Brooklyn Ron

Scamming America: AT&T, Verizon Lock up Their Phones (and Lock You up, Too)

About five years ago, after leaving a job and giving up the company phone, I decided to get my own cell phone from Verizon.

I went first to a Verizon store on Seventh Avenue in Park Slope.

The guy there told me you had to sign up for a two-year contract. Almost immediately a fellow standing next to me said, "That's not true. I have a one-year contract."

I thanked the fellow to my side and walked out the door. It didn't seem like a good place to be signing any kind of contract.

Stay with me. This gets better.

Some days later, I went to a Verizon place on 86th St. on the East Side of Manhattan, near my new job, and I (knowingly and smugly) asked for a one-year contract.

When the paper work was done, I looked it over and saw they had given me a two-year contract.

Feeling I was in the land of con men, I went back and told them that I had clearly and articulately asked for a one year contract. They apologized and promptly issued me what I requested.

But hold on. It gets better still!

A month later I received, not one, but two bills: One for a one-year contract, and another for a two-year contract.

It was easily rectified with a phone call, give me a break!

Clearly this was not just a simple clerical error. Deception was so obviously built into the marketing of these Verizon contracts.

And let me say the following: that this story of the two-year contract that would not die is growing in relevance.

Today, as so-called smart phones grow in popularity, carriers like Verizon, AT&T and Spring and others are creating new age monopolies, cornering the market on certain types of devices (for example, AT&T possessing rights for the iPhone, and Sprint doing the same with the Palm Pre).

And (just as they physically lock up those phones so they can't be used with another carrier) the companies all but insist on locking you into a one- or two-year contact.

AT&T tells you plainly that you can't get the iPhone without a contract. Others just trick you into it, by not telling you the ways that you can be on a month-to-month (non contractual) plan.

These days, many Free Internet advocates are accusing the big phone companies of being anti-free market.

And the advocates are pushing back against the virtual behemoths.

Writes Josh Levy of the Free Press Action Fund (in an email that I received):

"These "exclusive deals" remind me of the days when AT&T held a monopoly over all phone communications. Consumers could only use one phone, on one network, at rates set by one company. No innovations could take place without AT&T's permission. When federal rules forced AT&T to open its network, an explosion of innovation occurred with new fax machines, Internet modems and answering machines. . . Today, the FreeMyPhone campaign seeks to open up the wireless market in the same way."

Senator John Kerry is getting into the fray also, asking, "Who Really Owns Your Phone?" in a post on Save The Internet.

Please check out what the "Free My Phone, No More GateKeepers" folks are saying. Click here.

Fears Grow That Verizon, Comcast and Others Will Restrict Web Access

                          SUPPORT 'NET NEUTRALITY'

Fears are growing that Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner and other Internet Service Providers are going to limit Web access of their smaller, less powerful customers or -- in a potentially grave threat to the First Amendment -- restrict downloading capabilities of sites they find (for reasons political or otherwise) offensive.

This is leading to enough concern that members of Congress are becoming involved and, in fact, a bill recently was introduced addressing the matter.

Congressman John Conyers of Michigan said:

"Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone. The Internet was designed without centralized control, without gatekeepers for content and services. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."

The legislation introduced on May 8th by Democrats requires Internet Service Providers "to operate their network in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner so that all content, applications and services are treated the same and have an equal opportunity to reach consumers."

Republicans and ISP's have opposed the measure, saying it is a "solution in search of a problem."

But some believe that Comcast in particular has already been found to limit access of smaller customers, especially during times of heavy Net traffic.

The movement against this perceived ISP threat is being called "Net Neutrality," which is defined as "the fundamental principle that prevents service providers from discriminating against websites or services based on their source, ownership or destination."

And the group that is pushing the issue, and trying recruit Netizens into its cause, is SaveTheInternet. [Click the opening image or the link to the left of here to find out more about them and/or how to join the movement.]

Bill Moyers, for one, has been expressing serious worries about this threat to the free nature of the Internet.

The Democracy of the Net is at stake, and it's extremely meaningful that figures of Moyers' stature are becoming so involved.