News Blog

Verizon's Fios TV is coming to New York City starting Monday.

The phone company sent a media advisory on Friday about the launch and will provide more details about the service during a Webcast press conference Monday morning. New York City granted Verizon its TV franchise back in May. And on July 16th, the company won final approval to offer its TV service from the New York Public Service Commission.

Verizon has been aggressively marketing its Fios Internet and TV service in the New York City suburbs for the past couple of years. And the company has offered the Fios high-speed Internet service in some apartment buildings in New York City. Now the company will be able to offer a complete package of telephony, TV, and broadband services to New Yorkers, helping it compete head-to-head with Time Warner Cable, the predominant cable operator in the city.

Verizon's Fios service uses a new fiber network that extends directly into people's homes to deliver nearly unlimited bandwidth capacity.

Technology blogger Dave Zatz reported earlier this week that Verizon will soon offer Web-based videos as part of its Fios TV offering through its set-top boxes. Initial Internet video partners include YouTube, Veoh, Blip.tv, and Break.com, the post said.

There's no question that Verizon Communications hit a home run with its aggressive fiber strategy.

The fiber-to-the-home network called Fios has enabled Verizon to supercharge broadband speeds and compete against cable in the TV market.

Fios also has helped future-proof Verizon's network. While its cable competitors buckle under the pressure of peer-to-peer traffic on their networks, Verizon has enough capacity in its network, thanks to its fiber upgrades, to weather the storm unscathed and work on its own timetable to find more efficient ways to handle peer-to-peer traffic.

Mark Wegleitner, Verizon's senior vice president of technology in charge of broadband and consumer services, has helped develop and drive Verizon's fiber strategy. I sat down with him at the Nxtcomm trade show in Las Vegas last week to talk about a wide variety of topics, including the controversy over Comcast's treatment of BitTorrent traffic, faster speeds for Fios, and what the company plans to do next when it reaches its 2010 goal of passing 18 million homes with fiber.

Below is an edited excerpt from that conversation. Feel free to share your thoughts after in the "TalkBack" section.

Q: As you know, Comcast got caught slowing down peer-to-peer traffic on its network. As a network provider yourself, do you think it's necessary to manage your customers' traffic?
Wegleitner: I think we can come up with scenarios where network management would be necessary. While there might be plenty of bandwidth out there, you can't really guarantee that you can get an error-free transmission of, say, a video file that will be guaranteed at a specific point in time. That is why you might need rational network management.

So what would you consider to be acceptable network management?
Wegleitner: It's still a work in progress. But it's important to ensure the capabilities of applications.

But is it acceptable to identify and slow down specific types of traffic like BitTorrent or other peer-to-peer applications?
Wegleitner: Well, it's sort of a glass-half-full situation. Degrading traffic for one application enables another to work better. But we have to allow people who use the peer-to-peer applications for lawful and legitimate purposes to do so.

Verizon is working with several peer-to-peer companies to find ways to use the technology to distribute content more efficiently. How can the P2P protocol benefit service providers like Verizon?
Wegleitner: Peer-to-peer is a distribution enabler. But often when people talk about P2P, it gets lumped into a category with things that are bad, mainly because it takes up so much capacity on the network. But whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, there is underlying technology for P2P that can be used to everyone's advantage to get content like video, which everyone is asking for, distributed in the most efficient way.

We conducted some tests with the P4P group and Yale University, and showed that customers have a better experience, and we use fewer resources, when we used the P2P technology. It's really a win-win situation for us and the customer.

And we're still working cooperatively with P2P companies and the rest of the folks in the P4P group to employ the technology in a way that would maximize its impact.

Verizon has said it expects to pass 18 million homes with its Fios fiber- to-the-home service in 2010. Where are you guys in that deployment?
Wegleitner: I'd say we are slightly ahead of schedule for homes passed. But in general, I'd describe us as on schedule. We will have 12 million homes passed this year, which is the goal we had previously stated.

Verizon announced recently that it's increasing the speed of its Fios service to 50Mbps on its high-end tier of service. How much faster can the speeds on Fios get?
Wegleitner: The original specification for the Passive Optical Network, or the FTTP network, we are using allows us to provide 100Mbps to the home. So that's probably a reasonable ceiling, given the current technology. But we are also deploying GPON, which is an enhancement to the original fiber technology we're using.

The specification for that calls for 200Mbps to the home, with 400Mbps peak utilization. But we'll probably see the next generation of technology allow us to deliver between 125Mbps and 175Mbps to the home. We are working with suppliers for that technology to go even faster. But 100Mbps is within range, and we could even go a little higher.

Are people really using the 50Mbps service?
Wegleitner: Under specific circumstances, transferring files at 50Mbps is better than 10Mbps. The key here, though, is concurrent use. In the old days, when you had one PC, there probably wasn't much need for these kinds of speeds. But now there are multiple devices connected to broadband in the home. And that number is only going to grow. So it's important to have the performance there.

Verizon has begun selling a bundle that includes Verizon Wireless service and high-speed Internet and video, and no home phone line. How long before you think that the old landline telephones will be obsolete and will disappear altogether?
Wegleitner: In the broadband world, voice service is a small increment of traffic, in terms of bandwidth and cost. And in a converged world, we can give people who keep a voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) landline a rich set of features. So I don't know that it won't be a useful service for a large portion of the population. I don't think the last chapter has been written on voice yet.

So when you talk about new voice services, are you talking about offering unified communications in the home?
Wegleitner: Yes, we can offer a unified communication experience in the home today with point solutions. And we have run way left for more sophisticated and converged services.

When will we see these services?
Wegleitner: We can already provide the ability to forward calls. But the find-me and follow-me services haven't caught on as rapidly as we thought. Sometimes the first time an application comes out of the shoot, it doesn't catch. But then later, it does. I don't think we've created enough selection or a compelling-enough template to drive mass-market adoption of some of these services yet. But that will come. I don't think we're talking more than a couple of years away.

Verizon's original Fios plan goes through 2010. What happens after that? Will Verizon continue to deploy fiber to more customers in its footprint, or will you focus more on DSL?
Wegleitner: I think there is more gas in the engine for fiber-to-the-home beyond 2010 that will help us get into the remainder of households in our footprint. Will we cover all the homes in our footprint? Probably not.

In the lowest-density areas, it's hard to justify new wireline deployment. And technically, DSL is available over copper. But it has limitations on long loops. Wireless solutions are attractive in these rural areas. We are looking at options in that area. But it's worth noting that even many of the small towns in our footprint are still within miles of a city center. So it's only about 30 percent that is out in low-density areas.

Would Verizon use LTE or WiMax to provide wireless broadband in those rural areas?
Wegleitner: Well, LTE is the horse we are riding right now. So that will likely move to the head of the line, in terms of the high-speed wireless-broadband data service we'll offer. We are already offering direct broadcast satellite for video delivery where we aren't offering Fios TV. So we could pair DBS with wireless data to also offer a triple-play offering in those rural areas.

Some of your cell phone competitors, such as AT&T and T-Mobile, are using Wi-Fi in different ways to extend their broadband networks to public hot spots. T-Mobile is actually using it to augment its cellular voice service. Will Verizon use Wi-Fi?
Wegleitner: We might see Wi-Fi used in the home to provide multiple device interconnection. Right now, we are using the Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) cable standard to deliver connectivity using the existing cable infrastructure in the home. But we could use other kinds of connectivity in the home, such as Wi-Fi or power line.

But as far as offering Wi-Fi in hot spots or covering whole communities with Wi-Fi, we've tried it. We provided Wi-Fi in Manhattan, but we no longer offer that service.

I remember that. A few years ago, you guys turned your existing phone booths in Manhattan into Verizon Wi-Fi hot spots. But when you rolled out EV-DO service, you shut down the Wi-Fi hot spots. Why?
Wegleitner: The economics just didn't pan out. I think right now, the primary horse we are betting on will be 3G and 4G solutions for wireless.

Speaking of 4G, there's been so much talk about moving to the next generation of wireless networks. What do you see as the biggest challenges in building and running the next-generation broadband wireless networks?
Wegleitner: One challenge will be the sheer number of new devices on the network. It's a double-edged sword. There's more capability for end users, but it also means that the network provider has to understand these capabilities. There's not going to be a common denominator, so we will have to be able to identify and recognize the devices and their capabilities, and adapt to it.

The other thing is that we'll need additional management for all these devices. We'll have to be able to localize problems, identify them, and be able to fix them. And we'll have to make sure we can do this at a reasonable cost.

NEW YORK--Federal Communications Commission commissioner Jonathan Adelstein joined tech policy pundits, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists Tuesday to launch a new initiative aimed at making broadband a priority in the U.S.

The group, which calls itself InternetforEveryone.org, officially launched at Free Press' Personal Democracy Forum here. The main purpose of the new initiative is to help organize public support for a national broadband policy.

Vint Cerf, Google chief Internet evangelist; Tim Wu, Columbia University professor; and Jonathan Adelstein, FCC Commissioner, at the launch of InternetforEveryone.org.

(Credit: Marguerite Reardon/CNET News.com)

Prominent figures in the tech world, including Google Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, as well as law professors Larry Lessig of Stanford and Tim Wu of Columbia were on hand with Brad Burnham of the venture capital firm Union Square Ventures and Robin Chase, founder of Zipcar, to join Adelstein in becoming members of the group.

Adelstein, one of two Democratic commissioners on the FCC, has been a big proponent of a national broadband policy for some time. During his introduction, he admitted has been frustrated with the current administration's lack of focus on broadband. But he said he hopes this initiative will help provide a forum to allow the public's voice to be heard in Washington.

"We need to mobilize the public to make broadband an issue in D.C., so that broadband penetration and pricing rises to the top of the agenda," Adelstein said in an interview following the press conference. "It's important for us to make sure that the public's interests are served. We've already heard a lot from the cable and phone companies."

Broadband advocates have long complained that the U.S. is falling behind other countries in its ability to offer high-speed Internet service at affordable prices to all of its citizens.

Josh Silver of Free Press said during the press conference that the U.S. has slipped from 4th to 15th in the world in terms of broadband penetration. And he said that half the country doesn't subscribe to high-speed Internet. He and others in the group said it was time for a national policy framework to be established to ensure that government helps make broadband more accessible to people throughout the country.

But not everyone agrees that the U.S. is lagging in broadband or that a comprehensive national policy is even necessary. Verizon COO Denny Strigl said at the NxtComm trade show in Las Vegas said last week that it was a "myth" that the U.S. lagged behind other nations in high-speed Internet.

"It's time to put this myth to rest," Strigl said during a keynote speech. "What the communications industry has achieved in deploying broadband and mobile services is tremendous. And we've done this not through industrial policy, but through private investment delivering innovation. The benefits have rippled through the entire economy creating millions of high-tech jobs and billions of dollars in value."

Indeed, comparing the U.S. with other countries with much smaller geographies and populations is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. In much of the U.S., people have access to not just one broadband provider but two. And as Verizon deploys fiber directly to consumers' homes and AT&T upgrades its network to offer faster broadband and TV service to its customers, those companies have forced their cable competitors in those areas to increase speeds and in some places even lower prices.

So in many parts of the country, broadband competition is working. But the problem is that the competitive forces aren't working uniformly throughout the country. There are still pockets of the U.S., especially in rural areas, where broadband is only offered by one provider or by none at all. And prices per bit are still much higher than they are in other parts of the world.

"People have just accepted that bandwidth is something that American families will spend hundreds of dollars on per month," Columbia professor Tim Wu said. "People don't realize how much we pay for how little bandwidth we actually get."

Wu likened the broadband market to the energy market, saying bandwidth is a commodity controlled by a tiny cartel of phone companies and cable operators. He said that prices have been inflated and kept high, which has kept many people out of the broadband revolution.

"I agree that for most of the country, access to broadband is not the issue," he said in an interview. "But I'd say beyond that, the market has stalled. We need to make America a leader in broadband pricing and speeds. The attitude that it's just 'OK' to have access to DSL isn't good enough."

Members of the new "Internet for Everyone" initiative believe that a national broadband policy can help. That said, the group didn't announce support for any particular legislation nor is it backing a specific broadband policy proposal. But members of the group seem to agree that the reallocation of wireless spectrum should be a major component to any national policy.

Broadband advocates had hoped that the recent 700MHz spectrum auction, which reallocated spectrum that has been used for analog TV signals, would lay the foundation for a third national broadband provider. But at the conclusion of the FCC auction, it was incumbents, such as Verizon Communications, that came out the big winners in the auction, gobbling up key national licenses for spectrum.

"I think the commission missed a golden opportunity in the 700MHz spectrum auction to ensure there would be a third pipe into the home for broadband," Adelstein said in an interview.

The FCC is currently looking at freeing up more spectrum that could be used by new entrants to create new wireless broadband services, he added. One proposal on the table from a company called M2Z proposes that the FCC open up 25MHz of spectrum that could be used to build a free wireless network. Under the plan, the FCC would give the company access to spectrum for free. The company would build the network and fund the service through advertising. As part of the proposal, M2Z planned to give the FCC 5 percent of its gross revenue from the service.

The FCC originally dismissed the proposal, mostly because it asked the commission to allocate spectrum for free. But now the commission seems to be reconsidering it.

"Right now we are contemplating opening up about 20MHz of spectrum for free wireless broadband," Adelstein said in an interview. "There is a business plan on the table, so we will have to see what happens."

Another option for the FCC is to open up "white spaces", or the spectrum bands left vacant between broadcast TV channels.

Several companies, including Google and Microsoft, have been working on prototype devices that demonstrate that wireless devices can work within these bands without causing interference. But the broadcast TV industry has been opposed to any use of "white spaces." Still, broadband proponents see it as an important asset to be used in expanding the broadband market.

"Spectrum liberation in our time needs to be a priority for any national broadband policy," Wu said. "And the 'white space' spectrum is a good way to do that. It offers a ton of bandwidth."

XX25 powers a MiTAC V100 rugged laptop.

(Credit: UltraCell)

A California company has introduced a 25-watt mobile fuel cell system designed to power a ruggedized laptop computer for up to 14 hours at a time using a single 250cc cartridge.

The XX25, as it is called, internally generates fuel cell-ready hydrogen from a highly concentrated methanol solution, providing power to a field computer and communications equipment at weight savings of up to 65 percent, according to Livermore, Calif.-based UltraCell.

(Credit: UltraCell)

Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that use hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, and continue to produce it as long as the fuel lasts. This is not only ecologically correct, but it also weighs less. The company calculates that on a typical 72-hour mission, each soldier requires 27 pounds of rechargeable military batteries.

The Army's Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC) and DARPA (PDF) have extended UltraCell's development contract so that tests can continue. A year ago, CERDEC deemed the 25-watt model safe enough to be worn by soldiers in the field and used to power portable devices, a first for this type of fuel cell.

T-Mobile USA is the latest mobile operator to make it easier to get out of those dreaded cell phone contracts.

On Monday the company said that it will pro-rate or reduce the cost over time of its early termination fees for contract customers. This means that customers will pay less to terminate their subscription as the end of their contract nears.

Beginning on June 28, customers with a one-year or two-year contract with T-Mobile will see their early termination fee drop from $200 to $100 if they end their contract with 91 to 180 days remaining on their agreement. If they end a contract with fewer than 91 days left on it, they will pay a termination of fee of $50. For customers who terminate their service in the last 30 days of their contract they will either pay the $50 fee or their standard monthly charge, depending on which one is cheaper.

The new policy only applies to new T-Mobile subscribers and subscribers who are renewing their contracts on or after June 28.

The battle over early termination fees has heated up recently as wireless operators face multimillion-dollar class action suits from consumers who say these fees are unfair and deter competition. Earlier this month a California state jury ruled that Sprint Nextel's fees were indeed legal in the first of these class action lawsuits.

Now the Federal Communications Commission is looking to get involved, and is considering making rules about early termination fees. Chairman Kevin Martin has included pro-rated contracts in his proposal, which he is hoping the commission will consider later this summer. Congress has also weighed in with proposed legislation.

Cell phone operators seem to have gotten the message. And the major players are starting to make changes. Verizon Wireless was the first major carrier to adopt a pro-rated policy almost two years ago. AT&T also announced it had changed its policy in October. Starting May 25 new AT&T subscribers will have their termination fees pro-rated over the life of their contract. The early termination fee will start at $175 and it will be reduced by $5 every month over the life of the one- and two-year contracts.

Sprint Nextel also said it will change its early termination fees. But the carrier has not implemented the new policy yet.

In addition to the new early termination policy, T-Mobile has also recently announced more options for customers who don't want a contract. The T-Mobile FlexPay plan offers T-Mobile customers its typical cell phone packages that include long-distance calling, roaming, and special rate offerings like MyFaves with no contract. Subscribers simply pay the retail cost of the phone and the regular monthly service charge for the service.

T-Mobile has also added more options for its pre-pay and pay-as-you-go customers. Consumers can choose a Pay By the Day plan. Under this plan, users pay $1 for every day they use their phone. They are given unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile calling and unlimited night calling from 7 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. For all other calls, users are charged 10 cents a minute. And they're charged 10 cents a minute for outgoing text messages and 5 cents a minute for incoming text messages.

T-Mobile also offers a Pay As You Go plan, which had previously been called T-Mobile To Go. This plan allows customers to pay for minutes they use. If they top off their account with $100, they get a 15 percent discount.

And finally, T-Mobile renamed its Sidekick To Go plan simply the Sidekick Prepaid plan. This plan offers users unlimited domestic e-mailing, Web surfing, instant messaging, and text messaging for $1 a day. And nationwide calling under this plan is 15 cents per minute.

LAS VEGAS--Verizon Communications is boosting speeds for its Fios fiber-to-the-home service, the company plans to announce Wednesday.

The company's COO Denny Strigl is expected to announce the speed upgrades during his keynote speech at the NxtComm trade show here. The upgrades come as Verizon customers use more bandwidth intensive applications such as video downloading and photo sharing.

"The appetite for bandwidth shows no sign of slowing down," Strigl said in a statement. "Neither will we. We've already had successful trials of the 100-megabit home, which will be a reality faster than anybody thinks."

As part of the upgrade, all Fios customers will now have access to download speeds of 50 megabits per second and uploads of 20 Mbps for about $140 a month. The company is also offering its symmetrical 20 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload service to all Fios customers for $65 a month.

Verizon had already been offering these speeds in certain markets such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. But now the service will be expanded to Verizon's entire Fios customer base, which is spread throughout its 16-state territory. Previously Fios in these states, such as Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, topped out at 30Mbps/15Mbps and 15Mbps/15Mbps.

Verizon will also upgrade its mid-tier offering increasing speeds from 15Mbps/2Mbps to 20Mbps/5Mbps. And the low-end service will increase from 5Mbps/2Mbps to 10Mbps/2Mbps.

Verizon's 7-megabits-per-second DSL service is now available to over 3 million of its customers, the company said Thursday.

The service, which was announced in January, was initially only available to about 400,000 homes, in roughly 400 communities. But the company has been upgrading service and ramping up speeds in parts of 20 states and the District of Columbia. Customers interested in getting the higher-speed service should check the Verizon Web site to see if the faster speed service is available in their area. In many places the fastest DSL speeds available are still only 3Mbps.

The new service offers 7.1Mbps downloads and 768 kilobits per second uploads for $42.99 with a one-year contract that also includes local phone service. Verizon President Denny Strigl recently acknowledged during an interview at an investor conference that the company has been downplaying its DSL service in lieu of its fiber to the home service called Fios. But he said that going forward DSL will be emphasized much more.

"We certainly haven't abandoned DSL," he said.

Early termination fees for wireless cell phone contracts came under fire during a Federal Communications Commission hearing Thursday as commissioners examined an industry-backed proposal that could soften the blow of these fees for some consumers.

The FCC held the hearing to gather more information as it considers a proposal that would give new cell phone customers a 30-day grace period to cancel their contracts without penalty. After those 30 days, early termination charges would then be prorated or reduced over the duration of the contract.

In exchange for accepting this proposal, wireless operators have asked to be absolved from ongoing lawsuits that could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wireless operators seem to have won at least the initial battle in their legal wars over early termination fees. Also on Thursday, a California State jury ruled in favor of Sprint Nextel in the first of these class-action lawsuits.

FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin acknowledged that early termination fees, which range from $150 to $225, were problematic, stating that "in practice (it) can leave people locked into a service that they really want to leave." He even joked that his wife, who apparently is unhappy about the fees, had volunteered to testify at the hearing.

But he said he was skeptical that the class-action lawsuits would resolve issues for all consumers. And he offered his own proposal, which was similar to the industry's proposal.

Martin proposes that fees be prorated, as the industry has suggested, but he also said that the fee should be based on the cost of the phone. For example, the fee for a service with a $50 phone would be lower than one for a $500 phone, he said. He also said fees should be reasonable, and that customers should be given a suitable time period to evaluate the service before being penalized for canceling service.

Consumer advocates and state regulatory officials said that even prorating fees is not enough. Anne Boyle, chair of the Nebraska Public Service Commission, called for these fees to be abolished altogether.

"The industry should do away with these contracts and let people purchase the products on their own and pay for service on a month-to-month basis," she said. "It's the most common method for providing products and services in this country."

Boyle and other state regulatory officials also argued that states--and not the FCC--should have authority over carriers and the fees they charge. Martin argued that a single, federal policy is needed to protect all consumers, especially in states where no policies are implemented.

"Don't you think that some kind of federal rules, even if it was a floor, is better off for the consumers who have none?" Martin said to the panel during the hearing.

Operators claim these fees are to recover the cost of cell phones, which they subsidize in exchange for customers signing up for long-term contracts. And they have long argued that without contracts or fees, customers would be required to pay more upfront for phones.

"If we didn't have early termination fees, we would be here today talking about how to lower the barrier to entry for subscribers," Tom Tauke, executive vice president of public affairs for Verizon, said of during the hearing. "(The current model) has proven to be a good business model giving consumers access to the latest devices and allowing wireless companies to offer them at subsidized prices."

But Lee Selwyn, an expert on telecommunications policy and economics, testified at the hearing that the early termination fees carriers charge is roughly 12 times higher than the cost of the actual subsidy. He said that, on average, carriers are only paying about $14.33 for each phone they sell to a consumer.

He also said that carriers have overstated the loss in profit they face when customers terminate contracts early. He said that operators build their level of churn (or customer turnover) into their forecasts for capital and operational spending. Ultimately, carriers only lose about $0.70 of profit per month on customers who terminate contracts early. So for someone who still has 13 months left on a 24 month contract, a wireless operator is only losing roughly $9 in profits, a far cry from the $150 or $200 it charges customers to leave its service early.

In general, wireless operators are reacting to the public outcry over these fees by revising their service plans. AT&T and Verizon Wireless, the two largest operators in the U.S., have already begun prorating cancellation fees. And the other major carriers have said they will do the same. Some operators have also stopped restarting contracts when customers make changes to their service plans. But so far, not one major wireless operator in the U.S. has said it will get rid of early termination fees altogether.

Instead, operators argue that customers who don't want contracts have other options. Most of them offer month-to-month plans for customers who buy their own cell phones. But Boyle and Selwyn pointed out in their testimony Thursday that these month-to-month plans are often more expensive than the plans offered with subsidized handsets.

"Common sense dictates that the customer that buys his phone outright would pay a lower monthly fee," she said. "But they don't. It's the funniest math I've ever seen."

But Verizon's Tauke said consumers have plenty of alternatives to contracts, and he said that his company is moving toward giving customers more freedom and choice.

"Today if you walk into a Wal-Mart, there are lots of options in terms of prepaid phones," he said. "And (at Verizon), we are moving toward an open development system so that you can purchase devices from people not affiliated with our company."

The Federal Communications Commission will discuss a proposal at an open meeting Thursday that could reduce the cost of getting out of your cell phone contract.

The industry-sponsored proposal would give new cell phone customers a 30-day grace period to cancel their contracts without penalty. After those 30 days, early termination charges would then be pro-rated over the life of the contract. This means customers who want out of their contract in month 20 would pay less than those cancelling their service after only four months.

Cell phone operators have argued that they must impose early termination penalties on contracts because they subsidize the cost of the handsets. And to recoup the cost, the operators must be guaranteed a certain amount of service revenue.

AT&T and Apple just announced this week that the new iPhone 3G will be offered in this way. AT&T customers will be required to sign a two-year contract in exchange for the subsidy, which brings the cost of the new 8GB of the phone down to $199.

Customers who bought the first iPhone were also required to have a two-year contract with AT&T despite the fact that the phones were not subsidized.

In the eyes of many consumers these early termination restrictions are unfair and hamper competition. And thousands of them have banded together to file class-action lawsuits.

Check back on Thursday for coverage of the FCC hearing, which begins at 7 a.m. PDT.