You've probably heard the horror stories, maybe you've even experienced it yourself. The cell phone bill comes, and it is unexpectedly massive. Huge overages happen more than expected, so much in fact, that it's been given a name: "bill shock". The FCC received 764 complaints in just the first 6 months of the year, and a survey showed that 30 million Americans have experienced this. Now it looks like the FCC might be about to take action.

According to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the agency will propose rules tomorrow that will force the carriers to alert users via voice or text when they are about to go over their plan's limits and incur extra fees. The carriers are not particularly pleased with this possibility. The VP of CTIA ( an industry trade group) said in an interview that, "The industry continues to develop tools to keep customers informed about their level of usage." He also cautioned against " prescriptive and costly rules." We're not sure what needs to be developed. SMS works just fine as it is. 

Some customers have ended up being stuck with bills in the tens of thousands after traveling, or changing their plan. Wireless carriers often end up cutting them a deal, but still ask for substantial sums of cash. The FCC has intervened in some of these incidents, but if new rules are adopted this problem could go away altogether. Have you ever had a case of bill shock? Let us in on the sordid details.

The news this morning seemed gloomy, and frankly, confusing. The New York Times was reporting that Google and Verizon had come to a deal wherein Google would pay Big Red carriage fees to ensure preferential treatment on Verizon's broadband network. A move like this could conceivably lead to more fees on users for accessing certain content online. This is completely counter to the principals of net neutrality that Google has long espoused. If true, this would have been a huge blow to net neutrality.

Just a few hours later Google's public policy Twitter account tried to clear things up saying the New York Times story is just wrong. Later in the day Google was on the offensive telling the Guardian, " The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet." Verizon also issued a statement saying the reports are mistaken. 

So what do you believe? Are these accusations from the Times and others based on some actual facts of the Google/Verizon relationship that we are not aware of?

For the last two decades, cable companies haven’t paid so-called retransmission fees to over the air broadcasters. In return, the broadcasters have received prime locations on cable systems. With the recent decline in ad revenues, that’s seeming like a less favorable arrangement for the likes of Fox. News Corp (owner of Fox and associated channels) is now going after Time Warner Cable demanding those fees be paid. If Time Warner doesn’t relent by week’s end, News Corp plans to pull their content from Time Warner’s system.

News Corp owns 27 stations including Fox, FX, and National Geographic. The fees would likely cost Time Warner about $1 per subscriber each month. The cost would probably be passed on to customers. However, Time Warner has thus far refused to pay up, triggering an ad war. Both sides have started running opposing ads designed to get customers riled up.

The whole thing feels like another attempt by Rupert Murdoch to extract more value from his existing properties. “We realize this is going to be a tough challenge, but we’re determined to take a leadership position in creating an economic template for the future,” Murdoch recently said to investors.

The tide has been turning this way in recent years, but most broadcasters only get pennies per subscriber. CBS reportedly struck deal with Time Warner for about $.50 per subscriber. The demands from News Corp are substantial by comparison. Who’s in the right here? Do you think they’ll reach a deal at the last minute; is someone just bluffing?

Amazon has finally obliged globetrotting fans of its Kindle ebook reader by releasing an international GSM version. The new international edition is tied to AT&T 3G service in the US and will cost you $280, that’s $20 more than the standard Sprint Whispernet equipped Kindle. One thing that Amazon didn’t mention though, is that when used overseas, some wireless features will be blocked.

While Europe, for example, has solid GSM coverage, the international Kindle won’t allow access to blogs or the experimental web browser. This is almost certainly being done to protect Amazon from huge roaming data charges. No word yet on if Amazon will attempt to work out arrangements with foreign cell carriers in the future.

While using the e-ink display for actual web browsing may be rare, checking blogs on the device is more common. Users should still be able to access the ebook store, which is, admittedly, the main reason for having the device. So, is this a deal breaker for anyone? Do you really need full web access on the Kindle while overseas?