimited data, insisting that flat rate unlimited pricing not only raises prices but "ruins the network." Manjoo goes on to insist that because the world so far hasn't shuddered to a digital halt, AT&T's ultra-low wireless caps must have been a good idea:

Quote

Those are reasonable rates; indeed, because the prices feel so fair.

-Slate, on AT&T's 200MB caps and $10 per gigabyte overages.  

One, it's not clear on which planet paying $10 per gigabyte is "reasonable."

Two, left unmentioned by Manjoo is the fact the majority of AT&T users were grandfathered on their unlimited plans. While AT&T required many users shift to the 2GB plan if they wanted to tether, smart AT&T users simply jailbroke their iPhone, tethered without AT&T's approval, and remained on their unlimited plans. It was telling that it wasn't until December that AT&T released any real data on their pricing shift, at which point they simply declared the pricing change was a smashing success because 7 million of AT&T's 93 million wireless users were now metered. The "vast majority" of those are on AT&T's 2GB plan, stated AT&T.

Obviously that's a "success" for AT&T, as the entire point of such pricing models is to drive the majority of users toward higher monthly bills under the guise of cost savings. With the vast majority of smartphone users consuming well in excess of 200 MB each month (and growing), they're all herded to the higher 2 GB tier. The actual choice in this regard is an illusion, and AT&T's absurdly-low 2 GB cap then shoves consumers head first into AT&T's $10 per gigabyte overage wall. As wireless video use evolves and average usage grows, AT&T then reaps the reward by imposing unreasonably high per gig charges on subscribers. Again, that's a success for AT&T, but not for the wireless user of 2015.

What's interesting is how people like Manjoo continue to accept the carrier claim that flat-rate unlimited data (terrestrial or wireless) is <b>simply not possible</b>, despite not one shred of raw network performance data from AT&T. With ever-evolving intelligent network gear, unlimited data absolutely is possible without "ruining the network," but only if you keep your networks upgraded in line with demand (you'll perhaps recall AT&T failing utterly in this regard in 2009). Consumers also like the simplicity of flat-rate unlimited, and continue to show they're willing to pay a premium for it. Others are ok with caps or even throttling, but they want the restrictions to be clear and reasonable.

So what's <b>really</b> the problem with unlimited? It's not congestion. Carriers AT&T's size have made a professional habit of using the congestion bogeyman to justify poor behavior and higher prices -- amazingly without any supporting evidence. The reality is that if AT&T's network isn't keeping up with user demand, it's AT&T's fault -- given they're sitting on $10 billion in unused spectrum and have repeatedly placed short-term investor satisfaction over consumer welfare or network performance on both the terrestrial and wireless fronts. Look at any number of consumer satisfaction studies, and you'll find the vast majority rate AT&T dead last. There's a reason for that, and it's not unlimited pricing.

The reality is that unlimited broadband doesn't allow a bloated, government pampered giant like AT&T to artificially constrict the pipe. Artificially constricting the pipe is important to AT&T because in the age of open networks, AT&T executives realize market evolution could erode their gatekeeper power. In the era of Google voice, Skype and smartphones, SMS and voice revenues will continue to decline as everything becomes data, and all services (from Voicemail to messaging) are developed by companies far more innovative than AT&T. That ultimately leaves AT&T as simply a network operator (gasp), and that means jacking up data rates to unreasonable levels to retain something close to the level of cash cow comfort and market power AT&T is used to.

Obviously AT&T's in the business to make money, and adjusting your business model to counter predicted losses is natural. But it needs to be remembered that as a company grafted to the bones of our intelligence apparatus protected by well-lobbied regulators, AT&T doesn't have to adhere to free market principles that punish anti-consumer pricing. As this pricing experimentation continues, consumers should be fighting vehemently to ensure caps and overages are reasonable, since nobody else will. Consumer groups are underfunded and forcefully marginalized, politicians and regulators treat such punitive pricing models as borderline patriotic, and the press apparently believes that $10 per gigabyte just "feels so fair."

If, like Salon, you're cheering wildly in blind support of unreasonably-low caps and ridiculously-high per byte overages in the age of HD video, you're cheering against our collective self-interests as consumers. We'll have to remember to thank you and Mr.  Manjoo in 2015 when we have to take out a second mortgage just to watch a high definition film on our smartphones.

Source: DSLReports.com

Mozilla this week announced that the company will be blocking the Skype Toolbar add-on for Firefox and remotely disabling it for existing users. Why? According to a <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/01/20/blocking-the-skype-toolbar-in-firefox/">post to the Mozilla blog</a>, the add-on, which detects phone numbers in web pages and re-renders them as a clickable button for easy calling, is a buggy mess. It's so buggy in fact, that Mozilla proclaimed it among the top contributors to Firefox crashes as well as being responsible for significant degradation in browsing speed for users:<

Quote

As a result, Firefox says they've added the add on to their <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/blocklist/">blocklist</a> until Skype can get their house in order. This is technically a "soft" block for existing users, meaning they can still turn on the add on manually if they wish. In a statement, Skype proclaimed that downloading the new client "will fix for most users any compatibility issues" and that the company is "working with Mozilla to ensure that there are no other compatibility issues."

Source: DSLReports.com

With Verizon now getting the iPhone in February, as you might expect they've ramped up new advertisements promoting the full launch on February 10. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlN3BgsV1nc">This ad</a> in particular features a breathlessly-waiting customer and a Verizon announcer who proclaims: "To our millions of customers, who never stopped believing this day would come Thank you." Unsurprisingly omitted is how most of these hopeful users are still locked down under a steep ETF with AT&T and probably can't afford to make the switch to a network that can actually complete phone calls in NYC and San Francisco. Combined with AT&T ETFs, the fact that the phone doesn't run on Verizon's ultra-fast new LTE network, and the iPhone 5 being just a few months away, it still seems like many users might defer their jump to Verizon until later this year.

Source: DSLReports.com

First Verizon eliminated their New Every Two discount, then AT&T eliminated their new handset discounts as well. Now the always-humbly-named <a href="http://www.bgr.com/2011/01/20/sprint-tweaking-premier-program-april-1st-making-early-upgrades-more-elusive/#">Boy Genius Report</a> notes Sprint will be significantly tweaking their handset discount policies as well. Currently, any user with an individual line costing more than $70 per month, or a family plan line costing more than $100 per month is eligible to upgrade to a new handset at a subsidized price after just twelve months. After April 1, that's changing -- and you'll need to spend $90 on an individual plan or $170 on a family plan or have been a customer for ten years to get the same benefits:

Quote

While it's nice that some carriers at least reward customer loyalty (something quite lacking in this sector), it's still part of a larger trend where customers are getting less but paying more. This news comes on the heels of Sprint expanding their "$10 because we can fee" to a significant majority of their users and AT&T raising rates on a wide variety of services.

Source: DSLReports.com