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.

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.

On of the most used marketing ploys in in the telco suit’s bag of tricks is raising revenue by tinkering with rates, billing or repackaging existing technology into higher priced offerings. That sort of tinkering has evolved into a fine art in the wireless biz, with AT&T as the master.

Recent growth in wireless data use has eroded the quality of service AT&T’s infrastructure has been able to provide to many of its customers. AT&T  has responded with a commitment to invest in upgrades, along with usage based price tweaking that amounts to a price increase for many of AT&T’s wireless data customers. According to a report on Neowin, this so called investment may have been a ruse with the expectation that a price increase alone will reduce usage, therefore improving performance.

As seen in the images below, AT&T’s “commitment to improving their network” claim could not be further from the truth. Since the release of the original iPhone,  AT&T has consistently spent less money on network construction. This seems very strange, considering they beefed up construction right before the iPhone’s initial release. With such a high demand phone,  AT&T should be expected to continue investing in their network, especially considering the fact that the iPhone was upgraded twice already, allowing it to consume more data, and ultimately bring more customers to the carrier.

Since the release of the iPhone, AT&T’s revenue has consistently increased. They now make approximately 80% more revenue from wireless data than they did when the iPhone was initially introduced. This increase doesn’t seem to be slowing down anytime soon, as it has been steadily inclining for the past two years. The post also shows stats regarding the economy’s negative effects on AT&T’s net income. Guess what? There weren’t any. AT&T was able to increase their cash, and cash equivalents on hand by 4.375 billion dollars since the start of 2009. They’ve seemed to keep profits fairly steady, considering the times. (more on Neowin)

If you’re a regular reader, you’re already well informed on the end of voice as a viable wireless business. Sprint and Verizon had invested heavily in national 3G data services for years, while AT&T lagged. Now that 4G is coming online and 3G matters to to a growing number of customers -  like those who grossly overpaid for iPhones, AT&T is playing catch up. It hurts if you’re AT&T and one of your competitors that has been out investing you in 3G calls attention to that fact in advertising.  True to AT&T’s track record it continues to prefer competing in the courts over upgrading. Perhaps AT&T customers who are experiencing poor data service should be careful about what they say publicly too.

AT&T earlier this month filed a lawsuit claiming that Verizon is misleading customers by suggesting that AT&T subscribers cannot access wireless Internet services throughout its network. In the opening paragraph of its legal rebuttal to the suit, Verizon very plainly surmised its argument: “AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s ‘There’s A Map For That’ advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.”

The rebuttal filed on Monday in a Georgia district court was in response to two complaints AT&T filed with the court asking that the Verizon advertisements be pulled from the airwaves. AT&T has called the claims in the advertisement “false” and “misleading.” And the company claims it has caused “irreparable harm” to AT&T’s wireless business. (Cnet)

Verizon representatives have responded to the press on these claims. But now the company has filed its official response to the court in a 53-page document that lays out the company’s defense.

It’s also worth mentioning that if Verizon really wanted to put the hurt on AT&T, all it would really need to do is dramatically drop 3G  prices. Since the wireless space is a cartel of spectrum licensees, that isn’t likely to happen. Still, a little competitive sparring is a good thing, There should be more of it. I’d bet even the lawyers agree.

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.

Yes I told you so. More than once. Net neutrality is a paper tiger. The duopoly is seeing to that handily. Rules written by the revolving door insiders at the FCC will never be a positive agent of change.  AT&T is using Google as the boogeyman in its quest to twist the new rules to effectively rub out any potential competitor. We may very well get new “net neutrality” rules that will only make the situation worse.

In a letter to the FCC (PDF) this week, AT&T went on the attack to portray Google as a big powerful company that’s trying to fool the FCC into believing that the rules shouldn’t apply to it. In the letter, AT&T is still trying to cover all of its bases. That means that, at times, it’s hard to follow which arguments it’s trying to make - the one about Google Voice or the one about net neutrality. And it doesn’t help that it stooped a little too low by referencing a convent of Benedictine nuns in a list of those who were handicapped by having calls to their numbers blocked to and from Google Voice numbers.  (ZDnet)

There are problems with AT&T’s posturing that could more permanently lock us into duopoly dominance. Since Google has gottten big and scary,  it’s an easy target, but there more to this. If enacted, net neutrality rules should ONLY apply to companies who have last mile right of ways and / or wireless spectrum. If the holder of spectrum will provide equal network access to competitors it should be exempt. Google owns no spectrum, no right of ways and does not charge for Google voice which does not even directly connect a telephone call. Calling it a competing phone service is like saying Colgate in in the dentistry business. The real reason behind AT&T’s attack on Google is to have rules written that will force providers of virtual services into the same regulatory framework that governs entities that have monopolies in last mile access or wireless spectrum. The net effect of the regulations AT&T wants would impair the ability of every VoIP, online entertainment and interactive online service to compete against a protected monopoly. There probably  are anti  competitive  issues in the way Google is doing business. They should be considered on their own merit and not used a lever to enslave us to a duopoly for the next several decades.

The only way to get open networks is with an open market. If a duopoly must exist. the only fix is to require it to divest from non access businesses.

As the FCC inches closer to redefining broadband and doing a bit more of  its usual endless rule making, AT&T is chiming in with new ideas on how broadband should be defined. Never mind that a substantial percentage of AT&T’s top tier broadband subscribers are likely to be gamers. AT&T does not think that their chosen us use of the higher price pay for is legitimate.

The computer gaming industry is not pleased with comments that AT&T filed with the Federal Communications Commission on how to define “broadband,” particularly the suggestion that online games should be relegated to the category of “aspirational services.” “For Americans who today have no terrestrial broadband service at all,” AT&T wrote the FCC, “the pressing concern is not the ability to engage in real-time, two-way gaming, but obtaining meaningful access to the Internet’s resources and to reliable email communications and other basic tools that most of the country has come to expect as a given.” (Ars Technica)

AT&T subscribers, we have good news and bad news. The bad news is that as of September 6th, AT&T will begin requiring that all smartphones sign up for a smartphone data plan. The good news is that customers with smartphones purchased prior to September 6th with non-smartphone data plans will be grandfathered in and will not have to upgrade their current plans. Note that if you currently use a feature phone with a data plan and you upgrade to a smartphone on or after September 6th, you will not be able to keep your current MediaNet plan.

We’ve been hearing rumblings to this effect for a few weeks now but as of this morning it’s 100% confirmed thanks to an internal email from one of our ninjas. AT&T’s claimed reasoning behind the move: to ensure customers receive a predictable bill each month. Mmm hmm. Note that this only applies to smartphones purchased from AT&T or a dealer of course, so those of you who opt for unlocked handsets should be unaffected. Hit the jump for the internal email circulated today at AT&T.

From The Boy Genius Blog

That is after shooting at it constantly over the last year. Is the idea of a smartphone plan bad? Certainly not. But the fact is having to get both a voice and data plan for the smartphone IS. But that is where they are headed.

I’ll point right back to “Who’s on First, or When Oligarchies Collide” a previous post. There are players coming on line that are not making a distinction between data and voice. They will be treating it all as data. That some of it is VoIP services is of no consequence to them. The Verizon’s and AT&T’s will learn that soon enough. American’s love simplicity. That and VoIP has a large enough presence now that consumers tend to expect it in lieu of a landline. It would be a natural extension to expect to use it in their handhelds.

The cell boys have to come to that realization and soon. Its all data now.

Linky.

The US Ag Dept and US Commerce are offering up to $4Bn in combined funds for near term expansion of Broadband. The kicker is the funds have to be in the ground by Sept. 2010. Pretty tall order for the cable mavens in itself. The other is the Net Neutrality rules are very restrictive —

But the program’s strict rules on so-called Net Neutrality principles may keep some of the nation’s largest telecoms from applying for funds and low-interest loans. Companies like AT&T and Verizon warned that such restrictions were unnecessary. They also wanted the government to spend as much on encouraging broadband subscriptions as they are on giving out loans to wireless ISPs that want to expand in areas that the big telecoms deem too much trouble to provide coverage to.

For instance, all applicants have to agree to follow the FCC’s fair internet principles, which require ISPs to let users choose whatever devices and applications they like, without interference from the carrier. The nation’s wireless industry has resisted having those rules apply to them, since it would force them to tear down the walls around their networks. That means letting users bring their own devices to a mobile network, use competing video services on their phones, and use their mobile phones as modems for a laptop without an extra charge.

Since the broadband openness rules will apply in perpetuity to projects, it’s unlikely that any of the nation’s largest mobile carriers will apply for such funds. Projects that use network management techniques to speed up video, for instance, or to slow down file sharing traffic, will have to provide notice to customers about how that works. Networks will also have to interconnect with other networks fairly.

In the main that means the AT&T and Verizons won’t play as they won’t open up their larger network investment to the rules requried to get this smaller pot of gold. A big winner if the govt sticks to their guns? Clearwire. As a WISP they can deploy network nodes much quicker. That and their lower capitalization means they would be willing to open up to get the money.

Linky.

We had alluded to the fact that third party VoIP modules on smart phones won’t last long, here. Well it looks like it is just about there. The folks at Google and Microsoft have blinked. Don’t discount the Telcos they have the best legal talent that phone call money can buy. –

surrender_itsgregIf you think Google, Microsoft and Apple are bad-ass, cutthroat, take-no-prisoner companies, you should meet the nation’s wireless carriers, who have collectively convinced those intensively competitive software giants to cripple their products.

Need any more proof that the nation’s four largest wireless carriers - AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile - have too much control over the airwaves, what phones you can use and what applications you can run on them?

Look no further than Microsoft’s release this week of its 12 commandments for developers (.pdf) working on apps for the upcoming Windows Mobile 6.5 OS and for its Windows Mobile Marketplace — it’s upcoming iPhone app store competitor. Number 4 rule? Don’t make apps that let users make phone calls using the mobile phone carrier’s data connection.

That restriction joins Microsoft to Google and Apple, all of which now all block true VOIP apps in their online marketplaces where users can quickly buy trusted apps from third-party developers. That means no Skype, or at least only Skype when your iPhone has a WiFi connection, or only Skype-Lite which uses your phone’s minute plans.

This was to be expected from the commercial side of the IT industry. I hope at this point Google fully understands exactly WHY they needed that 700mhz spectrum now. You can rest assured that the smaller smartphone development houses won’t take up this cause. They don’t have the financial-legal wherewithal to go into protracted court combat.

Nope the challenge will come, if at all, from overseas. Some Indian dude will whip up an app for Android that will use the data channel for voice traffic. It will leak out and take hold for a certain segment of the population. The problem will only be resolved if such a piece of software were to come on like gangbusters. Like it started on 500 smartphones today, its on 5,000,000 by the end of a month.

So much for open competition.

Linky.