Verizon Gets Smacked Down For Its VoIP Patent Suing Spree

from the so-much-for-whacking-cable-competitors dept

Verizon was one of the last players to the VoIP party. Cable companies had been offering VoIP for years, and then Vonage, AT&T and a variety of other startups really built the market before Verizon even bothered to enter the space with an overpriced, uninspiring "me too" product that the market made clear it didn't want. Yet, somehow, Verizon was able to get some patents on the technology, despite a ton of rather clear prior art that showed Verizon's patents should never have been granted.

So, with those patents, Verizon began suing -- and it started with the lame duck in the VoIP space: Vonage. The company has been struggling for a variety of reasons, and a bunch of patent holders swept in to sue the firm that actually made VoIP a viable product in the market. Vonage came under massive pressure from shareholders to get rid of these lawsuits, so it settled rather than deal with a lengthy court room battle.

Verizon interpreted this as a validation of its patents and set off to find others to sue. Its next target was Cox Cable for its digital telephony solution. The plan was clear. After beating Cox, it would turn its legal guns on the big boys like Comcast and Time Warner. Except, it appears the courts have tossed a wrench into those plans by siding with Cox in pointing out that the company doesn't violate Verizon's patents. While Verizon will most likely appeal, this should be seen as a pretty big win for Time Warner Cable and Comcast, who may not even have to defend themselves against Verizon's questionable patent claims at all.

Filed Under: cable, patents, voip
Companies: cox, verizon

Plenty Of Broadband Providers Pretending They're Offering Fiber To The Home

from the false-advertising dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about Verizon suing Time Warner Cable over a misleading advertisement, where Time Warner Cable claims that Verizon is "catching up" to Time Warner Cable in offering fiber optics. This is misleading, at best. Verizon is installing fiber to the home with its FiOS service, providing significantly faster connections. What Time Warner Cable is claiming is that it uses fiber in its network, not to the home. It's true that TWC and plenty of other broadband providers have used hybrid fiber solutions at the network level for many years, but that's totally different than connecting all the way to the home with a fiber optic connection.

Now it turns out that TWC is hardly the only broadband provider doing this. Apparently lots of broadband providers are now running ads against Verizon where they claim that they've offered fiber for longer than Verizon. That's totally misleading. Having fiber somewhere in the network is not at all an equal comparison to running fiber all the way to the home. As Broadband Reports asks, it's difficult to see how these claims from others isn't false advertising. They're clearly implying that their fiber is the same thing as FiOS when that's not true at all.

Filed Under: fiber, truth in advertising
Companies: time warner cable, verizon

Klausner Continues To Sue Everyone Over Visual Voicemail Patent

from the this-is-innovation? dept

You may recall stories involving a small patent holding firm called Klausner Technologies, which claims to hold patents on the concept of "visual voicemail." It seems to have interpreted these patents pretty broadly to the point that it considers anyone who offers any graphical interface to voicemail as infringing. Over the years, that's meant lawsuits against AOL, Vonage, Apple, eBay, AT&T and others. Apparently, suing one by one was too much trouble, because Klausner has now sued another bunch of companies including Google, Verizon and Embarq. Of course, the company is playing up the fact that all those other companies it sued settled, but we've seen that game before. There's not much new here as this scenario is all too common. We have a company with an overly broad patent on a concept that was a natural obvious progression of the art, suing pretty much every company that actually innovates, thus making actual innovation more expensive.

Filed Under: patents, visual voicemail
Companies: embarq, google, klausner, lg, verizon

Tech Companies Team Up To Buy Up Patents To Keep Them Away From Others

from the this-won't-help dept

Google, Verizon, HP, Cisco and some others are apparently teaming up to put money towards buying patents to keep them out of the hands of patent hoarders who would turn around and sue them. This isn't a new concept, and has been tried before -- and it didn't help much. The problem is that many of the worst patent suits aren't from "known" patents, but someone claiming a patent on some minor feature that everyone thought was obvious. Also, this type of action only encourages more bad patent activities by adding another buyer to the market. Now, questionable patent holders will recognize that they can also just sell to this patent pool, rather than selling to some patent hoarding firm. This is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but will have little to no effect on slowing down or stopping bad patent lawsuits, and may actually encourage more of that activity.

Filed Under: patent pools
Companies: cisco, google, hp, verizon

Sorting Out Truth From Fiction In The Cable/Telco Customer Retention Mess

from the smoke-and-mirrors dept

Back in March, we wrote about a complaint to the FCC by cable companies about how Verizon was abusing the number portability system to try to retain customers. In April, Kevin Martin took his expected position in siding with Verizon, the telco. However, it appears that only Martin was convinced. All the other FCC commissioners went in the other direction and sided with the cable companies, smacking down Verizon and telling it to stop.

What's impressive, though, is the response and the amount of misinformation flying around. Even before the official vote, Verizon's policy guys put up a blog post claiming that this decision would hurt customers. That resulted in a spirited discussion in the comments on that post between Verizon's public policy guy and a cable lobbyist. There have also been some interesting discussions among public policy followers, with some, like James Gattuso, buying Verizon's take that this is bad for consumers, and others, like Karl Bode, noting that Verizon's spin on this appears to be pure "nonsense."

The reality appears to be somewhere in-between. Verizon is clearly overplaying the situation in claiming that the FCC is saying that it cannot market to customers who have chosen to leave Verizon for cable. That's not what this argument is about, and James Gattuso is incorrect in suggesting that the "question at hand" is really about whether or not Verizon can contact customers who have agreed to switch and ask them not to switch. That's certainly the way Verizon wants you to think about it, but that wasn't really the question. No one is saying that telcos (or cable companies) for that matter, can't try to convince customers not to switch. What the FCC has said is that Verizon cannot abuse its position to block the switch while it tries to convince customers not to switch. That's what Verizon is doing. When it gets the request from the cable companies to switch, it basically goes into procrastinate mode, even though it's required to process the switch. It codes the switch request as a "conflict" which gives it extra time to resolve the "conflict" before obeying the switch request.

That's not the same as simply asking the customer not to switch. It's abusing the technical process for marketing purposes. The FCC has not said that Verizon (as Verizon claims) cannot try to entice customers to stay, or to win back those customers who have decided to leave. All it has said is that Verizon cannot stall and block the change request, once it's been placed, in order to try to win back the customer before the change is made. Once the customer has committed to the change, Verizon should be required to process it, rather than block it. So, don't buy the story about Verizon no longer being able to win back customers or entice them with reasons to stay. That's got nothing at all to do with this decision.

Update: Gattuso responds. I still think he's buying Verizon's spin on this ruling. Verizon is falsely claiming that it cannot market to customers who have decided to leave. That's false. They simply cannot abuse the fact that they have access to certain information from the group that has to make the change to market to them. They can still market to them through other means. In other words, Verizon's complaint here does not fly.

Filed Under: cable companies, customer retention, fcc, number portability, telcos
Companies: verizon

NY Pressures ISPs Into Blocking Child Porn Websites, News Groups

from the good-goal,-bad-approach dept

New York's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, has a history of using his position to threaten big companies into agreeing to take responsibility for something that isn't their responsibility. He did it when he got advertisers to pay fines because their ads showed up in adware -- without ever explaining what was actually illegal. And, now he's done it again in getting a bunch of ISPs (Verizon, Sprint and Time Warner) to agree to block a list of websites and newsgroups that are listed as being purveyors of child porn. The ISPs are also giving Cuomo's office over a million dollars, ostensibly to help wipe child porn off the internet. If that's Cuomo's goal, this isn't the best way to do it -- though, it will get him plenty of press coverage for bullying companies into doing something they aren't required to do under law.

In fact, the state of Pennsylvania tried to do pretty much the same thing, back in 2002, but focused on actually passing a law (unlike Cuomo, who just bullied the companies into "agreeing.") And, of course, a federal court tossed out the law as unconstitutional. The goal is certainly noble. Getting rid of child porn would be great -- but having ISPs block access to an assigned list isn't going to do a damn thing towards that goal. The blocked sites will reappear elsewhere. Those who want access, even to the blocked sites, will simply find encrypted tunnels to hide their paths. Basically, this won't do much of anything, other than increase costs for ISPs.

Even worse, it runs a huge risk of starting ISPs down a very slippery slope of being willing to ban access to online content. No one's against that when it's child porn, but who's reviewing the list to make sure it's really child porn? How hard is it to slip a site that someone just doesn't like into the list? Furthermore, once these ISPs have shown that they're willing to block certain sites, then politicians will quickly look to increase that list beyond just child porn to other types of sites that they find objectionable. It sets a dangerous precedent.

Putting the responsibility on the ISPs is the wrong solution (and, honestly, the folks who are pro-net neutrality should be seriously worried about this -- as it's a clear violation of what they say net neutrality is all about). If the content itself is illegal, go after those actually responsible for the content. Not the service providers. Sure they make for easy targets and big headlines (backed up with that hefty cash "settlement" right to Cuomo's office), but they're not the ones responsible.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, isp blocking, new york, porn
Companies: sprint, time warner, verizon

And Of Course, FCC Sides With Verizon In Argument With Cable Cos.

from the no-surprise-there dept

Last month we pointed out that the cable companies had filed a complaint with the FCC accusing Verizon of some shady practices in trying to get customers to stay, even after they'd already agreed to switch to cable. Since most customers want to keep their home phone number, the cable companies needed to contact Verizon to make the switch. At that point, Verizon would immediately contact those customers to prevent them from switching. As the cable companies pointed out, this gave the telcos an unfair advantage. They were using information they learned from elsewhere (the group in charge of managing number portability) to steal customers back from the cable companies. Of course, given how today's FCC tends to think that telcos are always right and cable co's are always wrong, it will surprise probably none of you, that the FCC has no problem with Verizon's practices. Perhaps the cable companies should have waited until a new FCC commish was sworn in before making this complaint.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, number portability, telcos
Companies: comcast, fcc, time warner, verizon

Verizon Sues Time Warner Over Misleading Ad... Has To Drop Its Own Misleading Ad

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Remember earlier this year when Verizon Wireless sued competitor Alltel Wireless for false advertising? That came right after the company had been fined for false advertising itself -- and the suit basically ignored the fact that Alltel's ad was accurate until Verizon Wireless (just a couple months earlier) had changed its policy. Now it looks like Verizon Wireless' parent company is doing something similar. Broadband Reports points us to the news that Verizon is suing Time Warner Cable over an incredibly dopey ad that suggests in a very misleading manner that Verizon's FiOS fiber optic offering was just catching up to Time Warner's use of fiber (confusing fiber in the network with fiber to the home) and also suggesting that FiOS-TV requires a satellite dish (which is simply untrue -- though, the company does offer satellite TV service for areas that can't get FiOS yet). Still, it does seem a bit aggressive to sue over this.

And, this situation is made even more amusing by the fact that Verizon itself just got caught running misleading advertising. In this case, Verizon credits CNET "experts" with claiming that FiOS is "near-flawless," which is taken entirely out of context. CNET's article wasn't a review, but about the service, and the context was: "This fierce competition reinforces how important it is for Verizon to offer a near-flawless TV experience." In other words, CNET was saying that FiOS TV needs to be near-flawless to compete -- not that it is. To its credit, Verizon admits that it was wrong in using the phrase in advertising, and won't be using those ads after its initial run is done next month. It also claims that TWC's ads are much more egregious, though I'm not sure that's true. It's quite easy for anyone investigating their options to understand that TWC's claims are false. But it may be much more difficult to confirm whether or not CNET's review really called FiOS "near flawless." Either way, these are industries that have a long history of stretching the truth as far as it can go in advertising messages. It makes you wonder if anyone takes either of their commercials seriously.

Filed Under: advertising, stretching the truth, truth in advertising
Companies: time warner cable, verizon

AP Examines Just How Ridiculous ISP Contracts Are

from the just-so-you-know dept

We recently learned that customers of Verizon's FiOS service don't get to see the full terms of service they're agreeing to until after it's been installed. But, of course, no one actually reads those kinds of things, because if you did, you'd probably never agree to it. To help you out, the Associated Press took some time to read through various ISP end user license agreements (EULAs) and discovered that ISPs put a ton of ridiculous stuff in the fine print, which is basically to give them many different options to kick you off if they suddenly decide you've become a problem. Or, in some cases, it's because lawyers want to protect the ISPs from ridiculous lawsuits, which leads them to put in clauses warning customers that the ISP (in this case, Verizon) doesn't own the internet, so that people know they can't sue Verizon for something that happens online. Verizon recently removed that clause, apparently realizing that it was a bit extraneous.

Filed Under: contracts, eulas, isps, terms of use
Companies: verizon

Cable Companies Accuse Verizon Of Shady Practices To Prevent Customers From Leaving

from the so-we-hear-you're-leaving... dept

Comcast and Time Warner have complained to the FCC that Verizon is taking unfair advantage in preventing customers from dropping their phone service. The basic story is that the cable companies have been offering deals on various "bundles" of TV, internet and phone service, all over cable. When customers agree to switch, most want to keep their existing home phone number (which is allowed under number portability rules). The cable companies take care of that part, informing the phone company of the switch -- at which point (the cable companies say) Verizon calls up those customers and offers them cash discounts to stick around. While it's quite common for telcos (or other firms for that matter) to offer customers who cancel deals to stay, this is somewhat different. The customer hasn't called to cancel in this case. It's just because Verizon owns the telephone network that it finds out about the switch and then proactively contacts the customers. Given the FCC's extra friendly terms with the telcos rather than cable co's, anyone think this has a chance of getting anywhere?

Filed Under: cable companies, fcc, number portability, telcos
Companies: comcast, time warner, verizon