@jbtaylor on tech

Well, that didn't take long.

After an avalanche of criticism, much of it unfair and inaccurate, in my view, Verizon Wireless announced that it would not implement plans to charge customers a $2 "Convenience Fee" for making certain kinds of payments.

What kind of payments were going to get the fee? Customers who phoned into Customer Care to make a one time payment via their credit card or debit card plus customers who made a one time payment at VerizonWireless.com.

According to the New York Times, customers could avoid the fee by, "using a check, automated bank transfer and credit or debit card, Verizon customers can also pay at a Verizon store, by money order, or by using a bank or other company’s online bill payment service. They may also use a Verizon gift or rebate card, or make a last-minute, one-time phone or Web payment by handing over their bank account number and their bank’s routing number."

Verizon's theory was a good one in my view. They were incurring extra costs to process the payments made by one time credit or debit card payments. Rather than force all of their customer base to pay for those costs, they decided to make those specific customers bear the cost by paying the "convenience fee."

What will Verizon do next? They will likely bake in that extra cost into higher prices for all customers.

That outcome may make consumers feel better, but in the end, Verizon will tighten their grip on a title they've had for a very long time: America's most expensive wireless carrier.

p.s. Please remember that this is my personal blog and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

If you were to do a quick search for news stories about the FCC today, you'd probably assume that the most important regulatory news coming out of the Federal Communications Commission was news that Verizon Wireless has agreed to pay $25 million to the federal government and to refund $52 million to its customers to settle charges about the company's "mystery fees." Verizon had been under investigation for incorrectly collecting and charging its customers fees for data never accessed on wireless phones.

Surely, that's big news, but it's not the biggest news to come from the FCC today.

A much bigger story is that the FCC issued a public notice in the special access docket which requests data from incumbent local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers.

How's that for telecom gobbledygook?

In English, what it means is the FCC is asking landline and wireless phone companies to provide confidential data about the prices charged and paid for special access connections. This request for data is a necessary step to take before the FCC can do anything to rein in Verizon, AT&T and other landline phone companies who dominate the special access market which our broadband economy depends upon.

As I've written in this Posterous before, special access circuits are the connections that wireless companies depend upon to connect your wireless call and to make sure your smartphone can surf the Web. Special access also connects your bank's ATM, the credit card payment system at a retail store like Wal-Mart or Best Buy and also the 1-800 reservations centers used by hotels, airlines and the like. It's also how your Internet service provider connects you to this or any other Website and how your email gets delivered.

The special access market is worth about $18 billion a year and it's a broken market. In economic terms that means there is no competition which pressures prices downward.

In the Washington, D.C. area, where I live and work, Verizon controls about 90 percent of the special access market. This means they can charge prices which are jacked up as much as 100 percent over their actual cost.

I call it Verizon's ATM machine.

Today's news about the FCC data request is a clear sign that the FCC is serious in enforcing the law and taking action in the special access docket.

Personally, I welcome it.

At Sprint, we issued the following statement to media about the FCC's step:

"Today’s announcement by the Federal Communications Commission that it is issuing a request for data about the special access market is an important milestone in the Commission’s efforts to fix this broken market. We would like to thank Chairman Genachowski, his fellow Commissioners and the FCC staff for their work to address this problem facing the country’s broadband economy.

Sprint has repeatedly indicated that it will provide the data the FCC needs to make a fact-based, data driven decision in this docket. Because the nation’s broadband economy depends upon these special access circuits, it is essential that the Commission get accurate and timely data from both purchasers and sellers of special access. We urge other communications companies to join with Sprint in fully cooperating with the FCC as it acts in addressing the matters pending in the docket.”