An administrative law judge reviewing the proposed sale of Verizon landlines to Frontier Communications has formally recommended the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) reject the deal.

Allowing Verizon to sell 600,000 Illinois phone lines, mostly in less populated areas of the state, would likely harm the quality of service customers receive from their landline provider according to Judge Lisa Tapia.

Tapia was given the responsibility to review the transaction’s merits before the deal moves before the ICC for final consideration.  Her 46-page report concludes that Frontier’s existing Illinois customers would likely be harmed, along with existing Verizon customers, because of the enormous debt Frontier Communications will take on as part of the deal.  Tapia writes the economic impact of the deal “will diminish Frontier’s ability to perform its duties to provide adequate, reliable, efficient, safe and least-cost public utility service.”

According to Staff witness Mr. McClerren, both Frontier Illinois operating ILECs (local phone companies) and Verizon have, in recent years, had some difficulty meeting the minimum key standards contained in Part 730. The key Part 730 standards are Toll & Assistance Operator Answer Time, Directory Assistance Operator Answer Time, Repair Office Answer Time, Business Office Answer Time, Service Installations, Out of Service for Less Than 24 Hours, and Trouble Reports.

Ms. McClerren characterized the performance of the nine Frontier Illinois operating ILECs as poor relative to the Repair Office Answer Time and Out of Service for Less Than 24 Hours standards and unacceptable relative to the Business Office Answer Time standard. Mr. McClerren concluded that given Frontier’s poorer performance relative to Verizon’s performance on Repair Office Answer Time, Business Office Answer Time, and Out of Service for Less Than 24 Hours , service quality would likely decline in the current Verizon North and Verizon South territories if the proposed reorganization is allowed to occur. Mr. McClerren further stated that because Frontier had continuously failed to satisfy the Business Office Answer Time, Staff expressed to Frontier representatives that it was prepared to initiate a hearing under Section 730.120 of the Act for the purpose of imposing penalties.

The evidence shows there is a significant risk that problems could occur if the transition is made too prematurely so as to create a potential for harm to Illinois customers. When weighed against the many risks of the Transaction, including, among others, the risk of systems integration, the purported benefits of the Transaction do not justify approval.

Of particular concern to Judge Tapia is the impact on Frontier’s finances and operating ability to take on more than 600,000 new customers in Illinois.  Despite company promises to the contrary, Tapia’s report notes we’ve been down this road before, particularly with FairPoint Communications, which went bankrupt late last year.

The evidence shows there is a significant risk that problems could occur if the transition is made too prematurely so as to create a potential for harm to Illinois customers. When weighed against the many risks of the Transaction, including, among others, the risk of systems integration, the purported benefits of the Transaction do not justify approval.

[...]

For instance, Frontier’s total Illinois access lines would be increasing from 97,000 to over 670,000 lines. Frontier would also be almost tripling its size and will be burdened with an enormous amount of approximately $3.3 billion in debt. The financial pressure along with more wirelines to handle leads the Commission to conclude that service quality will certainly be diminished. The ultimate consequences of diminished quality service will be borne by Illinois customers.

What about broadband and Frontier’s promises to expand it into rural communities across Illinois?  Judge Tapia’s report questions whether Frontier will do any better than Verizon did.

The record also does not support a finding that Frontier will be any more effective than Verizon in expanding the scope and quality of broadband services in the Illinois service areas it proposes to acquire from Verizon. To the contrary, the evidence shows that it is very unlikely that a smaller, less experienced operator would be able to support such an investment.

The findings also call attention to Frontier’s practice of paying out more in dividends to shareholders than the company actually earns from customers.  The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which has consistently argued against Verizon spinoffs, says no company can expect to succeed by paying out more than they earn just to keep a favorable stock price.  The IBEW has correctly predicted the outcome of other Verizon spinoffs, and warned the Verizon-Frontier deal is simply more of the same.

IBEW pointed to a 2007 Montana Public Service Commission (“PSC”) decision in which the PSC rejected a proposed merger and acquisition because “In normal utility operations, retained earnings provide a vital source of financial strength for capital investment and as reserves that are available during unexpected financial strains.  Regularly paying out dividends in excess of net earnings by a utility is inappropriate and risky because having insufficient reserves on hand could adversely affect the utility’s ability to provide adequate service.”

IBEW stated that the Montana PSC’s findings apply equally to Frontier. The IBEW endorsed the reasoning of the Montana PSC and reached the same conclusion about Frontier.

According to IBEW, Frontier only has two or three more years before it will have paid out all of its retained earnings to stockholders, based on its performance in the first half of 2009. IBEW also stated that two Wall Street financial analysts have independently found that Frontier’s shareholders’ equity is likely to become negative in 2012 or 2013. After that, Frontier’s dividend would have to be reduced to no more than its net income – a likely dividend cut of 60% or more. IBEW argued that without this Transaction, Frontier’s business model will fail within two or three years. IBEW asserted that Frontier does not plan to change its approach to business. Frontier still plans to pay out more to shareholders than it earns in net income and that there is no scenario where Frontier plans to pay out less in dividends than it earns in net income during the 2010 to 2014 period examined.

The report agrees with the IBEW position:

Frontier’s risky business model is a concern. The Commission agrees with IBEW that in normal utility operations, retained earnings provide a vital source of financial strength for capital investment and as reserves that are available during unexpected financial strains. Regularly paying out dividends in excess of net earnings by a utility is inappropriate and risky because having insufficient reserves on hand could adversely affect the utility’s ability to provide adequate service. Based on the record, this has been Frontier’s business practice. However, Frontier testified that it has revised its dividend policy. According to Frontier, it currently pays an annual cash dividend of $1.00 per share of Frontier common stock. Frontier after the closing of the proposed Transaction, intends to change its dividend policy to pay an annual cash dividend of $0.75 per share of Frontier common stock, reducing its dividend by 25% – from $1.00 to $0.75 per share – effective with the close of the Transaction.

The Commission does not find Frontier’s assertion credible. Specifically, that it plans to revise its dividend policy (at the discretion of it Board of Directors) because of this proposed Transaction when this has been Frontier’s approach to business for years.

Hundreds of pages of comments from consumers and other interested parties have been recorded by the ICC, many in opposition to the proposed deal.  The ICC’s next step is to accept comments about the report, which have already been forthcoming.

McCarthy

Dan McCarthy, Chief Operating Officer of Frontier Communications was among the first.

“Today’s proposed order by an administrative law judge in Illinois ignores the numerous public interest benefits outlined in the complete record developed in the Frontier/Verizon transaction. This record fully addresses the issues raised by the ALJ. We are confident that once the full Illinois Commerce Commission reviews the record, they will vote to support the transaction,” McCarthy said in a prepared statement.

“Frontier has formally committed to expand broadband to 85 percent of the households in the Verizon Illinois service areas covered by the transaction and spend in excess of $40 million to accomplish this effort,” the statement says, further noting that the company already provides DSL broadband service to 90 percent of its existing footprint in the state.

The full ICC is expected to rule by the end of April.

Among the Illinois communities impacted by the transaction:

Chatham, Divernon, Elkhart, Illiopolis, Jacksonville, Lincoln, Loami, New Berlin, Pawnee, Pleasant Plains, Sherman, Virden, Waverly and Williamsville.

Woe to those who forget to sign up for a wireless data plan from Verizon Wireless.

The cell phone provider recently sent a $16,000 bill to one Hot Springs, Arkansas family for wireless data usage racked up on a daughter’s phone the family didn’t cover with a wireless data plan.

Chris Brown couldn’t believe his eyes when he opened his phone bill online.

“The first thing I think of is, this thing costs more than my truck.  It cost more than a house payment, I couldn’t fathom it, it’s mind-blowing,” Brown told KLRT-TV.

This isn’t the first time this has happened.  A month earlier, the Brown family was billed $3,000 for similar usage and the family asked Verizon Wireless to shut off access to data services on the affected phone, but the charges kept on coming anyway.

Brown says once he got to look at the phone usage online, he saw that the phone was connected to the Internet when the family didn’t even know it.

Verizon Wireless offers tips to customers with children:

• Limit the times of day they’re allowed to make calls.

• Keep your kids from getting onto your own phone’s Internet by setting up a password.

• If you have a limited plan, you will get an alert and have to give approval before you exceed your number of kilobytes or megabytes for the month.

Of course, had Verizon Wireless followed through on what Brown asked for — shutting data access off altogether, none of this would have ever happened.

Other Little Rock customers, especially those forced to move from Alltel to Verizon Wireless, are running into similar experiences.

Among the horror stories:

“My son had the same problem. He was told he had unlimited internet usage and then received a bill for more than $7,000. Verizon had recorded a phone call from my son to customer service and that was the only thing that saved him. But it took more than 4 months and his phone service being disconnected twice before the situation was resolved.”

“I’m not a bit surprised at that ridiculous bill from Verizon! I had the same problem for months last year, to the point that I had to put unlimited texting on both my grandsons’ phones. Then to top that off, we got a bill that had goo-gobs of texting billed to my husband’s phone (to the tune of $9.30), which is rarely used at all. But, this is the killer–all the texts received on his phone were from Verizon, all 62 of them! As soon as my contract is up with them, I will be switching. All the time we had Alltel we never had any problems. The problems started as soon as Verizon took over.”

“I’m not one bit surprised by the ridiculous phone bill that the Hot Springs family received. I also received my first month’s bill from Verizon last year for over $1500. I almost had a heart attack. Verizon lowered the bill, but two months later, even though we carefully monitored the air time, we went over by four minutes and they charged me an additional $90. That was it for Verizon. They are a bunch of crooks. I hooked up to my local phone carrier for $34 a month and I haven’t had one problem since. Verizon should be investigated.”

KLRT-TV in Little Rock reports on the Hot Springs family that got a $16,000 surprise bill from Verizon Wireless.  (3 minutes)

Sprint, America’s third largest mobile phone and wireless company, has launched a marketing war on its bigger competitors AT&T and Verizon Wireless scoffing at both providers’ $69.99 “unlimited” calling plans.

“Recently AT&T and Verizon have attempted to confuse the marketplace by lowering their pricing to $69.99, but theirs are for calling only,” said Mike Goff, Sprint’s vice president of corporate marketing.

Sprint launched a new advertising campaign this morning featuring CEO Dan Hesse calling out both carriers for effectively confusing consumers.

Hesse explains most people use their cell phones for more than just making and receiving calls.  Hesse said his larger competitors charge substantially more to use data services, and that many of the latest handsets don’t qualify for the special pricing.

Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless have started to require consumers with so-called “smartphones” to sign up with a data plan, adding to the customer’s bill whether or not they actually use such services.  Sprint says their unlimited plan also bundles unlimited web browsing, texting, and GPS navigation for the same price — $69.99, available on any phone they sell.

Sprint has had its hands full trying to stem the ongoing loss of its customers to larger competitors.

AT&T has benefited from an exclusive sales agreement for Apple’s iPhone, while Verizon Wireless achieved the top spot among U.S. carriers for its perceived widest coverage area.  Sprint has neither, and historically poor customer service to boot.

Will Sprint’s new campaign make an impact?

Roger Entner, head of telecom research for the Nielsen Co., told Brandweek that AT&T and Verizon are in such a commanding position in the market right now that they are unlikely to respond to Sprint. “They have the luxury of being able to ignore [Sprint],” said Entner, who noted that both AT&T and Verizon added millions of new subscribers in the fourth quarter, many at Sprint’s expense.

Sprint has managed to at least slow customer defections.  In the last quarter of 2009, Sprint lost 148,000 subscribers.  The previous quarter, the company lost 545,000 customers.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse explains why their $69.99 plan is “better” than the competition in this new advertisement.

A class action lawsuit has been filed this week to recoup what a law firm has called “improper data charges” for Verizon Wireless customers who discovered $1.99 fees on their phone bills for “data charges” many customers claim they never used.

Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in Cleveland, OH and Conshohocken, PA, filed the suit against the wireless giant in federal court in New Jersey.

The lawsuit alleges non-smartphone customers frequently incurred “data fees” on their monthly Verizon Wireless bills.

Karon

Stop the Cap! reported on this in 2009, and believes most of the charges appeared after consumers accidentally triggered their phone’s built-in mobile web browser.  Although Verizon Wireless claims it does not charge for accidental access, customers report otherwise.  Many have fought to have data access blocked to prevent future charges.  The fees potentially impacted any account that does not have a monthly data plan.  Verizon Wireless offers a pay-per-access plan starting at $1.99 for non-data customers.

The lawsuit seeks to reimburse customers should the charges be deemed improper.

The law firm is looking for those charged for data services that believe they were billed incorrectly.  Customers can e-mail the firm at info@gsk-law.com or call attorney Daniel Karon at (216) 622-1851.

Oregon's telephone company service areas

Frontier Communications has won approval to assume control of telephone lines serving 310,000 Oregonians.

The Oregon Public Utilities Commission Friday unanimously approved the transfer of service from Verizon to Frontier as part of a 14-state transaction.

“First and foremost we want to ensure that customers are not harmed by this transaction.  That’s why we are requiring more than 50 conditions, all aimed at making sure customers are not harmed by this sale,” Chairman Lee Beyer said. “In addition, we are requiring Frontier Communications to spend $25 million on expanding high-speed internet access to its Oregon customers by July 2013.”

In return for approval, Frontier agreed to PUC demands for customer service protections:

• A commitment that Frontier spend at least $25 million to expand high-speed broadband in Oregon by July 2013;
• No changes in “commission-regulated” retail service plans for at least three years;
• Costs of the transition must not be paid by customers in the form of rate increases;
• 90-day window to change long distance carrier without any fees;
• An independent audit, paid for by Verizon, to ensure Frontier can handle service for those customers affected by the deal;
• An opt-out provision letting Oregon’s FiOS subscribers terminate their contracts without penalty if Frontier reduces Internet speeds or drops any of its television channels.

What is missing from Oregon’s agreement?

• A prohibition of Internet Overcharging schemes like Frontier’s 5 gigabyte “acceptable use” policy that potentially limits customer’s broadband use.  Expanded broadband that customers can only use for basic web browsing and e-mail, without fear of exceeding the limit, indefinitely punishes rural Oregonians with no broadband alternatives;
• A specific definition of what constitutes “broadband” speeds.  Frontier can continue to deliver the 1-3 Mbps it routinely provides to its less urban service areas.  While better than nothing, Oregon regulators could have used the deal as leverage to win 21st century broadband speeds from Frontier, not yesterday’s ‘barely broadband;’
• Fines and penalties that will punish a provider that does not invest appropriately in high service standards to provide quality service, and a trigger to permit automatic cancellation of operating certificates should Frontier go bankrupt.

Too many of these deals offer upsides for Wall Street and little benefit to consumers, especially those dependent on their landline phone company for basic communications services.  By forcing requirements that prove costly for a provider to renege on, investors will understand their gains will only happen when they are assured Frontier is doing right by their customers, as well as their shareholders.

Oregon is the sixth state to approve the sale.

Frontier currently serves only 12,000 customers in the state, mostly in southwest Oregon, including the communities of Azalea, Canyonville, Cave Junction, Days Creek, Glendale, Myrtle Creek, O’Brien, Riddle, Selma, and Wolf Creek.

The company’s new customers will come mostly from Washington County, east Multnomah County, and from several pockets of customers in the northwestern part of the state.  Oregon’s largest telephone provider is Qwest Communications, but the state has numerous smaller independent providers as well.

Strigl, who has 18.5 million reasons to smile

It used to be when a truly valued employee choose to retire, he or she might get away with a gold watch and a retirement bash, but those days are over.

While the rest of America copes with layoffs, high unemployment, and a decline in real income, the chosen few retire in style, walking away with stunning parting gifts.

Take Verizon’s Dennis F. Strigl, the company’s former president and chief operating officer.  After years of service to Verizon, he decided to retire this past December.  In addition to whatever parties his fellow employees threw him at the end of the year, Strigl will also receive an $18.5 million separation payment this July.  That’s 14 times his former annual salary of $1.32 million dollars.  Verizon claims in its filings with the Securities & Exchange Commission that it was “required” to cough up the 18 million because of Strigl’s employment contract.

DealBook’s Perk Watch found out plenty more:

There are other goodies thrown in as well for Mr. Strigl, including a $1.9 million short-term plan award, a $451,000 executive life insurance benefit, and a tax gross-up worth $367,478. Mr. Strigl will also have his telecommunications services covered for the next five years, which the company estimates will cost around $11,500 ($192 a month).

A Verizon spokesman, Bob Varettoni, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Strigl’s employment agreement “was used as a retention vehicle when Bell Atlantic completed its acquisition of GTE in 2000, forming Verizon and Verizon Wireless. So it was a contractual payment under a legacy employment agreement.”

Toben

Walk into your boss’ office and ask where your retention vehicle is in your employment contract.

Executive suite Money Parties don’t stop with Strigl.  Doreen A. Toben, who stepped down as chief financial officer last March and left the company in June, received $3.5 million under her employment agreement and also entered into a one-year consulting agreement that paid her $125,000 each month. And at the end of 2008, when William P. Barr retired as Verizon’s general counsel, he received a payment of $10.38 million six months after he stepped down from the company, according to Perk Watch.

For those on the lower floors, the company will provide you a free cardboard box to collect your belongings and get out of the building.  After slashing 17,000 jobs in 2009, Verizon has announced it expects to cut another 13,000 employees in 2010.

Verizon Communications has made its intentions clear — would-be broadband customers in its service area who are off the FiOS footprint can pound salt.  The Federal Communications Commission issues regular reports on broadband services and their adoption by consumers across the United States.  In the latest report, published this month, customers in Verizon’s current or former service areas who are not being served by Verizon FiOS are behind the broadband 8-ball, waiting for the arrival of DSL service from a company that has diverted most of its time, money, and attention on deploying its fiber-to-the-home service for the big city folks.

One might think the worst DSL availability in the country would be in rural states like Alaska, or territories like Guam, or income-challenged Mississippi.  No, the bottom of the barrel can be found in northern New England and the mid-Atlantic states — largely the current or former domain of Verizon:

Percentage of Residential End-User Premises with Access to High-Speed Services by State
(Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction)

Source: FCC High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Table 19

Some might argue that DSL penetration ignores Verizon’s fiber upgrades, but does it?

Providers of High-Speed Connections by Fiber by State as of December 31, 2008
(Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction)

Source: FCC High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Table 20

A survey of the rest of the country calls out Verizon’s inattentiveness to DSL expansion in its remaining service areas not covered by FiOS.

For example: Alabama, Idaho, Montana, and Oklahoma all enjoy 80 percent DSL availability.  Utah and Nevada achieved 90 percent coverage.  Even mountainous Wyoming, the least populous state in the country, provides 78 percent of its state’s customers with the choice of getting DSL service.  Yet New York manages only one point higher among its telephone companies, largely because of enormous service gaps upstate.

What happened?  By 2002 Verizon began to realize their future depended on moving beyond providing landline service.  The company began to divert most of its resources to a grand plan to deliver fiber connections to residences in larger markets in its service areas.  While great news for those who live there, those that don’t discovered they’ve been left behind by Verizon.  Northern New England got flushed by Verizon altogether — sold to the revenue-challenged FairPoint Communications who assumed control of Verizon’s problems and managed to make them worse.

The argument that rural broadband is “too expensive” doesn’t fly when looking at DSL availability in the expansive mountain west or rural desert regions.  Compact states like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland are far easier to wire than North Dakota, New Mexico or even Texas with its large rural areas (87, 87, and 81 percent coverage, respectively).  Verizon simply doesn’t realize the kind of Return on Investment it seeks from FiOS customers — a dollar amount investors want to see.

Of course, that’s the argument Frontier Communications, and FairPoint behind it, made to regulators in sweeping promises to deliver better broadband service.  FairPoint missed its targets and declared bankruptcy.  Frontier is still in the “promises, promises” stage of its deal to take over millions of rural customers currently served by Verizon.

HBO Go is currently only available directly to Verizon FiOS customers. Comcast customers have access through Fancast, and Time Warner Cable indicated it wasn't interested in participating in HBO Go, for now.

HBO subscribers who are also Verizon FiOS TV customers are the first to get access to the premium channel’s new online video portal — HBO Go, launched Wednesday with over 600 hours of HBO programming, available free to authenticated HBO and FiOS subscribers.

HBO Go is another project spawned from the cable and pay television industry’s TV Everywhere project — putting television programming online for anytime viewing, for free, as long as you maintain a cable or pay television subscription.

Ironically, the service launched Wednesday on Verizon’s telco-TV service FiOS, leaving lots of cable subscribers waiting for access.  If you subscribe to HBO through cable, satellite, or U-verse, the service remains unavailable to you, for now.  Comcast subscribers already had access to HBO’s programming through the Fancast Xfinity TV website.  If you don’t pay for television, the service remains unavailable to you indefinitely — they won’t sell it to you at any price.

“Ultimately this is about extending the subscriber lifecycle,” HBO co-president Eric Kessler said. “It’s more about subscriber retention.”

Subscriber retention through incumbent providers, he means.  HBO doesn’t want to risk selling direct to online consumers who might want to cut ties with their cable or other pay television provider.

Stop the Cap! reader Jared has FiOS and HBO and let us sample the service through his FiOS connection (his 25Mbps/25Mbps connection with remote access maxed out our Road Runner Turbo connection and still left him plenty of leftover speed).

Let’s start with the viewing experience.

It’s a big improvement over HBO’s Wisconsin trial in 2008 with Time Warner Cable, which required viewers to download Windows Media-encoded video files protected with Microsoft’s annoying digital rights management scheme.  It was cumbersome for trial participants, and dealing with Microsoft’s player and DRM cut Mac owners out of the trial.

HBO Go is Flash-based, using Adobe’s Real-Time Messaging Protocol to keep viewers from saving permanent copies for themselves (and potentially their friends.)  Using Verizon FiOS, viewers should rarely encounter any artifacts or speed-related viewing problems.  The picture was fine, even for me using remote access software. Of course, if your Internet connection is considerably slower than FiOS or your neighborhood suffers from online congestion, you could experience issues streaming HD content, but HBO Go is designed to buffer when encountering slower connections.  The files are encoded in MPEG-4 at 1.2Mbps and 2.6Mbps, which theoretically should be fine for the majority of viewers.  Comcast subscribers – remember watching counts against your usage cap.

Wandering around the HBO Go library was simple  — easier to navigate and less cluttered than Hulu.  The site was intuitive and should be easy to use for just about everyone.

Up to three members of your household can each watch programming from the service at the same time, even away from home, anywhere in the country.

HBO Go claims to be a work in progress — about 25% of the content will be refreshed by HBO every week, with new episodes available on the service immediately following their TV premiere.

But the service hardly offers a comprehensive viewing experience.  It’s much closer to Hulu or your cable company’s HBO on Demand service.

For example, rights issues limit virtually all of HBO’s original series to a handful of recent episodes or seasons.  Only The Wire has a complete library to watch from its premiere forward.  Curb Your Enthusiasm, aptly named when considering HBO Go, is missing completely.  So is Real Time with Bill Maher, although four of his earlier specials are archived on the site.

As for movies, there are gaping holes there as well.  Available titles resemble Cinemax’s selection of movies you’ve already seen.  There are gaps between what you can watch on HBO itself and what is available on HBO Go.  Babe is online, for instance, but anything Harry Potter isn’t.

In other words, what could have been a compelling addition for HBO subscribers feels redundant.  I would never pay anything extra for HBO Go, nor will it be a factor in keeping HBO.

Online viewers need not apply.

HBO could have used the opportunity to sell the service to non-cable subscribers for a monthly fee and pick up some additional revenue, but that wouldn’t sit well with the pay television cartel that is behind the TV Everywhere concept.  They don’t want you cord cutting — those that have are locked out of the HBO Go Clubhouse.  For now, I suspect few were clamoring to get in.

Americans have got it all wrong.  Their ‘faster is better’ obsession over broadband speed threatens to harm jobs and hurts those looking for work.

Those are the views of Stuart N. Brotman, a senior fellow at the Digital Policy Institute, which calls itself “a vehicle for faculty research that coalesces around the arenas of law, regulation, economics, intellectual property, and technology as these relate to public policy issues of local, state and national interests.”

Brotman argues that while broadband speeds matter, regulators should not be focused on speed as much as considering how broadband can help Americans find jobs.

The Agriculture and Commerce Depts. are tasked with administering $7.2 billion in stimulus funding for broadband by Sept. 30. As they decide where to place the bulk of those funds, which remain unawarded, government officials should show preference to grant and loan applicants that can use broadband to reach displaced workers more quickly.

There also need to be more funds made available to, and a greater focus on, public institutions, such as libraries, community centers, job training facilities, and adult education sites, where broadband spending may have the largest impact on jobs.

Greater broadband competition, which the FCC recognizes is essential to promote more infrastructure development and more varied pricing, also will be helpful. So, too, will be more efficient use of our spectrum resources, particularly those that have been controlled by colleges, schools, and other educational institutions for decades. Those airwaves can be better deployed to deliver high-speed wireless broadband services or leased to private-sector companies offering them.

Large telecommunications providers couldn’t have said it any better.  They have repeatedly argued broadband speeds are besides the point.

Brotman

AT&T last fall wrote the Federal Communications Commission, suggesting residential customers would do fine with broadband speeds that let them “exchange emails, participate in instant messaging, and engage in basic web-browsing.”  For AT&T, speed was less important than setting “a baseline definition of the capabilities needed to support the applications and services Americans must access to participate in the Internet economy—to learn, train for jobs, and work online….”

Verizon echoed AT&T, asking the Commission to retain the current minimum definition of broadband speed at 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream.  That allows them the chance to participate in stimulus funding projects that set the broadband speed bar low, especially in the rural areas Verizon wants to spend less on or is trying to sell-off.

“It would be disruptive and introduce confusion if the Commission were to now create a new and different definition,” Verizon said in its letter to the FCC.

Some of the smaller telecommunications companies also believe broadband speed should be de-emphasized.

Embarq, before completing a merger with CenturyTel (now CenturyLink) told the FCC 1.5Mbps broadband service has become “the most common offering.”  Embarq called that “consistent with an emphasis on economic development and jobs as many important applications, such as video conferencing are arguably possible only with 1.5 Mbps service and above. Any higher speed threshold, however, would risk defining as unserved the large number of satisfied customers of 1.5 Mbps service, which seems implausible.”

Embarq underlines the real reason providers are concerned about broadband speed — they’re not delivering it.  Once legislators or the Commission increases minimum broadband speed levels, many of these companies may find themselves below the threshold, guilty of “just enough speed to scrape by” in non-competitive markets.  That could lead to the prospect of facing federally-funded stimulus projects from others in their service areas, now deemed “unserved” or “underserved.”

Brotman further advocates that funding be focused on those that can deliver results “quickly.”

Embarq would agree with him there as well, stating “funds through grants directly to broadband providers rather than loans or other measures as this will have the greatest and quickest impact in bringing broadband to the hardest-to-serve areas.  …there is no time to wait for complete broadband maps or block grants to states for redistribution.”

Telecommunications companies would also do well by Brotman’s suggestion that federal funding for broadband projects reaching public and community service institutions should be emphasized.  As communities often request companies provide those services at a deep discount or free in return for franchise agreements or other licensing provisions, that’s money AT&T, Verizon, and others need not spend out of their own pockets.  Getting free airwaves swiped from educational institutions to deliver wireless broadband also benefits AT&T and Verizon, who are in that business as well.

When a “policy institute,” “research group,” or other seemingly unaffiliated entity starts rehashing telecommunications industry talking points, it’s time to start digging.

Buried on page five of a PDF file describing the work of the Digital Policy Institute, one comes to a section titled, “DPI Impact and Influence.”  DPI doesn’t list their financial supporters or partnerships as such.  Instead, they call them “national, collaborative relationships.”  Who does DPI collaborate with?

• AT&T
• Embarq
• National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (rural telco lobbyists)
• Verizon
• …among others.

Imagine my surprise.

But that’s not all.  Stuart N. Brotman Communications counts (or counted) among his clients AT&T, Cox Cable, National Cable and Telecommunication Association, and the New England Cable TV Association.

Perhaps Business Week would have done a better service to readers had they also disclosed that.

Ohio utility regulators today approved the transfer of telephone service from Verizon North to Frontier Communications with some conditions attached.  The transition will make Frontier Communications the state’s second largest telephone company behind AT&T.

Regulators negotiated conditions with Frontier officials that requires the company to:

• deploy broadband facilities in 85 percent of Verizon’s current Ohio service area by the end of 2013;
• freeze basic local telephone rates in Frontier’s service territory at current levels until broadband deployment reaches 85 percent;
• invest in service upgrades in each of the next three years amounting to $50 million in infrastructure improvements;
• agree to track and report service outages and how Frontier responds to them.

The company has committed to keep on nearly 1,000 Verizon North employees in Ohio.  Opponents expressed concern that pressure to cut costs post-merger would have come at the expense of employees.

Frontier's current service area in Ohio is a tiny portion of Williams County, serving just 480 residents from an office in Michigan (click to see a color map of the service area)

Ohio residents are largely unfamiliar with Frontier Communications.  Prior to the merger, just 480 residents in a tiny portion of Williams County in northwest Ohio had Frontier telephone service, served by Frontier Communications of Michigan’s office in Osseo, Michigan.

Right now, residents of Billingstown, Cooney, Northwest, and Nettle Lake, Ohio might qualify for Frontier High-Speed Internet Max, advertising “breakthrough speeds at an unbeatable price.”  That is “up to 3Mbps” service starting at $49.99 a month.

Those members of Frontier’s family of customers will now be joined by 435,000 Verizon residential customers in 77 of Ohio’s 88 counties.

The largest portion of Frontier’s new service area will include parts of Champaign, Clark, Clinton, Darke, Miami, Montgomery, Preble, Shelby and Warren counties.

Despite early opposition from Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC), who expressed concerns about the financial viability of the deal and the fulfillment of promised broadband expansion, the vote by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) was unanimous.  After negotiations with company officials and the OCC and PUC, an agreement to attach conditions to the sale of Verizon’s landlines resulted in a change of heart by the Counsel’s office.

Frontier's new service area, representing territory formerly served by Verizon North (click to enlarge)

Many of Ohio’s former Verizon service areas are served by Verizon’’s DSL service, but many rural communities went unserved.  Verizon has made a business decision to direct resources into its fiber to the home service — FiOS, which is only being provided in substantial-sized communities.  With Verizon’s reduction in resources towards rural service areas, Frontier argues the sale will benefit rural residents because they will provide broadband service Verizon never did.  Frontier suggests the viability of its landline business is enhanced by robust broadband deployment as consumers continue to drop traditional phone service.  Broadband gives customers a reason to stay with Frontier, the company believes.

But critics contend Frontier’s broadband is behind-the-times, often providing less than 3Mbps service in many smaller communities.  Frontier also maintains language in its Acceptable Use Policy that expects consumers to limit their broadband use to just 5GB per month, although company officials stress they do not enforce that provision at this time.

Frontier believes broadband deployment will help the company survive the trend away from landline phone service

Frontier relies on traditional, basic ADSL service across its service areas nationwide, but also provides provides some communities with Wi-Fi access for an additional monthly charge.

Similar earlier deals between Verizon and FairPoint Communications, the Carlyle Group, and Verizon’s former telephone directory printing operation (now Idearc Media) have all ended in bankruptcy after months of sub-standard service, billing errors, and broken promises.  Should a similar fate befall Frontier Communications, a trip to Bankruptcy Court could put an end to broadband, pricing, and service commitments made with state officials.