While the FCC searches for a way to get the authority to regulate the Internet, the net neutrality debate rages on. I stand firm on my position that net neutrality is a very poor substitute for real competition.

Competition ended the day the FCC quit requiring telcos to share their last mile right of ways and lines. That left the telcos and cable guys as a fixed line duopoly. Next, the FCC destroyed the promise of a wireless Third Pipe by not preventing the sale of broadband spectrum to the telcos along with allowing the cable guys buying up a chunk of Clearwire’s national Wimax network. So, with an uncompetitive market, net neutrality rules are being pushed as the fix for unfair traffic management. Never mind the fact that the FCC has done a pathitic job of protecting the public interest so far. It wants us to trust it to do better with new regulations.

As the FCC gets closer to crafting network neutrality rules (assuming they even have the authority to do so), AT&T lobbyists have worked overtime to push the idea that creating such rules would automatically result in job losses. To help nudge this scary meme into the press, they hired their old friend Bret Swanson, formerly employed at the Discovery Institute — a think tank that created both the “Exaflood” (debunked here countless times) and “Intelligent Design”. Back in February Swanson, like most AT&T hired policy wonks, used completely bogus “science” to insist that network neutrality rules would result in 1.5 million job losses. He came to that number simply by adding up all of the people employed by companies that submitted comments to the FCC opposing network neutrality (seriously). (Techdirt)

The idea that net neutrality will result in job losses at AT&T or anywhere else is just plain silly. So is the notion that FCC regulations will prevent unfair traffic management practices. I What is needed is an open market. That means fair sharing of the old copper infrastructure we all paid for years ago combined with some open access broadband spectrum. When there are 4 or 5 options in a given market, the net neutrality issue will take care of itself. That doesn’t mean some regulation isn’t needed. In rural market’s someone will need to intervene. I think that task is best left to LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, not the FCC.

By the way, I can guarantee you that an open market will result in job losses at AT&T. The silver lining to that cloud is that here will be better employers in the same line of business for the displaced to work for.

Verizon and AT&T, after getting a lock on the most valuable 700 MHz spectrum are very upset to learn they may have an unexpected competitor.  As I predicted, the protests to a plan to re-purpose satellite spectrum for broadband has upset the wireless cartel’s apple cart.

Both AT&T and Verizon, the two biggest winner’s in 2008’s 700 MHz spectrum auction, voiced their displeasure with the plan. (Both Verizon and AT&T plan to roll out LTE services on their 700 MHz holdings.) AT&T said the provision will give unfair advantage to competitors, such as Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile USA, which will not have to get approval from the FCC to access the spectrum.

“The commission is setting a very disturbing precedent when it implies that it may use allocation of spectrum to manipulate the wireless market,” Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, said in a statement. “This action is manifestly unwise and potentially unlawful.”

“Both the bureau’s process and the resulting restrictions are troubling,” Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson told FierceWireless. “We are reviewing our options.”

The FCC, for its part, defended the restrictions. “These commitments–building out the network to 260 million Americans by 2015 and allowing the FCC prior review of potential leases of spectrum or capacity to the two largest incumbent carriers–do not prohibit any specific transactions,” Paul de Sa, chief of the FCC’s Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, wrote in a blog post. “But they do provide some reassurance that the approval will ignite new broadband competition while protecting the public from any potential harms.” (DSL reports)

To accuse the FCC of manipulating the market on behalf of a certain player is incredibly bold for AT&T and Verizon who have successfully manipulated the rules their advantage ever since the original AT&T breakup.

A simple tech fact is that at satellite frequencies, it will take double or more  the number of towers to deliver service  vs 700 MHz. This alone give s the the 700 MHz carriers a huge advantage. AT&T and Verizon are simply upset that they may have another disadvantaged competitor in addition to Clearwire.

Well shucks I have been saying for quite some time that Femtocell was a total rip. But folks say I am a lone voice in the wilderness on the issue. Well no more –

Even if I’m willing to pay $150 to extend AT&T’s shitty 3G network, it will only be accessible to 10 lines, and it will almost certainly be a pain in the ass to add or remove lines. So, when my iPhone toting friends are down to play Rock Band, they too can enjoy getting 5 voice mails the moment they leave the house, each from a call that never rang inside the AT&T black hole that is my home. There is one spot of good news here though, buried at the end of the paragraph: AT&T has decided graciously not to charge me a monthly fee for the privilege of fixing its network. But wait, that sentence right before it, about the minutes? Does that mean I’m still going to be charged for minutes, even when dialing out over my broadband connection instead of AT&T’s spendy wireless network? Are they fucking kidding me?

In addition, AT&T will offer a companion rate plan option for MicroCell customers – especially customers on Family Talk plans — who want to supplement their existing voice plans. For $19.99 a month, individual or Family Talk customers can make unlimited calls through a 3G MicroCell, without using minutes in their monthly wireless voice plan.

Oh I get it now. This is a revenue opportunity. You know, for AT&T. For $150 down, I can use my broadband connection to extend AT&T’s shitty network, but if I don’t want those calls to eat my minutes I have to pay ANOTHER $20 a month? This is extortion.

So what is the problem? Well I think the blog entry at Tested lays it out pretty well. Link.

But in every grey cloud could be a silver lining. Somebody, anybody get hold of one of those microcells and lets dig into the internals. If we could reverse engineer it, chances are we could turn the tables. AT&T would not have much incentive to deploy this if they knew that with just a .BIN file upload you could have your cell phone operating for free!

Think about it.

Which in this case means that if Google wants to deliver it, and you want to use it, Google WILL find a way to do so. Even if the device mfr says NO! Well in this case its AT&T/Apple saying no to a Google Voice app on the iPhone.

Now I understand why AT&T did not want it, it hurts their voice traffic income. But do both of these partners realize the semi truck load of a mistake they just made? Had Google followed their original plan they would have locked the Google Voice into the app space of the iPhone architecture. Doing so would have meant Google duplicating that for any subsequent smart phone with the attendant hassles and costs of handling multiple variants of software. Now?

Now Google has turned the software and the iPhone into a VoIP TERMINAL. Unleashed from the underlying architecture Google Voice can now live on any device capable of handling HTML5. Any smart phone, MID, Nettop, Netbook, you name it. That single denial has unleashed a monster, at least for a Telco.

Very dumb AT&T.

Linky.

While we keep hearing reports of performance and coverage problems with AT&T’s 3G network. Most of AT&T’s DSL subscribers have the same available bandwidth as they have had for years. But hey, mobile apps are hot, so why not invest in them and sell them to your captive wireless subscribers?

De la Vega noted the explosion in application growth in the U.S. cell phone market over the past year. “No country has seen the growth we have seen,” he said. In 2009, U.S. wireless consumers downloaded 832.7 million applications, a ninefold increase over the past two years. He also noted that revenue from these downloads has increased some 60 percent.

At the company-sponsored event held on the eve of the Consumer Electronics Show, de la Vega outlined AT&T’s strategy for pushing new applications onto a slew of new devices, and he provided a glimpse into how the company plans to help developers make this happen and make sure its network can keep up with increased demand for data, especially on its mobile network. (Cnet)

The FCC has pretty much indicated that “line sharing” is not going to happen, and the last talk of open wireless devices ended with departure of the prior FCC chair. AT&T customers should expect more add ons and nickel and dime services on the same underpowered AT&T networks next year.  With no competition, AT&T can keep charging more for less.

Just when I thought we had reached the bottom of stupidity for what goes as political belly dragging along comes someone with an even lower rut in the road. –

The suit claims that AT&T should turn over unused balances on the calling cards of consumers whose last known address was in Washington, D.C. and have not used the calling card for three years.

“AT&T’s prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under district law,” the attorney general’s office said in a statement.

According to the attorney general’s office, that sum, known in the industry as “breakage,” represents some 5 to 20 percent of the total balances purchased by consumers who use the calling cards.

States and municipalities have often similarly used unclaimed property laws, known as escheat laws, to claim ownership of unused retail gift card balances.

Yes escheat laws are on the books and yes calling cards would probably fall under their provisions. Where I have angst is that this is conversion not escheat. Why? Simple. Unlike say a checking account or valuables recovered in a crime and not recovered where the owner will never be found. In AT&T case they probably do know where the calling card customer is. All they have to do is dial the last known originating call on that card and they probably have an 80% chance of finding them. Not only that but the State has the obligation to attempt to find the ‘owner’ of the lost minutes.

So here is where it will get Macabre to the extreme. High likelyhood that the lost minutes are 5min or less. In today’s world that’s maybe .50¢. So in order to legally claim those ‘assets’ DC would have to at least do a search for the owner. The cost of the search is? Guarantee you its more than .50¢! That is why I say this is conversion not escheat. The only way the DC govt can do this is by not following or severely modifying the escheat laws.

Anybody disagree with that logic?

Linky.
HT:Reason Online.

That is pulling the plug on POTS. You know that little jingly thing your mother and grandmother still use at lifeline rates? Yes its still out there but dwindling by the day. So what happens? –

In response to a Notice of Inquiry released by the FCC to explore how to transition to a purely IP-based communications network, AT&T has declared that it’s time to cut the cord. AT&T told the FCC that the death of landlines is a matter of when , not if, and asked that a firm deadline be set for pulling the plug.

AT&T tells the FCC that supporting traditional POTS landlines is impeding investment in broadband, VoIP, and wireless services.AT&T said in its response to the FCC that “with each passing day, more and more communications services migrate to broadband and IP-based services, leaving the public switched telephone network (”PSTN”) and plain-old telephone service (”POTS”) as relics of a by-gone era.”

It also stated “It makes no sense to require service providers to operate and maintain two distinct networks when technology and consumer preferences have made one of them increasingly obsolete.”

Is AT&T right? Yes. The fact is Central Office based systems have long lead times and nearly as long tax treatment. Most of the majors were using 19/20yr MACRS or ACRS depreciation on the capital investment as that was agreed to by both the industry and the IRS as appropriate, circa 1950’s. Little has changed on that front ever since. But that poses a problem for say Version who just put a new CO remote in 5 years ago. (Rare as that is.) So how would that install be treated? Under the current rules an accelerated recapture would take place for junking the equipment. That’s a major hit when you consider that even today CO investments are in the billions. So the Telcos would push for tax relief if devaluation ever happened.

My gut says not so fast. Even though what AT&T says is true I have the tingly feeling in the back of my head that it won’t work out that way. AT&T would take the revised recapture relief to the bank, not do any more R&D/advanced services/VOIP/network upgrades, then cry poor mouth all the way into the CEO’s pocket. I am not against AT&T, its just how these guys have operated for years. I have been in the belly of this beast to know better.

There of course is another fly in the ointment to a devaluation of CO networks. I call it the other 1200. That is approximately how many phone companies there are in this country. Most are small operators, functioning as COOPs in rural territory that none of the majors even want to touch. At a minimum there would have to be some sort of relief offered to these companies. At a minimum most would require a DSLAM to get their customers on to VOIP. Most likely SBA enhanced funding would have to be offered at 0% interest to these companies. To date I have not heard of any plans to do so.

Devaluing the POTS network has to happen. We need to realize that as soon as possible. We also need to make sure that in the switch serious profit taking does not occur. Compensation where needed, support where required, but in the end it should be a net-net wash.

Linky.

Well you better hang on to your wallet! AT&T is preparing to readjust its pricing and policies. Oh and it does not apply to just iPhone, but any smartphone data enabled device —

IPhone users who jam the airwaves by watching video on their devices will be put on tighter leashes, an AT&T Inc. executive said Wednesday.

The carrier has had trouble keeping up with wireless data usage, leading to dropped connections and long waits for users trying to run programs on their devices. AT&T is upgrading its network to cope, but its head of consumer services, Ralph de la Vega, told investors at a UBS conference in New York that it will also give high-bandwidth users incentives to “reduce or modify their usage.”

Well this sounds like the knee jerk reaction of a bunch of suits who did not listen to the network engineers. If you sell a device capable of doing full signal video on a 2″ screen, well damn don’t blame the customer wanting to use it. Especially if you and your partners feature such capabilities in your advertisements.

Now in a capitalist system, price adjusting is ‘the’ method for moderating demand. It will work for bandwidth too. So no faults there. But where I would draw the line is — if flows to the shareholders or the executive suite totally then shame. A significant portion of the bounty ought to go to upgrading the network to increase capacity. That is what the engineer in me says.

No data on changes, prices or when this all happens. But do keep this in mind there dear reader. When it happens you can then opt out without an ETF charge if you wish.

Linky.

When two elephants start a fracas in the room what is the best course of action? Get the Hell out of the room of course! Well that is what is preparing to go on between Verizon and AT&T. The two are locked horns on the coverage map ads that Verizon is running in reference to their 3G wireless network

I hope the judge has a good sense of humor. He will need it for this case. –

In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn’t offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T’s wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon’s misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T’s strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers… and we’ve beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn — a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.

The fun part of this? Like these two companies don’t have something else to do? Like maybe lay some fiber or something? But it is par for the course in the Telco industry. Now I suspect that why AT&T did this has little to do with the ads and more to do with some underlying cross interlata agreement they have been locking horns on. You don’t burn $1,000/hr in legal costs for this kind of piddly stuff.

Endgadget has the gory details.

This blog has been saying that voice channels on mobile is a anachronism. With the largest chunk of CPE now being smart that supports both a voice and data channel, the reality is the voice channel is passe. Well it looks like AT&T saw the handwriting –

Bowing to openness pressure from the FCC, AT&T renounced on Tuesday its opposition to internet telephone calls that use the iPhone’s 3G data connection.

In short, Skype on the iPhone is now OK by AT&T, the company said in letters to Apple and the FCC.

AT&T’s change of heart comes just after the FCC controversially announced that it was planning to extend internet openness rules to mobile networks. The wireless carriers are fighting back, arguing that wireless networks are not robust enough to operate without intense network management.

AT&T made no mention of the FCC in its announcement, crediting the change instead to a routine examination of its policies.

Now the result we applaud. Though we are left with a bad after taste considering that AT&T was dragged there kicking and screaming. But that is not a panacea either. Consider that in certain markets like NYC the 3G bandwidth is overburdened and drops are a given with the average iPhone user. So having a Skype call dropped could be annoying. Especially since 1/3 of iPhone data calls are dropped daily.

We are 2 steps forward, one step back. We now have some open light on open access. But we are hindered by the lack of bandwidth coupled with a reduced revenue of the providers to fund the upgrades for more bandwidth.

Linky.