Despite Gigabit Hype, Comcast Is Facing Less Broadband Competition Than Ever

from the ma-bell,-ill-communication dept

Despite the rise of heavily-hyped-but-highly-scattered gigabit deployments, the broadband industry is actually seeing less competition than ever before across huge swaths of the country. Once upon a time, broadband "competition" consisted of an equally matched telco going head to head with the incumbent cable provider (if you were lucky). These days, most phone companies lack the finances or competitive motivation to improve lagging DSL speeds across their footprints -- speeds that don't even meet the FCC's base definition of broadband (25 mbps).

That's resulting in a growing monopoly for the nation's cable broadband providers, who have quietly been absolutely butchering phone companies over the last several years. Just take a look at the latest data from Leichtman Research, which notes that while cable broadband providers collectively added 2.7 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers last year, phone companies collectively shed roughly 600,000 broadband users.

That's the most net additions the cable sector has seen in any year since 2007. And the 122% 2016 net additions are a notable bump up from the 106% of net additions seen by cable providers in 2015, and 89% of net additions seen in 2014. It paints a rather clear picture of a broadband industry that, frankly, is even less competitive than public wisdom dictates (and most of us already knew it's one of the least competitive sectors in technology):

In countless markets, phone companies like AT&T and Verizon are simply giving up on unwanted DSL users, quite happily driving them to cable via the one-two punch of price hikes or apathy (their focus now is more expensive wireless, and gobbling up various media companies). Elsewhere, smaller telcos (Windstream, Centurylink, Frontier) have saddled themselves with so much debt by gobbling up AT&T and Verizon's aging copper customers, they're incapable (or unwilling) to invest in necessary broadband upgrades en masse.

Many of these companies quite simply don't even want to be in the residential broadband business, resulting in a palpable, active disdain by many of these phone companies for their own paying customers. The residential broadband industry simply isn't profitable enough, quickly enough for modern investors, so most of these companies have shifted their entire focus elsewhere. For smaller telcos like Windstream, it's gobbling up companies like Earthlink to expand a focus on enterprise customers. For AT&T and Verizon, it's gobbling up media empires in the quest to be millennial ad juggernauts.

All of this is wonderful news for companies like Charter and Comcast. This reduction in overall competition is eroding the resistance to the rise of completely unnecessary and arbitrary usage caps, meaning broadband (and competing streaming) services are getting more expensive than ever before. And remember, most of these companies have written and successfully lobbied for state bills preventing your town or city from doing much about it. As icing on the cable cake, new Ajit Pai-run FCC has made it clear that nibbling these companies' earlobes is going to pass for regulatory policy for the foreseeable future.

All of this tends to get overshadowed each time an ISP proudly announces the expansion of expensive gigabit broadband lines in highly-selective areas. But for the countless markets in the States, phone companies have effectively given up -- resigning consumers to at least a decade of higher prices and the cable industry's particular knack for atrocious customer service.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, gigabit fiber, monopoly
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

New York City Sues Verizon For Fiber Optic Bait And Switch

from the a-sucker-born-every-minute dept

For years now, we've highlighted Verizon's tendency to grab all manner of tax breaks and subsidies from a town or city -- in exchange for fiber optic upgrades that are often never delivered. All up and down the eastern seaboard, Verizon was given the keys to the kingdom in franchise and other agreements filled with loopholes that let the telco, time and time again, promise one thing, then deliver another. And because the company enjoys immense lobbying power over regional regulators and state legislatures, Verizon has never really been held accountable for this behavior.

New York City has been a particular point of contention. In 2008, former mayor Mike Bloomberg and Verizon signed (behind closed doors) a new franchise agreement promising "100% coverage" of FiOS across the city by 2014. As some local reporters had warned at the time (and were promptly ignored), the city's deal with Verizon contained all manner of loopholes allowing Verizon to wiggle over, under and around its obligations. And wiggle Verizon did; a 2015 city report found huge gaps in deployment coverage -- particularly in many of the less affluent, outer city boroughs.

New York City had long promised to sue Verizon over its failures, and this week made good on that promise. A lawsuit filed by the city (pdf) says that Verizon only ultimately reached 2.2 million out of the city's 3.3 million residences with FiOS. The city is seeking a declaration that Verizon is in breach of its deployment obligations, as well as an order to complete the project as promised. The contract required that Verizon "pass" nearby apartments and buildings with fiber. But according to the city, Verizon's definition of "pass" meant "getting the fiber line somewhere close to the building, maybe":

"Verizon's current position, as stated in correspondence and meetings with the City, is that fulfilling the "premises passed" obligation does not, with respect to a given premises, necessarily involve running fiber immediately in front of or behind the premises. Rather, Verizon has asserted, it should be deemed to have'þassed" an individual building if it has run fiber to a nearby intersection and could access the building with further deployment of fiber."

This is pretty much the standard MO for Verizon, and any city surprised by it hasn't been paying attention. In addition to the flaky definition of "passed" (long a fluctuating, morphing determination in telecom for just this purpose), Verizon's agreement contained numerous provisions allowing it to buy or wiggle its way out of deployment obligations if certain television adoption metrics weren't met. All told, countless cities have signed contracts just like this one without really reading them. They then turn around in a few years feeling swindled (like Philadelphia just did).

As such, it's not entirely clear how much luck New York City will have in the courts, but Mayor Bill De Blasio's office has apparently had enough of playing deployment patty cake with the company:

"Verizon must face the consequences for breaking the trust of 8.5 million New Yorkers. Verizon promised that every household in the city would have access to its fiber-optic FiOS service by 2014. It's 2017 and we're done waiting. No corporation - no matter how large or powerful - can break a promise to New Yorkers and get away with it."

The problem is Verizon has "gotten away with it" pretty much constantly -- across a wide swath of its territory -- with zero repercussions, for the better part of a generation. In town after town, state after state, the most "punishment" Verizon tends to see is belated, toothless public hearings that serve little purpose other than to let swindled residents vent. That's because while Verizon's known for building networks, its expertise is really legacy turf protection and lobbying, and those campaign contributions go a very, very long way.

Ideally, cities could avoid all of this by actually reading contracts before they sign them (and making negotiations public and transparent, which didn't happen in New York). On a "positive" note, now that Verizon's busy gobbling up failed 90s internet brands in an apparent quest to pivot to slinging ads at Millennials -- it has largely given up on fixed-line broadband entirely, meaning that its bunk FiOS deployment promises are also taking an extended hiatus.

Filed Under: broadband, broken promises, fiber, fiber optic, fios, new york city, nyc
Companies: verizon

Yahoo's Security Incompetence Just Took $250 Million Off Verizon's Asking Price

from the dysfunction-junction dept

So last year we noted how Verizon proposed paying $4.8 billion to acquire Yahoo as part of its plan to magically transform from stodgy old telco to sexy new Millennial advertising juggernaut, which, for a variety of reasons, isn't going so well. One of those reasons is the fact that Yahoo failed to disclose the two, massive hacks (both by the same party) that exposed the credentials of millions of Yahoo customers during deal negotiations. The exposure included millions of names, email addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, hashed passwords (using MD5) and "encrypted or unencrypted" security questions and answers.

As noted previously, Verizon had been using the scandal to drive down the $4.8 billion asking price, reports stating that Verizon was demanding not only a $1 billion reduction in the price, but another $1 billion to cover the inevitable lawsuits by Yahoo customers.

Verizon appears to have gotten at least some of what it wanted, Bloomberg reporting that Verizon has managed to shave $250 million or so off of the original price tag:

"Verizon Communications Inc. is close to a renegotiated deal for Yahoo! Inc.’s internet properties that would reduce the price of the $4.8 billion agreement by about $250 million after the revelation of security breaches at the web company, according to people familiar with the matter...In addition to the discount, Verizon and the entity that remains of Yahoo after the deal, to be renamed Altaba Inc., are expected to share any ongoing legal responsibilities related to the breaches, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private information."

Yahoo wasn't always incompetent when it comes to security. In fact, at one point the company was considered among the best in the business, something that only began to change when CEO Marissa Mayer decided to begin cutting security corners. This came to light a few months back via a series of insider-fueled pieces highlighting how Mayer's business decisions actively worked to make Yahoo users less secure. Mayer was concerned, apparently, that actually being transparent with Yahoo customers about their (not so) private data would result in the company losing even more customers than it already had:

"According to the former Yahoo executive that Business Insider spoke to, Yahoo's culture of secrecy and its prioritization of other business goals led to troubling security practices that made it much more difficult for Yahoo to defend from hackers. Yahoo's security team was often denied funding and sometimes kept in the dark at Mayer's direction, as she feared more emphasis on security could potentially spur a decline in the company's user base."

But at the end of the day, transparency builds trust in the brand, resulting in more loyal customers -- something Mayer apparently didn't understand. The ironic part being that much of this shift away from security was also occurring because Mayer was busy trying to make Yahoo a sexier acquisition target. Fortunately for all of us, this deal finally puts this entire sordid affair in the real-view mirror, and Verizon executives can get back to gobbling up foundering 90s internet brands, and convincing itself it has the disruptive DNA required to take on Google, Facebook and others in the quest for Millennial ad eyeballs.

Filed Under: merger, security
Companies: verizon, yahoo

New FCC Boss Kills Zero Rating Inquiry, Signals Death Of Net Neutrality Enforcement

from the not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper dept

Surprising nobody, new FCC boss Ajit Pai used a flurry of late-Friday announcements to roll back a number of consumer-friendly FCC initiatives the former Verizon lawyer (and the large ISPs that already love him) didn't like. Among them was the Wheeler-led FCC's attempt to crack down on zero rating, the practice of an ISP exempting its own content from its own arbitrary usage caps, while still penalizing competitors. The former FCC had just belatedly ruled that both AT&T and Verizon's zero rating efforts were anti-consumer, anti-competitive, and dramatically damaged the open streaming video market.

That was then, and this is now.

This new, Pai-led FCC wasted no time sending AT&T, Verizon and Comcast letters (pdf) proclaiming that all FCC inquiries into the anti-competitive impact of zero rating have been dropped. In a brief statement (pdf) issued to the media, Pai went so far as to imply he was doing this not because it's what giant ISPs wanted -- but because of a selfless dedication to the poor:

"Today, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is closing its investigation into wireless carriers' free-data offerings. These free-data plans have proven to be popular among consumers, particularly low-income Americans, and have enhanced competition in the wireless marketplace. Going forward, the Federal Communications Commission will not focus on denying Americans free data. Instead, we will concentrate on expanding broadband deployment and encouraging innovative service offerings."

You'll find that taking an anti-consumer position on something, then insisting it was only done to aid the downtrodden, will be a common refrain from this new Pai-led FCC. In reality, zero rating data doesn't create "free data plans," it simply shifts the cost burden onto streaming video providers -- or more accurately, the customers of streaming video providers. Those customers suddenly face having to pay more money for competing services, which naturally funnels them to the streaming services of AT&T (DirecTV Now), Verizon (Go90), or Comcast (Stream TV).

ISPs like AT&T and Verizon had tried to argue that disadvantaging competitors in this fashion wasn't a big deal, because those companies could pay AT&T and Verizon a steep and unnecessary surcharge to cap-exempt their services too, putting themselves back on equal footing with ISPs. Given that many smaller companies couldn't afford such tolls, the former FCC's report (pdf) made it clear that this structure would be abused by giant, incumbent gatekeepers:

"Thus, it would appear that AT&T's practices inflict significant unreasonable disadvantages on edge providers and unreasonably interfere with their ability to compete against AT&T's affiliate, DIRECTV, The structure of Verizon's FreeBee Data 360 program raises similar concerns. We are aware of no safeguards that would prevent Verizon from offering substantially more costly or restrictive terms to enable unaffiliated edge providers to offer services comparable to Verizon's affiliated content on a zero-rated basis.

Again, for those confused, zero rating is simply incumbent duopolists using a lack of competition in broadband to impose arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps, then (ab)using those caps to dramatically tilt the playing field in their favor. Full stop. Zero rating has absolutely nothing to do with helping "low income Americans," innovation or "expanding broadband deployment," and Pai's claims to the contrary are transparent and insulting.

There's more than a little cognitive dissonance required in insisting you're a stalwart defender of "free markets," then immediately turning a blind eye to the demolition of a level streaming video playing field by giant, lumbering monopolists. And, of course, this is just the opening salvo in the latest battle against net neutrality; while Pai gets to work refusing to enforce the agency's existing FCC rules, the GOP is getting to work on a Communications Act rewrite that will not only kill the net neutrality rules, but defang and defund the FCC as a consumer watchdog altogether.

If you actually give a flying damn about net neutrality, broadband competition and a healthy, open internet -- 2017 is going to desperately need your help.

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: at&t, verizon

Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile & AT&T Issue Breathless Love Letter To Privacy With One Hand, Lobby To Kill All Privacy Protections With The Other

from the trust-us,-we're-Comcast dept

As we've been noting, broadband providers have wasted no time pressuring Congress to kill the FCC's new broadband privacy rules. These rules, passed last year, simply require that ISPs are transparent about what data they're collecting and who they're selling it to, while requiring they provide working opt-out tools. But the rules went further in requiring that broadband customers opt in to more sensitive data collection, including financial data. Given an informed, empowered consumer means less advertising revenue, ISPs quickly went to work throwing a monumental hissy fit.

This week, a coalition of broadband providers including Comcast, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon issued a breathless letter professing their absolute dedication to consumer privacy, apparently hoping that consumers haven't noticed they're simultaneously trying to kill the first meaningful broadband-specific privacy protections users have enjoyed in the history of the technology. As you might expect, the least-liked industry in America spends a notable part of the missive patting itself on the back for its selfless dedication to user privacy:

"ISPs understand the trust our customers place in us, and we are committed to protecting our customers’ privacy and safeguarding their information. For 20 years, we have implemented policies and practices that are consistent with the FTC’s widely respected and effective privacy framework and other federal and state privacy laws.

...We understand the importance of maintaining our customers’ trust. That is why we will continue to provide consumer privacy protections, while at the same time meeting consumers’ expectations for innovative new product solutions to enhance their online experiences.

Yeah, like that time Verizon was caught modifying user data packets to covertly track customers all around the internet without A. telling anybody or B. providing working opt out tools. Or that time AT&T began charging its broadband customers a steep premium just to protect their own privacy (something Comcast has shown repeated interest in as well). Or that time Cable One made it clear it wants to use user financial data to deliver worse customer service to low-income customers with bad credit. You can just feel the broadband industry's dedication to protecting your private data pulsing in the very wind itself!

In short the industry's trying to argue that the weaker, inconsistent privacy protections of the FTC are enough to protect consumers from wrongdoing. But as you saw in the last paragraph, the FTC (already overloaded and in constant risk of having its authority eroded) rarely has the time or interest in actually enforcing these rules anyway. The FCC's new rules were created specifically in response to these behaviors, and because the barely-competitive broadband industry creates some unique consumer protection challenges other industries and companies (like Google or Facebook, where users are free to use other services) don't face.

This idea that Congress will be somehow "streamlining" the FCC and eliminating duplicate authority will be the narrative du jour for most of this year. But in an outgoing interview with former FCC boss Tom Wheeler this week, the former dingo makes a point that's important for consumers and telecom journalists alike to understand:

"In the Trump administration, people are talking about stripping regulatory power from the FCC, and essentially taking the agency apart (including moving jurisdiction over internet access to the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]). “Modernizing” the FCC is the lingo being used. What’s your thought about that?

It’s a fraud. The FTC doesn’t have rule-making authority. They’ve got enforcement authority and their enforcement authority is whether or not something is unfair or deceptive. And the FTC has to worry about everything from computer chips to bleach labeling. Of course, carriers want [telecom issues] to get lost in that morass. This was the strategy all along.

So it doesn’t surprise me that the Trump transition team — who were with the American Enterprise Institute and basically longtime supporters of this concept — comes in and says, “Oh, we oughta do away with this.” It makes no sense to get rid of an expert agency and to throw these issues to an agency with no rule-making power that has to compete with everything else that’s going on in the economy, and can only deal with unfair or deceptive practices.

To try and ease concerns among those that, well, have actually paid attention to the industry's bad behavior on this front, giant ISPs like Verizon and Comcast instead proposed a voluntary group of self-regulatory principles governing transparency, data security, notifications in the wake of hack attacks, and "consumer choice." The industry's promise to respect user privacy choices are framed as such:

"ISPs will continue to give broadband customers easy-to-understand privacy choices based on the sensitivity of their personal data and how it will be used or disclosed, consistent with the FTC’s privacy framework. In particular, ISPs will continue to: (i) follow the FTC’s guidance regarding opt-in consent for the use and sharing of sensitive information as defined by the FTC; (ii) offer an opt-out choice to use non-sensitive customer information for personalized third-party marketing; and (iii) rely on implied consent to use customer information in activities like service fulfillment and support, fraud prevention, market research, product development, network management and security, compliance with law, and first-party marketing."

In short, we're going to just keep doing what we're already doing, while hiding behind overlong privacy policies, "implied consent," and loopholes that broadly declare most data "non-sensitive" -- all while obfuscating the fact the FTC privacy enforcement hasn't worked. If FTC enforcement alone for broadband privacy actually worked, Verizon wouldn't have been allowed to covertly track consumers around the internet for two years before security researchers actually noticed it. If FTC oversight actually worked on this subject, AT&T wouldn't have been allowed to charge users up to nearly $800 more per month in some instances just to protect their own data.

And having a weak (and likely soon to be weaker) cop on the beat is particularly important to companies like Verizon moving forward, given it has been on a tear gobbling up failed internet brands like AOL and Yahoo as part of its master plan to shift its focus from broadband toward slinging video ads at Millennials (apparently not very well). Verizon and friends have tried to argue that the FCC's privacy rules created "asymmetrical regulation," but they consistently ignore that the lack of broadband competition creates risks you don't see in the markets inhabited by the companies Verizon's envious of (Facebook, Google).

Here's the thing. The broadband industry had it pretty good for most of the last decade in terms of doing whatever it wanted with consumer data. Regulators, regardless of party, generally looked the other way as these companies hoovered up every shred of location and browsing data -- using everything from DNS tracking to deep packet inspection -- then relied on FTC regulatory loopholes to sell this data to pretty much everybody. Only once the broadband industry began pushing its god-damned luck with incredibly stupid ideas (with ideas like charging users for their own privacy) did the FCC even feel the need to get involved.

So in short, if the broadband industry's looking for someone to blame for the FCC's relatively modest privacy rules, it should spend some time looking in the mirror. Granted that may all be a moot point now that we've decided to put a former Verizon lawyer with a disdain for facts in charge of regulating the broadband sector. Back in 2008 Verizon claimed that consumer privacy protections weren't necessary because "public shame" would keep the company honest. There's every indication we're about to truly put that theory to the test.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, isps, privacy
Companies: at&t, comcast, t-mobile, verizon

Verizon Eyes Charter Megamerger, Because Who Likes Broadband Competition Anyway?

from the ma-bell-and-the-ill-communication dept

Charter Communications just got done spending $79 billion to acquire Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. And like most telecom megamergers, the promises made before the deal (more jobs! better service! incredible new innovation!) have only a fleeting resemblance to what's actually happening in the real world. Instead, acquired markets have enjoyed frozen broadband deployments, rate hikes and scaled back social media support. With Charter already having among the worst customer service in any industry in America, support in the wake of the merger has been precisely what you'd expect.

With the ink barely dry on that deal, the telecom sector is looking to consolidate even further. Charter stock took a nice joy ride this week on the news that Verizon has reached out to Charter to merge, consolidating the sector even further. The deal would create a telecom giant the likes of which the sector has never really known:

"Verizon serves 114 million cellphone subscribers, 4.6 million TV customers and 7 million Internet subscribers; Charter has 17 million TV customers and 21 million Internet subscribers. Together, the two companies' high-speed Internet businesses would add up to more than Comcast's 25 million broadband customers; at 21.6 million, their combined base of TV customers would be roughly on par with Comcast's. Both Verizon and Charter declined to comment."

Rumors of a Verizon and cable industry megamerger have been floating around the industry for several weeks, with Comcast also being tossed about as an M&A partner. Most of the analysis suggests that Verizon's either interested in using Charter's large footprint to help shore up the company's fifth generation (5G) wireless ambitions, or feels threatened from the cable industry's plan to jump into the wireless sector -- Verizon hoping to head off any additional wireless competition at the pass via M&A.

Less talked about of course is the fact that Charter and Verizon directly compete in many markets (like New York City), and the deal would result in an already relatively uncompetitive sector getting less competitive than ever. Or the fact that time and time again, promises of job creation and improved service in the wake of these deals never actually materialize. In fact, quite often the opposite is the result as redundant positions are eliminated and competitive incentive to compete (or, say, improve utterly abysmal customer service) is eroded further.

Of course the X factor in this latest megamerger rumor is whether or not the Trump administration will approve of the deal. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to not only block AT&T's $100 billion acquisition of Time Warner, but even went so far as to claim he'd somehow break up the already completed Comcast NBC merger, completed back in 2011. Most Wall Street and telecom analysts however believe Trump was just grousing over the negative coverage by NBC and Time Warner-owned CNN, and the ideological bent of his regulatory appointments (like new FCC boss Ajit Pai) suggest standing in the way of such super-unions won't actually be a formal administration policy.

Since historically companies like AT&T and Verizon have had incredible success conning convincing the press and public that these kinds of deals are a great boon for job growth and improved infrastructure, it seems rather likely that Trump will somehow approve and co-opt the deals under a flurry of promises that will never actually materialize. Should these kinds of deals be approved, the cognitive dissonance among Trump supporters still convinced he's somehow a champion of the little guy (despite clear intent to gut consumer protections like net neutrality and his laundry list of ultra-industry friendly administration appointments) should prove equal parts entertaining and terrifying.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, merger, tv
Companies: charter, verizon

Report: President Trump Picks Former Verizon Lawyer Ajit Pai To Head FCC

from the populism-schmopulism dept

As many expected, Donald Trump has chosen former Verizon lawyer and current FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai to head the FCC, according to a report by Politico. According to two anonymous insiders "familiar with the decision," Pai, who met with Trump on Monday, should be formally announced as FCC boss in short order. Pai recently proclaimed that net neutrality's "days are numbered" under Trump, while stating that the reformed FCC would be taking a "weed whacker" to "unnecessary regulations" like the FCC's net neutrality rules and its new consumer broadband privacy protections.

Politico rather soft sells the controversy that Pai will represent to those who don't think technology policy should be dictated by Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Charter Communications:

"Pai is already a familiar name in tech and telecom policy debates. He’s a fierce and vocal critic of many regulations passed by the commission's Democratic majority, including the 2015 net neutrality rules that require internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally and are opposed by the major broadband companies."

Let's be clear here. Pai has supported the incumbent duopoly providers on nearly every issue of substance. He has vilified net neutrality to an often-comic degree, falsely claiming the rules encouraged dictators in North Korea and Iran and led to a massive slowdown in industry investment. He has consistently refused to even admit the U.S. broadband market has a competition problem. He's made it abundantly clear he wants to eliminate every FCC consumer protection function, and, alongside fellow Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, has even repeatedly voted down holding AT&T accountable for outright fraud.

If you're looking for somebody who will rubber stamp every Comcast request shoveled in his general direction, Pai is certainly your man. If you're looking for an FCC leader who's going to care about consumer issues or the plight of the startup or small business in a word dominated by massive, ever-consolidating telecom conglomerates, you're about to get a master class in disappointment. The irony, of course, is that Pai is about as far from the "populist" rhetoric President Trump leaned on to get elected as one can get:

Yes, nothing quite says "man of the people" like a former Verizon lawyer who has fought tooth and nail against every single effort to hold large ISPs accountable to the public. On any given day, if the wind is right and with enough pressure, Pai may just be convinced to occasionally do the right thing. But as the leader of an agency tasked with keeping Comcast from viciously savaging both consumers and the competition, it's not really physically possible to make a more controversial and uninspired selection.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, fcc, net neutrality, privacy
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

Verizon Won't Complete Calls For Galaxy Note 7 Owners Who Refuse To Return The Flawed Device

from the spontaneous-combustion dept

Most of you recall that Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 suffered a bit of a problem with spontaneously combusting. That led to months of horrible press and an FAA ban on taking the device on airplanes. You might also recall that Samsung exponentially amplified its own PR disaster by then issuing a replacement phone that suffered from the exact same problem. Since then, carriers have been passing on a Samsung update that effectively bricks the device, preventing users from recharging the device. Most users have traded in the device for, you know, something that doesn't explode.

But there remain a few thousand Galaxy Note 7 owners that for whatever reason have chosen to ignore Samsung and the formal recall by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. According to Verizon, there are still "thousands" of users on their network who continue to use the device, refusing to install the update that would render the device inoperable:

"In spite of our best efforts, there are still customers using the recalled phones who have not returned or exchanged their Note 7 to the point of purchase," a Verizon spokeswoman tells Fortune. "The recalled Note 7s pose a safety risk to our customers and those around them."

Interestingly, Verizon was initially the only wireless provider that refused to pass on the bricking update, insisting they didn't want to leave customers stranded for the holidays (despite the fact said users could have swapped out the device for free at any time). But Verizon has since taken a notably harder stance on the safety issues created by the device. As such, they've announced that they'll now refuse to connect any of the non-911 calls made via the Galaxy Note 7, instead routing every call to Verizon's customer service department:

"So now Verizon is going to go even further, putting the phones in a special category so that all outgoing calls not directed toward the 911 emergency service will only connect to customer service. Because Note 7 users have also already been reimbursed for the cost of the long-since recalled Note 7, Verizon is also saying it might bill the holdouts for the full retail cost of the phone."

It's a curious predicament. On the one hand, you can't feel particularly bad for customers who knowingly refuse to trade in a device that could spontaneously explode, hurting themselves or others in the process. On the other hand, these users are supposed to technically "own" this device, which a carrier is now refusing to connect to the network. And while users on device payment plans may technically still owe Verizon money for the device in Verizon's billing systems, users are arguing that Samsung has already reimbursed Verizon for these devices in the wake of the recall.

Verizon insists it needs to disable the device for public safety (though liability could still be a motivator), while Galaxy Note 7 owners apparently believe they have every right to be stupid, self-immolation be damned.

Filed Under: batteries, calls, exploding, galaxy note 7
Companies: verizon