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.

Much of the wireless industry has been resisting pretty strongly the idea of giving up the voice channel as a revenue stream. Fact what they are resisting is the concept that voice is just another piece of data. For example, almost a year ago Apple disapproved a Google app that permitted VoIP on the iPhone at the insistence of their AT&T transport partner.

Ok, but then what can you do about this? –

More time laughing with friends.
Less time in front of a computer.
Take free, unlimited Skype-to-Skype calls and IM on the go with your BlackBerry® or Android™ 3G smartphone from Verizon Wireless.

Yeah, its a shill quote right off the Skype site. But that is not what matters here. What is, is the fact that Skype/Verizon are putting a shot across the bow of every other vendor out there as it relates to voice minute charges.

Now of course there is a down side. That Skype call is now a data rated call. Which if you look at Verizon’s data rate plans is not a bargain in comparison. So for the consumer it is not a block buster cost saver. But this opens the door that voice is just another chunk of data. I would be inclined to look at T-Moble’s unlimited data plan for this Skype service. Get one of their Android phones and see what happens….

But the door is opening. Might take a year or two for folks to catch on but eventually there will be a data rate war in the wireless arena as voice channel services are dropped by consumers.

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.

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)

Previously we had pointed out that the Telcos can take care of their own. They have a revenue stream (well used to, it is getting a little frayed), that is mostly never ending. The resource is finite but better than what anyone else has. So why do they want to do this to their more lesser mortal peers? —

In the dead of night, just before the latest draft of the Stevens bill came out, a helpful Telco lobbyist inserted a little provision to stack the deck in the case of judicial review. Section 1004 of the Stevens draft now places exclusive jurisdiction for all decisions by the FCC in the D.C. Circuit. This includes not just network neutrality, but media ownership, CALEA, wireless issues, anything.

Why would anyone do that you ask? Because the D.C. Cir. is, without doubt, the most activist court in the land when it comes to pressing its vision of media and telecom policy. More than any other court, the D.C. Cir. can be credited with destroying hope of telecom competition in the United States by perpetually reversing and remanding the FCC’s efforts at rulemaking and enforcement until the FCC finally gave up and effectively deregulated. The D.C. Cir. is also responsible for vacating (eliminating by judicial fiat) the rule preventing cable companies from owning television stations where they have cable systems, and overturning much of the FCC’s cable and broadcast ownership limits. Finally, through the legal doctrine known as “standing”, the D.C. Crcuit has done its best to make it impossible for regular people to challenge FCC decisions or bring individual cases on antitrust grounds.

Source: WetMachine

Why? Well to make it more costly to litigate telecom policy. So if you are a small coop outside to Duluth and are being destroyed by some arcane rule your choice would be under this suggestion having to hire a high priced heavy weight from Georgetown.

There is something else that bothers me about this that has nothing to do with Telecom. Consistency. In the history of this country we have applied the mindset that one tries a case in the jurisdiction of either the defendant or the place where the infraction occurred. Even at appellate, you remand to the closest circuit district from which the original case issued. And NOW we are going to turn this on its ear? The system as envisioned has worked reasonably well, there is no need to change it at this late date.

This provision needs to be removed. Verizon can afford to get on a damn airplane like anybody else.

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.

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.