Tired of all those negative ads? No, I’m not talking about the latest primary battle between Hillary and Obama.
A boy genius who can do other people’s tax returns struggles to decipher a bill from a phone company
Cable executives frustrated by the quantity of high-definition services offered by the satellite company; they end up turning the meeting into a “blame-storming” session.
Slowskys, a turtle couple overwhelmed by the speed of a cable modem who prefer the generally slower DSL services offered by phone companies.
The big ISPs appear to be in the midst of a marketing war. It’s a sign of vibrant competition between service providers… better service should follow.
NARAL, a hard-line pro-abortion group, had a text message blast rejected by wireless provider Verizon on the grounds that Verizon reserves the right to refuse to send controversial messages — of any political persuasion — over its system…
Surely, I thought, this would lead to calls for regulatory action, and surely confusion would ensue. Never mind that after a swift and loud public outcry, Verizon reversed its decision the very next day…
And sure enough, with the help of some liberal advocacy groups, the FCC has begun to mull the business of texting and rejecting. Several of these groups, led by the left-leaning tech advocacy organization Public Knowledge, recently submitted a petition demanding that the FCC issue a ruling that blockages are illegal….
BUT WHAT THEY’RE calling for is hardly safe text. Instead, it’s governmental bullying. Their rallying cry is that Verizon’s action amounted to “censorship.”
But was it? Most people would not think it censorship for a party host to ask an unruly, argumentative guest to settle down, nor for their local coffee shop to place rules on what bulletins might or might not be posted on its cork board. These are private actors that have a right and, indeed, often an obligation to watch over what is said and done on their property.
The same goes for Verizon. Just because its network exists largely in the wireless ether doesn’t make it any less property. Verizon, like any property owner, needs to reserve the right to manage the content that flows over its network.
Verizon’s FiOS launch (offering super high speed internet and TV service) in South Florida seems to be stumbling over basic customer service issues. A recent customer complaint is the Herald Tribune:
“I have continually been stalled, lied to, deceived and to date nobody at Verizon seems to have a clue what is going on,” Weisenbacher’s complaint reads. “It seems to me that Verizon is deliberately playing games with the general public assuming people will get so frustrated that they will simply drop the issue.” (read full)
Weisenbacher is one of 543 customers filing complaints with the Florida attorney general.
Verizon’s negligence is Comcast’s opportunity
Meanwhile, Comcast offers disgruntled customers a good alternative:
Competitor Comcast has begun offering to pay the termination fees for Verizon customers wanting to return to the Comcast.
“If you have become a Verizon customer and are unhappy, we have some win-back offers that will allow you to recoup your termination fee and come back to us,” said Mark Lipford, vice president and general manager for Comcast West Florida. “It’s interesting for every video customer we lose, we get 37 percent back within 30 days, either because they’re having technical problems, customer service problems or they can’t get SNN 6.”
Little light came from the Harvard hearing, where FCC Chairman Kevin Martin badgered Comcast’s solitary witness with loaded questions and failed to display any insight into broadband carriers’ management challenges.
Bennet addresses the P2P software issue.
Peer-to-peer applications are designed to consume a disproportionate share of network bandwidth, so carriers have to limit their traffic to provide good service to most of their other users. Japan, with the fastest residential broadband in the world, applies similar practices, having learned that adding capacity isn’t enough. Peer-to-peer consumes the largest share of the pipe, no matter how big the pipe is…
Broadband carriers struggle to balance cost, performance and fairness, all the while hectored by well-meaning activists oblivious to the Internet’s real technical underpinnings…
The public is unlikely to benefit from the FCC’s protracted hearing process unless there’s a change of emphasis. Comcast has already announced upgrades to its network that will make it more application-agnostic, so the basis of the complaints is already moot.
On Tuesday a bill to ban new cell phone taxes was introduced into the House. Rep. Lofgren (CA-16) led the bill as the sponsor, with seven cosponsors: Cannon (UT-3); Chabot (OH-1); Cohen (TN-9); Eshoo (CA-14); Keller (FL-8); Meeks (NY-6); and Sensenbrenner (WI-5).
Today, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the bi-partisan, pro-consumer “Cell Tax Fairness Act,” which provides for a 5-year moratorium on any new discriminatory wireless tax or fee. A typical consumer already pays 15.19% in federal, state, and local taxes on their cell phone bill as compared to 7.07% for most other taxable goods and services. Between January 2003 and July 2007, the effective rate of taxation on wireless service increased four times faster than the rate for other taxable goods and services. The bill does not disturb current state and local taxes on wireless service. (more)
Continually mounting cellphone taxes are a major grip of mine. My cell phone taxes have gone from $2 to well over $10 a month. I’m glad someone’s addressing it.
I’ve heard about the idea of regular cell phones making calls via Wireless-Internet(WiFi) signals for many years, but this is the first mainstream product I’ve seen that actually does it. This thing is neat, check out the video!
