Mignon Clyburn, a member of that FCC committee, wrote a letter with a laundry list of issues she has with Verizon's treatment of its customers and makes it a point to say that she looks "forward to exploring this issue in greater depth with [her] colleagues in the New Year." Yikes. Not such great news for Verizon, but it could lead to some good for consumers. [FCC via Engadget]

Yes, Verizon has responded to the FCC's inquiry with just what you'd expect: some pretty vague excuses. You see, they need to charge such a crazy ETF.

"The higher (early termination fee) associated with Advanced Devices reflects the higher costs associated with offering those devices to consumers at attractive prices, the costs and risks of investing in the broadband network to support these devices, and other costs and risks."

Costs and risks, costs and risks! What they don't address is why they're justified in charging a fee that ends up being far higher than the difference between the actual cost of a phone and the subsidized price, especially if the contract is cancelled many months in. Isn't that all the ETF is supposed to cover? I mean, if you're relying on contract cancellation fees to pay for your network, well, I don't think you need to have an MBA to figure out why that ain't good business. [WSJ via Silicon Alley Insider]

Verizon's response:

A broad array of Americans who might not otherwise be able to afford broadband connections to the Internet with a home PC, or by paying full price for a smartphone, have an affordable way of participating in the online world when they choose a subsidized option.

Also noted is the fact that smartphones are available at full, unsubsidized price, although it's not mentioned that the monthly fee doesn't change with an unsubsidized phone and that said unsubsidized phones are incredibly expensive. Hey Verizon, haven't you heard that this is a recession? Have some consideration. [The Hill]

Verizon had previously noted that the Pre (along with RIM's BlackBerry Storm 2) would be hitting Verizon in "around six months or so." Sprint was quick to shoot that down, stating that they would definitely have the exclusive rights to the Pre at least through 2009. That evidently wasn't clear enough; if the Pre hits Verizon in January (seven months from now), that's still a short enough timeframe that Verizon users would likely just wait instead of switching carriers to Sprint.

Now, in an effort to shoot down this kind of patience, Sprint CEO Dan Hesse mentioned in an interview that Verizon's timetable is wrong: "They need to check their facts," he said at a press interview. "That just is not the case. Both Palm and Sprint have agreed not to discuss the length of the exclusivity deal. But I can tell you it's not six months."

So all we know at this point is that the Pre and Sprint are locked together through 2009, and probably into 2010, though if we had to guess, we'd say not very far. If this was a year-long deal, they'd be talking it up, so our guess is that we'll be seeing the Pre on Verizon and AT&T in the first couple months of 2010. But that's just our guess. [CNET]

Update: Verizon says this policy is not new. It has been in effect since 2007. Verizon also reiterates what we state below, which is that any personal-data sharing only happens within the Verizon "family" of telecom services, which are technically separate companies, hence the wording.

According to author David Weinberger, who made the discovery upon reading his pamphlet, the personal info Verizon wants to distribute willy nilly to anyone with a check includes "services purchased (including specific calls you make and receive), billing info, technical info and location info. They promise to only share this with 'affiliates, agents and parent companies.' It will definitely not be shared with 'unrelated third parties' ... unless, perhaps that third party pays Verizon to become an affiliate, whatever the heck 'affiliate' means."

If don't get your statements in the mail, and view them online like I do, you will not receive this letter. Instead, you have to log into your Verizon Wireless account and view your messages. However, Read Write Web reports the link provided there, called the Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice, was listed as "not available."

So keep an eye out for the mail, and be sure to opt out. Or, log in and hope Verizon grants you access to your own account so you can cancel the notice that way. [Read Write Web]

The official word we got from AT&T via email is that while you do have to sign a new contract because of the iPhone activation process, your new contract should be automatically backdated to the start of the original one, so "bottom line...you don't have to extend your iPhone contract if you upgrade to the 16 GB phone." Obvious follow-up: What's the policy going to be with the 3G iPhone? Update: We did ask that obvious follow-up, but all they could say was that they can't "speculate on future plans."

You shouldn't get your hopes up for a repeat though—they're considering the 16GB phone an upgrade, but iPhone 2 will probably be considered a wholly new and different device, requiring a wholly new and different 2-year contract. [AT&T]

No wonder labels don't want to deal with iTunes, this kind of deal is pure money: Imeem's paying the labels so that its users can do free promo work for them! Why pay to advertise your artists when someone else can pay you to do it? Hell, users even do all of the uploading work. If you recall, this kind of arrangement's familiar to Universal—they got kickbacks on every Zune sold—and more immediately, they've got a service going with Nokia that intuition says they're not hooked into for charity or a good time on your part.

While this deal's not really making too much headway in their battle against iTunes, it shows they're looking pretty much anywhere and everywhere that'll make 'em a buck while they look for an endrun around Steve. They probably won't get his contract with the devil canceled anytime soon, but it looks like they've found that internet thing they were looking for. Maybe they'll find that "Facebook" thing next. [WSJ]

Consumerist (have we mentioned lately how much we love Consumerist?) is reporting that Verizon is hiking up their monthly fees by a measly 30 cents in March. That constitutes a material change of your contract, allowing you to break it with no penalty. Yeah, 30 cents. Have fun keeping a straight face while you argue with the Verizon CSR about how much that hurts you. –Adam Frucci

Cancel Verizon Without Penalty Over Admin Fee Increase [Consumerist]