In the battle for broadband supremacy, at least how the duopoly define it, it very maybe that the majors are missing a large target market In a recent Pew Poll of broadband there were a few key points –

• 62% of dial-up users say they are not interested in giving up their current connectionfor broadband.

When asked specifically what it would take them to get them to switch to broadband:

• 35% of dial-up users say that the price of broadband service would have to fall.
• 19% of dial-up users said nothing would convince them to get broadband.
• 14% of dial-up users – and 24% of dial-up users in rural America – say that
  broadband service would have to become available where they live.

And of noninternet users….

When asked why they don’t use the internet:

• 33% of non-users say they are not interested.
• 12% say they don’t have access.
• 9% say it is too difficult or frustrating.
• 7% say it is too expensive.
• 7% say it is a waste of time.

Another words roughly 20% of the population that they could get to use broadband have not been provided with a compelling reason to swtich, even if it is available to them. When someone says that it is hard to use. Are they referring to the internet or possibly the website to figure out what the options are? When on says that the Internet is a waste of time. They could be right. Many is the day I have seen my daughter burn her life away on FaceBook. 7% say that broadband is too expensive, and they would be right it is.

What is most striking is that 24% of those dialup user polled said broadband would have to be available to them. That folks is the equivalent of the California Gold Rush. The firm that can tap into that market cheaply and at a profit will have a license to print money. The Majors are not going after that market. They are sticking with the urban/suburban markets.

Full report here.

Look out Sprint and Verizon. That captive handset you provided can now be reused with Metro PCS. There are plenty of caveats. Forget data service, Metro is voice / text only. Metro’s coverage is spotty and as late comer, they have some of the least effective spectrum. Having said that, if don’t mind a few quirks, you can get dirt cheap month to month service without buying a new phone from Metro.

This week’s announcement by the Dallas-based regional carrier is one of a series of moves in the industry that amount to a gradual opening of the U.S. wireless market, giving consumers more choice over what phones to use on what networks.

Carriers generally sell phones that are locked to their own service. This protects their business model, which is based on subsidizing the cost of the phone by hundreds of dollars, then making that money back on monthly service fees.

MetroPCS’s move threatens these traditional rules. It allows customers with certain models of phones from Sprint Nextel Corp., Verizon Wireless, Alltel Corp. and a few other carriers to bring their phones to MetroPCS stores, where they will be reprogrammed. (Florida Today)

In the markets where MetroPCS  operates, this could actually shake things up a bit. That’s good news for consumers.

I’ve long  had the suspicion that the heartburn AT&T and the cable guys get from P2P is more about getting paid more for content delivery and avoiding the necessary investment in infrastructure to accommodate users demands. The fact is ISP revenue is up and the cost of capacity is in free fall. This makes providing more capacity at current prices levels very profitable, just not as profitable as raising prices without making new investments.

In the connected world, bandwidth capacity must continuously increase. At the same time we must find ways to do more with less. Anyone within minimal understanding of technology can look at P2P vs server to client content delivery will discover that P2P is an exponentially more efficient way of delivering a large file or stream. That takes us back to the debate about getting paid more to deliver content and avoiding new investment, which seems to be what the cable guys and the death star are really interested in.

Mark Wegleitner, Verizon’s senior vice president of technology agrees with me on the efficiency of P2P:

Peer-to-peer is a distribution enabler. But often when people talk about P2P, it gets lumped into a category with things that are bad, mainly because it takes up so much capacity on the network. But whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, there is underlying technology for P2P that can be used to everyone’s advantage to get content like video, which everyone is asking for, distributed in the most efficient way.

We conducted some tests with the P4P group and Yale University, and showed that customers have a better experience, and we use fewer resources, when we used the P2P technology. It’s really a win-win situation for us and the customer.(Cnet)

This is round three in the continuing battle of Verizon’s unannounced withdrawal from supplying POTS service. I say unannounced as Verizon has no filings on docket to the FCC in this regard. But that is in fact what they are doing.

But to give you some idea of just how underhanded they wish to mask this unannounced mandate consider the following –

“Verizon offers phone service that is superior to our competitors, most of whom are not required to answer to state regulatory commissions nearly to the degree as Verizon — if they do at all,” said Verizon spokeswoman Sharon Shaffer. “More importantly, customers who don’t like the service they’re getting — or the price they’re paying — can and do change providers.”

And…

Verizon is only required to make “reasonable efforts” to meet benchmarks under “normal circumstances,” such as good weather, argued Dulaney L. O’Roark III, Verizon’s vice president and general counsel in the Southeast, in a written response to Florida’s complaints. Florida regulators, he argued, should “take into account Verizon’s massive investment in [FiOS]” fiber optic services.

Customers, he wrote, will provide “ultimate penalty by choosing one of the many alternative providers if they are dissatisfied with Verizon’s performance.”

Ok so how is Verizon lying? Time for a peek behind the veil. First understand that what Verizon is calling the ‘Communications industry’ is a three legged stool — Wireline, Cellular and Cable. Reality however is that Cellular and Cable are not efficient competitors to wireline for a cheap basic service. That’s the first lie. It is a 3 card monte that Dulaney is playing.

The second is on how American wireline service is handled in this country. A company like Verizon owns what are called LATA’s (Local Access & Transport Area). The key is own. In those LATA’s no one else may provide wireline service & repair. And even if a customer decides to go with a CLEC, the repair is still dependent on Verizon. The CLEC is not permitted to open a comm can and repair Verizon’s equipment.

So Verizon your representatives are lying when it comes to a strictly wireline environment. You are the monopoly in any LATA you own. As to reference of alternative carriers, its a thin reed Verizon. The test — Can you find any alternative service provider to provide basic phone service for $32/mo? Good luck.

Bottom line, Verizon you’re lying.

I have one other observation Verizon. If POTS is not a viable business model for you why don’t you just get out of the business? Sell it off. But not funding Network Operations for POTS for the second year in the row is not proper service to your existing customer base.

Full TBO article.

We reported that AT&T got out of the payphone business last year. Well Verizon is getting out of the Calling Card business this year.

Applicants: Verizon California Inc., Verizon North Inc., Verizon Northwest Inc., Verizon South Inc., and GTE Southwest Incorporated (d/b/a Verizon Southwest)

On May 21, 2008, Verizon California Inc., located at 112 Lakeview Canyon Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362; Verizon North Inc., located at 8001 West Jefferson Boulevard, Fort Wayne, IN 46804; Verizon Northwest Inc., located at 1800 41st Street, Everett, WA 98201; Verizon South Inc., located at 201 N. Franklin St., One Tampa City Center, Tampa, FL 33602; and GTE Southwest Incorporated (d/b/a Verizon Southwest), located at 600 Hidden Ridge, HQE04H12, Irving, TX 75038 (collectively Verizon or Applicants), filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) requesting authority, under section 214 of the communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 214, and section 63.71 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.71, to discontinue the provision of certain domestic telecommunications services in Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, areas of Pennsylvania within Verizon North Inc.’s operating territory, and areas of Virginia within Verizon South Inc.’s operating territory.

Anyone who is an insider knows that the areas affected are fGTE territories. Is this a big shucks in the telecom industry? Eh, not really. The cards were designed as a convenience factor in support of pay phone use. (I know, I was on the design team.) We of course know where the pay phone biz has gone in the era of cell phones.

FCC filing here.

The big V seems to be determined to be the to dog inthe US speed race. With DOCSIS 3 deployments beginning to take shape, this might be due to a competititve threat formthe cable guys. While the new FIOS speeds would be substadnard in Paris or Korea, it keeps them king of the racetrack here in the US.

Verizon now tops out at 50 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream up from 30/15 Mbps ($90 or $140 per month, depending on area, with annual contract), while its slowest speed is 10/2 Mbps up from 5/2 Mbps (under $50 per month). Existing subscribers can request the faster speeds, which are available in some cases at no extra cost; in others, the monthly fee is slightly higher.

Since the introduction in the mid-1990s of residential broadband–often used for small-office and home-office connections as well–most places in which wired digital service is available have had either one or two providers, typically the incumbent telephone company and the incumbent cable provider. (PC World)

Now, if we could just get 2 or 3 more competitors into the game, we’d have considerably faster pipes at lower prices.

Could it be there is a battle about to be waged in real high speed access? Since the cable guys won’t actively compete against AT&T, will Verizon? It sounds like V is actually testing that idea now.

Verizon is apparently preparing to overbuild AT&T U-verse territory with Verizon FiOS service. This is a first, at least that I’m aware of, where large incumbent “baby bells” enter each other’s territory with competing landline services. Apparently, the rules have changed, and dramatically so. Verizon appears to be taking advantage of statewide video franchising rules (as Texas provides), and acting as a cable overbuilder, as opposed to a traditional telecom CLEC. The development was reported in this OneTrack post. I guess the gloves are slowly coming off. (Telecompetitor)

There are times you almost want to cheer for Verizon. So far, we’ve heard nothing about bandwidth caps from them. I sincerely hope they really shake things up for AT&T and the cable guy. Maybe they’ll make a fiber run out to my Fort Worth suburb soon.

First, on the record, we don’t support phone phreaking. Its a form of theft. That having been said what is related in the Wired article just does not add up.

Why is an indictment issued in Dallas for an arrest that was issued in Amherst, NH? I am no lawyer but my understanding is indictments generally issue in the jurisdiction where the infraction occurred. Anybody know the answer?

“…that Weigman was not supposed to know where he lived, and that Weigman had arrived in the middle of a Sunday.” This is probably the oddest piece of all. I was able to find Smith’s address in less than 5 minutes using the internet and a couple of search engines. Smith’s presumption of privacy on his part is fallacious. As to Weingard’s visit, yes it was ill advised. However I hold no special significance to it occurring on a Sunday.

If I take the balance of the article on its face, Weingard is in deep trouble. The phrekng piece is the least of it. He faces trespass, stalking at a minimum. Its an interesting case to watch. Not that it affects the majority of what we report here.

The real story? A youth with misdirected ambitions. A security offiicial with a trigger finger. The FBI doing what they are required to do. Its a shame to see a talented mind go to waste.

Just off the heels of sewing up most of the 700 MHz spectrum, that big telco some of us like to refer to as Darth continues to expand his empire instead of investing his capital to better serve the territory he already controls. While the current customers of the dark helmeted one will do without 4G service for at least another 3-4 years, V is in talks to acquire Alltel. If successful, the Verizon empire will eclipse AT&T as the world’s largest.

While the details of the deal were still being worked out one person who asked not to be named said that the $27 billion valuation could be comprised of mostly debt and a smaller amount of cash. Alltel had $23.35 billion in long-term debt on its balance sheet at the end of the first quarter.

The ownership structure of Verizon Wireless — 55 percent owned by Verizon Communications Inc and 45 percent owned by Vodafone Group Plc — would not change under the deal the person said. (Reuters)

We have reported here the semi-strike by the Florida Verizon field staff in not being permitted to work on POTS services sufficiently. It looks like the FLA AG is agreeing with them to the tune of a $6.5m fine. You can repair a heck of a lot of equipment for that fee. –

TAMPA - Florida’s attorney general is calling for steep fines of Verizon Communications Inc. and an investigation into what he calls a failure to comply with state telephone repair rules and a “steady decline in Verizon’s repair performance since 2002.”

The attorney general’s office will call on state telephone regulators to issue up to a $6.5 million fine for “repeated violations of service rules during 2007,” such as Verizon taking too long to restore landline phone service to customers who lost it.

Verizon officials could not immediately be reached for comment early this afternoon. This action does not apply to Verizon Wireless, a separate corporate entity that handles cellular phones.

A Tribune investigation this spring showed a variety of repair and customer service issues at Verizon, including billing problems and long waits for telephone repair.

Verizon’s telephone outages were not by accident, says the office of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum. Rather, “Verizon willfully violated the Florida Public Service quality rules in 262 cases during 2007.”

It is becoming very clear that the game Verizon is playing is shortchanging the PSTN services to the customers detriment in hope that they will switch to FIOS instead. What is the problem with that thought? Well illegal for one. But the Tampa service area is retiree haven. In many cases the folks only use a phone half the year. Fact, there is a ’stasis service’ that only costs $2-3/mo but essentially has the POTS line closed. When the snowbird returns in the fall they call up for reactivation without incurring a install charge.

FIOS does not have the provision. So why would a retiree sign up only to get hit with either a ETF or pay for a service they only use half of the year but pay for anyway? Yeah I thought so.

Anyway write that check VZ. Otherwise the next PUC meeting might be a little testy.

Linky.