With the Justice Department believing that it can get all sorts of data from telcos without any oversight or without a warrant, it seems rather important to know what kind of info your mobile operator is keeping -- and for how long. The ACLU, via a Freedom of Information Act request, was able to get a "for law enforcement use only" document that shows how long the carriers hold on to what data (Wired also notes that the document could already be found online if you knew the title). The document itself is a pretty weak scan: Thankfully, however, now that the data is out there, we can show it friendlier formats. Michael Robertson was kind enough to take the data (minus the "for law enforcement use only" part, and put it into a Google docs spreadsheet: Additionally, the folks at Wired put together a nice infographic from the data: What it seems to show is that Verizon holds onto your texting data for the least amount of time, but also retains the actual text of your text messages -- something no one else, outside of Virgin Mobile, does. How long until we see a push for a mobile data retention law to "standardize" what these companies have to hang onto and for how long?

Sometimes you wonder if there's some sort of competition between airlines, banks and telcos as to who can come up with the more ridiculous "fees" to add. AT&T, which last we checked, was still trying to get a merger approved that it claims will benefit customers, has now decided to add a $2/month fee for people who don't have a long-distance plan. In other words, pay more, for less! This comes on top of a whole series of other ways to limit consumer choice while increasing what they have to pay. As Broadband Reports notes:

AT&T imposed new usage caps on broadband users without making sure the meters work. They followed that up by cracking down on unofficial tetherers (imposing a fee for doing nothing while crippling smartphones) and then substantially jacking up the price of SMS service by killing off one of their most popular SMS plans.

But have no fear, once AT&T gets T-Mobile and there's even less competition in the mobile space, we're sure that such practices will only... er... increase.

Two of Canada's big three telcos have recently appointed former cabinet ministers of the ruling party's government to their respective boards. A few weeks ago, Bell appointed Jim Prentice, who was responsible for telecom policy and regulating companies like Bell while serving as Minister of Industry in 2007-2008. Then, while former cabinet minister Stockwell Day's new "government relations" not-a-lobbying-firm has raised concerns about loopholes in lobbying laws, this past weekend Telus named Day to its board. (How long until Rogers aligns with industry standards and finds an ex-minister of their own?) OpenMedia.ca decried both appointments as examples of big telecom "cozying up to the government," but journalist Peter Nowak argues it's the system's fault: "Lobbying is so pervasive and deeply integrated" into the system that the only way to deal with it seems to be to "fight fire with fire," as even new wireless carriers have quickly learned -- i.e. don't hate the players, hate the game.

Neither Prentice nor Day will be lobbyists, but it seems obvious that their knowledge of government is being sought for the purposes of lobbying. In the broadband space, Bell has been butting heads with the government and regulators over issues like wholesale usage-based billing. In the wireless space, the next spectrum auction is approaching and incumbents want to avoid a repeat of the last auction, where 40% of the spectrum was reserved for new entrants and the government forced incumbents to offer roaming agreements -- rules ironically set by Bell's new board member, Jim Prentice.

Are these appointments examples of regulatory capture? It might appear that way. It's certainly a case of telcos gearing up for a heavy round of lobbying that's unlikely to favor consumers, but it's hardly a case of blatant revolving doors. Day was not actually responsible for telecom policy, and Prentice was behind rules that angered incumbents. If the government favors incumbents in the next spectrum auction or backs down on wholesale usage-based billing, that would be a different story, but Canadian incumbents are scrambling because they've lost some big battles. This isn't so much a cause for deep concern as it is a challenge to those who favor more competition in Canada to keep pressing the government to follow through on what it's started.

For years, we've pointed out that the "Universal Service Fund," is a huge boondoggle. Basically, we all pay a tax on our phone bills that's supposed to go towards this "universal service fund," which telcos are supposed to use to provide phone service to rural areas. But, as we've been pointing out for over a decade there's little evidence that's what happens. There's almost no oversight of the program, and there are many stories of waste and abuse. The latest, in a long line, is that 59 cents of every dollar that goes to the big telcos from this USF... does not go towards universal service. Instead, the telcos just take that money and do other stuff with it. So, basically, this is a way for the telcos to hide much higher rates through a bogus government "tax," that isn't used for its expressed purpose. That seems like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.

For years, we've been pointing out that while the concept of net neutrality is important, any attempt by the government to put it into law would inevitably involve lobbyists twisting it to be quite favorable to the telcos and others. So, really, it should come as no surprise that the FCC is planning to approve a "net neutrality" plan that was heavily influenced by AT&T and from which long term supporters of "net neutrality" rules are distancing themselves. In other words, pretty much exactly what many folks had warned early on. We shouldn't confuse the concept of the end-to-end principle of the internet with the need for laws that start to regulate parts of the internet, because we've seen time and time again how the telco lobbyists will shape anything along those lines to their own advantage, and it appears this was no exception.

It's been talked about for ages, but the FCC is finally preparing to take on mobile operator "bill shock," that happens when a user, unknowingly, goes way over their allotted time/data and is charged ridiculous overage fees, leading to the ever popular stories of multi-thousand dollar bills. The FCC plans to require mobile operators to at least alert users when they're nearing the limits on their plan. While I'm often skeptical of FCC actions, I'm having trouble seeing what's wrong with this, and the mobile operators protestations are so silly that it's difficult to take them seriously.

Mobile operator trade association CTIA has warned that these sorts of warnings would "cause customer confusion and frustration." Huh? How? And it's already established that it's the crazy huge bills that are causing customer confusion and frustration (and, um, anger). Then there's Verizon Wireless, quoted as saying that "intense competition has led wireless carriers to provide consumers with usage information." Hmm. Information like the phantom charges that Verizon Wireless denied for nearly two years, until it finally 'fessed up and agreed to pay back to the tune of $50 million to $90 million. Honestly, I can't figure out what the pushback is over actually warning customers before they get insane overage charges?

A few weeks back, we noted that a bunch of tech and broadband companies were back to "negotiating" around net neutrality, leading us to highlight Adam Smith's famous quote that "people of the same trade" seldom meet together except to create "a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Now comes the news that those involved -- including Verizon, AT&T, Skype, Microsoft, NCTA and "others" have "reached an agreement," which might be "stricter" than the Googrizon "framework," but which probably doesn't really apply to wireless networks.

I'm still at a loss as to how this actually matters. The companies can agree to whatever they want, and none of it makes a difference if Congress acts (or the courts say that the FCC is allowed to act). I guess the idea is to think that an "industry agreement" will stave off legislation, which perhaps might work for some time, but still reeks of collusion without consumer input or review.

Can't say we didn't warn people on this one. Way back in February, we suggested that people pushing for net neutrality legislation were going to be disappointed after the telco lobbyists got done with it. The telcos came ready for battle, hiring hundreds of former government employees, including 18 former members of Congress to lobby on their behalf. Back in June, we noted that the telcos were privately saying they were okay with net neutrality rules, so long as they helped shape them. Then, last month, we noted that, contrary to its promises of transparency and openness, the FCC was meeting behind closed doors in secret with those telco lobbyists.

Well-connected telco-beat reporter Dave Burstein is now claiming that this past weekend, the top broadband lobbyists finalized the deal on their version of net neutrality, with part of the deal being a back-scratcher promise to dump a bunch of money into the campaign coffers of Democrats this upcoming election season:

This weekend, uber-lobbyists Cicconi (AT&T), Tauke (Verizon) and McSlarrow (Cable) are at the FCC to make a final deal on net neutrality, Arbogast and Kaut report. Ivan Seidenberg has put enormous pressure on the White House to intervene, and the rumor is that chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is telling agencies to go along. Seidenberg, who has been to the White House 16 times,made a major D.C. speech suggesting that the business community would throw their money and power against the Democrats in the campaign. NN was one of the specific points he demanded.

Under pressure like that, Julius has already agreed to almost everything Cicconi really wants, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels. K & A say there is still some opposition so that nothing is final and that the public interest groups are ready to assail Julius. Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant.

This one is about power and money, not principle. The likely outcome is an agreement that will allow everyone to say noble things, will allow Julius to look himself in the mirror, and will essentially have no substance.

Now, as Burstein notes, this isn't "final," so things could change, but everyone should have seen this coming. Yes, network neutrality principles are important, but fighting for network neutrality and understanding how the political process works are two different things -- and it's been obvious for years that any attempt to enshrine net neutrality in the law would almost certainly be twisted by telco lobbyists.

While we're still worried that any "net neutrality" rules put in place by the government will contain so many loopholes for the telcos as to make them do more harm than good, it's nice to see that more and more people are calling the telcos on their bogus claim that net neutrality rules would mean that telcos would cut back on investment. Lots of us have debunked that claim before, but the telcos have tried to make the case that this is a big deal for Wall Street people. Eh... perhaps not so much. Broadband Reports notes that even the Wall Street analysts who are against net neutrality rules don't believe it will impact investment:

Net neutrality/reclassification opponent Thomas Seitz (Height Analytics and previously Barclay) today joined the parade of top analysts doubting the claims that Net Neutrality rules would produce a serious cutback in broadband investment. Washington is inundated with claims NN will clobber investment, but the carrier CFO are telling Wall Street it won't be a determining factor. Seitz joins John Hodulik of UBS (voted #1 telco analyst), Craig Moffett (voted #1 cable analyst) and Michael Rollins of Citigroup as well as several others who haven't gone on the record.

As we've seen over and over and over again, telcos invest when there's competition in the market. When competition goes away, that's when they cut back. If the focus is really on encouraging investment in network infrastructure, then the focus should be on encouraging more competition in the marketplace -- which is exactly what the telcos don't want. They like their monopoly rents. They like not having to invest as much in infrastructure. It's great that more and more people are calling them on this bogus claim.

Every year, the FCC is required to come out with a report on broadband competitiveness. Every year, it's a joke. Way back in 2006, the GAO looked at the 2005 report and pointed out that the FCC's methodology sucked and was highly inaccurate. Basically, the FCC looked at whether or not a single node in a zip code was wired for broadband (defined at some laughably low rate), and declared that the provider offered service across that entire zip code. On top of that, it relied on the broadband providers themselves to let the FCC know who was covered. So, in theory, you could have a zip code where only two houses were covered by broadband, and the FCC would define that entire zip code as not only covered, but a competitive market. That was in 2006. Yet, the FCC basically ignored the GAO and kept putting out its bogus reports each year, even as the GAO continued to highlight the problems of the report.

So here we are, years later, and the FCC has finally, finally, finally changed its methodology and for the first time released a report admitting that all is not well in the US broadband market. As Broadband Reports notes:

The report ditches the inaccurate zip code determination, and takes the long-overdue step of bumping the minimum definition of broadband from just 200 kbps, to at least 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.

I should admit, by that definition, even I don't have broadband at home. To be honest, I'm less concerned about the amount of people who have access to broadband, as I am about the actual level of competition, which isn't really covered by this report. Still, it's amusing to see how angry the telcos and some elected officials are about the FCC finally telling the truth.

A telco lobbying organization, US Telecom immediately trashed the report saying it "strained credulity." And, it didn't take elected officials long to start grandstanding as well. Rep. Cliff Stearns wasted little time blasting the FCC report, saying he was "perplexed" by the report.

Perhaps we can clear up some of the confusion. You see, it appears that over the course of Cliff Stearns career, the single largest contributor to his campaign was (you guessed it) AT&T. Oh, and as for this year's campaign, it's probably worth noting that while AT&T is still his top contributor Comcast and Verizon are number two and three respectively, and closing in fast. And, of course, in the last election (2008), Stearns' top two contributors were AT&T and the National Cable & Telco Association. Verizon was fourth. But I'm sure that has nothing whatsoever to do with Stearn's confusion over the FCC report. Couldn't possibly be... And people wonder why every day citizens think that DC is corrupt.