verizon

iPhone 4 is All About Verizon, Not Apple

by Kathryn Ciano on February 8, 2011 · 1 comment

in Tech & Telecom

Design loyalists know it all begins and ends with Apple, the little tech company whose mission statement is “to change the world.” When it comes to phone users, design goes out the window: iPhone 4 converts are excited about Verizon, not Apple.

Verizon and Apple both launched Web sales of the iPhone 4 last week for existing Verizon customers, and are preparing for a Thursday store launch open to the general public. Sales during last week’s launch exceeded any previous Verizon launch, beating sales at the Droid launch by five times, according to JPMorgan Chase analyst Phil Cusick.

I wrote on launch day:

In this case it looks like folks switching phones are doing it for the service provider, not for the manufacturer. Despite its reputation for inflexible contract terms, Verizon enjoys the view from the top of the dependable-service-provider heap

Verizon seems preoccupied with their launch today. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted today that “WH unclassified email went down shortly before 8 AM. Verizon is working to solve the problem.

It’s not just web service and White House service that’s become spotty; Verizon is so concerned about the crush of demand anticipated for iPhone 4 that the company asked employees to hold off buying the phone for themselves or their families, citing “tight supplies” and the need to “put customers first.”

The launch crashed both the Verizon website and Verizon’s service to the White House. Let’s hope this doesn’t herald a new era of dropped calls and spotty connections for Verizon customers.

Verizon sold out of the iPhone within two hours on its Web launch day. Better line up now to get your Verizon-powered iPhone Thursday morning!

Sen. Amy Klobuchar Criticizes Verizon, Ignores Wireless Industry Realities

by Elizabeth Jacobson on November 10, 2009

in Tech & Telecom

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is once again proving that she has no understanding of either the wireless phone industry, the rationale behind contract law, or basic economics. Verizon Wireless announced last week that it was changing its early contract-termination fee for smartphone customers from a flat $175 to a pro-rated $350 that decreases $10 for every month that contract is in effect. Sen. Klobuchar sent complaints to both FCC Chair Julius Genachowski and Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam. From her letter:

I remain concerned that ETFs – especially at these high prices – unfairly penalize consumers, bear little to no relationship to the cost of the handset device, and are anti-consumer and anti-competitive.  In fact, Verizon Wireless’ decision underscores the need for Congress to act and to pass the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act.

Sen. Klobuchar – a vocal critic of the wireless industry – obviously doesn’t understand that wireless carriers subsidize the cost of handsets for customers in exchange for a fixed-duration service contract. $500 upfront for an internet-capable handset is prohibitively expensive for most consumers, and so the popular business model has been below-cost phones + two-year (give-or-take) contracts. No wireless company could stay in business offering subsidized phones without requiring customers to sign service contracts. Moreover, having a brand new shiny gadget – near or below cost – is neither a right nor an entitlement for any consumer. Verizon’s response stated that if a customer absolutely cannot wait two years to get a new high-tech cell phone, then they have the option of going contract-free and upgrading – at full retail price – whenever they desire.

The government should not be in the business of regulating service charges and contract fees. A clever commenter in the Star Tribune article (cited above) exemplifies the madness of Sen. Klobuchar’s complaint best: “I got charged four bucks for a movie late fee the other day. I believe that fee unfairly penalized me and bears little relationship to the price of the movie.”

Competition in Wireless Communication: Android Edition

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 26, 2009

in Tech & Telecom

The New York Times reports that several cell phone manufacturers are turning to Google’s free operating system, Android, to run on their upcoming smartphone models. The switch to Android is likely to hit Microsoft and its clunky Windows Mobile platform the hardest, as companies that previously used Windows for their high-end PDA-phones seek to cut costs and offer consumers a more customizable product.

With Google joining the ranks of Nokia, Research-in-Motion, Apple, and Microsoft developing in mobile phone operating systems, the big four wireless carriers signing on to offer Android phones within the coming year, the deployment of 4G networks slated to take place in 2010, mounting consumer anticipation for Motorola’s soon-to-be-released Droid, and reported rumors that Apple is about to end its exclusive distribution deal with AT&T, it’s difficult to take seriously critics’ claims that a lack of competition and carrier-device exclusivity contracts are restricting consumer choice and keeping prices prohibitively high.

Policy Translated: Special Access Reform

by Richard Morrison on July 29, 2009

in Culture, Regulation, Tech & Telecom, Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQO84UjQ2Fg 285 234]

LibertyWeek 38: Pirate Warriors on Deck

by Richard Morrison on April 13, 2009

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Your hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist are joined by special guest co-host Jeremy Lott for a very swashbuckling Episode 38 of LibertyWeek. We start with the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates by the U.S. Navy and Special Forces, look into the murky finances of AIG CEO Edward Liddy in Scandal Watch, and figure out what ISPs are up to in Technology News. We also get an update on how West Virginia is about to become even more Wild and Wonderful, and finally we answer the call for wealthy, multilingual volunteers in Olympic News.

Verizon, AT&T See the Regulation Writing On The Wall

by Nick Brown on March 31, 2009 · 1 comment

in Regulation, Tech & Telecom

AT&T and Verizon are indicating that there is a chance that they will not seek funds from the broadband stimulus portion of the American Recovery Act.

Verizon Executive VP Thomas Tauke has stated that, “We don’t have any plans to apply; we also have not made a decision not to apply.”

Similarly, AT&T Senior Executive VP told reporters that, “We do not have our hand out seeking government funds.”  But, “[AT&T is] open to considering things that might help the economy and might help our customers at the same time.”

This reluctance to accept government funding shows that major ISPs realize that acceptance of stimulus funds puts them squarely under the FCC Network Neutrality principles.   These principles could bleed into the other networks—such as Verizon’s FiOS TV or AT&T’s U-Verse—that these large Internet players own.   Meaning this policy would be the camel’s nose under the tent.  I ‘ve previously referred to this potential phenonmenon as “Gateway Neutrality.”

Molly Peterson of Bloomberg News confirms that big ISPs realize the danger associated with accepting recovery funds:

AT&T, Verizon and Comcast Corp., the largest U.S. cable provider, say the rules are unwarranted and would hinder their ability to manage congestion on networks they have spent billions to build.

So, it could be that networks built with stimulus funds would have sub par service when compared to networks built without the funds.  This forces one to wonder what the point of the multi-billion-dollar subsidy is in the first place.

Additionaly, were ISPs forced to merge networks that ran under different principles—those that are neutral like Internet service and those that are very non-neutral like television or phone service—very costly problems could emerge.  Trying to slam together TV, Internet, and phone service into one neutral IP-based service could even prove to be financially impossible.

At OpenMarket we often say that government should never be in the business of picking winners.  It appears the winners at broadband build-out will be those who avoid picking government.

Telecom Lobbyists in the DTV Henhouse?

by Richard Morrison on January 16, 2009 · 3 comments

in Politics as Usual, Regulation, Tech & Telecom, Zeitgeist

With the election of a new president and new Democratic majorities in Congress, the era of corporate influence is over in Washington, D.C. Or, at least that what I had heard. According to our old friend Tim Carney, I may have been mistaken:

A telecommunications company has confirmed for this columnist that its vice president for policy—who is also an Obama donor and a former lobbyist—is advising Barack Obama’s transition team on telecom policy.

Obama’s transition team, which has failed to disclose this executive’s involvement, happens to have proposed a significant change in telecom policy that will profit that very company, called Clearwire.

By pushing to delay the long-scheduled transition of television broadcasting from analog signals to digital signals, president-elect Obama is directly aiding Sprint and its partner Clearwire while hurting Verizon.

It turns out that there is more to this digital TV transition than just those endless commercials advising old people that their 1953 RCA with rabbit ears isn’t going to be able to function on its own anymore. Additional props go to Julian Sanchez at Ars Technica for breaking and updating the story.

Costa’s Confusion on Net Neutrality

by Cord Blomquist on January 7, 2009 · 3 comments

in Tech & Telecom

I’m sad to see PC Magazine leave the newsstand, but I’m glad it’s not gone for good. Though I often enjoyed picking up a copy when stranded at a faraway airport, I usually read it online. Even after subscribing to the hard copy this year (which had to be the year it was discontinued) I absorbed most PC Mag content via my laptop.

I hope that the columnists continue to be a big part of the magazine. Not only is PC Mag home to my favorite cranky geek John C. Dvorak, but also some columnists I’ve enjoyed disagreeing with over the years.

Among them is Dan Costa, who I’ve often disagreed with on the issue of Network Neutrality. His most recent column, however, is a home-run—probably in ways he never intended.

Costa focuses on the idea that paying for the amount of bandwidth you use is entirely reasonable.  His closing line “Can’t we all agree that my mom and I shouldn’t be payin the same price for bandwidth?” is spot on.   Dan’s a professional tech writer and a huge geek.  He’s transferring a lot of a data in comparison to his mom’s rather meager consumption.

Though he certainly didn’t mean to illustrate this, Costa also illuminates the misconceptions people have about what Network Neutrality really means, or what it should mean.  Costa says he may be “bypassing” the issue of net neutrality when saying that such tiered service is OK.

This shows how confused the neutrality debate has become.  Tiers of service—like paying more for a faster connection or a larger bandwidth cap—shouldn’t enter into the debate.  Both are reasonable pricing structures for network owners to implement and neither would unfairly favor one group over another.  Tiered pricing is perfectly consistent with the “end-to-end” principle; that is to say, that it doesn’t involved network owners looking at data, slowing it down, speeding it up, dropping it, or otherwise manipulating it.

No, tiered pricing is still very neutral, other than at the last mile—that’s where network operators of all types make their money anyway.  If this weren’t neutral, one could argue that even those ISPs that only offer one connection speed with one bandwidth cap were non-neutral.  They would, after all, be offering a 0GB per month plan for those who don’t pay at all.  Charging itself would seem decidedly unneutral unless we acknoledge it’s perfectly normal to charge people for what they use.

Finally, I think Costa is right to bring up that consumers should be aware of the terms that many companies include in their contracts.  Sprint’s XOHM Wi-Max service includes language such as:

XOHM may use various tools and techniques designed to limit the bandwidth available for bandwidth-intensive applications or protocols, such as file sharing.

That’s a service caveat big enough to drive a truck through, or at least big enough to stop you from downloading an HD movie via Bittorrent on your Wi-Max connection.

My point is that the neutrality debate shouldn’t be about different levels of service being available for different prices.  That’s a no-brainer.  The real interesting debate to be had is talking about whether or not the end-to-end principle will always be the de-facto law of the Net, and just how forthcoming companies need to be if they plan on subverting that principle.

My stance?  End-to-end seems so valuable a model that it’s hard to conceive of a different one being at all desirable; but, many regulations have blocked or slowed technologies that could never have been imagined when the regulations were written.  So, let’s avoid neutrality regulations as no neutrality violations have occurred yet that haven’t be corrected by the market.

As for terms of service like XOHM’s, I think it’s up to the tech community to keep folks aware of TOS statements that leave the door open to Sandvine-like interference.  I still think it should be up to customers to decide if those non-neutral activities are OK, but companies shouldn’t be keeping methods secret or burying them in their TOS.

With that said, thanks agian to Dan Costa for a great column and farewell PC Magazine.  I will miss italicizing you.