To be fair, the lede is a little misleading. The perp in question that made the threat is a contractor to Verizon. But like we say here on Third Pipe — ‘You are Who you Hire.’ –

Al Burrows of Las Cruces, New Mexico, sued Verizon Wireless in Santa Fe’s 1st Judicial District Court on April 20, claiming violations of state and federal debt collections laws, as well as “negligent infliction of emotional distress”–for which he wants the telecom giant to pay punitive damages. As of May 25, Verizon had yet to respond to a summons.

According to the lawsuit, last year Verizon bill collectors were making calls “too numerous to count” to Burrows over a relative’s unpaid cell phone bill.

When he hung up on one of these calls, the Verizon rep called him back, and grew “vulgar” and “abusive” in an attempt “harass and intimidate” Burrows.

“In particular, [Verizon's] representative stated that she knew where [Burrows] resided and said ‘I am gonna blow your mother fucking house up.’”

A suit is pending so VZ is in the closed clam mode. But you know, get a few of these kind of actions and it destroy’s the brand. We have seen stuff like this in VZ’s name from collectors, field reps, salesman, etc. They need to tighten up the contractual relationship of who they associate with.

HT: Sante Fe Reporter

Well the latest Consumerist award for the Worst Company in America has been rewarded. The Winner? Why Comcast!! The cable company that people seem to love to hate. But you know, there is something worse than being that winner. Being the company that rubs another’s nose in it –

For anyone who thought that mammoth megacorporations behaved anything like adults, they should just check out the Twitter account for Verizon, who saw fit tonight to have a little fun at the expense of Worst Company In America winner Comcast.

Follow the link to the Consumerist site to see the adult attitude from Verizon.

Linky.

Has Art Brodsky lost his grip? His posting over at Public Knowledge has to be one of the lamest lines of defense ever offered as a basis for over turning the Rule of Law. Kindness of Strangers be damned!

Mr Brodsky starts with using the Ides of March reversal technique –

Of course, the story isn’t all that simple, is it? Because the hidden story of Comcast’s glorious victory is that if Comcast were smart, it wouldn’t in the first place have brought the case, which challenged the FCC’s authority over the company’s high-speed Internet service. Some in the telecommunications industry, perhaps even huge companies with three letters in its name, urged (begged?) Comcast not to take the FCC’s ruling to court, because of the possibility that Comcast could actually win and, potentially, win big —which is what happened.

The reason that the Telcos like the arrangement Art is that it extended their LATA boundary relationships into the non regulated digital environment without so much as a legal skirmish. And what’s this dismissive alluding but not naming? Its AT&T, VZ, Sprint. Don’t be so damn coy.

But where is the standing on damages to the industry that Mr. Brodsky intones? He offers two — Depend on the Kindness of Strangers, and Waiting for Godot. In the former case he charges that depending on the big firms for telecommunications advancement has led us on a downward spiral in terms of global competitiveness. There is some truth to that but not the whole truth. For who is the hand maiden leading the spiraling down the drain but the FCC itself. Then in the latter case we have this –

We can’t depend on unelected bureaucrats to deal with topics as essential as broadband, because the result could be “excessive and burdensome regulation” on those humble, hard-working telephone and cable companies who unfairly change the rules without any reason at all.

And to you I say, NO we cannot trust bureaucrats with damn near anything including telecommunications. If for no other reason that the concept of the Lack of Sufficient Knowledge on a continuing basis.

But thru all of Mr. Brodsky’s missive is this gem –

… Practically speaking (even if there is a very slim legal opening), broadband is free from regulation – a nirvana that the telecoms industry might once upon a time have gratefully accepted as its due, but now looks upon it with some trepidation because now the door has swung wide open to a full-scale discussion of bringing Internet broadband access services back under reasonable regulation.

Two counts here. Brodsky’s ox has been gored by this ruling yet now the door has been swung open for reasonable regulation? By what variant of a pharmaceutical does he come to this conclusion? Its an election year fella. The chances of a Democratic Congress taking this up is slim to none. Plus if the tea leaves are right the Republican Congress next year won’t have the cycle time to touch it either. The second is under proper procedure, the FCC being a creature of Congress should make the necessary request for an expansion of its authority by the proper means, not some gerrymandered legal trick with a wink and a nod. But Mr. Brodsky the FCC DOES NOT possess the authority to overstate its intended alloted powers. Or do I assume you are willing to abrogate the rule of law to achieve your statist aims under the color of consumer protection. How Stalinist.
More on Balderdash!

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.

Allow me to channel a Verizon suit for a moment: The company has a lock on fixed line right of ways in a large geographic area. The only broadband competition is from the cable guys at the higher service levels. After investing in fiber to home, pay TV subscriptions have been flat and fixed line voice is dying. The leaves future  the fiber to home service a pure broadband play, and that not what investors were promised.  The company also have a new 4G wireless network to complete withing a little over 9 years or risk losing the world’s most valuable spectrum. Since the FCC has pretty much promised that there will be no fixed line competition, it’s time to emulate AT&T and put the majority of your customers in a DSL ghetto. The death star has been a very successful slum lord, keeping subscribers at very high margins without much new investment.

Verizon’s investment in fiber ends right outside of cities like Baltimore, Maryland
or Alexandria,
Virginia. According to Verizon, the company is taking a contemplative
pause to focus on marketing the service to areas that are already
deployed.

But according to long-time industry analyst Dave
Burstein, Verizon’s essentially cutting and running on additional
deployment plans, leaving a very large chunk of their footprint on
last-generation DSL and copper-based voice networks.

Burstein
tells Broadband Reports that he doesn’t see Verizon expanding any
further (with the exception of major cities where they’ve signed
franchise agreements) unless they get money from Uncle Sam (aka,
taxpayers). “They want to get on the gravy train, although I think the
new, less competitive leadership is the primary explanation,” says
Burstein when asked why Verizon’s shifting tactics. Seidenberg, the
driving force behind the first wave of FiOS, is on his way out — and
his replacements aren’t quite as bullish on angering investors for the
sake of this whole “future” thing. (DSL Reports)

Certainly, the recession also has a role in Verizon’s decision to scale back. But there’s much more at work here.  The Telco / Congress /FCC cabal has made the market for internet access progressive less competitive every year going back to the days of dial up service. If FiOS deployment continues, Verizon will probably plead the case that it will need stimulus money to keep its fiber deployment rolling.  Our current federal government will probably be happy to print up more monopoly money to provide it.

While US broadband languishes, the FCC is aggressively seeking more regulatory authority. The will certainly be counter productive based on the agency’s long and dismal broadband track record. I think it’s time to give up on Washington and give the power to regulate broadband back to the states. States will have compete with one another to provide the best infrastructure to grow their tax base. Those who tolerate a fixed line duopoly will lag behind, meaning none will tolerate it for long. We’ll get lots of new business and real jobs, and a better quality of life for those of us who would outside of the federal government. Maybe a forward thinking governor will exercise his or her 10th amendment rights and make it so.

First, as a public service I’ll remind you that as of today production LTE service is still vapor. The technology has been tested successfully, but that’s very different from even a soft  launch. Never the less, the company’s CTO is claiming that the service is ready to roll seemingly any day now.

Lunch said Verizon Wireless is in the final testing phase, or “Phase 4,” of its LTE technology. Within 60 days he said he expects testing to be completed in Boston and Seattle. After those trials are complete, Verizon will be ready to announce commercial deployments.

Initially, Verizon Wireless will offer USB air cards that access LTE for its laptop customers. Cell phones and other mobile devices with embedded LTE will be introduced later. That said, Lynch and other executives from the European carrier Orange as well as from equipment maker Ericsson, said that LTE handsets will be introduced sooner than anyone had anticipated.

Lynch said getting voice to work over LTE has been particularly challenging. But that challenge is getting resolved as Verizon and other members of the GSMA announced Monday they are supporting a standard that uses IMS technology to deliver voice services over LTE. Still, more work needs to be done. (Cnet)

So, if Verizon can really get equipment that is not yet in production onto towers, and upgrade its back haul capability, then maybe it can deliver service. I can’t imagine that work getting done any time this year at the if deployment comes at the typical telco pace. Then there’s the investment. New POPs and fat pipes don’t come cheap.  The there’s the “can’t make voice work” claim? Maybe big V should look at the VoIP technology it’s been suing competitors for infringing? I think what is really at work here  is not wanting to make new investments, along with a ploy to keep frequencies that are redundant if LTE is really on the fast track.

It’s a really bad time to be out of work, especially if you’re a fixed line service worker at Verizon. Good paying jobs with great benes are few and far between and the demand  for your skills is in free fall. Those still employed in the switched network trade are well advised to update their skills for a career change that will certainly come to more each year.

It’s been quite a while since I departed the world of telecom, so I think I can be objective in describing the underlying problem. The industry is so disfunctional that it more closely resembles the federal government than free enterprise. Switched service should have been ended decades ago, but that would require rule changes at the FCC and telco investment. The investment required to equip every switched customer with VoIP service is so small that the cost could easily be recovered in the first few months and that cost is falling. Changing regulations could end the guaranteed return on local fixed line service the telcos currently enjoy and could possible reopen discussion on line sharing with competitors. The last thing Verizon wants is more competition. So, no matter how compelling it would be to retrain a few of its workers and go all digital, there is no will to do so in a business unit that can’t see past the 1970’s. So, switched service continues its irrational slow march in inevitable death. My bet is the number dismissed by Verizon will be much larger in 12 months, and that fixed line service with be with us for at least another decade. What a waste.

Verizon Communications Inc., coping with subscriber losses at its fixed-line phone business, plans to cut about 13,000 jobs at the division this year after posting fourth-quarter revenue that missed analysts’ estimates. (Bloomberg)

In this case its Verizon again. The name of the game is a Titanic shuffle of their data rate plan. May sound like small potatoes till you see the hurdle before you as a customer –

First, the details: Verizon has introduced a new data tier at $9.99 per month with a 25MB cap—this is the cheapest data plan now offered by the company and by most US wireless carriers, and applies to all 3G devices. Why does this equate to “upping” the data charges? Because the company is ditching its $19.99 per month plan with a 75MB cap altogether—you must either go with the $9.99 plan for a third of the data or or the $29.99 smartphone plan that applies to WinMo, Android, or BlackBerry devices.

This in a sense is a variant of the give the lantern away but charge for the oil dearly. Only this is charge minimally for low oil but if you want to use the lamp every night you has to pay!

Why can’t stuff be simple? Just charge .001¢ per kilobyte and be done with it. Equitable, quick and customers can check their bills quickly. But then that would not justify the marketees salary would it?

Linky.

Yes, with all that goes on in the telecom world there is always room for a lawsuit! Only this time Verizon is not the Plaintiff —

Located at 375 Pearl Street in Manhattan, the TriBeca Trib reports that the city is now suing Verizon and real estate company Taconic Investment Partners for $53 million. Allegedly the city lost that much money after what they claim were fraudulent dealings.

When they purchased the land and air rights from the city in 1972, “the agreement called for the phone company to give the city $17 million and to build Murry Bergtraum High School. But, the city says, New York Telephone built far more usable space—1.2 million square feet—than it said it would, thereby undervaluing the deal and shortchanging taxpayers.”

What’s a couple of thousand square feet of space between friends in one of the highest priced markets in the world?

More here.

Look, I think Verizon has the duty to make a buck for its shareholders. It also in my view has a obligation to play fair with its customer base. Sometimes the two are in conflict. When that happens, sometimes the FCC takes notice –

“Late Friday, Verizon Wireless responded to the Bureau’s queries. The company’s answers, however, are not satisfying and, in some cases, troubling. In particular, I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business. So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served.

“I am also alarmed by the fact that many consumers have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones thereby launching Verizon Wireless’s mobile Internet service. The company asserted in its response to the Bureau that it ‘does not charge users when the browser is launched,’ but recent press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise.

“These issues cannot be ignored. Wireless communications are an essential part of our lives, linking us to our places of business, our communities, and our loved ones. The bottom line is that wireless companies can truly earn their desired long-term commitments from consumers by focusing primarily on developing innovative products, maintaining affordable prices, and providing excellent customer service. I look forward to exploring this issue in greater depth with
my colleagues in the New Year.

Or so says Mignon Clyburn.

Verizon responded –

* most customers who terminate do so in the first year;
* no matter when a customer terminates a contract, Verizon loses more money than the ETF covers;
* based on those two points, Verizon would lose too much money if it evenly prorated the $350 ETF;
* so by unevenly prorating, Verizon can keep the initial ETF lower than it otherwise would be, but high enough over the life of the contract to adequately offset losses.

Here’s the problem with their logic. If the customers require such high support $$ then adjust you plan rates. Also please explain why we keep hearing in the press about phantom key sequences that activate services without knowledge of the customer. It might explain the additional support costs. Also if most smartphone users quit in the first year then smart money would say you slam them for $350 up to and including month 13 or 14. Then prorate monthly as the chance of leaving has decreased significantly. Eh?

Bottom line? All the carriers thought they were just selling a cell phone with the capability to view short video clips. They never thought people would spend hours watching YouTube clips, short films, etc. They were wrong, got caught flatfooted and so now they are CYA’s themselves all over the place. No sympathy fellas.

Linky.