Our long, dark, and frequently-ridiculous Verizon iPhone rumor nightmare is over. Verizon this morning at a press event here in New York City confirmed longstanding rumors that AT&T has lost their exclusive arrangement with Apple, and that Verizon will be getting the iPhone. According to Verizon, the device will appear next month and will be CDMA/EVDO only not LTE. According to Verizon, this is the culmination of two years of discussion between the two companies. “We have enormous respect for the company this team has built and the hard-won loyalty they’ve won from their customers,” Verizon COO Tim Cook proclaimed on stage. “This is just the beginning of a great relationship between Apple and Verizon.”

Link to the original article…

France was one of the first countries to impose laws that require ISP’s terminate the service of users who repeatedly engage in copyright infringement. Under the rules, the entertainment industry tracks offenders and submits infringement claims to a specifically-created government agency named Hadopi. Hadopi then works with ISPs to obtain personal information and send out warning letters or kick people off the Internet. By October, the industry was already making 25,000 requests per day, a daily total they’d like to see at around 50,000. However, according to the Record Labels, Hadopi isn’t sending out warnings fast enough for their liking, only sending out about 2,000 per day.

Techdirt correctly wonders about any kind of accuracy in the claims process when you’re working at that speed:

Think about how many mistakes are being made when you’re sending 50,000 notices per day. Over the course of about five years, the RIAA apparently sued less than 20,000 people and still made a lot of mistakes. US Copyright Group got a lot of attention for accusing a few thousand people of file sharing particular movies and also appears to have made a lot of mistakes. Yet, here, with Hadopi, the labels are accusing 50,000 people per day, and are upset that Hadopi isn’t just rubber stamping all the notices? It appears that the record labels don’t care at all about what happens if they accuse totally innocent people.

Of course the goal of the record labels with any of these campaigns has never been accuracy or fairness. The goal has long been to generate media coverage and create fear, something that’s easier to do with the government’s help. Of course this is all a rather expensive taxpayer and ISP funded game of whack-a-mole, where non-infringing users can easily get caught up in the wash. Meanwhile, France piracy rates remain stable or growing as people simply move to less-watched alternatives like direct downloads.

Link to the original article…

Last week it was discussed at length how the investment community would like the public to believe that the shift to low cap and high overage broadband pricing is “inevitable.” We also discussed how cable industry lobbyists would like the public to believe that such a shift isn’t about making more money, it’s about helping the poor. Not only is the metered billing push absolutely about making money, it’s about artificially constricting the pipe to protect uncompetitive carriers and TV revenues from Internet video. But instead, there’s a very concerted effort afoot to portray this shift as necessary, inevitable, and even altruistic.

Most consumers prefer the simplicity of flat rate pricing, and understand that ISPs are perfectly profitable under the flat-rate pricing model. They also understand that this is a pipe dream forged by never-satisfied investors, and once implemented ends with ever soaring per gig fees and ever shrinking usage caps.

The PR campaign continues this week, with Hewlett-Packard’s Joe Weinman claiming at GigaOM that not only is such a pricing shift “inevitable,” but that it’s a shift that actually originates with consumers, not investors or ISP executives. Weinman starts out on the wrong foot immediately, by confusing “pay per use” with low cap and high overage pricing models:

For the record, I like unlimited Internet access just as much as anyone else. However, such plans appear to be on their way out, and here s why. As explored in “The Market for Melons”, pay-per-use is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet…. Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest

Except for the thousandth time, ISP’s are not interested in real pay per use plans because the majority of their users (who simply check e-mail a few times a day) would downgrade to $5 tiers and cost carriers billions. What ISPs are proposing is flat-rate pricing with costly per gigabyte overages (completely detached from any real-world costs, which for ISPs are fixed or dropping) layered on top. Meanwhile, the suggestion this is a consumer driven push is absurd. This is an investor driven push for obvious reasons, and you have to wonder if Weinman saw the consumer reaction when Time Warner Cable proposed charging consumers up to $5 per gigabyte then insisted such pricing was for their own good.

Weinmen offers up a second post in which he hallucinates a laundry list of supposed benefits that will occur from this change in pricing paradigm. Most of them revolve around technology platforms designed to aid this monitoring and metering of usage and billing, which we’ll go out on a crazy limb and guess is precisely what Weinman is selling at HP. Unfortunately, Weinman begins his sales pitch just like the cable industry traditionally has by pretending this is an inevitability consumers want, and that such a pricing shift is financially necessary. Neither are true.

Link to the original article…

Verizon today unveiled more detail about their LTE wireless broadband launch, announcing that they’ll be offering the 5-12 Mbps service in 38 markets and 60 airports starting December 5. Most importantly, Verizon finally unveiled their pricing for the new service, which after a year filled with endless hints by executives about wanting to try something new winds up being somewhat underwhelming, traditional, and expensive.

The base pricing for LTE laptop connectivity via USB modem (there will be no smartphones at launch) is significantly more expensive than the 3G pricing they unveiled in October, though the caps are obviously higher. Verizon’s current EVDO USB modem plans come in two flavors: $40 for 250MB of usage and $60 for 5GB of usage. Verizon’s LTE pricing will now be $50 for 5GB of usage, or $80 for 10 GB of usage, with $10 per each additional GB. Sayeth big red:

Verizon Wireless customers can choose from two 4G LTE Mobile Broadband data plans: $50 monthly access for 5 GB monthly allowance or $80 monthly access for 10 GB monthly allowance, both with $10/GB overage. For laptop connectivity, two 4G LTE USB modems will be initially available: the LG VL600 is available at launch and the Pantech UML290 will be available soon, each $99.99 after $50 rebate with a new two-year agreement. Both USB modems provide backward-compatibility with Verizon Wireless’ 3G network. If laptop users travel outside of a 4G LTE coverage area, they will automatically stay connected on the company’s 3G network.

It’s interesting to note there’s not even really an entry level LTE plan (say $25 for a gig of use) after literally dozens of Verizon executive comments claiming usage-based pricing was going to be the future. We’ll assume this pricing may evolve as the company begins offering LTE smartphones, which Verizon today announced will arrive sometime in “mid-2011″. Verizon also again today confirmed these devices will initially use 3G/CDMA for voice until LTE voice standards are hashed out. As an added aside: the service will only support MS Windows based PC’s at launch.

Link to the original article…

First cable companies insisted that people canceling TV service weren’t real. Then, as companies began noticing the last two quarters that people were actually canceling TV service due to cost, they began insisting those consumers really don’t matter all that much (which is only true when looking at the relatively massive size of some companies). The reality is that you can’t continue to impose rate hikes twice a year and not see some consumer response; the cable industry just doesn’t care because they feel these consumers are little more than a statistical blip.

The seriousness with which cable companies take consumer concerns about high prices is reflected in the way they continue to gleefully impose rate hikes on not only cable TV but DVR rentals and other services. When they do try their hand at the unfamiliar idea of lowering prices, the end result is often somewhat insulting, like Time Warner Cable’s new entry level cable tiers that offer no consumer value and are loaded with restrictions like the inability to bundle it with additional services, or even use a DVR.

Following in Time Warner Cable’s footsteps, Charter is illustrating what they think about cord cutters and those struggling financially, by sending out notices saying they’ll be hiking the price of, well, everything:

effective with your January Statement pricing will be adjusted for TV Install fees: New Primary Outlet Installation and Reconnection will be adjusted from $29.99 to $39.00; Change of Service Special Trip from $23.62 to $30.00; Additional Outlet with Initial Install from $9.87 to $9.99; Additional Outlet with Special Trip from $29.86 to $39.00; Labor Charge (formerly Hourly Service Charge) from $34.85 to $39.00; Inside Wire Service Call from $35.00 to $45.00; Ancillary Equipment Install with Initial Install from $5.99 to $9.99 and Ancillary Equipment Install with Special Trip from $27.15 to $35.00.

Public Access Fee will change from $0.52 to $0.55, Franchise Fee will change from $1. 13 to $1.17. Basic Service Tier from $12. 85 to $16.21 an increase of $3.36; Expanded Service Tier from $48.14 to $44.78 a decrease of (-$3.36). Customers in a promotion will not see this immediate price change; however, new pricing will apply at the end of your promotional period.

While Charter jacked up the price of essentially everything, they did reduce the price of their “Expanded Service” tier from $48.14 to $44.78. However, they actually increased the price of their entry-level “Basic” service tier $12.85 to $16.21. Why? As Charter customers in our forums correctly note, Charter was seeing more customers downgrading to their cheapest TV tier due to the economy, so they raised the price and lowered the price of the next level tier in the hopes they’d upgrade. Cable’s borderline disdain for cash-strapped customers couldn’t be any more clear, and it will be a historical cornerstone when the story of the inevitable (but glacial) Internet video (r)evolution is told.

Link to the original article…

Buoyed by the recent ITU declaration that nobody is technically deploying a 4G network here in the States, T-Mobile recently kicked off a new marketing campaign proclaiming that the carrier has the “largest 4G network.”

One cornerstone of the new campaign is apparently making fun of AT&T’s network, which has seen more than its fair share of criticism the last few years due to performance issues in markets like New York and San Francisco. Recent commercials portray AT&T as a balding, middle aged man weighing down the iPhone 4, and the latest ad in the series airing this week certainly isn’t flattering. AT&T got into a feud with Verizon last year about ads mocking AT&T 3G coverage (they even filed suit), but so far hasn’t had anything to say about T-Mobile’s campaign.

Link to the original article…

Back in June Hulu announced Hulu Plus, a $10 a month broadband video subscription service that is supposed to allow users to access entire back catalogs of TV shows above and beyond what’s available on free Hulu, albeit still with commercials. In August, a scathing study showed that the service really wasn’t worth much with 88% of the content already available for free via normal Hulu.

After significant criticism, Hulu is now considering reducing Hulu Plus to $5 a month according to Peter Kafka at AllThingsD:

Hulu is considering cutting the price of Hulu Plus, the subscription service it began testing in June, sources tell me. I’m told the video site is talking about slashing its $9.95 per-month fee in half, to $4.95… a price cut would indicate that consumers haven’t bought in to the pitch. That shouldn’t be a shock, considering the other video options that consumers have, and the limits that Hulu’s content providers have placed on the service.

As we noted earlier this week, Hulu’s made it very clear they don’t want to truly disrupt and reach their full Internet video potential for fear of upsetting their broadcast owners and that’s before they become part of an even larger Comcast media empire. Like other recent decisions, charging and paywalling first and considering whether you’re offering real value later falls right in line with typical broadcast/cable thinking.

It’s not clear if $5 a month would be any more compelling, though if you act now, Hulu will buckle to the most ridiculous demands of broadcasters at no additional cost.

Link to the original article…

Ars Technica directs our attention to a new New American Foundation report that found that United States and Canadian consumers consistently pay significantly more for wireless service. The study tracked prepaid, unlimited, and postpaid plans in 11 countries, and found that the U.S. and Canada were consistently the most expensive for complete plans (SMS/Voice/Data) and SMS. The U.S. fares slightly better in mobile data, ranging from thoroughly mediocre to very pricey:

In the case of unlimited data plans, the U.S. is in the middle tier of service rates. The U.S. offers a plan of $29.99 per month which is cheaper than Canada ($72.90/month), Japan ($52.60/month) and Hong Kong ($38.00/month). On the contrary, Sweden offers much cheaper unlimited data plans for $13.80 per month, followed by India ($19.00/month), and Taiwan ($26.60/month). For prepaid data plans, the U.S. has the most expensive rate at $10.24 per MB, whereas India offers $0.0004/MB, $0.43/MB in South Korea and $0.50/MB in the U.K. Several other countries that also have cheaper rates are $1.64/MB in Taiwan and $1.70 in Denmark.

It’s not entirely clear what guided the Foundation’s 11-country selection, or why countries like France and Spain were left out of the analysis. It’s also not clear how much a broader sample base would help, given that several studies have shown that Canadian and U.S. consumers tend to pay consistently more for lower quality wired and wireless service than many developed countries. We’re going to go out on a limb and guess that these prices don’t include all of the assorted fees, taxes, and “unfees” carriers tack on below the line.

Link to the original article…

According to the latest J.D. Power and Associates Residential Television Service Satisfaction study, consumers are “notably less satisfied” with TV services than last year. That isn’t surprising given the relentless and often bi-annual rate hikes imposed by satellite, telcoTV and cable TV providers, which resulted in new and notable cord cutting last quarter. According to the study, Customer satisfaction with the cost of television service averaged 541 out of 1,000 in 2010, down 14 points from 555 in 2009.

The study measured satisfaction with TV services in four regions (East, West, North Central, South). AT&T U-Verse and Verizon FiOS ranked highest among TV providers, though the cable companies ironically rank higher on residential phone service.

Overall, customers continue to be annoyed with price hikes, which are courtesy of the endless dance of death between broadcasters (who continually hike programming costs) and TV operators (who pass these costs on to consumers along side hikes and new fees of their own). Consumer annoyance has been amplified by a sour economy, and mirroring recent concerns from the investment sector, JD Power notes that these hikes can’t continue indefinitely:

“It’s apparent…that TV providers must better communicate their price-value proposition, as customers are increasingly voicing irritation with the amount of their monthly bill. Seventy-four percent of customers who say they definitely or probably will change TV providers in the next year cite price as a major reason to switch.”

Consumers (for now) continue to pay for services despite these hikes, which is obviously good news for TV providers. But despite changing state laws to ease telcoTV entry into the sector (many times at the cost of consumer protections, local rights, and increased deployment), TV price reductions promised by lobbyists never arrived. Carriers instead engage in non-price competition, and focus on creating the illusion of value through added services that are often half-assed (see AT&T’s Hulu clone, for example).

The TV sector is begging for disruption and the entry of inexpensive, simple, a la carte Internet video options. There’s an endless flood of articles insisting that Internet video isn’t a threat, but that’s largely thanks to the fact that broadcasters are constricting TV streaming licensing for fear of cannibalizing TV revenues, resulting in limited alternatives for consumers. If these endless carriage disputes continue, cable operators may eventually balk, and broadcasters may open their eyes to alternative delivery opportunities.

Link to the original article…

As part of their franchise agreement with New York City, Verizon was required to deploy FiOS services to every home in New York City by 2014 though the agreement allows Verizon lawyers to wiggle over, under and around those obligations should Verizon not see the kind of service uptake they’d like. According to Verizon, they’ve now passed about 1.8 million homes and businesses, or 58% of the roughly 3.1 million households in New York City.

Verizon says they’re ahead of their agreement to pass 54% of NYC premises by the end of this year. Of course while Verizon is moving forward with FiOS deployment in several cities where they’ve signed franchise agreements, they’ve frozen overall FiOS expansion elsewhere.

Link to the original article…

France was one of the first countries to impose laws that require ISPs terminate the service of users who repeatedly engage in copyright infringement. French anti-piracy outfit Trident Media Guard this week began tracking offenders, and will be submitting infringement claims to ISPs. ISPs must then tie the IP to a name, send letters to users, then ultimately disconnect them after repeat offenses. The size and expense of the operation is fairly staggering, as Torrent Freak explores:

The copyright holders will start relatively “slowly” with 10,000 IP-addresses a day, but within weeks this number is expected to go up to 150,000 IP addresses per day according to official reports. The Internet providers will be tasked with identifying the alleged infringers’ names, addresses, emails and phone numbers. If they fail to do so within 8 days they risk a fine of 1,500 euros per day for every unidentified IP address.

For scale, Time Warner Cable recently complained about similar lookup requests in relation to the “lawsuit-o-matic” campaign being conducted by the U.S. Copyright Group arguing that the maximum number of such requests they could handle was 28 per month; each of which Time Warner Cable claimed cost them $45. Of course in France, consumers are simply flocking to direct download, UseNet or other un-tracked piracy options, while ISPs are left footing the bill for the entertainment industry’s latest Sisyphean endeavor.

Link to the original article…

Microsoft has confirmed that as with previous Windows phones, Windows 7 phones will come with tethering enabled right out of the box. Brandon Watson, Microsoft’s Director for Windows Phone 7, confirmed the feature on the Windows Weekly Podcast, but noted that it will be up to the carrier whether the function is enabled or not. Since Windows 7 phones will only arrive for GSM carriers this year, that means AT&T and T-Mobile. AT&T of course cripples such functionality in Android phones to force you to pay AT&T an extra toll whereas T-Mobile does not.

The question then is: how hard will Windows Phone 7 make getting around these restrictions?

Update: Tethering may not come ready out of the box. More on this in a bit.

Link to the original article…