Let us know what you"re up to this weekend in the comment section below!
read comment(s)

Verizon has disconnected at least 8,500 largely rural wireless customers from the company"s network, claiming that the roaming costs associated with these users make them unprofitable enough to serve. As we noted earlier this week, these are largely rural customers on partner carriers of Verizon"s LTE in rural America program (LTEiRA), which provides smaller rural carriers spectrum and technology access in exchange for extending Verizon"s cellular reach in these markets. To Verizon customers, there"s no obvious difference between being on Verizon networks or these rural carrier partners.

Except, apparently, when these users consume a "significant" amount of data.

Stop the Cap has compiled an excellent report on the scope of Verizon"s forced exodus, noting that around 20,000 lines belonging to around 8,500 users are being told they can no longer use the Verizon Wireless network. These users are being told they will lose access to the Verizon network on October 17 -- presumably because Verizon Wireless believes they"re not profitable enough due to roaming costs.

"During a recent review of customer accounts, we discovered you are using a significant amount of data while roaming off the Verizon Wireless network," a letter being sent to these users states. "While we appreciate you choosing Verizon, after October 17, 2017, we will no longer offer service for the numbers listed above since your primary place of use is outside the Verizon service area."

The problem: many of these users tell outlets like Ars Technica that their usage isn"t really particularly excessive. And Verizon refuses to clarify precisely what it determines as "significant" use. The decision has also put many law enforcement officials on their heels, since they suddenly can"t connect to towers in certain areas. Verizon partners also say Verizon hyped this LTEiRA program, had partners build additional connectivity, sold users on the prospect of unlimited data, then just pulled the plug to the deteriment of everybody involved.

Verizon"s being relatively murky about everything from the real motivation for the decision, to what can trigger you being booted from the network -- and how many users have been impacted nationwide.

We re providing advance notice to these customers so they have plenty of time to port their wireless number to another company before their Verizon Wireless service ends, Verizon spokesperson Laura Meritt says. We regularly review accounts with data use that primarily takes place outside of the Verizon network.

The ultimate irony here is that Verizon has spent years justifying its refusal to upgrade or repair millions of DSL customers to FiOS -- because it claimed that wireless would be just as good as a fixed connection. Customers have long disputed this claim, and with many now being blocked from the Verizon Wireless network completely, the flaws in Verizon"s argument have been laid bare.

The story breaks as the FCC, now run by former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai, has been contemplating weakening the standard definition of broadband by declaring wireless connectivity the rough equivalent of fixed-line connections. The goal: manipulate the data to imply there is no broadband competition problem -- letting Pai falsely justify his apathy toward doing anything about it. Under Pai"s new proposal, these users would still technically have access to broadband.

While Verizon Wireless is booting 8,500 customers off the network in this latest push, users have been complaining about this for much of the year -- suggesting the actual volume of impacted users is much larger.
read comment(s)

Google and Verizon are teaming up to oppose a new California broadband privacy bill that would replace the FCC rules killed by the Trump administration and the GOP earlier this year. On June 19, California Assemblymember Ed Chau introduced AB 375 (pdf), which, like the FCC rules it"s intended to replace, requires that large ISPs are very clear about what consumer data is being collected and sold to third parties. It also requires that consumers opt in if ISPs want to share more personal data (like web browsing histories or financial information).

And it goes a little further than the FCC rules would have, in that it prohibits ISPs from punishing customers who chose to opt out -- or charging them more money if they want to protect their own privacy.

That"s of particular note, since both AT&T and Comcast have flirted with the idea of charging users significantly more money just to opt out of their snoopvertising schemes. Other cable companies, like CableOne, have bragged about using customer financial data and credit information to actually provide worse customer support to credit-challenged customers.

California lawmakers are expected to vote on the measure today or tomorrow, so ISPs have been working overtime to spread all manner of false information about what the bill will do, notes the EFF. That includes claims that protecting consumer privacy would somehow lead to recurring pop-ups to consumers," and would somehow prevent ISPs from protecting consumers from cyber attacks and hackers.

"Contrary to the FUD Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and their allies are spreading, A.B. 375 will make it less likely that your information can be targeted by privacy thieves, and will make it harder for hackers to target you online," notes the EFF. The group argues that California"s measure could be useful as a template for other states looking to protect consumers from predatory telecom duopolies now largely free from responsible federal oversight.

But these incumbent ISPs also have the help of companies like Google, which is also fighting the new California law for what should be an obvious reason: informed, protected consumers are less profitable than unprotected, uninformed users when it comes to cashing in on user data. The California law goes a long way it making it clear to consumers what kind of personal data is being collected and sold, and allowing them to opt out, something that"s an obvious drag on ISP and ad company (Google, Facebook) revenues.

Google tends to have a reputation for being a consumer advocate, though that reputation is notably dated. Google actually worked closely with Verizon in 2010 to help push flimsy net neutrality rules that lacked any meaningful substance (Google worked hard to ensure those rules didn"t cover wireless networks at all). Google subsequently disappeared from the entire net neutrality debate since around 2010 or so, leaving smaller companies and consumers alone as the Ajit Pai lead FCC works to dismantle most meaningful consumer protections.

So while ISPs are falsely claiming that real privacy protections will put consumer privacy at risk, Google is paying policy groups to falsely claim that the bill is a job killer, a "direct attack on the internet economy" and will somehow "freeze investment and economic growth." Except that"s nonsense as, like the FCC rules they"re intended to replace, the protections are relatively modest -- and the bare minimum the government could do as countless companies hoover up and sell every shred of personal data with negligible --
and steadily weakening -- oversight.

"Privacy and security are two sides of the same coin, and when you strengthen one you strengthen the other," notes the EFF. "That s why we need to do everything we can to make sure A.B. 375 passes the California legislature. Please, if you live in California, call your state legislator today and tell them not to believe the lies Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and their allies are spreading. Tell them to support A.B. 375."
read comment(s)

Users in our Charter Spectrum forum debate and discuss Charter"s efforts to restore service in the wake of the devestation caused by Hurricane Irma. Between Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Charter estimates that it has roughly 1.3 million subscribers still without service. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge estimated at an industry conference this week that the company expects 200,000 to 300,000 of those subscribers to "have some form of credit for some period of time."

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam says the company will spend the next six months figuring out its strategy for streaming video, and just what the company"s over the top streaming platform would look like. Rumors of an over the top live streaming service from Verizon have been bouncing around for months, though like most companies Verizon has struggled to get broadcasters to sign off on the necessary licensing rights. But Verizon"s ambition is clear: use its AOL and Yahoo acquisitions to fuel its quest to be a major advertiser the likes of Google or Facebook.

The problem for Verizon: those plans haven"t really gone all that well, at least on the video and content side of the equation.

Verizon"s first attempt at a media website quickly folded after reports emerged indicating Verizon wouldn"t let its writers talk about net neutrality or surveillance. The company"s joint venture with Redbox went belly up after several years of hype. The company"s similarly well-hyped Go90 service, which was Verizon"s attempt to make a stodgy old telco seem sexy in the eyes of Millennials, has been declared "a dud" by Verizon"s own partners.

But Verizon has made one thing clear: it intends to throw as much money as possible at its quest to transform itself into a media and advertising powerhouse. McAdam told attendees of a Bloomberg conference this week that offering an over the top streaming service is "absolutely critical" for Verizon, but it"s still entirely unclear just what a service will look like. And McAdam just floated over the fact that this service was originally supposed to debut this summer, but has clearly been delayed due to licensing woes.

Whether Verizon can get out of its own way and offer a compelling streaming video platform outside of its traditional FiOS TV footprint is far from clear, but expect the offering to look much like AT&T"s DirecTV Now streaming platform -- but with a very heavy emphasis on prioritizing wireless subscribers. With all signs pointing to Verizon successfully killing net neutrality protections, you can also be fairly sure that such a service will contain more than a few "creative" flourishes utilizing Verizon"s market power to somehow put competitors at a disadvantage.
read comment(s)