This past summer of discontent with FairPoint was not limited to DSL service outages.  The troubled phone company serving Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, also annoyed fleeing customers with bills for service long since disconnected.

Nina Mazuzan in Burlington, Vermont was fed up with FairPoint and switched to Burlington Telecom, the municipally owned fiber to the home network serving the Burlington area.

But escaping FairPoint would not be easy.  More than four months after switching, the FairPoint bills kept rolling in, amounting to nearly $200.

“It’s incredibly frustrating,” Mazuzan told WPTZ News.  “It’s just such a waste of time — there’s no real face behind the voice,” she said.

Vermont regulators report Mazuzan is not alone.  The state continued investigating the company and monitoring its performance over the course of the summer.

Company officials told WPTZ, “FairPoint is working to fix its problems.”

WPTZ-TV Plattsburgh covered one Burlington, Vermont resident who experienced months of billing problems with FairPoint back in July. [1 minute]

Mechanicsburg is located in Bland County, Virginia

Sunday was an exciting day for the nearly 200 residents of rural Mechanicsburg, a small community in southwest Virginia.  It was launch day for the community’s new wireless “broadband” service, which turned the community into one large hot-spot, bringing Internet access to the community at speeds beyond dial-up.

The service expands on a Wireless ISP (WISP) network already serving the nearby communities of Rocky Gap and Bastian, and was funded by a broadband grant, with assistance from Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia).

Residents can subscribe to the service, transmitted from an antenna tower located in each community, or visit the local community center, which will have computers available for Internet use.

While the service represents an improvement over dial-up, it’s not exactly 21st century broadband.

The service, provided by Trificient Broadband Technologies, uses Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum technology in the unlicensed 900MHz, 2.4 and 5.8GHz bands (also used by consumer wireless phones and wireless routers).

Last fall, Trificient owner Jim Ingram told SWVA Today that he defined broadband at anything above 256kbps.  Bland County’s BCNet WISP service provides 512kbps service for $27.95 per month with an annual contract and $99 installation fee.  The Federal Communications Commission currently defines broadband service at speeds of 768kbps or faster.

Providing wireless Internet service in the hilly terrain of southwestern Virginia can be challenging.  The antennas delivering the service have been mounted on antenna towers to be above nearby obstructions, and Ingram told the newspaper every customer gets an on-site survey to determine whether they can receive the service.  If they are within 10 miles of the antenna and have a reasonably clear signal, a small antenna is mounted on the customer’s home and service can begin.

The company offers faster service for a higher price, assuming the customer is close enough to the transmitter to be able to obtain higher speeds.

For rural customers with no option for cable television or DSL service, wireless service at these speeds can provide basic connectivity for e-mail and web page access, but utilizing the Internet’s higher bandwidth services like video and other streaming media can prove challenging.

WVVA-TV Bluefield/Beckley, West Virginia covers the October 11th launch day in Mechanicsburg as wireless Internet service begins for nearly 200 residents in rural Virginia. [2 minutes]

One of the major consequences of having insufficient experience and resources running a telecommunications network FairPoint inherited from Verizon is that when something goes wrong, it often turns into a catastrophic service failure that leaves people without service for days on end.

As we continue to watch the teetering FairPoint Communications lurch towards either a “white knight” rescue or bankruptcy court, ponder being one of 12,000 Vermont residents who suffered through a DSL service outage that lasted nearly a week this past June.

“The first day I was mad, the next day I was angry, the third day I was begging for Internet service so I could continue on with day to day activities of running a business,” said Bret Knapp, co-owner of Hilltop RV Center in New Haven.

Knapp relies on his FairPoint DSL service to stay in contact with his customers.

Knapp spent hours on the phone with FairPoint customer service representatives in Texas trying to resolve the problem to no avail.  At one point, after 50-60 calls, a FairPoint representative hung up on him.

Beth Fastiggi, a FairPoint spokeswoman agreed the problems were unacceptable.

“We are making significant progress; internally, we still have a lot of work to do,” she told WPTZ news.

The state telecommunications regulator in Vermont told the station complaints regarding FairPoint arrive daily from across the state.

WPTZ-TV Plattsburgh covers the FairPoint DSL outage that wiped out service for a week for 12,000 Vermont residents. [2 minutes]

Verizon’s ongoing effort to shed itself of legacy phone operations in smaller communities and states has triggered a wave of worker retirements, contributing to worker shortages in some regions.  In West Virginia in particular, Verizon’s plan to exit the entire state, leaving service in the hands of Frontier Communications, has many employees deciding the time to get out is now.  In August, Verizon was forced to bring in outside contractors to deal with repair work created by a storm-filled summer.  The decision met with strong opposition from the local Communications Workers of America Local 2001 union, which represents the remaining Verizon employees.

Verizon itself has been cost-cutting, and shed 7% of the workforce providing upkeep for the traditional phone network in just the past two years.  Many other employees are taking early retirement offers, or simply deciding to retire with their Verizon pension intact.

After the CWA Local 2001 unit ran an informational picket, the outside contractors were gone by September 19th.  The CWA has been negotiating with Verizon to create a Working Retiree program to provide staff support during difficult periods like those created from storm damage.

The CWA continues its strong opposition to Verizon exiting several states, selling its network to Frontier Communications.  The union believes the transaction will saddle those communities with a lower quality telecommunications future from a provider mired in the debt required to finance the transaction.

WCHS-TV in Charleston, West Virginia covered the CWA informational picketing in late August. [1 minute]

John Boehner (R-Ohio)

Eighteen Republican senators joined twenty House Republicans in a letter writing campaign to get FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to drop Net Neutrality from the agenda at the Federal Communications Commission, calling the policy “counterproductive,” and would create a “chilling effect” on broadband investment in the future.

Many GOP members signing the latest round of letters also took issue with Net Neutrality a few years ago when it was a hot topic in Washington.

After Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s aborted attempt to de-fund FCC enforcement of Net Neutrality regulations, the past month has seen a full frontal assault on Net Neutrality by many Republicans.  Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Virginia) co-authored a letter to President Barack Obama suggesting he intervene to drop Net Neutrality policies and instead focus on the national broadband plan.

Any regulations that would prohibit Internet service providers from managing their networks, they said, would discourage those companies from investing the billions of dollars needed to expand broadband access.

“We believe that network neutrality regulations would actually thwart further broadband investment and availability, and that a well-reasoned broadband plan would confirm our view. So to hastily begin the process of adopting network neutrality rules months before issuing such a plan implies that politics are driving the FCC’s decision-making process.”

Ranking Member of the House Communications, Technology & the Internet Subcommittee, Rep. Chris Stearns of Florida fired off a letter to Genachowski echoing the same sentiment:

Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)

“At first glance, net neutrality regulations may appear reasonable and harmless, but, a deeper examination reveals that net neutrality is neither reasonable nor harmless. These mandates would harm consumers, reduce competition, and discourage new investment and innovation at a time of tremendous technological growth.”

“The FCC bears the responsibility to prove a market failure, especially since its 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007 decisions on cable modem service, digital subscriber line service, broadband over power line service, and wireless broadband service were predicated on the notion that the broadband market nationwide is competitive and that regulation is unwarranted,” Stearns wrote.

Of course, during the years he cites, the Republicans enjoyed a majority on the Commission that made that finding.

Stearns and his colleagues suggest that the FCC could only intervene if substantial evidence existed the broadband marketplace was collapsing.

The Senate Republicans, led by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, questioned the need to adopt new regulation, suggesting only two abusive incidents have occurred in the last five years that would have been prohibited by the regulations.

“It appears your decision to create new commission rules is outcome-driven. Your promulgating network neutrality rules seems to emanate from a fear that there may be some problems related to openness in ‘the future.’  Our view is that it is harmful for the commission to impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future.”

“Such a major policy shift should be contemplated with only all of the FCC Commissioners involved,” they wrote. “To do it with just one party reduces the confidence the public and Congress has in the proposal.”

Pro Net Neutrality groups had none of it:

Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge:

It is truly unfortunate that the House Republican leadership has put itself in the position of trying to slow down the greatest economic engine for job creativity and innovation ever created. Under the neutral, non-discriminatory Internet, thousands and thousands of new businesses were created and millions of dollars were invested.

The latest House Republican letter asking for the FCC to slow action on preserving an open, non-discriminatory Internet is simply another attempt at a delaying tactic by those who favor big telecom and cable companies over competition and innovation.

The letter also has fatal flaws, such as when it asserts that Net Neutrality would make investment more difficult, or that Net Neutrality would result in lower speeds and higher prices for consumers. Both of those claims are false. Billions of dollars were invested in the Internet ecosystem, not only by carriers, but by companies doing business on the Internet, and by consumers subscribing to Internet services. That is the investment we seek to expand. There is nothing in banning discrimination on the basis of source, ownership or destination of bits would create lower speeds or raise prices. Those are simply distractions.

Net Neutrality is about big telecom, cable and wireless companies (which are often the same) picking winners and losers on the Internet. It has nothing to do with online services, consumer electronics or applications. The FCC should proceed to guarantee the freedom of the Internet that all consumers and businesses deserve.

Markham Erickson, Open Internet Coalition:

This issue has been under debate since 2005 when the Supreme Court issued its Brand X ruling. The previous Republican-led FCC engaged in ad-hoc enforcement in the Comcast case. To suggest this is a radical policy u-turn is simply incorrect.

The Internet existed for more than 25 years under a neutral regime. During that time, a national data network was built out by telcos and cable providers, despite a neutrality requirement. To suggest that a return to that status quo threatens broadband investment is not borne out by experience. In fact, it is critical to investment that this issue be addressed sooner rather than later — further delay in addressing this core policy issue will harm investment flows into new and innovative technologies.

“

Carol Hevey, executive vice president of operations for TWC’s Carolinas region.

Stop the Cap!‘s strong readership in the Triad region of North Carolina comes from their experience with Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging experiment this past April.  For residents in greater Greensboro and surrounding communities, now you get a chance to be pioneers of a different sort.

Time Warner Cable today announced Greensboro, Raleigh, and Charlotte, all in North Carolina, among the first in the nation able to purchase Road Runner Mobile, a new 4G wireless mobile broadband service designed to accompany your existing Road Runner subscription.

On December 1st, Time Warner Cable customers can sign up for the service, providing speeds up to 6Mbps, starting at $34.95 per month, if you are on a Price Lock Guarantee (a service commitment requiring you to remain with Time Warner Cable in return for service discounts) and subscribe to a bundle of services.  That low priced option has a usage allowance of 2 gigabytes per month.

Time Warner Cable's Carolinas region service area

“With Time Warner Cable’s 4G Mobile Network, we now offer the fastest mobile service available and extend our reach outside the home.” said Carol Hevey, Executive Vice President of the Carolina Region for Time Warner Cable.  “Giving our customers the convenience of mobility and the speed of 4G, Road Runner Mobile lets customers take their favorite Internet service wherever they go.  This is an important part of our strategy to give our customers any content, on any device, anytime, anywhere.”

Time Warner Cable is using the Clearwire WiMax network to provide the service, a benefit it gained along with Comcast when they became part-owners of the Sprint-Clearwire venture.

Pricing will vary depending on the level of service customers need:

• Road Runner Mobile 4G National Elite gives unlimited access to both Time Warner Cable’s 4G Mobile Network and a national 3G network (Sprint, presumably), for use when traveling.
  o $79.95 per month for Road Runner Standard or Turbo customers.
  o Further discounts for Double and Triple play customers and those on a Price Lock Guarantee.
• Road Runner Mobile 4G Elite gives customers unlimited access to the Time Warner Cable 4G Mobile Network.
  o $49.95 per month for Road Runner Standard or Turbo customers.
  o Further discounts for Double and Triple play customers and those on a Price Lock Guarantee.
• Road Runner Mobile 4G Choice gives light users 2GB of service on the Time Warner Cable 4G network each month.
  o Available for $39.95 per month to customers of at least one other Time Warner Cable service.  Additional $5 off if you have a Price Lock Guarantee and bundled service package.

Time Warner Cable plans to launch additional mobile services to customers in the future such as the ability to program a DVR from a mobile device and the ability to take their video content with them on the go.  Time Warner Cable will be expanding its 4G Mobile network to additional service areas over the next few months including Dallas, TX and Honolulu and Maui, HI.

Customer experiences with the Clearwire network have been decidedly mixed.  In Portland, uneven signal coverage has plagued service and fueled customer returns.  In Greensboro, some who have tested the Clearwire-branded version of the service report earlier speeds close to 5Mbps that have since slowed to below 2Mbps.

As with any wireless mobile service, inquire about trial options and cancellation policies before signing any contract.  Consumers should always verify service is available to them at tolerable speeds before committing to any contract.

Suvi Lindén, Finland's Minister of Communications

Yleisradio Oy, the public broadcasting service in Finland, today reported starting next July, every person in Finland will have the right to a one-megabit broadband connection.

The announcement from the Ministry of Transport and Communications makes Finland the second European nation to consider broadband service more than just a modern day convenience.

Minister of Communications Suvi Lindén said broadband service must be universal, and at equitable speeds throughout Finland.  Private providers have been unable or unwilling to bring universal service to the country, so the Finnish government is compelled to do the job they won’t.

“No-one can be left outside the day-to-day functioning of the information society. As the telecommunications network needed cannot be provided on market terms in all respects, its construction must be supported by public funds,” she said.

Permanent Secretary Harri Pursiainen confirmed Lindén’s views about universal access in a study concluding it is impossible to expect commercial providers to provide regionally equal service throughout the country.

Finland intends to construct an advanced broadband network, starting with the guarantee of 1Mbps minimum speeds for virtually every citizen.  The plan recognizes that reaching the most remote parts of the country will require a mobile broadband network, and have made provisions to tolerate lower speeds on those networks, for now.

But the Finnish government does not consider 1Mbps anywhere near adequate to provide 21st century connectivity.  It has declared that anything less than 100Mbps service is simply unacceptable in the new “information economy.”

The 100Mbps minimum service standard would be mandatory, and targeted to be achieved no later than 2015, if the recommendations are approved by the Finnish Parliament.

“Citizens and businesses need increasingly effective data transfer. This is necessary, among other things, for teleworking, business, e-commerce, and access to social and health services,” Lindén states.

Harri Pursiainen

Television broadcasting also faces a turning point in the next few years, as channels become more diverse and high-definition transmission enters the picture. Here, high-speed broadband is an essential factor,” Lindén stresses.

The report proposes that the state, regions and municipalities share in the costs of improving the telecommunications network in those areas where the target level for 2015 cannot be reached by commercial means. The purpose is for the Regional Councils to organize competitive bidding among the telecommunications operators.

Where public funds are needed to construct networks, money will be raised by auctioning off certain radio frequencies for commercial use, as well as a telecommunications tax levied on providers in the country, somewhat equivalent to the United States’ Universal Service Fund, which helps subsidize rural telephone service.

Finnish consumers can still elect not to purchase broadband service, and can still select among several providers, choosing the speed and technology they want for the connection.  The Finnish government will offer a “domestic help credit,” akin to a tax credit or subsidy, to help disadvantaged Finns purchase computers and other equipment to use broadband service.

Finland joins Switzerland in providing universal access to broadband.  The Swiss government was the first in Europe to mandate broadband service availability throughout the country as of January 1, 2008.  But the Swiss definition of broadband is much more limited, setting minimum acceptable speeds at just 600kbps downstream and 100kbps upstream.

Both the United States and the United Kingdom have universal service goals as well.  The UK government targets 2Mbps speed to “virtually all” homes by 2012, funded by a telephone line tax.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Greg for the news tip.

Glenn Britt, CEO of Time Warner Cable

I spent the morning dealing with the dentist and some significant tooth pain, which could end up leading to another delightful root canal.  It’s times like these when I like to share the pain.  Back on April 2nd, Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt spoke with CNBC reporter Julia Boorstin about Britt’s thoughts on Internet Overcharging, the state of the cable industry, the growing reliance Time Warner Cable has on its broadband products, and where online video fits into the picture.  Although Time Warner Cable shelved the consumption billing experiment, the belief in such billing experiments has not changed.

Virtually everything else in the interview remains largely the same for the company, including the all-important topic of TV Everywhere and online video content, which is back in the news.

If you want to understand the challenges facing big cable, this is must-see-online-TV. (Check out the unintentionally ominous background music which appropriately turns up around four minutes in.)

CNBC’s Julia Boorstin talked with Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt on April 2nd about the cable company and the state of the industry these days. (15 minutes)

The reported deal between Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator and NBC-Universal, part owner of Hulu, could have serious consequences for the Internet’s most popular destination for online television shows and movies.

In just a year, Hulu has enjoyed a quadrupling of visits well into the millions, streaming dozens of network television series, specials, and movies, all supported by commercial advertising.  Devised to help combat online video piracy and earn additional advertising revenue from web watchers, Hulu partners NBC, Fox and Walt Disney Co., have been successful at drawing scores of Americans to the video website.  Program distributors have also been pleased, earning money from shows like Lou Grant that haven’t been on network television in decades.  But after the economic crash of 2008, the venture has proven costly for the partnership, challenged by an advertising marketplace on life support and outright hostility by broadband providers, cable operators, and Wall Street investors, upset that the service is giving it all away for free.

Among the loudest to complain is Comcast, which is now angling to acquire NBC, and its 30% ownership stake in Hulu.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has repeatedly complained about the implications of giving away online video, which for some have begun to replace cable television subscriptions.

“If I am any one of these programmers, not just ESPN but the Food Network and I have a business in that 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent of my business comes from subscriptions, I want to think long and hard before I just put that content out there for free and not think through what it is going to mean to my business,” Roberts said at an investors conference in May.

Roberts view was shared by the CEO of the nation’s second largest cable operator, Glenn Britt of Time Warner Cable.

“If you give it away for free, you’re going to forego that subscription revenue,” Britt said. “And if you actually think the ad revenue can make up for that, then God bless you and go on your way. But I don’t think that’s the case, and (networks) don’t really think that’s the case either.”

The difference between Comcast and Time Warner Cable is that the former could gain part ownership in the largest service now giving it all away for free, and that has major implications for Hulu’s future.

“Would Comcast put an end to the Hulu model of using the Web to distribute free TV content?” asked Michael Nathanson, senior media analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. “Will Comcast continue to support Hulu?”

The Los Angeles Times reports there is already a precedent for Hulu limiting content for online viewers in response to complaints:

Hulu already has limited users’ access to certain cable programs, including FX’s “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” in response to an outcry from the TV producers and cable companies that object to paying TV programmers hundreds of millions of dollars each year for shows that are offered free online.

“Arguably, their ability to shape online content distribution, and to recast windows for video on demand, would be an important attribute of any deal,” wrote Craig Moffett, a cable industry analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein.

Comcast’s interest in NBC Universal would dramatically expand its entertainment portfolio with such attractive cable channels as USA Network, MSNBC and CNBC as well as the Universal Pictures movie studio. The proposed Comcast-NBC Universal venture also would give the cable operator a greater role in deciding how and when TV shows and movies are distributed online and at what price to consumers.

Comcast’s influence would primarily be felt in cable network programming streamed online, as Comcast has a vested interest from the millions it currently pays those programmers to carry their networks on Comcast cable systems nationwide.  Comcast could advocate Hulu become a partner in the TV Everywhere cartel, providing video content only to “authenticated” pay television subscribers, or it could limit the number of episodes available for free, or when those episodes appear on the service.

Soleil Securities media analyst Laura Martin thinks an even more likely possibility would be charging a fee for some of its more popular content.  Martin points to Hulu’s own financial problems, a consequence of the crash in the advertising market.  Soleil estimates that the three partners subsidize $33 million of the losses at Hulu even after earning $123 million this year from advertising.  Even worse, Martin says, is the cannibalizing of the networks’ own advertising earnings from broadcast runs of those shows now available online.  She told the Times that for every viewer who migrates to the Internet, the companies forfeit $920 a year in ad revenue.

But not everyone believes the Comcast-NBC deal is such a great idea.

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes today told an industry conference in Manhattan that large media mergers have had a lousy track record.  Still, he said the merger would probably benefit the cable industry as a whole, because broadcast networks content with giving away content for free online will now be a part of the very industry hurt by that formula and will be more friendly towards arguments to stop it.

“We love to see our competitors taking risks,” Bewkes said.

CNBC’s Julia Boorstin talked with Hulu CEO Jason Kilar in September about the desire for the company to partner with the cable industry’s TV Everywhere project.

Phillip "I Also Told You So" Dampier

This past spring Stop the Cap! started relentlessly documenting the tragic phone and broadband service that came as a result of a lousy phone deal for New Englanders.  Verizon, busily wiring its larger service areas for FiOS fiber to the home service, wanted out of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  In a uniquely wonderful deal (for them), they not only managed a clean break from too much regulatory red tape, but also sold off the entire operation down to the last cable, phone jack, and building absolutely tax-free to FairPoint Communications, a tiny independent phone company headquartered in North Carolina.

Since the sale, it has been one catastrophe after another:  broken phone and broadband service up to weeks at a time, incorrect billing amounting to hundreds of dollars and collection calls pestering customers for money they don’t owe, investigation after investigation, broken promise after broken promise.  Since we broke from the story back in June to cover some of the nonsense and ripoffs going on in Canada, things have not gotten that much better.  In fact, the company’s stock has since lost 95% of its value, is defending against accusations it manipulated a “test run” of a conversion program to guarantee success (right under the noses of independent observers), a major management shakeup, and now the very real chance the entire mess is headed to Bankruptcy Court.

One member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who loudly and, it turns out, very accurately predicted the results of this ill-conceived venture, said FairPoint is now swirling in the bowl, flushing itself, and three states’ telecommunications needs, right down the toilet.

So at the same time Frontier Communications is trying to pick up what Verizon is throwing away this year, it’s very illustrative to continue this story, to educate our readers about what happens when consumers’ needs are totally ignored.  Just as much to blame are the state regulators who are now ironically among the loudest complainers.  As we’ve shown documenting this entire story, they’ve changed their tune dramatically.  Back in 2007, they couldn’t say enough wonderful things about how confident they were in FairPoint, and were certain everything would work out just fine.

It did for them because they are still there, conducting the investigation about how this whole mess got started.

The Nashua Telegraph has followed this sorry story since day one:

Unable to make its massive debt payments, FairPoint will have to file for bankruptcy by month’s end unless it can strike a deal with creditors.

The company is losing land-line customers – and thus, revenue – faster than anticipated. And the celebrated launch of a TV service to compete with cable – a move FairPoint said would bring in the extra income to compensate for the decline in land-line customers – has been put on hold.

“There’s no satisfaction in saying I told you so,” said Rand Wilson, communications coordinator for the two unions that represent most FairPoint workers, which organized a major public campaign in an effort to stop the sale.

“We have to try to provide the best possible service under the circumstances and work with regulators and states to find a way to create a viable company.”

So far, that means trying to fix FairPoint from within, or hope the rumors of a buyout by Windstream, another owner of formerly independent phone companies, turns out to be real. But like FairPoint and Frontier, Windstream itself has a business model running phone service in the areas the big boys don’t want. How much of an improvement that company would provide remains an open question.  Regardless, unless FairPoint works the kind of magic it has never performed for its New England customers, it’s probably only a matter of weeks before bankruptcy:

P.J. Louis, a telecom industry expert and author of 11 books on the various topics within the industry, recently wrote that he thinks it’s a realistic option for the company.

“The more and more I think about it, the more I am convinced that FairPoint needs to file,” Louis wrote in an analysis on the Gerson Lehman Group Web site. “Every horror story you hear just scares the heck out of me. Frankly, I am questioning management’s ability to see the company through this rough time.”