In Maine, bankrupt FairPoint Communications managed to scrape up enough cash to launch a lobbying effort to get a bill introduced, tailor-written to prohibit stimulus award winners from… helping provide improved broadband service to Maine residents.

Marrache

Incredibly, Sen. Lisa Marrache, D-Waterville, the assistant Senate majority leader, has introduced a bill that would ban the system from using any tuition money to help pay for efforts to expand broadband access. Marrache mouthed FairPoint’s talking points as she suggested poor college students’ tuition money would be diverted for broadband projects. She claimed the bill was introduced because constituents FairPoint’s lobbyists and employees were calling her about it.

The fact Marrache so misunderstood a public-private partnership between the University of Maine, Great Works Internet, and two private investors to improve the Internet “backbone” in Maine should be of grave concern to her constituents. Unless some campaign contributions from FairPoint and its executives make their way to Marrache’s next campaign, voters must be wondering whether the majority leader has a grip on the technology matters before her.

Indeed, the University of Maine explained the “middle mile” improvement program was not going to steal students’ lunch money, but rather dramatically improve broadband capacity for all comers — something FairPoint couldn’t be bothered with while breaking promises to expand broadband service themselves.

Jeff Letourneau, associate director of information technology at UMS, told the Bangor Daily News, “as for tuition subsidizing our broadband efforts, that does not happen and will not happen.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

WABI-TV in Bangor reported on the announced funding of broadband projects in Maine designed to improve rural broadband service statewide (12-17-2009 — 2 minutes)

Ironically, the network that will be built with the help of the broadband stimulus program will be open to any and all providers, including FairPoint, on a wholesale cost basis. But of course FairPoint would not own and control it, so it’s bad for them, and they’re trying to convince Maine lawmakers it’s bad for Maine residents as well.

Great Works Internet has had a running dispute with FairPoint

But then, FairPoint has had a vendetta of sorts against Great Works Internet for months, trying to overcharge the independent ISP for connectivity it obtained under provisions established in the Communications Act of 1996.

Also running interference for FairPoint is Rep. Stacey Fitts, R-Pittsfield, who serves on the Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee. His bill prevents any “undue” competition by UMS with existing broadband providers. In other words, he has written the FairPoint Entrenched Provider of Mediocre Broadband Protection Act. Fitts said he has concerns that the university’s efforts could have unintended consequences on private companies (read that FairPoint) that “already provide access.” It will have directly intended consequences on GWI by further disadvantaging them and potentially sinking their efforts to provide better service in Maine.

“If the university is able to bypass some of the competitive markets, and cherry pick, it could affect the ability to deliver broadband to others,” he said.

Exactly how it affects the ability of FairPoint to deliver what it has failed to demonstrate it is capable of delivering is a question Fitts doesn’t answer.

Fitts

“I know this will cause a lot of discussion in committee,” he told the newspaper. “But we need to have that discussion.”

Maine Public Radio covered the introduction of Rep. Fitts’ bill, and the debate swirling around it. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Constituents need to have a discussion with him. Unless he wants to be known as the representative from FairPoint, he might want to get out of the way of a project that has a chance of improving broadband in his state, as opposed to the empty promises from a bankrupt provider. If he wants to tie himself to FairPoint’s record of failure, voters can choose someone else to represent them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Those with a need for high speed broadband have tried, and failed, to obtain better service from FairPoint. As Stop the Cap! has reported in exhaustive detail, FairPoint was preoccupied in delivering third world phone service at the time, finally collapsing on the courthouse steps under the weight of its bankruptcy filing.

Bills like these in Maine are further evidence that Congress needs to act on the federal level to pass the Community Broadband Act, which would overturn these kinds of bought-and-paid-for protectionist bills passed in several states. Communities must have the right to bypass companies in the broadband shortage business.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WLBZ-TV in Bangor showed what broadband brings to Maine’s health care system and other business.  (3 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

MaineBiz Sunday spent nearly an hour going in-depth into broadband challenges in Maine, the problems with FairPoint Communications, the dispute with GWI, and more.  Appearing on the show, which originally aired last November: Fletcher Kittredge CEO of GWI, Phil Lindley of the ConnectMaine Authority, Steve Hand of Know Technology and Rep. Cynthia Dill of District 121 in Cape Elizabeth. (36 minutes)

Coming up…

Comcast Is Allergic to the Word “Free” Except When They Are the Recipient

Share/Save

Hawaii’s landline telephone company, Hawaiian Telcom (HawTel), is awaiting approval from the state’s Public Utility Commission for its $460 million, stand-alone reorganization plan. The company, launched in 2005 from assets acquired from Verizon Hawaii, Inc., by the politically connected global private equity investment firm The Carlyle Group, lasted less than four years before declaring bankruptcy.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KITV-TV in Honolulu introduced Hawaii to Hawaiian Telcom in this report from May 3, 2005 (1 minute)

The downfall of Hawaii’s dominant landline provider, despite decades of stable service from its progenitors — GTE/Hawaiian Telephone Company and Mutual Telephone came as no surprise to telecommunications analysts and consumer advocates who saw trouble right from the start.  The Carlyle Group and Verizon structured a deal that loaded $1.2 billion in debt onto Hawaiian Telcom’s balance sheet.  Critics of the deal weren’t impressed by the fact Carlyle had no experience running a telephone company either, and was likely to dump the company after “dressing up the pig” to inflate the company’s value and walk away with big profits from the sale, as one analyst predicted.

Long time Stop the Cap! readers know how this works only too well.  Anyone who followed the exhaustive coverage of the downfall of FairPoint Communications this past year will see plenty of familiar warning signs — piling enormous debt on the buyer, lots of promises made and broken, and plenty of billing and customer service problems that cause customers to flee to other providers.  By 2008, 21 percent of the company’s 700,000 customers did just that.  Remarkably, the only people who suffered from the failing business plan Hawaiian Telcom subjected on the islands were customers, lower-level employees, and company vendors.  The top management that made all of the bad decisions were insulated from the impact with fat bonuses, even as other employees were terminated.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here come the all-too-familiar billing problems.  KITV reported 9,000 HawTel customers were overbilled in this report from June 9, 2006 (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

A year later, still more billing problems from HawTel, this time impacting more than 10,000 customers who can never sure what their monthly bill will look like.  (March 21, 2007 – 2 minutes)

It’s all a word to the wise as Frontier Communications journeys down the same road FairPoint and Hawaiian Telcom have already paved.

On the business side, Hawaiian Telcom’s future foreshadowed its post-mortem if only based on the players who far too often have been rewarded for failure:

The Carlyle Group: Attacked by incumbent competitors in Hawaii when it sought to purchase Verizon’s assets in the state.  Both Time Warner Telecom and Pacific LightNet warned Carlyle had little, if any experience running a telecommunications business, was going to mine the company for profits for its investors from rate increases, slash costs by reducing investment in their network and firing employees, and then try and resell the business at a profit just a few years later.

BearingPoint: Hired by Hawaiian Telcom to manage billing post-Verizon, the troubled firm managed to botch thousands of customer bills, double-charging them, crediting their accounts only to rebill them months later, and other irregularities.  In the end, BearingPoint had to pay $52 million to Hawaiian Telcom and drop an additional $30 million in outstanding invoices.  Like birds of a feather, BearingPoint itself collapsed in bankruptcy in 2009.

Ruley

Michael Ruley: Hawaiian Telcom’s CEO from October 2004 through February 2008, Ruley oversaw HawTel operations during the post-transition customer service nightmares.  During his last quarter at the company, HawTel lost $29.5 million, and his prescription was a massive cost-cutting program that accelerated company layoffs that began in 2007, resulting in the dismissal of more than 100 employees, 50 of which were cut during his last full month at the company.

Stephen F. Cooper: A so-called “turnaround expert,” Cooper was hired as a ” permanent interim” CEO on February 4, 2008.  His previous “success stories” included succeeding Kenneth Lay at the infamous Enron, and a stint as CEO of Krispy Kreme, which then promptly collapsed as a success story, with store closings and bankruptcies among its franchisees.  His “permanent interim” position as CEO of HawTel ended after three months. “In my view, Hawaiian Telcom is financially stable and has ample liquidity available,” Cooper said less than a year before the company went bankrupt.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KITV has three reports telling viewers HawTel has filed for bankruptcy, the first time in Hawaii’s history a major utility has sought bankruptcy protection.  (12/1 – 12/3 – 2008 – 7 minutes)

Bankruptcy As a Business Tool

The sale of Verizon Hawaii’s assets to Carlyle and its creature HawTel likely doomed the company from the start.  Saddled with massive debt from the $1.6 billion dollar sale in May 2005, HawTel had to manage its 700,000 customers, protect its flank from increasing wireless competition from Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, and constant customer poaching by Oceanic Cable.  The cable operator offered “digital phone” service at prices lower than HawTel charged and broadband service far faster than the “up to 7Mbps” DSL service the phone company provided.

As customers continues to leave, the company’s bond values lost 65 percent of their value by the start of 2008.

The Wall Street Journal itself began to notice (subscription required) these telecommunications deals had enormous implications for consumers, particularly for those who depend on landline service:

Because major phone companies are reducing their exposure to the shrinking landline phone business, phone services in a growing number of U.S. states are being taken over by private-equity firms like Carlyle or by tiny telecom companies.

Verizon, for instance, has agreed to spin off its landline business in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire to a small phone company, FairPoint Communications Inc. Alltel Corp., which services the Midwest, was recently taken private by private-equity firms TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners.

Many of these deals are raising concern among local regulators and consumer advocates, who are worried about the telecom savvy of the new buyers. “Why would a company one-10th the size and not nearly as deep of pockets as Verizon be able to make a success where Verizon hasn’t,” asks Rand Wilson, a spokesman for Verizon’s unionized workers, speaking of the Verizon-FairPoint deal, which is expected to close next week. A FairPoint spokeswoman says the company has plenty of experience taking over landlines in less dense regions of the U.S. and plans to offer new technologies and services to New England customers.

Yeaman

By December 2008, it was time to get HawTel’s lawyers in Delaware to walk into Bankruptcy Court.  At the time of the filing, the company said it had about $1 billion in debt, which includes $574.6 million in bank loans as well as about $500 million in bonds.

The company sought bankruptcy to reduce the debt load, and in a remarkable concession, HawTel president and CEO Eric Yeaman spoke prophetic words not heard when the original deal was on the table:

“Our lenders all recognize that this business can’t support its debt load,” Yeaman said. “But they’re still figuring out what the magic number is. Whatever it is, it will affect different parties, especially investors who won’t get their initial investment back. That’s why it’s important that we increase in value going forward.”

In the nine months ending in September 2008, Hawaiian Telcom paid $68.2 million in interest to lenders, on top of a $35.7 million operating loss. The company has lost $425 million since it began operations in 2005.

Click here to view the embedded video.

KHON-TV Honolulu covers the bankruptcy proceedings in this report from November 9, 2009. (1 minute)

BonusGate

Adding insult to injury, Hawaiian Telcom may have been bankrupt, but senior management were assured of being kept whole.  KITV-TV in Honolulu reported that three days before the company filed for bankruptcy, Hawaiian Telcom’s board of directors approved a financial incentive plan for 20 of its top executives for up to $2.3 million in retention bonuses and other benefits.  The executives were eligible for amounts ranging from $57,000 to $2.3 million, if the company met certain earning and revenue targets.

Regular employees were eligible to use a secluded back door to exit the company after being notified they were being laid off to “reduce costs.”

Just three months after declaring bankruptcy, HawTel officials were back asking for approval for even bigger bonuses.

Gov. Linda Lingle was outraged to learn HawTel was planning on paying bonuses to employees despite being mired in bankruptcy.

In a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Hawaiian Telcom said it was seeking authorization to pay 1,418 employees a total of $6 million, a reduction of 24 percent from their original proposal to pay $7.9 million. Understanding how bad it would look for a president and CEO overseeing a company into financial failure, Yeaman gave up his $609,000 bonus and elected not to participate in the special compensation program.  Six of the company’s senior vice presidents were less generous, agreeing only to defer half of their scheduled bonuses.

Hawaii’s governor was outraged.

“The decision by Hawaiian Telcom to ask the bankruptcy court to approve $6 million in bonuses for its employees is unconscionable, and we will oppose it in court,” Gov. Linda Lingle said on March 19th. “Hawaiian Telcom is the critical communications backbone for our state, and its action to pay millions in bonuses puts the company in a precarious position that jeopardizes its long-term viability, as well as threatens Hawaii’s economic recovery.”

Bankruptcy can be a profitable business for more than just bonus recipients.

Fees billed by companies working on the bankruptcy reorganization also angered creditors and the U.S. trustee appointed to oversee the company’s restructuring:

• Lazard Freres & Co. was being paid $2,527.38 per hour for its work in Hawaiian Telcom Communications Inc.’s bankruptcy case.  The company billed for 237.4 hours of work between April 1 and June 30 totaling an astonishing $600,000, an amount Acting U.S. Trustee Tiffany Carroll said was way out of line.  “Simply put, the amount of time Lazard is devoting to this case is not commensurate with its interim compensation,” she wrote in papers filed with the Honolulu bankruptcy court.
• The Carlyle Group, despite its losses from piling on debt from the Verizon sale did manage a legislative win when it lobbied for and got passage of a nice deregulation package in the form of SB603, a state bill providing a deregulatory advantage to Hawaiian Telcom, now able to charge higher prices for competitors that connect with HawTel’s network to complete calls to customers.  Better yet, SB603 provides for no oversight or justification for the rates HawTel chooses to charge.  Hawaii’s legislature bowed to the lobbyists to deregulate a company that lost more than $1 billion dollars in bankruptcy.
• Ernst & Young, LLP, a financial advisor hired by Hawaiian Telcom to advise on tax matters, would receive payment for services without as much scrutiny from the bankruptcy court, owing to HawTel’s lawyers seeking to have E&Y’s fees be subject to review only under the “improvident” standard, which would make it much harder to protest unreasonable fees.

The more money paid out to consultants, lawyers, secured creditors, and other advisors, the less money remains available to pay unsecured creditors — mostly suppliers and smaller companies hired as subcontractors to do the work HawTel farmed out.

What The Future Holds for HawTel & Customers

As the company works its way towards an exit to bankruptcy, it’s betting the company’s survival on Next Generation Television (NGTV), an “IPTV” service that delivers Internet, television, and phone service over a broadband network.  HawTel seeks to construct a faster broadband network using a fiber-optic based backbone network and integrate it with the ordinary phone lines that string through neighborhoods across the islands.  Similar to AT&T’s U-verse system, by reducing the length of copper wiring, HawTel can boost broadband speeds to at least 25Mbps, the bare minimum required to deliver a “triple play” package of phone, Internet, and cable-TV service to Hawaiians.  Relying on less than that can seriously degrade parts of the package if customers try to use them all at once (try making a phone call, download a file, and watch two different channels at the same time on a network with reduced bandwidth.)

HawTel realizes without being able to sell all three services to consumers, they have little hope of surviving in a state where consumers are dropping landline phone service in favor of Oceanic Cable’s own “triple play” service, or relying on one of the cell phone providers serving Hawaii.

Of course, such an undertaking will require millions of dollars of investment, something The Carlyle Group may not exactly be enthusiastic to provide.  Company observers suspect HawTel will instead come hat in hand to Washington looking for broadband stimulus funding so the company need not invest as much of its own money.

Why This Is Important To Millions of Potential New Frontier Communications Customers

Detailing the history of broken promises, bad customer service, billing problems, and the impact of more than a billion dollars of crushing debt, all hallmarks of two previous deals with Verizon — one with HawTel, the other with FairPoint Communications — illustrates just how risky the latest Verizon-Frontier deal could be to customers, suppliers, employees, and other creditors.  HawTel’s debt hampered the company’s potential and kept it from providing the kind of enhanced services it speaks of today.  What was once $1.1 billion in debt has been dramatically reduced by a Bankruptcy Court judge to just $300 million.  The better-looking balance sheet frees the company to invest in the services it will be required to provide to protect it from future obsolescence.

Why state utility commissions are willing to risk rolling the dice on another risky deal, and one that is largely tax-free thanks to loopholes in the law, is a question that must be asked.  Consumers, small businesses, and individual employees pay the price for the wrong decisions others make, all while those handful of executives who run the show have built-in insulation from the impact, earning bonuses and benefits that come regardless of their performance or lack thereof.

Share/Save

Phillip "Doesn't Worship Wall Street" Dampier

Bray Cary, president and CEO of a group of West Virginia television stations enjoying advertising revenue from Frontier Communications, was back on his Decision Makers program to allow an opposing viewpoint to the puff piece interview he held earlier with Frontier’s Ken Arndt, Frontier’s Southeast region chief.  This time, he invited Ron Collins, vice-president of the Communications Workers of America to give the CWA side.  Cary’s Tea-’N-Cookies Breakfast Club With Ken this was not.  Cary decided to play hardball with Collins, leaving no viewer in doubt where Cary stood on the question of Frontier’s proposed purchase of West Virginia’s phone lines from Verizon.

Unfortunately, Collins was not completely prepared to rebut Cary’s pro-Wall Street, pro-deal propaganda and looked ill at ease at times during the interview.  We’re not, and Cary’s “facts” deserve some investigation.  After all, how hard should it be to rebut a guy who believes Wall Street and the banks have all the right answers for West Virginians’ phone service?

• Watch part one of the interview.
• Watch part two of the interview.
• Part three was not available on the website due to a technical fault.
• Watch part four of the interview.

Right from the outset, Cary wants to play “devil’s advocate” with Collins, asking why in the world the CWA is opposed to this deal.  That was a major departure from his cheerleading session with Arndt.

Bray Cary, Host of Decision Makers

“I’ve looked at this [...] their stock has been extremely stable.  Wall Street appears to be signaling their financial viability is okay.  Why is the stock market not reacting negatively?  If it’s good for stockholders, how can it be bad for their financial stability.  Stockholders want financial stability,” Cary said in a series of statements about the deal, including mentioning a Moody’s report on the deal.

The Moody’s report Cary talks about is for shareholders who will reap the rewards or suffer the losses based on the success or failure of the deal.  Moody doesn’t rate the deal’s impact on consumers who have to live with the results.  What’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily what’s best for customers.

“What you don’t have is anyone in the financial community suggesting this is a bad financial deal,” Cary said December 13th.

Wrong.  Almost a week earlier, on December 7th, D.A. Davidson, a respected Wall Street analyst said the opposite.  In a story published in Barron’s: “Frontier Communications’ Shares Not Wired for Success,” the analyst firm argued the regional telecom’s acquisition of Verizon’s rural lines will be… wait for it… bad for the stock.

Cary’s claim that Wall Street is concerned with the long term viability of companies belies the growing reality that much of the investment culture in America has a long term obsession with short term results.  Your company is only as good as your last quarter’s financial earnings statement, and several bad ones in a row are usually enough to bring a recommendation to dump shares.  Frontier has kept its stock value stable largely as a result of their steady dividend payment.  Collins claims Frontier has gone beyond reason, paying 125% of earnings in dividends.  That may make the stock a popular choice for income investors, but is also eerily familiar.

FairPoint Communications also enjoyed a healthy stock price because of its high dividend payout.  Wall Street only got concerned when they thought that deal might not go through.  Morgan Stanley issued a report in 2007 suggesting the deal between FairPoint and Verizon to take control of landline customers in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, was itself helping to prop up the stock’s value.  We saw how far that got FairPoint when the company declared bankruptcy a few months ago.

Ron Collins, CWA's vice president

Indeed, smaller independent phone companies commonly use high dividends to remain attractive to investors and stay viable in a tough market.  Windstream is another such company and even CNBC’s Jim Cramer gave due diligence to the fact high dividends and stock value by themselves don’t necessarily predict the company’s long term success or failure.

Make no mistake, Frontier has sold this deal to investors based on dividend payouts, claimed cost savings, and a safe bet that any broadband in rural America will earn them increased revenue, especially where consumers have no other place to go for service.

Frontier will take on massive additional debt to finance the deal, but on paper it actually appears to reduce their debt ratio.  That’s because when you add millions of new customers, the debt doesn’t look so big next to the increased revenue those additional customers will bring, assuming they stay with Frontier.  Should Frontier’s performance underwhelm customers, they’ll drop service if they can.  If mobile phone networks do a better job of reaching these rural customers, many will drop landline service anyway.  When wireless broadband service becomes a more realistic option, customers might toss Frontier’s slow speed DSL overboard.

AT&T and Verizon have read the writing on the wall — an ongoing decline in landline service and the eventual death of the kind of service Frontier is providing its customers on its legacy network.  Would you be better off with a company that recognizes the truth about the future of wired basic phone service, or the one that wants to buy up obsolete networks and hang on until the last customer leaves?

Cary’s concern starts and stops with shareholder value, not the individual long term needs of consumers across West Virginia.

“All of the bankers and all of Wall Street are saying financially this is a good deal financially for Frontier,” Cary argued.

“Good for Wall Street, bad for West Virginia,” Collins replied.

“Well, see I disagree… that has been a myth put out there, and the reason we don’t have any jobs in this state is companies don’t want to come here just because of that mentality.  People need to make money.  You look at where companies are flourishing, the workers flourish when they do,” Cary said.

Really.  Then why are several of these telecommunications companies awash in revenue also continuing to reduce their workforce in their relentless effort to obtain “cost savings.”  Someone is making money, just not the average employee.  Every state has pro-business acolytes claiming businesses don’t want to come to their state because of regulation and a hostile business climate, even those with the fewest regulations, lowest taxes, and little protection for employees and consumers.

Cary does make one valid point: Verizon wants out of West Virginia and refuses to invest a dime in the state as it looks for a quick exit.  Instead the company has diverted resources from serving smaller states’ phone service needs into its larger city FiOS fiber to the home system where it believes it can reap more revenue.  Whether that disinvestment should be permitted in the first place is a question that needs to be asked.

Verizon is a regulated utility that is required to meet certain performance standards, and the company’s long history of operations under that framework, under which it profited handsomely, does require consideration.  But the state can also provide additional incentives to make it more attractive for Verizon to commit more resources in the state, ranging from tax credits, public-private investment, rewards for performance and service improvements, etc.  It can also find someone else to provide the service, or let local communities band together into cooperatives to run their own networks, should customers find that could deliver better service.

At the very minimum, Frontier should he held to strict conditions that require a fiscally responsible transaction for ratepayers, not just for shareholders and management.  Verizon’s workforce, already cut to the bone, should not bear the brunt of “cost savings” either, both now and into the future.  If Frontier wants to deliver broadband, they should commit to offering 21st century speed (not the 1-3Mbps service typical for their smaller service areas) without their draconian 5GB usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy.

Cary doesn’t concern himself with those kinds of details, but consumers and small businesses in his state sure do.

Cary wants more jobs and more earnings for West Virginia.  In the changing digital economy, high speed broadband isn’t an option — it’s a necessity.  Verizon has a proven track record of being able to provide 21st century broadband — Frontier does not (sorry, 1-3Mbps DSL is more 1999, not 2010).

Cary makes an astonishing statement in the third segment of the interview which makes me question his ability to grasp the reality-based community most Americans live in today.

“I have great faith in the banking system in America, in Wall Street, to evaluate these things.”

That stunned Collins, who asked, “even after the 2008 crash?”

Cary seems to think “everything is back to normal.”  Unfortunately, after the bailouts and big lobbying dollars being spent in Washington to preserve the status quo as much as possible, everything is back to normal… for Wall Street and the banks.  The rest of the country, including West Virginia, is another matter.

FairPoint's Stock Price from 2007, when it announced the deal with Verizon, to late 2009 when the company declared bankruptcy. By late 2008/early 2009, what seemed like a great deal for investors was apparently not, as the panicked rushed for the exits.

I’ll put my trust in the wisdom of West Virginians who want good service and reasonable prices.  If Cary wants to read from the Good Book of the “paragons of virtue” like AIG, Bear-Stearns and Goldman Sachs, let him sell his TV stations to help finance the bailouts.  Remember that when we went through this before with Hawaii Telecom and FairPoint Communications, the cheerleading session on Wall Street lasted only as long as the quarterly balance sheets looked good.  At the first sign of trouble, they bailed on the stock and both companies ended up in bankruptcy.

For them, it represented just another roll of the dice in the giant financial casino we call Wall Street.

For the rural residents of states like West Virginia who ultimately have to live with the results, this is their phone and broadband service we are talking about.  Before all bets are placed and the dice are thrown, isn’t it worth considering them?

Share/Save

Frontier customers are advised to recycle their directories after November, but the new books won't arrive until March.

The dead tree format telephone directory lives on, dropped on the front doors of millions of Americans each year, often whether they want them or not.  The ubiquitous “phone book” has been with us for 100 years, and continues to be the source of controversy, anger, and irritation for those who advertise in it, want either to be listed or unlisted from it, or simply want to stop killing trees to print it.

Now two phone companies have riled up their customers over the books — Frontier Communications for changing the printing schedule of the Yellow Pages, forcing businesses trying to economize to continue to pay for advertising they no longer want, and FairPoint Communications for omitting a large number of customers from their 2010 White Pages.

Coincidentally, the controversies impact two communities sharing the same name – Rochester, New York and Rochester, New Hampshire.

Even though this coupon expires in December 2009, Agatina's Restaurant will still be paying for their advertising until March, 2010.

In Frontier’s largest service area in western New York, businesses are confronting the fact they’ll be forced to pay up to four additional months for Yellow Pages advertising, including for coupons that expire in December.  That’s because Frontier has decided to change the publishing schedule for telephone directories from the traditional month of November, in place in Rochester for decades, to next March.  Residential customers may also accidentally discard their phone books, which indicate they should be recycled in November, assuming new directories are on the way.

The change impacts existing businesses who want to reduce or stop their Yellow Pages ads, as well as new area businesses that will have to wait until spring before their listings appear in the printed directories.

Although many customers now look up telephone numbers online and don’t use the White Pages print edition, many consumers still rely on the Yellow Pages to size up businesses, look for coupons, or learn more about businesses from their advertising.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WHEC-TV Rochester’s I-Team 10 reporter visits with the owner of Agatina’s Restaurant, who is upset to discover he’s going to be paying for his Yellow Pages ad longer than he thought. (2 minutes)

In southern New Hampshire, scores of customers receiving new directories from FairPoint are discovering they are not in the book, or have outdated addresses listed, some nearly 19 years old.

The New Hampshire Union-Leader covered the story Wednesday:

“Basically, they left a lot of our numbers out of the phone book,” said Rochester City Manager John Scruton.

“My main concern is we want to provide good service to the city of Rochester, and it is difficult for people if they cannot find key phone numbers using the phone book,” he said.

“Hopefully, they’ll correct it in the next generation of books, but that’s not going to help people who have trouble finding them right now,” he said.

Plaistow Town Clerk Maryellen Pelletier said, “We didn’t even get the right directory.” After years of getting the Haverhill, Mass., directory, the town suddenly was delivered the Manchester-Derry book.

In that same book, Union Leader-New Hampshire Sunday News, a reference to the company that publishes the statewide newspaper and this web site, is listed twice in succession, once with its current address, once with an address it left 19 years ago.

Ironically, FairPoint’s phone books are printed by another Verizon castoff that declared bankruptcy earlier this year: Idearc.

Customers are outraged by the latest FairPoint foul-up.

Jim in Hillsboro: “Other than hoodwinking the Public Utilities Commission, name me one thing FairPoint has done right. Anybody?”

Mo in Plymouth: “Is this strike three and out of business? I hope so. Maybe we can get some company who will at least tell us the truth.”

Doris in Manchester: “Good ole FairPoint. What else would you expect from this fine outstanding company? I have never seen such a screw-up company as FairPoint.”

Frank in Bedford: “Waste of paper = phone book. When everyone has a computer there should be no more phone books allowed. Speaking of being allowed, FairPoint is another thing that shouldn’t be allowed to screw up anymore in New Hampshire. Give them the boot.”

DL in Nottingham: “In Nottingham, we keep getting new phone books every week for all different sections of the state. They just keep showing up.”

Chris in Bow: “Let’s all hope FairPoint managed to print the correct home telephone numbers for members of the Public Utilities Commission.”

Bren in Manchester: “Three months running now my home phone has been disconnected for “non-payment.” Three times I’ve called, spent my lunch hour giving the date that my payment was processed, waited while they figured out where it was misapplied and then had to wait several hours for the service to be reinstated. Then the insult of a phone book that isn’t going to be used, delivered into a rain puddle – the result is a wasted tree.”

Share/Save

FairPoint Communications’ performance in New England, finally leading to bankruptcy, harms not only itself but also smaller local Internet companies providing jobs and service across the region.  That’s the gist of a report in this morning’s Kennebec Journal outlining a dispute between FairPoint and Great Works Internet, a Biddeford, Maine Internet Service Provider caught between FairPoint’s fiber optic network and a billing dispute that demands GWI pay more than $3 million dollars by December 19th, or face service termination by FairPoint.

GWI leased fiber optic cables with FairPoint’s predecessor Verizon back in 2005.  As part of the Communications Act of 1996, designed to spur competition, GWI obtained access at special interconnection rates, lower than the prices charged for retail customers.  Verizon felt the price was too low, and went to court in 2005 to seek the right to charge “market rates” for access, but the issue was never settled before Verizon sold its landline network to FairPoint last year.  In March of this year, FairPoint stopped accepting new orders from GWI for fiber service, which has kept the company from growing beyond its current fiber network agreements, costing the company plenty in new business.  Then, in September, FairPoint back-billed GWI for $3,085,025, representing the price FairPoint felt GWI should have been paying since 2006.  If the Maine-owned ISP doesn’t pay up, it has been threatened with having its service cut off altogether.

Fletcher Kittredge, GWI’s founder and chief executive officer, has been around the ISP business a long time.  The company was founded in 1994, before Internet access became common, and he has grown the company into a locally owned business serving 18,000 customers with phone and Internet connections.  At risk are the loss of up to 75 local jobs and a significant part of $13 million in annual revenues earned by what the Journal calls one of Maine’s leading Internet providers.

“For us, it’s vital that this be settled soon,” Kittredge told the newspaper. “FairPoint has been threatening us with some pretty draconian action.”

FairPoint’s threat has already cost the company customers, Kittredge said, and the uncertainty makes it hard to go after new business accounts.

But growth has been trimmed by FairPoint’s actions, according to Kittredge. For instance: The company signed a contract with the Skowhegan school system for high-speed access and set up equipment. But the connections it needed from FairPoint were never made, Kittredge said, and he had to cancel the school contract. That has had a chilling effect on efforts to go after new accounts.

“We can’t go out and solicit new businesses,” he said. “We can’t say, ‘This is going to be great, but we may not be able to deliver it to you.’ ”

Great Works hasn’t wanted to make a big deal in public of its fight with FairPoint. It’s concerned that the news will cause existing customers to worry that they could lose their Internet connections.

“It’s a threat I’m going to watch,” said Mitch Davis, chief information officer at Bowdoin College in Brunswick.

Bowdoin gets phone service from FairPoint, but most of its Internet access is from Great Works. Davis was aware of the initial court dispute, but didn’t realize FairPoint was threatening to cut line access. He hopes the bankruptcy judge will let the case go forward and get settled.

GWI told the Journal the company may just be trying to steal Great Works’ lucrative business customers.  That might come to pass if the circuits are cut.  Despite Davis believing FairPoint probably wouldn’t make good on their threat because of the bad publicity it would generate, he admits if they do, he might be forced to transfer the college account to FairPoint.

“I would do what I need to do to keep the college running,” Davis said.

One Journal reader characterized the dispute as just one more consequence of approving FairPoint Communications’ takeover of Verizon service in Maine.

“I would like to thank the governor of Maine for letting such a strong stable company like FairPoint in this state. You really did your homework.  I thought we had a Public Utilities Commission that watched out for public interest.  Boy are they on the ball.  I am glad to see [...] they are not running my business.”

Share/Save

Bray Cary, Host of Decision Makers

A network of West Virginia television stations spent 20 minutes this past Sunday airing a puff piece that could have been a video press release straight out of Frontier’s public relations department.  Decision Makers, a self-described “agenda setting” public affairs program ostensibly puts important people on the “hot seat” to answer “tough questions about where West Virginia is heading and how it will get there.”

Hardball this was not. Host Bray Cary, who also happens to serve as president and CEO of the television station group, presided over a one-sided softball tournament for Ken Arndt, Frontier’s new Southeast region chief in a 20 minute interview where the hardest question was likely posed off camera – ‘where would you like to do lunch?’

Decision Makers is seen across West Virginia on Cary’s statewide network of television stations — WOWK in Charleston-Huntington, WBOY in Clarksburg-Morgantown, WTRF in Wheeling and WVNS in Beckley-Bluefield.

The appearance of Arndt on the program comes the same week Frontier reportedly committed to purchasing significant advertising time on the stations, leading a Stop the Cap! reader who informed us about the program to ponder whether this Fluff-Fest was part of the ad deal.

Viewers on the public comment section for the show were unimpressed.

“I can’t believe Mr. Cary didn’t ask the Frontier guy any hard questions. It was like a 20 minute commercial for Frontier, is that what you get for buying advertising with the station,” asked one.  “I believe that we would all like to hear and understand Frontier’s direct response to challenging questions from an involved, and knowledgeable speaker. We need to hear more then a branding speech,” said another.

The interview was loaded with misleading and occasionally false statements, often coming from the program host, who served as presiding cheerleader.  You can watch the program’s two segments, and then take a look at our reality check (and if an all-consumer volunteer website can manage this, why can’t Mr. Cary?)

• Watch Decision Makers Part 1
• Watch Decision Makers Part 2
  

Now that you’ve watched, let’s review the misleading statements, some made by Arndt, some by the host:

“You guys are serving 35% of West Virginia – that’s a third of the phones.”

Frontier may serve 35% of the landmass of West Virginia, but not 35% of the population, which is a very important distinction.  Verizon has the overwhelming majority of customers in the state, not the tw0-thirds this statement suggests.

“I guess the only guys fighting you all right now are the Communications Workers of America union workers.”

Ken Arndt - Frontier Communications

That, along with other dismissive comments made by Cary represent just how biased his interview was.  In many communities, citizens, businesses, utility commission staff, and yes – company workers are fighting this deal, because it’s bad news for every community facing a Frontier takeover.  Of course, Cary doesn’t have anyone on his program to refute his guest (or him for that matter.)

“From a timelime perspective, and we’re actually finishing our [broadband expansion] engineering plan right now — by December 15th, my expectation is within the first 18 months we will make a substantial increase raising that 60% (of Verizon broadband penetration) exponentially and making a large investment and bringing in the individuals — the engineering and construction talent to be able to get it done as quickly as possible.”

Frontier anticipates cutting $500 million in costs per year if the deal consummates, according to Bloomberg News. Job cuts at both Frontier and Verizon will create some of that savings, according to Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier’s CEO.  Customer service and field-technician jobs won’t be eliminated, she claims, but with a need for that level of cost savings, combined with the enormous debt Frontier will assume, where the resources to accomplish this expansion will come from is not explained.

Frontier’s broadband expansion targets so-called “middle-mile” expansion.  That was precisely what was done in Rochester.  Fiber optics are used to connect various central offices and some remote network extenders (known as DSLAMs) to try and extend DSL service into more distant areas further away from the central office.  DSL speed is highly dependent on distance.  The further away you get, the lower the speed you can obtain.  Frontier plans to install limited amounts of fiber linking their offices in hopes of providing DSL service in areas that do not have access to it currently.  Unfortunately, every indication is that Frontier’s DSL in most parts of West Virginia will provide a maximum of 3Mbps, if you’re lucky.  In communities like Rochester, DSL service is marketed at 10Mbps, but as I’ve experienced myself, that speed really turned out to be 3.1Mbps living less than one-half mile from the city line.

To many consumers, hearing talk about fiber optics may leave the impression they’ll have this type of connection in their home or business.  That’s highly unlikely.  Frontier fiber serves their own internal network.  Verizon FiOS serves you directly on a fiber optic cable.

‘In West Virginia in 2007 Frontier lost 2.7% of our access lines.  In Verizon’s footprint they lost 6.7%.  In 2008, Frontier’s lost just 2% while Verizon increased [their loss] to over 8%.  Frontier has put together unique packages that continually add value to landlines.  It’s through [Frontier's] packaging, providing unique services and unique technologies [that the company limits losses].’

Frontier is in the enviable position of focusing on rural markets long bypassed by the phone company’s biggest threats: cable and wireless competition.  Verizon is not.  The real reason for the dramatic difference in line loss is that Frontier customers often have no other choices for telecommunications services.  In West Virginia, cable does not serve many rural communities, so there is no “digital phone” competition to worry about.  Mobile phones in the most mountainous regions of the state can offer problematic service if it’s the only phone you have.  Verizon, which does face relentless cable television competition, pays the price in greater line loss.  Rural West Virginia has a much higher population of elderly residents, who are usually the least likely to drop traditional phone service.  In fact, no state has a higher population of the rural elderly except Florida.

These factors afford Frontier more protection from line loss, not the so-called “unique services and unique technologies” the company only speaks about generally.

Arndt also responds to a question about Frontier’s plans for fiber and other forms of “telco-TV” such as that provided by Verizon FiOS.  After noting the company does plan to move forward on an extremely limited basis by finishing FiOS projects already under construction, Arndt signals Frontier believes its status as a simple reseller of DISH satellite service somehow provides a superior solution to telephone company provided television.

Not really.

Who needs Frontier to sign up for DISH?  Customers can sign up directly themselves.  The advantage of “telco TV” really comes from the construction of the network to support it.  Both AT&T and Verizon have built television-ready networks which not only compete with cable, but also give their customers more and better broadband choices that Frontier cannot and will not offer consumers.  Frontier tries to valiantly spin its copper cable future by saying satellite television offers a better service, but in reality, being a DISH Network reseller hardly is in the same class as FiOS or U-verse.

Residents in the affected areas need to consider whether they are tying themselves to a company that believes copper wire slow speed DSL is good enough for now and into the indefinite future, has no plans to directly compete with cable and other providers in delivering a wired telephone company cable service, will not build FiOS-like fiber optic networks in areas that one day could have been wired by Verizon, and will live with a company content with delivering “ubiquity” of service across all of its service areas, which in reality means large communities will suffer with lowest common denominator service, and rural communities will be lucky to get “good enough for you” broadband.

Arndt’s comments about fiber connectivity in selected portions of their service area refer mostly to multi-dwelling units and new housing developments where service was provided more cost effectively through a shared fiber connection.  That’s not FiOS either.

Color us unexcited about the prospect of Frontier’s ‘unique cable television via broadband service’ Arndt hints at.  That is almost certainly the new DISH set top box that can connect to your Frontier DSL service to stream on-demand television shows.  With Frontier’s 5GB Acceptable Use Policy for broadband, don’t expect to watch too much if and when they enforce the limit.

Among the most shameful segments of the 20 minute video press release Cary presides over is in the second half, when he asks and answers his own questions, spun in Frontier’s direction, about their ability to digest Verizon’s operations that dramatically dwarf Frontier’s current size and scope.  He’s even done “his research,” which suspiciously appears to be surfing through Frontier’s own talking points from their website and public relations efforts.  As far as Cary is concerned, Wall Street says they “like” the deal, and opposition to it is “a lot of noise.”

Arndt responds that the opposition to the deal comes because of FairPoint Communications, which he says failed because of the complexities of integrating their billing systems.  As Stop the Cap! readers already know, FairPoint’s troubles went well beyond computer integration problems.  Arndt’s reasoning is akin to saying New Orleans drowned in Hurricane Katrina because a storm sewer up the street was clogged.  More than 20 news reports on this site alone document the entire sordid story.  On every level, FairPoint failed New England for a range of reasons:

1. The enormous debt FairPoint was saddled with made it difficult for the company to spend the money necessary to maintain and grow their network and survive an economic downturn.  Frontier will also take on enormous debt during a challenging economy and claims it will spend millions to expand broadband service into rural areas where fewer potential customers mean a longer Return On Investment;
2. FairPoint’s acquisition of Verizon New England involved more customers than FairPoint served nationwide before the buyout.  The exact same thing is true of Frontier in this deal;
3. FairPoint’s earlier acquisitions were small, independent phone companies run with limited bureaucracy.  Verizon, and its predecessor Bell System businesses, have done things their own way for decades, making theoretical transitions doable on paper and chaotic in reality.  The exact same scenario exists with Frontier’s purchase of Verizon service areas;
4. Poor service, unresponsive and overwhelmed customer service centers, insufficient investment, and broken promises plagued FairPoint’s New England adventure from day one.  Frontier risks repeating FairPoint’s mistakes, putting customers with no other options for telecommunications service at serious risk.

Cary doesn’t have the insight or the interest in digging down into Arndt’s claims.  Maybe he forgot.  As far as Cary is concerned, everyone in West Virginia should just get familiar with the Frontier name.

Of course, actual consumers aren’t invited on Decision Makers.  Nor are any groups opposed to the deal.  But West Virginians and others can be “decision makers” and choose a different path for their telecommunications future.  They can get on the phone and call their state representatives and tell them to oppose the deal.  They can also contact the state utility commission and file their own comments telling them this deal isn’t worth the risk — three bankruptcies out of three earlier deals.

Even when playing this kind of softball, three strikes should mean you are out.

Share/Save

Charleston, West Virginia is just one of many cities potentially served by Frontier

Frontier Communications has won approval from state utility commissions in California, South Carolina, and Nevada to take over telephone service currently provided by Verizon Communications.  The decisions were unanimous in all three votes by Commission members, and involve telephone service in several small communities in all three states.

Circles represent Verizon service areas transferred to Frontier in Nevada and California

Verizon’s castoffs serve a small percentage of customers, which made the transaction fly under the media radar in most cases.  In California, Verizon dumps customers in a small section on the northwest border with Oregon.  In Nevada, several small communities south of Reno are involved.  In South Carolina, Verizon drops scattered groups of customers in small clusters across the state.

These state regulatory approvals follow an October 27 announcement by Frontier that its shareholders have approved the transaction, which will result in Frontier owning Verizon’s wireline operations in all or parts of 14 states.

While the approval appeared pro forma in those three states, West Virginia is another matter.  Strong employee union and consumer group protests continue across the state, with many consumers concerned about the implications of Frontier controlling nearly all wired phone lines in the state.  The Communications Workers of America held a conference call with the media Wednesday to outline its opposition to the deal.

The CWA has been a vocal opponent of the deal, claiming it will risk West Virginia’s telecommunications future with a company without the financial capacity to provide the type of advanced services Verizon is providing in other states.  Kenneth Peres, an economist with the Communications Workers of America, said the deal was extremely risky for consumers, workers and the affected communities.

Peres pointed to the perfect record of three out of three failures for earlier Verizon spinoffs.  FairPoint Communications declared bankruptcy early this week after trying to take on the service needs of three New England states.

Peres told the Charleston Daily Mail that if the deal goes through, Frontier “will find it extremely difficult” to meet its $8 billion in debt obligations while simultaneously investing enough capital to maintain its physical plant, improve service quality, set up a new system in West Virginia, lease systems from Verizon in 13 other states, provide video service for the first time (in Indiana), and ensure adequate staffing “while paying out a lot more in dividends than it makes in profits.”

Frontier went on the attack Thursday, accusing the union of interfering just to grab concessions for itself.

Verizon service areas sold off to Frontier in South Carolina

Steve Crosby, Frontier spokesman, said, “They’re just throwing stuff up against the wall. They know this is a good transaction and they’re trying to extract their pound of flesh. They want more concessions. This is their opportunity to ask for more money for their union membership and more benefits. That’s what they want. Union membership across the country is declining. This is how they’re trying to extract as much as they can from either Frontier or Verizon.”

As for Frontier’s debt load, “This is actually a de-leveraging transaction,” Crosby said. “We’re taking on debt but we’re taking on a whole lot more revenue. We’re currently at a 3.8 times revenue-to-debt ratio, going down to 2.6. So we actually get better in terms of revenue to debt. And today we’re fine. We’re able to pay a nice dividend. The day the transaction closes, we are approaching investment-grade borrowings.

“Our board of directors made the decision to lower our dividend by 25 percent when the transaction closes to give us even more cash to invest in infrastructure and to give us even more financial flexibility,” Crosby said.

“Every time we have an argument we win and they bring up other stuff,” Crosby said. “They never bring up the de-leveraging because it undermines their argument. They never bring up the fact that we will reduce our dividend because it undermines their argument.

“We have said we will maintain employment levels for 18 months” after the transaction closes, Crosby said. Because of required regulatory approvals and other factors, the deal can’t close before April 2010.

“So you can figure that’s two years,” Crosby said. “Who nowadays has that kind of job security? I think we’re bending over backwards. I wish I had the pension plan, the job security the CWA has. They’re looking at extracting more from Verizon and Frontier.”

When asked by the newspaper why Frontier shareholders would approve a deal that was destined for failure, Peres told the newspaper:

Frontier’s business model is built on acquisitions. Frontier bought a portion of Global Crossing’s business which increased revenue and access lines “but that began to decline,” he said. “They bought Commonwealth Telephone but that’s flat-lining. What’s the next step? What were they going to do – improve infrastructure or go through the acquisitions route again?” Continuing with acquisitions “postpones the day of reckoning,” he said.

Commentary: Our Take

Crosby’s comments seem more suited for a talk show audience that hates unions.  Obviously the union does not think this is a good deal for West Virginia, and considering the track record of earlier Verizon deals, and the correct predictions from employee unions on their inevitable outcomes, they have every right to oppose the deal on its face.  Crosby apparently has time to address declining union membership, but not the much more relevant decline in the traditional phone company’s bread and butter business – landlines.  Frontier, like other phone companies, continues to see disconnect requests coming from coast to coast as customers dump the phone company for a cable digital phone product, Voice Over IP line, or rely on their cellphone.

West Virginia would be solidly Frontier territory if the state approves the sale

Verizon recognizes their traditional business is a dying one, which is why they are in a hurry to diversify into competitive broadband and video services over their fiber optic FiOS network.  Where it doesn’t make economic sense (under their current business plan) for Verizon to deploy FiOS, decisions are being made about whether to keep those smaller phone operations within the Verizon family, or sell them off to companies like Frontier.  What Frontier acquires today from the standpoint of customers and revenues could represent the high water mark, and without offering robust options for a digital future, Frontier will likely continue to see customer erosion.

FairPoint acquired seemingly healthy Verizon companies serving the entire states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  When their efforts to seamlessly combine Verizon’s legacy systems with FairPoint’s own systems failed, that along with an inability to properly service customers, caused a death spiral as customers dropped service, which led FairPoint straight into bankruptcy.

Frontier’s record of investment and service in western New York speaks for itself.  Time Warner Cable eats Frontier for lunch, with less expensive “digital phone” service, much faster and more reliable broadband, and a video package that Frontier doesn’t offer (reselling DISH Network is hardly the same as providing video service that doesn’t come from a third party company’s satellite dish nailed to the roof).  Frontier is ready and willing to stick with DSL service at speeds that are basically maxed out.  Time Warner Cable evidently doesn’t even consider Frontier a significant enough player to deploy upgrades in this area while they are in a hurry to provide them where Verizon FiOS is under construction.

When a company isn’t prepared to keep up with the rest of New York with fiber deployment to the home, the chances of that kind of service reaching West Virginia anytime soon are near zero.

But Frontier’s unique position as a specialist in “rural service” allows it to eke out an existence in areas where cable isn’t a big competitive threat, and where *any* broadband is better than no broadband at all, at least for now.  But without a plan for keeping up with the fast changing broadband world, customers happy with 3Mbps service today will despise the company for being stuck with those speeds later.  A lot of people in Rochester sure aren’t happy being stuck with Frontier DSL, and that nasty 5GB “reasonable use” language in the Acceptable Use Policy.

Crosby’s comments about CWA member job security, which he evidently envies, says more about the union’s commitment to its members than Frontier has to him.  Perhaps Crosby can quit his spokesman job and switch to a position that gets him CWA membership with a pension and job security.  Perhaps if the people of West Virginia say thanks, but no thanks, Frontier will be in a better economic state than it would be if this mega-deal collapses under the weight of debt and integration challenges.  Then Crosby can keep his job with the evidently lousy benefits.

Peres’ assumption that Frontier lives only through acquisitions isn’t the complete story.  Just like the myth sharks must constantly swim to survive, Frontier doesn’t constantly have to acquire to survive either.  It does have to concern itself with an ever-consolidating telephone line industry, where the smaller independent companies continue to be snapped up by a dwindling number of players.  If a Windstream or CenturyTel comes along with a great offer, Frontier itself may have a new name — Windstream or CenturyTel.

The economies of scale and cost savings are routinely cited by investors promoting consolidation.  It’s no surprise Frontier shareholders voted for the deal.  Bigger is often better for many investors, as long as the quarterly financials play to their interests.  Listening to Frontier investor conference calls, the Wall Street bankers, and the media that support them, are constantly concerned with keeping costs cut to the bone, customer defection limited, risk reasonable, and that dividend being paid.  They are satisfied with Frontier’s rural, less competitive market focus, even if the customers that end up served by them are not.

Share/Save

Barely 18 months after taking control of telephone and broadband service from Verizon Communications, FairPoint Communications collapsed under the weight of enormous debt and an economic downturn, announcing they would declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy this morning.

As Stop the Cap! reported Friday afternoon, sources told us the company had quietly notified key employees of the impending filing, which was expected as early as this weekend.  On Monday morning, the announcement of the filing was made to the media and to an unsurprised customer base of several million dissatisfied customers in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont who lived through a never-ending nightmare of bad service and broken promises from a company many believe “bit off more than they can chew.”

Today’s announcement may bring additional scrutiny to the next telecommunications deal Verizon has planned for customers in 13 states.  Frontier Communications, much like FairPoint, wants to take on the operations of a departing Verizon, who wants to disengage from smaller communities to focus on providing fiber optic telecommunications service in larger cities.  Today’s bankruptcy announcement marks three out of three failures for companies assuming control of Verizon’s discarded operations.  Hawaii Telcom declared bankruptcy last December, three years after being sold to The Carlyle Group, a politically well-connected private equity investment firm.  Idearc Media, a Verizon spinoff of the phone company’s print and online yellow pages business declared bankruptcy on March 31st, and FairPoint Communications, which took over Verizon’s northern New England phone operations made its bankruptcy known this morning.

FairPoint executives admit the downturn in the economy and much larger than anticipated conversion problems contributed to the declaration.  FairPoint has accumulated more than $2.7 billion in debt, mostly from the Verizon transaction, and faced difficulty making payments on that debt as credit markets froze and customers fled the terrible service problems that developed when the company tried to integrate 600 Verizon computer systems and software to 60 FairPoint systems on January 30th.

“Those two things contributed to FairPoint having too much debt, at the end of the day,” said David Hauser, chairman and CEO of FairPoint.

Creditors now effectively control FairPoint Communications, and they’ve agreed to forgive $1.7 billion dollars in debt and reduce the company’s interest payments to keep service operational.  Company officials are also looking for savings from cost-cutting measures.  Union officials are extremely concerned that could mean significant job losses for a company already stressed to provide service.  Although company officials characterized today’s announcement as a “non event” for FairPoint customers, many are not so sure.

“There have been a lot of promises made by FairPoint,” one customer told a Maine television station.  “Services that were promised are not being delivered,” said another.

Skepticism was rampant that today’s bankruptcy announcement would be the start of a new beginning for a restructured FairPoint.

“On the news they said that the services would go on as usual, which means crappy,” said one Maine customer in Portland.

Perhaps to underline that sentiment, FairPoint spokeswoman Jill Wurm reported FairPoint broadband’s e-mail service is out of order this evening.  Wurm said anyone with a fairpoint.net e-mail address has been without service since 6pm.  The company was unable to project an estimated time when service will be restored. It was also not known how many customers were affected.

Union leaders said they take no pleasure in the fact their predictions were all-too-accurate about the ultimate outcome of the FairPoint-Verizon deal.

“What good does it do us? We can say it, but we’re left here to deal with it,” Pete McLaughlin of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents FairPoint employees, told the Associated Press.

State regulators across all three New England states plan to keep a watchful eye on reorganization proceedings.  Special consultants and attorneys have been hired to give the states input and guidance as the restructuring commences.  For some consumers, that doesn’t provide much comfort because many of these same regulatory agencies approved the deal in the first place.

Stop the Cap! has extensive coverage of today’s developments from across all three states’ local newscasts.  We’ve also been notified representatives of utility boards now considering a similar spinoff with Frontier have also arrived here to gain our perspective on the sales deal now before them.  For that reason, we will continue covering FairPoint’s final months before today’s announcement to complete the record on FairPoint and its impact on customers, state regulators, and public safety officials.

Our coverage begins with today’s announcement, starting in Maine, where it was a lead story across the state.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WGME-TV in Portland leads their 6pm newscast this evening with the news of FairPoint’s bankruptcy and what it means for customers, some of whom remain skeptical. (5 minutes)

More video to view below ….

Click here to view the embedded video.

Residents in Vermont were hardly surprised to learn of this morning’s announcement.  Even as FairPoint stock trading was suspended, WPTZ-TV in Plattsburgh found company officials spinning today’s announcement as “good news.”  But on almost every point, FairPoint seems headed for a stormy winter ahead. (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Just over a week before today’s announcement, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers held a meeting in Concord, New Hampshire to discuss company requests for significant concessions from FairPoint’s employees.  WMUR-TV reports employees are upset they are being asked to pay for FairPoint’s mistakes. (10/18/2009 – 2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

FairPoint CEO David Hauser dismissed questions about whether, in hindsight, it was a good idea for North Carolina-based FairPoint to purchase northern New England telephone operations from Verizon.  WMUR-TV in Manchester, New Hampshire reports Hauser considers the question irrelevant.  But customers are starting to shop around looking for alternatives, joining more than 13% of customers who have already left. (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

How FairPoint will realize savings from cost-cutting concerns many who work for FairPoint Communications.  The media is asking hard questions of company officials about how FairPoint can consider cutting employees when many already consider the company “way over its head” even at current staff levels.  FairPoint’s stock continues to take a beating.  On February 26, 2008 the stock was valued at $10.35.  As of last Friday’s close, the stock was worth just $0.37 a share, as WMUR-TV reports. (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

FairPoint officials are trying to tell customers across Maine it will cut costs, live under bankruptcy reorganization for the time being, and yet still expand services throughout Maine.  WMTW-TV in Portland explores how Maine’s Public Utilities Commission will be able to hold FairPoint to those promises. (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

NECN News, which serves cable subscribers across New England, talks with FairPoint’s biggest union about the bankruptcy, and interviews a bankruptcy attorney about what changes might be coming next. (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

WCSH-TV in Portland, Maine talks with union officials who warned about the consequences of approving the FairPoint-Verizon deal in the first place, letting viewers know FairPoint is not overstaffed anywhere, and any cost cutting resulting in layoffs will be to the detriment of customers. (2 minutes)

Vermont Public Radio discusses the implications of today’s FairPoint bankruptcy. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Share/Save

Phillip Dampier resides in Frontier's largest service area: Rochester, New York

Consumers across 13 states impacted by the proposed Verizon sale to Frontier Communications, as well as existing Frontier customers, should tell regulators to reject the deal.

Those of us living and working in Rochester, New York are extremely familiar with Frontier Communications.  For more than 100 years, Rochester Telephone Corporation provided excellent, independent telephone service to Rochester and a significant part of the Genesee Valley.  The company had a reputation for excellent reliability and charged rates considerably lower than New York Telephone, a Bell subsidiary, in other upstate cities like Buffalo and Syracuse.  In 1995, Rochester Telephone was renamed Frontier Communications, because the company wanted to position itself as something more than just a phone company.

Frontier was acquired in 2001 by Citizens Communications of Stamford, Connecticut, who has provided service ever since.  Ironically, that company thought Frontier was a better name than the one they had used for decades, and Citizens renamed themselves Frontier Communications in 2008.

Today, Frontier Communications serves just under three million customers, primarily in suburban and rural communities in 24 states.

Since Citizens acquired Frontier, and its largest operating service area in metropolitan Rochester, the company has made some changes to the local telephone network.  Fiber optic connections are now common between their central offices and smaller “satellite” central offices.  A local wi-fi network was installed in association with Monroe County, in part as a political maneuver to stop municipally owned and operated affordable wi-fi networks from getting off the ground.  As a concession to the county, a much smaller “free” wi-fi network was also included. (See below the jump for video news coverage of Frontier’s promises vs. reality)

The company’s broadband service relies on ADSL technology delivered by traditional copper telephone wiring, providing service in Rochester at speeds up to a theoretical 10Mbps.  Actual speeds vary tremendously depending on the distance between your home or business and the telephone company central office serving it.  In most smaller communities, speeds are far lower.  In Cowen, West Virginia, Frontier markets broadband service at just 3Mbps, a typical speed for Frontier’s smaller service areas.

Unfortunately, Frontier has shown no initiative to move beyond offering traditional DSL service to its customers, including those in western New York.  Across other New York State cities, Verizon is taking a far different approach.  In larger communities, it is aggressively installing fiber optic wiring to both homes and businesses.  Verizon FiOS positions the company to effectively compete against their traditionally closest competitor – cable television.  For several years, cable operators have offered a better deal for its “digital phone” service, which works with existing home phones but delivered over cable TV lines, often charging less than a traditional phone line, and cable throws in free long distance on many of its plans.

The ubiquitous cell phone has not helped.  Many younger Americans can’t understand why they would want to bother getting a traditional phone line, when the mobile phone in their pocket works just fine, and they can take it with them wherever they go. The result has been a steady erosion of traditional “wireline” phone lines, and a corresponding decline in the revenue earned from the service in many areas.

The Communications Workers of America contract Verizon promises with reality for consumers impacted by earlier deals. (click to enlarge)

In September Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg told a Goldman Sachs investor conference that the wired phone line business was effectively dead.  Seidenberg recognized that trying to guess when the company would stop losing “landline” customers was like guessing when a dog will stop chasing a bus.  In other words, the future of Ma Bell is not delivering phone service — it’s deploying advanced networks that are capable of providing customers with video, broadband, and phone service across one wire, preferably a fiber optic one.  Those that can manage the transition will succeed, those who cannot or won’t will face a steady decline to obsolescence.

There is only one major problem — it costs a lot of money to rewire entire communities, much less states, with fiber optic wiring.  It’s like building a phone network from scratch.  A company contemplating such a challenging undertaking starts by asking how much it is going to cost and when will it profit from its investment.  Many on Wall Street don’t like either question because of the up front cost, and are even less happy with the prospect of taking the long view waiting for those costs to be recouped from customers.

To date, Verizon is the most aggressive major phone company in the nation building a pure fiber optic system in its larger service areas.  AT&T, which provides phone service in many states, has taken a more cautious approach using a hybrid fiber-copper wire design they market as U-verse.  A handful of independent phone companies and municipally owned providers have undertaken to wire fiber optics to the home as well, so they can sell video, telephone and broadband service to their customers.

A major challenge confronts phone companies servicing more distant suburban and rural phone customers, often living far apart from one another in sparsely populated regions.  It costs more to service these customers, and the potential revenue gained is often not as great as what can be earned from their urban cousins.  Verizon doesn’t see many rural customers as part of their future business plans and have begun to systematically sell some areas off to other phone companies, usually in tax-free transactions.  One company that sees an ambitious future in serving rural America is Frontier Communications.  For them, finding a niche among the big boys gives them safety and security, particularly in areas that don’t have a cable competitor (or any competitor at all).

Frontier’s acquisition strategy is to sell regulators and the public on the idea that allowing Frontier in guarantees a much better chance for broadband service to reach the communities Verizon skipped over.  Their argument for success in a business seeing steady declines in customers is that broadband service will stem the tide, and help them remain profitable.  More than doubling their size with the acquisition of Verizon’s latest castoffs means more opportunity to market broadband service to those underserved communities.  Frontier argues it can be a more nimble player than Verizon because it has marketing and service experience in rural communities previously ignored by Verizon.

Frontier’s ability to provide broadband service is not the most important question.  More important is how Frontier will define broadband and at what speed. Also critically important is how Frontier will be prepared to deliver the next generation broadband platform that other communities will see with speeds up to 100Mbps, often on fiber optic networks.

Frontier’s reliance on ADSL technology, which worked fine for 1990s Internet connectivity, is increasingly falling behind in the speed race, and for much of the next generation of online content, speed will matter very much.

Unfortunately, the track record for the success of these spinoffs has been universally lousy for consumers and for many employees who live and work in the impacted communities.  Promises made quickly become promises delayed, and later broken as companies like Hawaii Telecom and FairPoint tried to integrate former Verizon operations into their own.  Service outages, billing errors, confusion, and finally a mass exodus by customers looking for better alternatives has been the repeated result.  The faster customers depart, combined with the enormous debt these transactions create for the buyer, the faster the journey ends in Bankruptcy Court.  There is nothing about the Frontier deal proposal that suggests their experience will be any different.

Shouldn’t Three Strikes Mean You Are Out?

Consumers should tell state regulators they should pay careful attention to the failures Verizon has left in its wake from previous deals:

• FairPoint Communications, which assumed control of phone service in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont just last year declared bankruptcy this morning, even now still plaguing customers with billing and service problems.  The company choked on the debt it incurred from financing the deal.  Before this morning’s bankruptcy, their stock price had lost 95% of its value, and customers were leaving in droves, only accelerating the company’s demise.  FairPoint thought it could integrate Verizon’s byzantine billing system into its own.  Thinking and doing turned out to be two entirely different things.  Frontier has experience integrating other small independent phone companies into its billing system, but now faces the same prospect of dealing with Verizon’s own way of doing everything, and for twice the number of customers Frontier serves today.
• Hawaii Telecom and its 715,000 customers were dumped by Verizon in 2005.  Once again, transition issues plagued the post-sale experience for those customers, and almost a quarter fled the company over three years.  Last December, Hawaii Telecom declared bankruptcy.
• Verizon’s yellow pages unit was also thrown overboard by the company to Idearc in November 2006.  Saddled with $9.5 billion in debt and interest payments representing almost one quarter of the entire company’s revenues, Idearc finally had enough in March 2009 when it also declared bankruptcy.

The deal between Verizon and Frontier could easily follow the same path, as Frontier gets loaded down with massive debt financing the purchase, and has to immediately provide better service than Verizon did, or face a stampede of customers heading for the exit.  The impact of a debt-laden Frontier could be felt by more than just the newcomers.  Existing Frontier customers could also be impacted as the company turns its attention to a potentially lengthy integration process.

The Promise of Anemic Broadband, The Fiber Myth & The 5GB Acceptable Use Policy

Time Warner Cable competes effectively against Frontier DSL in the phone company's largest service area

Frontier’s plan to bring broadband to a larger number of customers is a noble gesture, particularly for households that currently do not receive any broadband service.  Unfortunately, a short term gain of what will likely be 1-3Mbps DSL service will leave these communities behind in the next few years as broadband speeds accelerate far faster than what Frontier is prepared to provide.

Some press accounts in West Virginia have left residents with the impression fiber optic service will reach their individual homes should Frontier be successful in purchasing Verizon’s assets.  There is no evidence to suggest this is true.

In earlier deals, these kinds of rumors started when companies advocating the sale staged press-friendly events announcing a fiber connection between hospitals, schools, or community centers, allowing the media to give the impression there would be fiber upgrades for all… if the deal gets approved.  In the case of Frontier, they have suggested they will continue work on Verizon’s FiOS system in the communities where construction was already underway.  That’s an important distinction for the millions of customers who don’t live in those communities.  Verizon’s FiOS network that is part of this transaction serves less than 70,000 residents.

Residents should consider what possibility their community has of obtaining this type of advanced service when Frontier refuses to provide anything comparable in their largest service area – Rochester, New York.

If they are not doing it in Rochester, do you really believe they will do it in your community?

The company certainly has a competitive need to provide such service in our city where Time Warner Cable has accelerated speeds beyond what Frontier is capable of providing.  Indeed, Time Warner Cable officials tout their largest number of new Road Runner broadband sign-ups comes from departing DSL customers who are fed up with the anemic, inconsistent speeds offered by this aging technology.

In the town of Brighton, I gave Frontier DSL service a try this past spring.  The company promises up to 10Mbps of service to my area, which is less than 1/2 mile from the city of Rochester, and literally just a few blocks from the town’s business center.  After installation, the company was only able to provide me with service at 3.1Mbps, just less than one-third of the speed marketed to local residents.  Even more surprising was the fact they charged a higher price for that service (including taxes, fees, and modem rental charge) than their competitor, Time Warner Cable.

This website was founded after Frontier inserted language into its Acceptable Use Policy defining “reasonable” broadband usage at just five gigabytes per month.  That’s right, the same limit your mobile phone provider applies to their wireless broadband service.  Viewing one HD movie over Frontier’s DSL service would put you perilously close to unreasonable use.

Are consumers willing to give up unlimited Verizon DSL service for a company that refuses to drop a 5GB acceptable usage definition from their terms and conditions?

America is on the threshold of 50-100Mbps broadband service, with some communities already enjoying those speeds.  If your community isn’t served by a competing provider, do you want to limit your future to yesterday’s DSL technology, and then told it is inappropriate for you to actually use it beyond five gigabytes per month?

The Billing and Customer Service Nightmare

The days of local customer service are over with Frontier.  Back during the days of Rochester Telephone, there were several occasions when a local customer service representative would recognize me by name.  Those days are long gone.  Now, a good deal of Frontier’s customer service is handled by a call center in DeLand, Florida.  While the representatives mean well, experiences with them suggest many are not well equipped to understand and consistently market Frontier’s products to existing customers.  Pile on more than double the number of new customers, and the problems are likely to become much worse.

Frontier has personally plagued me with billing errors this past year, gave inconsistent and inaccurate answers to pricing and service inquiries, and created major runaround hassles to correct them.  From the DSL self-install kit that never arrived (requiring me to visit a local office to pick one up myself), to the impenetrable and inaccurate bills that resulted, the company could not correct the problems without consulting someone with supervisor status.  I canceled service within the month.

Customers signing up for service have been pressured into “peace of mind” agreements that lock customers into long term contracts that automatically renew unless the customer actively cancels them (and is certain the request to cancel was processed correctly.)  Frontier has been fined twice by the New York State Attorney General for “misleading advertising and marketing tactics,” once in 2006 and again just a few weeks ago.  Some customers are now waiting for substantial refunds ranging from $50-400 dollars for “early termination fees” charged when they tried to cancel service.

Are you comfortable knowing some customers have been inappropriately placed on a one to three year contract without their full informed consent, and billed hundreds of dollars when they tried to cancel?

The Art of the Deal

By no means will a Verizon-Frontier transaction be the last.  As the industry continues to consolidate around a dwindling number of wired phone line customers, it’s a safe bet there will be more phone customers thrown away by the bigger players.  Nothing guarantees Frontier itself will be freestanding when the consolidation wave ends.  While these deals may make sense for some shareholders and company executives, they often don’t for local experienced employees who know the network and how to provide quality service.  They never have for consumers who will always have to foot the bill to pay off these transactions and have to live with the company trying to integrate Verizon’s bureaucracy with their own.

What is the ultimate price to pay?  For employees — their jobs, and as FairPoint employees are discovering today, those workers are being asked to pay the price for management mistakes.  In West Virginia, some of the most experienced Verizon employees are getting out with their pensions intact, not willing to take a chance on Frontier.  For customers living with FairPoint, horror stories of weeks without service, $400 phone bills for service long since canceled, company technicians that cannot find the customer even when they are located right next door to the phone company, and broken promise after broken promise continue.

Some consumer groups and local workers correctly predicted, in each instance, the horrific outcome of these kinds of deals.  Their uncanny knack to correctly predict disaster contrasts with company marketing, lobbying, and astroturf efforts that promise the sky and tell each successive news reporter covering the latest atrocity that “things are getting better” and “will be fixed soon.”  Unfortunately for too many customers, the fix has to come from a judge in Bankruptcy Court.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who repeatedly warned about the perils of FairPoint, now warns state regulators about Frontier, and direct attention to the numbers:

If the transaction is approved, Frontier management will have to deal with a 300% increase in access lines (from 2.2 million access lines now to 7 million after the sale) and a 200% increase in employees (from 5,700 employees now to 16,700 after the sale).

Frontier’s debt will increase from $4.55 billion to $8 billion—an increase of over $3.4 billion. Servicing this debt will mean less money for infrastructure, service quality, and high-speed internet build out.

While Frontier argues that somehow this deal will make it stronger, the issue for the states being sold is how much weaker it will make the operations in those states.

The leverage ratio is one way to measure the financial health of a company. The leverage ratio is calculated by taking net debt and dividing it by earnings (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). The leverage ratio for the states being sold will increase from 1.7 immediately before the transaction closes to 2.6 after the sale. The entire deal revolves around Frontier’s ability to cut its operational expenses by $500 million or 21%.

This is significantly greater than the 8-10% cut that FairPoint hoped to achieve—and much of these savings were to be generated from replacing Verizon’s network and back-office systems. Yet, Frontier states that all of the operations except for West Virginia will continue on Verizon’s existing systems—for which Frontier will pay a fee.

Where will Frontier generate the savings—from reduced service quality, workforce, or maintenance of the communications infrastructure? In spite of brave talk from Verizon and Frontier, as recent events have demonstrated, obtaining financing for a transaction this size can be difficult. Frontier does not currently have financing for the additional debt it will take on for this transaction.

As an existing Frontier customer, I’d like an answer myself.

Watch these two Wall Street guys talk about the previous Verizon deals that threw customers under the bus.  Plenty of praise for the skilled deal maker Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, and no concern for you, the consumer and telephone customer impacted by a deal that got a few people very rich and left you with a bankrupt phone company.  (3 minutes)

It’s Not Worth the Risk

Unfortunately, for too many rural Americans impacted by this deal, there is only one phone company.  Cable television is not in their future, and in mountainous regions like West Virginia, wireless phones may not be suitable as a phone line replacement.  Risking 100 years of solvent phone service on a deal that could ultimately follow earlier deals into bankruptcy is not worth the risk.  The nightmares of converting operations from one provider to another is a hassle consumers should not have to face.

For decades, you faithfully paid your Verizon telephone bill and made the company the telecommunications powerhouse it is today.  Now they want to abandon you because, frankly, you just aren’t important enough to them anymore.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  State regulators can tell Verizon they need to make different plans — by forgetting about trying to cash in on a deal that is good for them and bad for you, and by staying put and providing consumers with the same kinds of network upgrades they are building in communities across the country.

Unfortunately, Frontier before this deal was ill-equipped to embark on the kind of investment necessary to provide fiber optic broadband connectivity to its customers.  Now pile on billions of additional debt and the challenge of trying to more than double their size and integrate diverse phone networks in 13 different states and ponder what the chances will be for fiber service after the deal is done.  Far more likely for residents is a company that will rely on slow speed DSL service, providing “good enough for them” broadband for the indefinite future.

Take Action!

As has been the case with Hawaii Telecom and FairPoint, naive regulators believed the false promises and approved earlier deals, and are frankly responsible for part of the blame.  Face-saving telecommunications regulators in New England initially even tried to cheerlead for FairPoint as they stumbled through one customer service nightmare after another.  Too late, they realized the grim reality that their approval saddled their states with a phone company totally unequipped to do the job.

Consumers who do not want a repeat performance can contact their state representatives and tell them to put pressure on each state’s public utility commission to reject the deal.  You should also contact your state’s public utility commission yourself.

No amount of concessions and written agreements will make a difference if that phone company ends up in financial distress and takes a walk to Bankruptcy Court.  Regulators should not even bother trying, after witnessing the debacle with FairPoint.

In your polite, persuasive and persistent communication with state officials, let them know:

• We’ve been down this road with Verizon before, with FairPoint Communications and Hawaii Telecom, leaving a litany of broken service promises, unfulfilled broadband commitments, unacceptable billing mistakes, and poor quality customer service.  In both instances, customers fled and the companies ended up in bankruptcy;
• Frontier has been unable or unwilling to wire its largest service area, Rochester, New York, with the advanced fiber connectivity that Verizon is wiring throughout the rest of upstate New York.  If the company cannot meet the needs of customers in their largest service area, what in the world makes you think they’ll do it for us?
• The company has been fined twice by the New York State Attorney General for dubious business practices, costing consumers hundreds of dollars the company has now agreed to return to those customers;
• A broadband service for our community’s future should not come with a 5 gigabyte monthly limit attached in the fine print.  How can our community compete in the digital economy if you have to ration your broadband usage to an unprecedented level in wired broadband?
• The devil is always in the details.  Verizon has an aggressive plan to stay relevant in a digital future, with video, telephone, and Internet service running across advanced fiber optic lines.  Frontier has a plan to serve rural communities with yesterday’s technology.  Frontier’s vision for video is to “get a satellite dish” and rely on the existing aging copper wiring to do everything else.
• What kind of service and growth can we expect from a company mired in debt?  As seasoned Verizon employees in our community start retiring, understanding the writing on the wall, what do they know that you and I don’t?
• Phone companies are a regulated utility, essential to the public interest.  Why permit a risky deal that could ultimately lead to a taxpayer bailout to keep operations running if Frontier follows its predecessors into bankruptcy, all while Verizon walks away with billions in proceeds?

You can locate the names and contact information for your state representative(s) on Congress.org simply by entering your zip code.  When calling or writing, always be courteous, and request that your representative respond in writing to your concerns, and share with Stop the Cap! any correspondence you receive in reply.  As always, we’ll be holding elected officials accountable.

Your next contact must be with your state public utility commission.  If a hearing is planned in your community, share your views in person and feel free to point them here if they want to watch how bad telecommunications deals have unfolded in the past.  We have countless hours of news reports archived for their viewing pleasure.  Each state has a different procedure for contacting them.  In West Virginia, for example, consumers can call the Commission at 1-800-642-8544.  Ohio residents can fill out an online form.

Perhaps Frontier can one day take on a transaction like this, but only after it can demonstrate it has the resources and willingness to provide customers with better options for service.  Had they done that in our community, local residents would not have taken to signing a petition for Verizon to overbuild, or buyout Frontier’s Rochester operation.  Local residents want the advantage fiber optic service can bring our community and its local economy, some even expressing a willingness to send $10 and $20 checks to Verizon for an acquisition fund to get the sale done.  When consumers give money to the phone company when they don’t owe anything, that should be a clear signal consumers are dissatisfied and want a change Frontier, thus far, has not provided.

There are more videos below the jump….

Frontier constructed a wi-fi network in Rochester to forestall talk of municipally owned and operated affordable wi-fi connectivity.  In a deal with the Monroe County government, Frontier deployed wi-fi infrastructure in parts of the city of Rochester and some nearby suburbs.  Residents were also promised some free wi-fi as part of the deal.  Watch how the new service was initially sold to consumers when it was announced and compare that with the next video in the series revealing the reality of what customers ended up with in the end.  Will there be a repeat performance in your community?

Click here to view the embedded video.

WROC-TV reports on the launch of Frontier’s new wi-fi network for Rochester (2/12/2008 – 3 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

WHAM-TV reports that one year after all the hype, what Frontier actually delivered Rochester was not all it was cracked up to be. (3/24/2009 – 3 minutes)

The Communications Workers of America launched this advertisement in West Virginia opposing the Verizon-Frontier deal (30 seconds)

Share/Save

Sources tell Stop the Cap! FairPoint Communications will likely declare bankruptcy as early as this weekend, having failed to survive the crushing debt load it took on over its purchase of Verizon service in three New England states – New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine.

The catastrophic failure of FairPoint to provide customers with quality service while saddled with enormous debt was never a surprise to those that warned about the perils of approving the transaction at the outset.

The employees of FairPoint are now working on a recovery plan to maintain service and bring back stability to FairPoint customers.  Unlike the senior corporate management of FairPoint, who live in North Carolina far away from the New England nightmares, local employees are committed to bringing their families, friends, and neighbors the service they feel should have been provided by the outset.

What will prevent such a recovery plan from working?  The lenders who hold the paper on FairPoint’s colossal debt and some in FairPoint management who want employee concessions for bad management mistakes.  Wall Street could also move in and demand massive cuts in employees and the infrastructure they need to bring quality service back to northern New England as part of a bankruptcy reorganization.

Once victimized by Verizon, then by FairPoint, and next by Wall Street bankers, the residents of northern New England just can’t win.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who were exactly right when they predicted the outcome of the Verizon-FairPoint deal, now could face paying the biggest price for bad management — a loss of their jobs or a cutback in their wages.

Pete McLaughlin Chairman of IBEW SCT-9.  “Demanding cuts in labor costs from employees who aren’t in any way to blame for the company’s woes is the wrong way to go.  The overwhelming burden of billions of dollars in crushing debt cannot be solved by ‘nickel and dime-ing’ our union contracts.  And such attacks will be counter-productive to any attempt to improve operations and the quality of service for our customers.”

Some FairPoint customers want to know, “will those who profited handsomely from the original transaction pay a price?”

Share/Save

As we approach Halloween, it’s time to share a scary story.

The “Reverse Morris Trust” is something a majority of Americans have never heard of before, but if you are a Verizon customer and happen to live in one of 13 states where Verizon is just itching to abandon you, it’s time to learn more about this twister in the tax laws.  A debt-laden phone company may haunt your future.  Another is already haunting millions of New Englanders.

When Verizon throws telephone customers overboard to companies like FairPoint (and Frontier Communications if that deal is approved by state regulators), the company has found a great way to cash out, saddle the buyer in massive amounts of debt, and walk away without paying one cent in taxes.  How?

The Reverse Morris Trust.

To be fair, Verizon is not the first company to use this tax loophole to structure mergers, acquisitions, and spinoffs.  Before 1997, the use of the original Morris Trust provision was commonplace.  A company would split itself into two pieces, one of which would be swapped for stock in an unrelated company.  Then those shares would be redistributed, effectively transferring ownership.  The tax savings were enormous.  A $3 billion dollar sale would normally net the taxman nearly $1 billion in capital gains taxes.  But when using the magic of the Morris Trust, the taxman got $0.00.

In 1997, Congress realized how much tax money they were losing from this loophole.  They enacted Internal Revenue Code Sec. 355(e), which made these transactions taxable.  Or did they?

With billions in savings now potentially gone, businesses started looking for a way around Sec. 355(e) and found one in the Reverse Morris Trust.

Follow this:

A Reverse Morris Trust - "D"=Verizon, "C"=Spinco, "A"=FairPoint or Frontier

Companies involved in a Reverse Morris Trust deal don’t buy and sell from each other directly.  Instead, the seller sets up a new corporation, usually referred to in company financial reports as “Spinco” and conducts the transaction through that entity.

Spinco issues stock (and why not), which is owned by a majority of the shareholders of the parent company cooking up the sale.

When Verizon cast off its New England customers into the fetid waters of FairPoint, it structured the sale as a Reverse Morris Trust.  Verizon “spun off” Bell Atlantic Communications, NYNEX Long Distance, and Verizon New England assets serving Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont into Northern New England Spinco, a new corporation it created just for the deal.  It needed to find a buyer smaller than itself to take advantage of the tax-free magic of the Reverse Morris Trust.  It found FairPoint Communications, a tiny independent phone company based in North Carolina, dwarfed by the three New England states’ Verizon customers.  Imagine living alone in a one bedroom apartment and then letting The Brady Bunch move in with you.

Spinco, by design, has an addiction to piling on debt.  It’s like giving a shopaholic a wallet full of credit cards all issued by Verizon.  Spinco lards itself with as much debt as it possibly can.  When it’s finally teetering under the weight of  as much as $1.7 billion in debt, Verizon effectively sends a bill saying “we want our money — pay us back our $1.7 billion in full.”  Of course, Verizon doesn’t expect to receive the check.  Instead, it demands Spinco pay a “dividend” in the form of an IOU for the entire amount.

Spinco now has a problem.  Its balance sheet looks terrible.  Would you buy a company that has a $1.7 billion liability on its balance sheet?  FairPoint would, but of course, they knew this was part of the plan all along.

FairPoint now seeks to merge with this Spinco company that has more debt than some third world countries.  State regulators announce they have to examine this deal to make sure a company like FairPoint, now proposing to take on Spinco’s debt, will be able to run the company, make investments in its upkeep and expansion, and still pay back the Bank of Verizon, or whoever else ends up owning the IOU.

Regulators (foolishly) go ahead and approve the deal, and the newly merged Spinco and FairPoint issue stock to Verizon shareholders, the original owners of Spinco.  Verizon also gets cash and securities.  Technically, Verizon shareholders now own 60% of FairPoint.  Of course, nobody says every shareholder gets an equal vote.  In the end, FairPoint runs and manages the entire operation, or tries to, saddled with what is now $2.5 billion in debt and on the brink of bankruptcy.

How much did taxpayers lose from all of this?  Considering the spending machine in Washington is going to get the money from somewhere (us), they are going to be looking at you and I for the estimated $700 million Verizon never had to pay in capital gains taxes.

Make your check payable to “U.S. Government” and make sure it’s in the mail by Halloween.

Yes, this scary story is true, and has a sequel: Frontier and Verizon plan to structure their magic deal using the same technique.

Boo!  (Now add another zero on the dollar amount of your check.)

If this new deal is approved, Verizon walks away with $3.3 billion in tax-free cash.  Verizon shareholders (lucky them) get to be owners of just under 70% of Frontier Communications, soon to be saddled with its own Spinco debt which will run well into the billions.  Knowing this, they dump their stock in Frontier in droves as soon as the deal completes.  Why hang around for another financial Titanic to sink like a rock around their portfolio?

Verizon customers get to join the Frontier Family, and those of us who are already members get to see whether Frontier can survive the minimum monthly payment on that debt.

Or maybe not.

A large contingent of the New England Congressional delegation has written a letter to Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who chairs the Ways and Means Committee responsible for overseeing tax policy in Congress, asking that a stake be driven through the heart of the loopholes in the Reverse Morris Trust.

Reps. Michael Michaud, Chellie Pingree, Peter Welch, Paul Hodes, and Carol Shea-Porter all signed the letter asking Rangel to reform the Reverse Morris Trust (they abbreviate it “RMT”) and take it away from companies like Verizon looking for a tax-free windfall:

We projected that the transaction [FairPoint-Verizon] would have disastrous consequences in our states.  Unfortunately, our concerns were well founded with widespread consumer dissatisfaction evident across the region.

Recently, we have learned that other states across the country face similar threats to service and employment as Verizon, once again, seeks to avoid taxes through the use of the RMT in its proposed transaction with Frontier Communications.

[...]

Now is the time to restrict the utility and benefits of the RMT to protect the public interest.

West Virginians, in particular, have expressed increasing concern about their state following a similar path northern New England took. Frontier would assume control over all of Verizon’s operations across the state of West Virginia.

“I hope this vital request, now based on past history, isn’t ignored again,” said Elaine Harris, International Representative with the Communications Workers of America.  “West Virginia is being given the opportunity to avoid some of the pitfalls of the FairPoint disaster and it would be a real shame if we simply follow the same path and our communications operations end up in bankruptcy.”

Expect the usual Washington lobbyists to fight to preserve the loophole.  Remember, in the world of Halloween telecommunications finance, tax free trick or treat candy is for closers.

Share/Save

This newspaper ad is running across West Virginia opposing the sale of the state's phone business to Frontier Communications

Opposition to the sale of Verizon’s landline business to Frontier Communications in 13 states continues to increase, particularly in Ohio and West Virginia, where several employee unions have argued the deal represents a win for Wall Street and company executives, but a raw deal for millions of consumers.

The Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who also warned state regulators in New England about the consequences of approving the sale of Verizon’s operations in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to FairPoint Communications, continue to warn consumers and state officials that a similar deal between Verizon and Frontier Communications could spell major problems for telephone customers.  They call on state officials to reject the deal and force Verizon to invest some of their substantial profits earned in these communities into providing better service instead of dumping customers overboard.

The CWA says the sale would put $3.3 billion dollars into Verizon’s coffers — tax free — and leave Frontier buried in debt, which could impact both new and existing Frontier Communications customers, including hundreds of thousands of those in Rochester, New York, Frontier’s biggest service area.

“Verizon Communications has been divesting assets to smaller, less stable corporations in order to reap large, tax-free, profits,” CWA International Representative Elaine Harris said. “Verizon proposes to repeat that formula, and its disastrous effects, with the sale of all of its wireline operations here in West Virginia to Frontier.”

The CWA considers the transaction based primarily on corporate greed, not the best interests of phone customers.

“The only winner in all of these deals has been Verizon Communications and especially Verizon’s corporate executives,” Harris said. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg is the highest paid executive in the telecom industry, with $24.31 million dollars in annual compensation from Verizon.

“His salary could have funded the entire network of senior services in West Virginia last year and he still would have had $8 million in his pocket,” Harris said.

The deal will leave Frontier Corporation with a total of $8 billion dollars in debt. “The West Virginia consumers will experience the effects of converting more than 617,000 aging access lines to a smaller, debt-ridden company,” Harris said. “The public will be forced to pick up the pieces if Frontier follows Verizon’s other buyers and files for bankruptcy.”

“We’ve closely watched the failures of the companies that purchased Verizon’s assets and we don’t need a crystal ball to figure out what will happen if Verizon tries the same scheme in West Virginia. There’s absolutely no reason to gamble West Virginia’s telecommunication’s future just to increase Verizon’s bottom line,” Harris added.

The CWA is running radio ads across the state of West Virginia opposing the deal.

Audio Clip: Communications Workers of America Radio Ad (1 minute)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Verizon spokesman Harry Mitchell said Verizon wants to sell its access lines so the company can focus on its wireless and broadband business. Mitchell told The Charleston Gazette the union has opposed the deal from day one.

“They’re spending their members’ dues on advertising in an effort to cloud the issue,” he said.

Frontier Communications has protested accusations that their purchase of Verizon assets will result in the same kinds of colossal failures impacting other Verizon sell-offs.  Company officials claim Frontier already has a successful customer support operation in DeLand, Florida, and billing and operating systems in place.

In West Virginia, those existing operations serve 144,000 Frontier customers.  If the deal is approved, Frontier will take on the responsibility of serving 1.3 million landlines across the southeastern U.S. alone.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, integrally involved in fighting the FairPoint transaction in New England, says the Frontier deal is reminiscent of what happened with FairPoint:

Regulators in the 14 states where Verizon now proposes to sell its landlines to Frontier face an almost identical situation as New England regulators did last year. Frontier Communications is proposing to buy Verizon’s entire wire line operation in West Virginia – as well as Verizon’s scattered landlines across 13 other states – in a similarly structured deal.

In both cases, Verizon chose a much smaller company in order to take advantage of an obscure tax loophole. With the Frontier sale, Verizon will avoid paying any taxes on the $3.3 billion it will receive from Frontier. Frontier will have to cope with three times more employees, three times more access lines and a 75 percent increase in its debt from $4.5 to $8 billion.

Verizon has a very poor track record in these sales. Verizon sold its Hawaii operations to Hawaiian Telcom in 2005 and it filed for bankruptcy. Customers, service and employees have suffered as a result.

Frontier – just like FairPoint – is a making promises that it may not be able to meet. Like FairPoint, state regulators are being asked to approve a deal where a small company will attempt to simultaneously run a much larger operation, pay off billions of dollars more in debt, integrate Verizon’s computer systems and spend more money to expand broadband.

In the end Verizon will profit but consumers, workers and communities are put at real risk.

Expanding broadband access is an especially critical factor for all rural areas. But Frontier has failed to make any specific commitments, set any timeline or offer a plan for its broadband buildout.

Union leaders believe that states shouldn’t risk their telecommunications’ future just so Verizon can fatten its bottom line. Regulators shouldn’t approve this sale because the risks are too great. Instead, our legislators, regulators and the Governor should require Verizon to meet its service responsibilities. Verizon shouldn’t be allowed to walk away with $3.3 billion tax free, and leave the fate of its customers in the hands of a company with a lot less resources. If Frontier should falter, customers and the public would be required to pick up the pieces – not Verizon!

The track record for Verizon spinoffs has hardly been one of success.

FairPoint Communications, the company to which Verizon sold its Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont operations in 2008, is foundering as it tries to integrate operations and is choking on the debt it incurred to finance the transaction Since the deal was announced, FairPoint’s stock price has declined by about 95%, and the company has been forced to suspend dividend payments.

Hawaiian Telecom, the company to which Verizon sold its Hawaii operations in 2005, filed for bankruptcy. Verizon sold its 715,000 access lines in Hawaii. Since then, Hawaiian Telcom has experienced significant transition issues that resulted in major financial and customer service problems. In three years, the company lost 21% of its customers. In December 2008, Hawaiian Telcom filed for bankruptcy.

The yellow pages company that Verizon spun off also filed for bankruptcy. In November 2006, Verizon spun off its yellow pages directory business to Verizon shareholders, loading the new company, Idearc, with about $9.5 billion in debt and extracting a cool $9 billion in cash and debt reduction. Last year, interest payments alone on Idearc’s debt accounted for almost one-quarter of its total revenues! Representing something of a Verizon failing company “hat trick,” Idearc filed for bankruptcy in March 2009.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WSAZ-TV Huntington, West Virginia reported on the growing opposition to the Frontier sale by employee groups on October 14th. (3 minutes)

In Washington State, IBEW Local 89, outside Seattle, says the sale could cripple one of America’s most tech-savvy regions.

“We’ve always been a leader in communications in this part of the country,” said Ray Egelhoff, business manager of IBEW Local 89. “If this happens, we’re afraid businesses won’t move in, and some may even move out.”

Egelhoff, along with more than 1,500 Verizon workers who may become Frontier employees, deluged officials with letters and e-mails expressing their concerns. More than 500 have gone out so far to senators, house members, governors and business leaders. The workers worry Frontier —at about the a third the size of Verizon—won’t be able to absorb the huge Verizon assets, won’t be able to keep customers happy and, eventually, will have to shed staff.

Robert Erickson, International Representative in the IBEW’s Telecommunications Department said, “The deal poses risks to consumers and employees. Frontier is making all kinds of promises about synergy and how they’ll expand broadband. FairPoint Communications made the same grand claims and now they can’t meet their commitments and fulfill the promises they made. It’s clear that Frontier will be in a similar situation and not have the resources to fulfill the commitments they are making.”

Consumer groups are also raising objections to the sale.

The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates urged the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing the proposed transaction, to reject the deal.

“The merger proposed by Frontier and Verizon is not in the public interest,” said David Springe, president of the consumer advocate group. “The failure of the companies to offer adequate consumer benefits or protections puts customers at risk of being served by a company without enough financial strength to make necessary improvements to local telephone facilities and widen the deployment of broadband access.”

Free Press, a nonpartisan group that works to reform the media, also raised concerns about the sale in a filing with the FCC. Free Press cited Verizon’s sale of lines in New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont to FairPoint, which subsequently acquired substantial debt, was unable to accommodate the increased service area, and is now on the edge of bankruptcy.

“This trend has the potential to leave rural areas with ill-equipped companies offering inadequate service at high prices,” says the Free Press report. “This is in direct contrast to the stated intent of Congress and the Obama Administration to foster universal broadband to all Americans.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

WCHS-TV in Charleston, WV talked with the CWA and company officials about the sale of Verizon operations to Frontier Communications. (1 minute)

Share/Save

AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs James Cicconi e-mail bombed AT&T employees Monday asking them to express their “deep concern” for Net Neutrality on the FCC’s Net Neutrality website’s comment section.  (Thanks to several Stop the Cap! readers, among them Dave, “Gaff”, “Bones”, “Prevent Caps” and James who sent news tips on this story. The delay in publication came from assembling a response you, as actual consumers, can fire back at the AT&T Propaganda Parade on the FCC website.)

More than 300,000 AT&T employees received the “suggestion” in their e-mail box, complete with ready-made talking points employees can use to parrot AT&T’s anti-Net Neutrality positions.  In a remarkably brave section, Cicconi suggests employees not use their company e-mail accounts when engaged in the “grassroots” push back, as if word of that maneuver would not promptly get leaked to the media.  (By Tuesday morning, it did.)  The FCC shouldn’t know the barrage of anti-consumer, anti-Net Neutrality comments came as a result of a PressureGram from AT&T Corporate.

“We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet,” Cicconi wrote in his letter.  “Those who seek to impose extreme regulations on the network are flooding the site to influence the FCC; it’s now time for you to voice your opinion.”

(Note: Most of those seeking to “impose extreme regulations” are actual consumers.)

The convenient “talking points” AT&T provided are identical to the comments found on any anti-consumer, telecom-sponsored astroturf group website.  That’s no surprise, considering most of those astroturf groups survive on the checks sent by those large telecommunications companies.

We debunk them for your convenience:

• America’s wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that’s working so well?

That’s demonstrably false.  Consumers Union and other consumer groups independently found a high degree of concentration and obstacles to competition among providers of mobile data and Internet access services, which Net Neutrality rules would cover.  As Stop the Cap! has already reported, competition for wireless broadband is hardly a Battle Royale with virtually every carrier charging around the same amount for 5 gigabytes of maximum mobile web usage per month.  AT&T was charging a ridiculous $480 per gigabyte for those exceeding that limit, according to CU.  Americans pay an average of over $500 a year for wireless access, which hardly represents the lowest prices.  Consumers Union discovered Americans pay “much more than users in most other developed nations.”

Americans also endure restrictive phone plans that give exclusivity to popular handsets, limit certain web applications from wireless usage, and impose often stiff penalties for choosing to end a relationship with a wireless provider before the contract term has ended.

• There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There’s been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don’t burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.

That’s brazenly false.  The wireless telephone industry has contracted in the last several years due to mergers and acquisitions and a determination by several independent resellers that profits were elusive reselling access to another company’s wireless network.  Alltel is now owned by Verizon Wireless.  Virgin Mobile, which took over Helio, will itself likely soon be owned by Sprint.  Amp’d Mobile, Disney Mobile and ESPN Mobile, among many other resellers, disappeared altogether.

Most rural Americans “enjoy” a monopoly broadband service provided, where available, by their local phone company providing slow speed DSL service.  Most medium sized cities are served by a duopoly — one cable and one phone company.  Innovation in broadband comes to some, such as those served by Verizon FiOS, and skipped for others, such as those suffering with Frontier, FairPoint, and other phone companies that believe standard DSL is “good enough.”  AT&T, among many other providers, now want to experiment with rationing the Internet with Internet Overcharging schemes designed to curb use of their broadband services.

• Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.

That’s ludicrously false.  Managing networks, which sounds benign in theory, is often not in practice.  Several providers have recently taken a turn towards limiting access to those networks with usage rationing plans that limit consumers to a pre-determined amount of usage before overlimit fees or service termination kicks in.  AT&T is testing those schemes in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada this very day.  Stop the Cap! has repeatedly documented providers that admit their connectivity costs are dropping, right along with their investments in those networks to keep up with demand.  For some network companies, throwing hundreds of hours of online video to congest those networks seems to be an okay proposition, telemedicine or not.  Upgrade the networks that earn the American broadband industry billions in profits every year.

• The “net neutrality” rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can’t be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.

That’s infamously false.  AT&T managed to eke out an existence after its merger with BellSouth when it had to live under a Net Neutral regime for two years.  As Tim Karr from Free Press notes, “AT&T is loath to mention that it made considerable network investment when it had to abide by Net Neutrality conditions, and then invested considerably less when it didn’t.”  Somehow, U-verse will survive a Net Neutral world.

Meanwhile, many other broadband providers are in no hurry to expand or build new networks unless their hands are forced by the other competitor in the market threatening to steal their customers away.  AT&T’s U-verse offering is a direct response to the cable television industry swiping their customers with “digital phone” and cable television bundles that include broadband.  Time Warner Cable earns most of its new broadband customers at the phone company’s expense when consumers tire of slow, unreliable DSL service.

For rural communities, a Net Neutral America won’t make much difference either way.  Without Net Neutrality protection, companies like Verizon continue to abandon more rural states, selling off operations to companies like FairPoint and Frontier Communications, which have uninspired broadband programs that bring slow DSL service to areas that will never be wired for Verizon fiber-optic FiOS.  Large phone companies like Verizon continue to layoff employees, especially in the traditional wireline telephone business.

If we wait for private companies to deliver broadband to every American, it will be a very long wait.  But when it does arrive, it would be nice if consumers could actually enjoy their broadband service without network throttles and Internet Overcharging schemes.

• The FCC shouldn’t burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

That’s a laughably false premise.  When is the last time you bought broadband service from Yahoo!, Bing, or Google?  AT&T wants to compare their broadband apples with search engine oranges.  A level playing field would mean an end to the too-cute-by-half cable industry’s unofficial non-compete regime which makes sure no large cable operator intrudes on someone else’s territory.  It would mean an end to exclusive wireless handset provisions and gotcha contract terms designed to hold customers hostage to their wireless provider.  It would guarantee that if a municipality is fed up with the broadband backwater status afforded it by providers convinced what they deliver is “good enough,” that municipality can construct their own advanced broadband network and do the job private providers won’t.

Broadband regulated in the providers’ best interests have resulted in middle-of-the-pack broadband service for Americans, not the world class networks America can use to leverage a leadership role in the digital economy of the future.  The FCC should regulate the Internet to provide free, open access to innovative products and services that will really create new jobs for Americans.  They should definitely not continue a protectionism regime already in place that forces Americans to choose near-identical wireless service plans at high prices, and broadband service from one or two providers with dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles.

Share/Save

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

Share/Save

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.”

Share/Save

Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about.

Members of Broadband for America

Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to an astroturf group, or is an astroturf group itself.
Blue: An equipment supplier whose bread is buttered by the telecommunications industry, but doesn’t go out of their way to actively engage in anti-consumer activities.
Purple: A telecommunications company providing broadband service.
Black: A group or organization about which there is insufficient evidence to connect them to a specific astroturfer, lobbying firm, telecommunications provider, or other aligned special interest.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t ties yet to be uncovered.  Considering the overwhelming majority of BfA members have a vested interest towards the broadband industry, you can draw your own conclusions.

Actiontec Electronics, Inc. — Actiontec is an equipment provider selling high speed Internet modems and routers. Their customers include Verizon, Qwest, TDS, MTS and hundreds of smaller carriers throughout North America. More importantly, it is a member of the notorious anti-regulatory, anti-Net Neutrality “Hands Off the Internet” group run for and by the telecommunications industry. Actiontec is also a member of TV4Us, a group Common Cause called the very definition of Astroturf. It advocates for franchising reform (taking away local government oversight) and hates Net Neutrality. Actiontec took even more action by signing a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

ADC Telecommunications, Inc. — ADC sells broadband network infrastructure products and services that enable the profitable delivery of high-speed Internet, video, data, and voice services to residential, business and mobile subscribers. Among their clients: AT&T, British Telecom, Comcast, Sprint Nextel, Qwest, T-Mobile, and Verizon. They are also listed as a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Advanced Digital Broadcast — ADB provides digital set-top boxes for including cable, IPTV, satellite and terrestrial providers.

Alloptic — Sells central office and customer premise equipment to deploy Fiber-to-the-Business and Fiber-to-the-Home.

American Agri-Women — A national coalition of farm, ranch, and agri-business organizations, AAW’s involvement in telecommunications issues is not prominent on their website. The group’s 2009 position statement has one sentence about telecommunications issues: “AAW supports a full range of ownership of telecommunications infrastructure including entrepreneurs, large corporations, municipalities, and other units of local government.”

American Association of People with Disabilities — AAPD gets major donations from both Verizon and the Verizon Foundation, and put a Verizon VP, Richard T. Ellis – on its board (2005). It participated in multiple Verizon-based campaigns, including part of a group put together by Issue Dynamics, a Washington DC public relations firm, that jointly signed an ex parte letter to the FCC, explaining why the Bell companies should not have to open their fiber-optic networks to competition. (Source: Harvard Nieman)

American Council on Renewable Energy — What do C. Boyden Gray, big industry lobbyist and ex-aide to former President George Herbert Walker Bush, and Amory Lovins, alternative energy guru, agree on? The need for a big-bucks trade association that can “bring renewable energy into the mainstream of America’s economy and lifestyle” and otherwise spread the gospel about solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, waste energy and hydrogen energy systems. (Source: Sourcewatch) Their position on telecommunications and broadband issues is not clear from their website.

Americans for Technology Leadership — Americans for Technology Leadership was founded by Jonathan Zuck in 1999 as a “grassroots” organization for concerned consumers who want less regulation in the technology sector.  It also campaigns on general tech issues such as spam.  It has been frequently described as a Microsoft front group.  ATL’s domain name, techleadership.org, is registered to the Association for Competitive Technology.  The site is hosted by Thomas E. Stock and Thomas J. Synhorst’s LLC, TSE Enterprises.  Synhorst is a founding member of the DCI Group, a Washington DC-based strategic consulting and lobbying firm which has counted Microsoft as a prime client for a number of years. (Source: Sourcewatch)

ARRIS — ARRIS provides broadband technology for the cable industry. ARRIS products help cable operators provide cable TV and telephony, high-speed Internet and data access. The ARRIS product line includes cable modem and wireless broadband products, infrastructure for digital video and IPTV, and a Fixed Mobile solution.

AT&T — Broadband provider

BendBroadband — Broadband provider

BeSafe — BeSafe Technologies uses broadband to provide real time information to emergency first responders, including contact information, aerial photos, video feeds and building plans. It’s interested in advocating emergency preparedness issues that leverage broadband infrastructure as part of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

BigBand Networks, Inc. — BigBand Networks provides infrastructure and support for moving, managing, and monetizing video.

BTECH Inc. — A backup battery provider which oddly finds the need to involve itself in a variety of astroturf groups.  In addition to signing a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality, BTECH also belongs to “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

Cablevision Systems Corporation — Broadband provider

CBM of America, Inc. — A network solutions provider for IP networks, CBM is also a member of astroturf group “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

CenturyLink — Broadband provider

Charles Industries, Ltd. — Provides cable wiring protection and products that help expand DSL service to hard to reach areas. What wasn’t hard to find was their membership in the astroturf group TV4Us.  They also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Child Safety Task Force — Part of the Robert K. Johnson astroturf machine, including Consumers for Cable Competitive Choice and Consumers Voice. Only involvement in telecommunications comes from “child safety on the Internet” issue.

Cisco — An equipment manufacturer that has ties to several astroturf and public policy groups, including Arts+Labs and is a major advocate of the alarmist “The Internet is full/exaflood/zettabyte era” rhetoric providers use to justify Internet Overcharging schemes, while Cisco’s self-interest is served by selling the equipment to manage the ‘data tsunami.’  They also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

CoAdna Photonics, Inc. — Sells a variety of products to maintain optical networks, and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Comcast — Broadband provider

CommScope, Inc. — Designs and produces cables for cable broadband and other providers.

Condux International, Inc. — Condux is a manufacturer of aerial and underground cable installation equipment and tools. Also belongs to TV4Us and “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Consumers First — A group that receives corporate contributions from both AT&T and Verizon, Consumers First often turns up belonging to other astroturf groups, including Robert K. Johnson’s now-defunct Consumers for Cable Choice.

Corning Incorporated — A manufacturer of fiber optic cable, among other things. Verizon is a very important customer.  Corning helped launch the Fiber to the Home Council, which pals around with astroturfers and doesn’t like Net Neutrality. Corning keeps more distance between itself and direct anti-consumer astroturf campaigns, but still signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Cox Communications — Broadband provider

CTIA The Wireless Association — The trade association for the wireless industry, includes AT&T and Verizon.

DC-Primary Care Association — A group advocating for health care reform, telemedicine, and affordable care in the District of Columbia. Its primary interest in broadband may be to leverage stimulus money for health-care related broadband applications.

Dominican American National Roundtable — A group that claims to represent the interests of Dominican-Americans, they spend a lot of time involving themselves in telecommunications issues like mergers involving Verizon. That could be because the group receives substantial support from both AT&T and Verizon Wireless. On behalf of Verizon in 2008, DANA wrote the Federal Communications Commission with a dubious argument in favor of the Verizon Wireless-Alltel merger, claiming “Verizon Wireless also has the scale and scope to invest in network facilities in [...] areas in which there is a dense Dominican population.” They fell all over themselves praising Verizon: “Verizon Wireless is well known for having one of the largest and most reliable national wireless networks in the country, so Alltel’s customers will benefit from its size, reach and quality [and] customers will benefit from ever-greater choices – in plans and phones – [and] one of the most advanced broadband networks.”

Enhanced Telecommunications Inc. — Enhanced Telecommunications, Inc. was founded in 1992 to provide software for the converging broadband technologies of television, telephone and internet communications. They are also are believers in converging astroturf campaigns, as a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and a co-signer of a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Fiber to the Home Council — An industry trade group that promotes fiber optics broadband. The FTTH Council was established in July 2001 by Alcatel-Lucent, Corning Incorporated and Optical Solutions. If an issue could lead to more fiber optics deployment, FTTH Council is often involved. Since consumers are often pro-fiber, there are times they do share a common interest in expanding fiber optic broadband. But the Council hates Net Neutrality. Full Frontal Scrutiny also exposed some credibility problems with the Council: “The FTTH Council is comprised of “approximately 800 company member delegates,” most of which represent businesses that provide equipment and/or services related to fiber optic systems. Nonprofit institutions can apply to join the FTTH Council, but their membership must be approved by the Board of Directors. Moreover, nonprofits allowed to join the FTTH Council can not serve on the Board or vote on Council issues.” The group also promotes the “exaflood – Internet is going to get overloaded” scare-mongering, unsurprising since they believe fiber deployment will fix it.

FiberControl — Designs and manufactures fiber based polarization stabilizers, polarization controllers and polarization-state scramblers for fiber optic networks. They will polarize our readers against them as a member of the “Hands Off the Internet” astroturf group and their signature on a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Global Crossing — A telecommunications service provider.  As a consumer who lived under Global Crossing’s ownership of Frontier Communications, I hope BfA made sure the check cleared before sending them membership stickers.

Hispanic Leadership Fund — A conservative Hispanic political group that generally opposes regulation and government involvement in private business. Mario Lopez, group president, spent most of his summer at tea party rallies criticizing Obama Administration policies. Insufficient information available to know where the money comes from, but this group opposes regulation generally, so Net Neutrality is definitely a thumbs-down with them.

Independent Technologies Inc. — Independent Technologies is a communications technology research and development company. They also independently decided to join forces with both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us astroturfers and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) — An industry trade group of independent mid-size telephone companies. Their members, which usually provide DSL broadband service, include CenturyLink, Comporium Communications, Consolidated Communications, FairPoint Communications, Frontier Communications, Iowa Telecom, Qwest Communications, TDS Telecom, and Windstream Communications. The group actively opposes Net Neutrality and wants a hands-off policy on telecommunications regulations.

International Association for K-12 Online — iNACOL, The International Association for K-12 Online Learning, is a non-profit organization that facilitates collaboration, advocacy, and research to enhance quality K-12 online teaching and learning.

Intertribal Agriculture Council — IAC was founded in 1987 to pursue and promote the conservation, development and use of Native American agricultural resources for the betterment of Native Americans. Oddly, one of the priorities for IAC in 2008 was being a full-throated supporter of the Sirius-XM Radio merger. It also joined forces with the Alliance for Aviation Across America (along with other BfA members including the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association) to oppose a proposal to shift some of airline carriers’ federal tax burden to small-jet operators.

Itaas Inc. — Founded in 1999, itaas is a privately held, Atlanta-based company with experience in digital cable television technology.

"This may be an attempt to trick you." -- The error message received when visiting the apparently defunct jewishenergyproject.org website

Jewish Energy Project — Appears to be defunct or inoperative. Website jewishenergyproject.org launches a prompt to log onto group founder Brian H. Davis’ Gmail account! Davis is an environmental lawyer whose firm uses a “team approach [to] support “harmonizing of business and environment.”

Latinos in Information Science & Technology Association — LISTA claims it is a national organization of Latino professionals and role models from the information science, telecommunications, and technology industry. “By working together and showcasing the talented Latinos in these sectors, the community as a whole could reach higher goals in order to conquer the digital divide. Today, LISTA remains committed to excellence and providing a wide spectrum of resources to members, corporate sponsors, businesses, educational institutions and the community.” Somehow, it accomplishes that by advocating the merger of Sirius and XM Radio and attacking Google’s “search monopoly.” LISTA has a corporate sponsorship program that, among other things, “link LISTA strategic initiatives to the objectives of the corporation.” Now we’re getting somewhere. LISTA’s membership in BfA may strategically link the objectives of these sponsors: AT&T, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Microsoft, Comcast, Verizon, and RCN Communications.

Livestock Marketing Association — The Livestock Marketing Association is committed to the support and protection of the local livestock auction markets.  Their website says, “auctions are a vital part of the livestock industry, serving producers and assuring a fair, competitive price through the auction method of selling.” The best way to assure that is to join Broadband for America?  Perhaps the livestock have Facebook pages.

LookBothWays – From their website: “LOOKBOTHWAYS, Inc., founded by internationally recognized online safety expert Linda Criddle, provides free consumer education in online safety through their Web site, ilookbothways.com. We are currently building K-12 online safety curriculum which will be available to everybody at no charge, and teach a college course in Internet Safety for Educators through two US universities. LOOKBOTHWAYS also has a software division developing technology solutions for online safety. In addition we consult and train companies, governments, and law enforcement agencies worldwide and are available for speaking engagements on a wide variety of safety topics. Criddle spent 13 years at Microsoft where she was a pioneer in online safety.”   Criddle also heads the “Safe Internet Alliance” which is absolutely infested with astroturf groups and providers, many of them also AfB members: AT&T, US Internet Industry Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, RetireSafe, Stop Child Predators, Verizon, MANA (A National Latina Organization), and Consumers First. Her organization’s name is lent out to Saferdates, which charges a fee to do background and fingerprint checks on you to “verify” your identity to people who might want to date you.  Perhaps Criddle should perform a background check on BfA to know who she’s hanging around with.

MANA (A National Latina Organization) — Formerly the Mexican American National Association, MANA today claims to empower Latina women through leadership development, community service, and advocacy. They are also empowered by support from AT&T and Verizon. MANA’s National Corporate Partnership Council will put your company logo on their home page for a $50,000 contribution (AT&T is the first logo shown). MANA’s Advisory Council has Emilio Gonzalez, Verizon’s director of public policy and strategic alliances on it. Gonzalez also serves on the boards of two other BfA members:  the United States Distance Learning Association and the US Mexico Chamber of Commerce.  Even more impressive, from as astroturfing perspective, is their Vice-Chair, Bridget Gonzales, who used to be “Assistant Vice President for Issue Dynamics, Inc., a public affairs firm in Washington, DC, where she led the firm’s Strategic Alliances Group. “Ms. Gonzales was instrumental in planning and executing public affairs and consumer education campaigns for Fortune 500 clients such as Verizon Communications, BellSouth, SBC Communications, Corning, Novartis, and others. This included preparation of press releases, op-eds, speeches and consumer education materials as well as coordination of issue briefings, congressional advocacy activities, workshops and media relations. Critical to her success was the effective working relationships she established with high profile national organizations such as League of United Latin American Citizens, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, NAACP, National Grange, Gray Panthers and others.”

Motorola — An equipment manufacturer, among its biggest customers are AT&T, T Mobile, and Verizon.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

MRV Communications, Inc. — MRV Communications is a supplier of communications equipment and services to service providers. “Today’s telecommunication networks are evolving to support growing network traffic due to the demand for high-bandwidth applications such as IPTV, streaming video, peer-to-peer networking, and content-rich websites. Service providers are attempting to differentiate their offerings from their competitors and strive to provide many new capabilities. The growth in these applications is driving the need for additional bandwidth capacity in the Internet infrastructure.” They don’t differentiate themselves much in their membership in the usual astroturf groups “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us. They also co-signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

National Association of Manufacturers — This trade association, which counts AT&T and Verizon among its members has this policy towards telecommunications: “Fostering an environment where manufacturers and consumers alike can obtain the services and content they want, when they want it and regardless of medium, is of primary concern. To achieve this goal, policymakers should remove barriers to entry that prevent broadband providers from offering high-speed information services to homes and businesses, balance the need for regulations against the potential to dampen private industry’s incentive to invest in broadband technology, encourage federal and state regulators to monitor the rollout of broadband services, and adopt a federal framework and to the extent necessary, lightly regulate only to ensure fair, technology-neutral competition for all providers.” They are members of both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

National Association of Black Telecommunications Professionals — Appears defunct. The last time the nabtp.org website was updated and captured by Archive.org was on May 13, 2008. Their telephone number has been disconnected. Among their last features was a promotion for a speech by Larry Irving, who himself works for an astroturf group – the Internet Innovation Alliance. Some history on this group and others like it, was written by the National Community NETwork of AT&T.

National Black Chamber of Commerce — This group’s stated purpose: “To economically empower and sustain African American communities through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the United States and via interaction with the Black Diaspora.” Their website hides their membership list, stating: “The National Black Chamber of Commerce does not distribute information about our members to protect their privacy.” Uh huh. We can take a wild guess however, based on their extended reach into the astroturf diaspora with memberships in both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us. Back in December 2007 before the corporate sponsors were removed from the website for ‘their privacy,’ the group noted it had AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon among its members. Here they were towing the telecom industry line in a press release back in May 2007.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association — Everyone’s favorite super-sized trade association and lobbyist for big cable.

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged — “Throughout its 39 years history, the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. (NCBA) has worked to eliminate obstacles to fairness and equal access for one of the most underserved and vulnerable groups in our society – low-income black and minority senior citizens. NCBA’s programs have focused on three of the most critical needs: housing, employment and health promotion/disease prevention.” Actually, four needs — the fourth suddenly being broadband. This group has several telecommunications industry connections, as explored in part one of this report.

National Disease Cluster Alliance — A real mystery why this group belongs to BfA. This group is dedicated to identifying and responding to emerging disease cluster/anomalies. Founding member Floyd Sands passed away in May after a lengthy battle with cancer. In August, the group advertised for a new executive director and is engaged in fundraising. The stated purpose of the organization is noble, but their sudden interest in broadband issues as part of an astroturf effort is concerning.

National Grange — “The National Grange is the nation’s oldest national agricultural organization, with grassroots units established in 3,600 local communities in 37 states. Its 300,000 members provide service to agriculture and rural areas on a wide variety of issues, including economic development, education, family endeavors, and legislation designed to assure a strong and viable Rural America.” The organization claims to be particularly interested in rural telecommunications issues.  Coincidentally, it often finds itself getting involved in telecommunications issues that directly impact or involve Verizon. That’s ironic, considering Verizon is abandoning many rural communities altogether and selling them off to Frontier Communications. Over the years, the National Grange has thrown its view in on to Verizon vs. the RIAA, a request for Congress to support industry friendly legislation, a merger between Verizon and NorthPoint Communications, and universal service fund issues that brought them into a coalition with … the corn growers LawMedia Group loves to work with: The Keep USF Fair Coalition was formed in April 2004. Current members include Alliance for Public Technology, Alliance For Retired Americans, American Association Of People With Disabilities, American Corn Growers Association, American Council of the Blind, California Alliance of Retired Americans, Consumer Action, Deafness Research Foundation, Gray Panthers, Latino Issues Forum, League Of United Latin American Citizens, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, National Association Of The Deaf, National Consumers League, National Grange, National Hispanic Council on Aging, National Native American Chamber of Commerce, The Seniors Coalition, Utility Consumer Action Network, Virginia Citizen’s Consumer Council and World Institute On Disability. DSL Prime helps define the friendly circle.

National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc. — NPRC’s mission is to systematically strengthen and enhance the social, political, and economic well-being of Puerto Ricans throughout the United States and in Puerto Rico with a special focus on the most vulnerable. AT&T is a major sponsor of the group. The organization signed a letter in 2006 concerning itself with, of all things, cable television set-top box integration. It took the vulnerable industry position. It supported the Sprint Nextel merger in 2005 with another letter.

NDS Limited — NDS Group Ltd is a private company owned by the Permira Funds and News Corporation. It creates technologies that allow pay-TV operators to generate revenues by securely delivering digital content to TVs, set-top boxes (STBs), digital video recorders (DVRs), PCs, portable media players (PMPs), removable media, and other mobile devices.

Net Literacy — This company’s mission “is to increase computer access by creating public computer labs, teach computer and Internet skills, and educate youth and parents about Internet safety.” “Senior Coalition Partners” include Verizon, Bright House Networks, Comcast, and the US Internet Industry Association.  Net Literacy co-released a report with the USIIA advocating AT&T and other provider views about broadband adoption, including government investment in broadband, and potentially supporting industry-sponsored Internet education and child safety efforts.

NSG America, Inc. — “As creator of the SELFOC Lens, Nippon Sheet Glass (NSG) manufactures and distributes more gradient-index lenses than anyone else in the world. Developed over 25 years ago, the SELFOC Lens has revolutionized the industries of fiber optic communications.” They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality, and are also members of “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us.

Occam Networks, Inc — Occam Networks develops and markets the BLC 6000 multi-service access platform (MSAP), an Ethernet and IP-based loop carrier platform that enables our customers to profitably deliver a variety of traditional and packet voice, broadband and IP services from a single, converged all-packet access network.

OFS Fitel, LLC — OFS manufactures and markets fusion splicers, optical fiber, optical cable, fiber to the home (FTTX), connectivity, optical components, and specialty photonics products and optical components. They are also members of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

On Trac, Incorporated — On Trac, Inc. is a telecommunications subcontractor that specializes in fiber to the home installations. Municipalities sometimes contract with them to do installations. On Trac is a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

PECO II, Inc. — PECO II designs and manufactures DC power systems and provides engineering and support assistance. They also support and assist “Hands Off the Internet” as a member and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

People & Technology — Insufficient information to identify which group or company this represents.

Preformed Line Products, Inc. — Preformed Line Products (PLP) is a worldwide designer, manufacturer and supplier of cable anchoring and control hardware and systems, fiber optic and copper splice closures, and high-speed cross-connect devices.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Prysmian Communications Cables and Systems USA, LLC — A player in the industry of high-technology cables and systems for energy and telecommunications. They are members of both “Hands Off the Internet” and TV4Us and also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Quanta Services, Inc — Quanta Services is a provider of specialized contracting services, delivering end-to-end network solutions for the electric power, telecommunications, broadband cable and gas pipeline industries.  They signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Qwest — Broadband provider

RetireSafe — “RetireSafe is a grassroots advocacy and educational organization dedicated to preserving the options and protecting the benefits of America’s seniors. RetireSafe believes in a government that keeps its promises, protects our nation, and maintains the safety of its citizens. We believe in free markets, lower taxes, limited regulations, and the virtues of personal freedom and personal responsibility that provides true retirement security for all.” The American Prospect called the group “strange” because it doesn’t identify up front who runs it or pays the bills: “Many of these other groups exist as little more than letterheads and Web sites.”  There are suspicions RetireSafe is run by DCI Group, a Washington DC lobbying firm, on behalf of one of its corporate clients. Oddly, RetireSafe has usually been the domain of big pharmaceutical companies. What they are doing on Americans for Broadband’s member list is a mystery. DCI’s other clients have included AT&T and Microsoft, although there is no certain evidence who is behind the new interest in broadband.

Seachange International — SeaChange International is a provider of software applications, services and integrated solutions for the management and monetization of Video on Demand (VOD), digital advertising, and content acquisition.

Sheyenne Dakota, Inc. — Custom Cable Harness Manufacturing. They also signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Silver Star Communications — Broadband provider

Sjoberg’s, Inc — Broadband provider

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council — The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) works to educate elected officials, policy makers, business leaders and the public to advance initiatives that enhance the environment for entrepreneurship, business start-up and growth. Member of TV4Us, which TV Technology described: “The roster of Coalition members includes The National Taxpayers Union, the Latino Coalition, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the Women’s Presidents Organization, the Construction Industry Foundation, the Citizenship Foundation–and, oh yes, a dozen telecom manufacturers, the National Association of Manufacturers and AT&T. You can probably guess correctly whose money actually paid for the coalition’s ads.”

SNC Manufacturing Company, Inc. — SNC is a manufacturer and worldwide marketer of transformers, coils, high frequency magnetics and value-added assemblies.  They are a TV4Us member, and although their logo has changed, it appears they also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Stop Child Predators — If your cat was a member of the Democratic Party, it would hiss the moment the people behind this group entered the room. Cary Katz, Chairman and President – Founder/CEO College Loan Corporation is a major Republican donor. Board member Viet Dinh was on the Board of Directors of Murdoch’s News Corporation, although he’s better known for his key role in producing the USA Patriot Act. One blogger investigating the group complained: “The Stop Child Predators Partnership doesn’t actually seem to do anything.” The group’s focus seems to be on developing stronger legislation for child predator crime prosecutions and sentencing, with suggested legislation for online safety as well. Insufficient information to tell if there is any telecommunications industry money in the group.

Sumitomo Electric Lightwave — A manufacturer of optical fiber and optical cable, cable assemblies, fiber management systems, etc. Member of “Hands Off the Internet,” they also signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Sunrise Telecom Inc — Sunrise develops test and measurement solutions for telecom, cable, and wireless networks that ensure network performance, speed deployment, and reduce the cost of network operations. Sunrise is a member of “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

SureWest Communications — Broadband provider

Suttle Apparatus Corporation — Suttle is a manufacturer of communication connectivity products to major service providers and installers.  Suttle was not subtle about their willingness to advocate against consumer interests when they signed a letter by Netcompetition.org opposing Net Neutrality.

Telecommunications Industry Association — “The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) is the leading trade association representing the global information and communications technology (ICT) industries through standards development, government affairs, business opportunities, market intelligence, certification and world-wide environmental regulatory compliance. With support from its 600 members, TIA enhances the business environment for companies involved in telecommunications, broadband, mobile wireless, information technology, networks, cable, satellite, unified communications, emergency communications and the greening of technology.” TIA members are extensive within the broadband industry. Filed comments with the FCC objecting to Net Neutrality in 2008.

Telework Coalition — The Telework Coalition brings together a diverse array of organizations, companies, and individuals with the common interest of promoting awareness and adoption of existing and emerging Telework and Telecommuting applications including telemedicine and distance learning, as well as addressing access to broadband services that may be needed to support these applications.

The Latino Coalition — TLC’s agenda is to develop initiatives and partnerships that will foster economic equivalency and enhance overall business, economic and social development of Latinos. The bottom of the website indicates “TLC Website presented by AT&T.” Both AT&T and Verizon are corporate partners of The Latino Coalition, which also belongs to astroturf group TV4Us. The Latino Coalition likes to involve itself in a lot of cable and broadcasting industry business. More details on this group can be found in part one.

Time Warner Cable – Broadband provider

United States Distance Learning Association — Serves the distance learning community by providing advocacy, information, networking and opportunity. Board member Raymond E. Hartfield works for AT&T. Emilio X. Gonzalez, director of public policy and strategic alliances at Verizon sits on their Advisory Board. He also sits on the board of MANA and the US Mexico Chamber of Commerce, both BfA members. Verizon is a 21st Century Benefactor of USDLA, which could explain why USDLA went out of its way to submit positive comments about the merger proposal between Verizon and NorthPoint Communications. More recently, in June, USDLA submitted comments to the FCC calling for a deregulatory approach to a national broadband plan, and went out of its way to oppose Net Neutrality.

United States Telecom Association — The trade association of broadband service providers, the organization doesn’t hide its opposition to Internet-related regulation. “Today’s calls for greater government intervention are to “fix” a problem that simply does not exist as far as today’s consumer of broadband services is concerned. This unnecessary intervention would slow broadband deployment and the arrival of a wide variety of pro-consumer advances.” They have a history of running astroturf campaigns, such as ‘The Future… Faster‘ which claimed to be a “coalition” that represents both “industry leaders” and “individual Americans.” If they put they period after ‘leaders,’ they would have been correct. Consumers were nowhere to be found. USTA has a history with Issue Dynamics, a DC lobbying firm and astroturf campaign creator.

US Cable Corporation — Broadband provider

US Cattlemen’s Association — The United States Cattlemen’s Association is a membership organization working for the grassroots cattle producer. Another major oddity in the BfA membership, the USCA’s focus on cattle seems to be completely non germane to broadband issues. Jon Wooster, president, wrote a letter to the FCC urging them to approve the merger between Verizon and Alltel: “We believe the merger between Verizon Wireless and Alltel will boost competition in the cell phone industry while bringing broadband and its innovations to all Americans – whether they live in downtown or on the farm. As an established wireless carrier, Verizon Wireless has the breadth and depth to make the significant investment in rural infrastructure that is so desperately needed. It has already poured billions into a new portion of the wireless spectrum just to deliver new high-speed (broadband) service to more Americans.” The group also signed their name to a Connected Nation letter to Congress saying, in part: “We believe Congress should adopt legislation this year that provides federal government support for state initiatives using public-private partnerships to identify gaps in broadband coverage and to develop both the supply of and demand for broadband in those areas.” The letter was also signed by AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and a whole host of astroturf groups and industry-affiliated organizations.

US Chamber of Commerce — Their slogan is “fighting for your business.” The nation’s largest industry trade association, they are always, by definition on business’ side.

US Internet Industry Association — The US Internet Industry Association (USIIA) is the North American trade association for Internet commerce, content and connectivity. Most USIIA members are broadband service providers. Works with Issue Dynamics, a Washington, DC public relations firm that engages in astroturf campaigns.

US Mexico Chamber of Commerce — The organization’s mission is to promote business between the United States and Mexico. How that relates to Americans for Broadband is an open question, although Emilio Gonzalez, Director of Public Policy & Strategic Alliances at Verizon who serves on the Board of Directors of this group might provide a possible answer. Gonzalez also serves on the boards of two other BfA members: MANA and the United States Distance Learning Association. Verizon’s logo also appears on the group’s home page. They are one of four listed sponsors.

Verizon — Broadband provider

Vermeer Manufacturing Company — Farm machinery and trenchless and trenching equipment from a construction equipment manufacturer. Also harvested was the fact Vermeer belongs to “Hands Off the Internet” and signed a letter by Netcompetition opposing Net Neutrality.

Windstream Corporation — Broadband provider

Share/Save

Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them.

This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment of some $4 million dollars in its broadband networks in Charles Town and Princeton, West Virginia.  But the best part was the claim the upgrades would “offer customers fast broadband speeds and near-unlimited bandwidth capacity.”

In Princeton, 44 miles of fiber-optic cable will connect all Frontier High-Speed Internet (HSI) equipment to the exchange`s main switch, and 37 additional miles of fiber cable are being installed in the Charles Town exchange. These upgrades will allow Residential HSI speeds of up to 6 Meg and Business HSI speeds of up to 12 Meg. The upgrades will allow provisioning of Metro Ethernet service of up to 100 Meg, resulting in very high data speeds for private networks among multiple business locations.

These upgrades are all well and good, and are perhaps more than urban-focused Verizon was willing to do in the state, but before West Virginians get too excited by the words “fiber cable” and “near-unlimited bandwidth capacity,” it might be wise to consider the implications of transferring an entire state’s telephone business to a company that still insists on defining an “appropriate amount of usage” on that near-unlimited network at a piddly 5GB per month.

The company also promoted their “computer giveaway” program:

Recognizing that the lack of a personal computer is a barrier for many families, since 2006 Frontier has provided more than 10,000 free computers to qualifying customers in West Virginia. A large percentage of the computers went to first time computer households, who also benefited from free on-site installation.

To the uninitiated, that may suggest a benevolent phone company handing out free computers to the needy with no strings attached.  In fact, this was a Frontier customer acquisition promotion.  Customers signing up for a bundle of telephone and broadband and/or satellite service could qualify for a free basic Dell Netbook (valued at under $400), if they are in good standing with the company, agree to a “price protection agreement” holding them to the company for two years (or facing a nasty early termination fee running several hundred dollars), and also pay a handling fee:

Customer pays handling charges and taxes totaling $45. Customers must subscribe to a new package of Frontier residential local service with features, Unlimited Nationwide or Statewide Long Distance voice-calling and qualifying High-Speed Internet service. Requires a two-year Price Protection Plan on Frontier services (excludes satellite TV) with a $300 early termination fee. Offer available while supplies last. Frontier reserves the right to substitute a comparable Mini Laptop. Other offers available for existing High-Speed Internet customers. Applicable taxes and surcharges apply. Electronic or other written contract signature for Frontier services is required. Some Frontier services are subject to availability. Installation charges may apply. Unlimited U.S. Long Distance minutes are for residential voice usage and exclude 900, international, directory assistance and dial-up Internet calls.

For a whole lot of West Virginia, broadband service means one thing – DSL from the phone company.  Satellite broadband is costly, capped, and has terrible customer satisfaction ratings.  Cable television is a dream for significant parts of the mountainous state.  Do West Virginians want to risk their broadband future on a company that insists on an Acceptable Use Policy with a 5GB usage limit in it?

Residents of Rochester, New York know Frontier Communications all too well.  They’ve been our local telephone company since being absorbed by Citizens Communications after the colossal downfall of Global Crossing, which took ownership of the formerly independent Rochester Telephone Corporation.

Don’t let dreams of fiber dance too much in your head.  Frontier routinely installs fiber, but only between their central offices and remote equipment that helps reduce the distance between telephone switch equipment and the copper wiring out on the telephone poles.  It does help provide the potential of speed increases for DSL service by reducing the length of copper wire DSL travels on, but by no means should imply West Virginia will see fiber to the home in their near future.

If Frontier Communications lacks the means and the will to wire New York’s second largest economy and third largest metropolitan area with more than 1,000,000 residents with fiber to the home, don’t think for a moment they’re going to be any hurry to light up the state of West Virginia.

Indeed, for many residents of the Flower City, the bloom is well off Frontier’s rose, trapping this community in a broadband backwater with a telephone company unwilling and/or unable to provide the kind of 21st century broadband service that is presently being provided in several other upstate cities as Verizon installs its FiOS fiber network.  For Rochester, and for too many other cities, the broadband superhighway from the phone company has little more than tumbleweeds blowing across.

This site was founded last year when Frontier introduced its 5GB usage cap, and we coordinated a consumer response which forced the company to pull back from its enforcement.  But the threat still looms over the heads of their customers from coast to coast as long as it remains a part of their Acceptable Use Policy.

The time has come for Frontier to banish the 5GB language from its Acceptable Use Policy once and for all and stop toying with Internet Overcharging schemes altogether, especially as it seeks to bring the threat of those schemes to millions of Americans that may find their only realistic broadband option coming from this provider.  Otherwise, it’s time for consumers to get on the phones and tell their elected officials and public utility commissions how they feel about getting broadband service from a phone company that tells them:

Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Share/Save

Verizon neglects rural West Virginia while spending millions in more urban areas to upgrade to advanced fiber optic networks. (Image courtesy: Abandonedbyverizon.com)

Last November, residents in Morgan County, West Virginia became so exasperated with Verizon’s unwillingness to provide high speed DSL service in this rural region of the state, residents took to the streets holding signs proclaiming “Verizon neglects rural West Virginia” and “Honk for Broadband Internet.” A website called Abandoned By Verizon was launched to highlight the problem.

The problem? Verizon is spending its time, attention, and money on rewiring America’s larger cities with advanced fiber optic networks while selling off their rural customers to independent telephone companies.

Last year, Jennifer Carpenter-Peak and her husband Bob organized a public protest after being strung along by Verizon for more than three years for DSL broadband service. Each time they inquired about availability, they were told it was coming sometime later. Last fall, they were told to wait until sometime this year.

Of course, if the Peak family and their neighbors wanted service any quicker, they could always pony up the $10,000-100,000 the company wanted to wire their neighborhood, or opt for a slow T-1 commercial service line for around $500 a month.

Bob Peak told The Morgan Messenger it has been impossible to e-mail his photos and graphic designs from home. He takes his laptop and drives to town or to Cacapon State Park to send files.

“It’s become increasingly difficult to do business because all of my clients and vendors expect it,” Peak said of high-speed internet.

The Carpenter-Peak family also relied on some map data produced by Connected Nation’s ‘Connect West Virginia’ which broad-brushed Morgan County in April 2008 with lots of broadband service in the western and northern parts of the county. Of course, such service is not consistently available in all of the areas ‘Connect West Virginia’ claims, which is another reason why groups like this, well-connected with telecommunications industry players, should not be drawing maps for anyone.

One didn’t need a map to find area residents who agreed with the Peak family’s predicament:

Jim Hoyt said Frontier Communications had made a big effort to provide DSL to its telephone customers in the western end of the county. He wondered why the U.S. 522 Business Park didn’t have DSL.

Angela Petry said a lot of people are working from home and have a need for high-speed internet. It will keep dollars in the county, she said.

Bibi Hahn said one family in their subdivision would spend more time here if they had DSL.

“We need it. We need leadership to get it. We need commissioners and the governor demanding it,” Hahn said.

Getting high-speed broadband internet access throughout the county is the highest priority, said County Administrator Bill Clark.

Broadband was the top issue at the county’s Economic Development Authority summit and is of great importance locally, Clark said.

Clark has been working with all county providers to try and make headway, but it’s just not happening as fast as everyone would like it to, he said.

“It takes infrastructure,” Clark said.

Verizon has expanded its internet presence in the county and Frontier has DSL in some fairly isolated places, he said.

It will take people like last week’s protestors as well as petitions and surveys to get high-speed internet to more county areas, he said.

A new telecommunications committee is also trying to get a handle on the problem, Clark said.

What the Peak family probably didn’t realize is that Verizon was hard at work on a plan of a different kind:  to throw the state of West Virginia, and the Peak family themselves, under the proverbial bus by selling off their operations and getting out of the Mountain State. That’s because Verizon doesn’t consider West Virginia worth the effort to rewire with the advanced fiber network it deploys in other larger states, so why spend millions of dollars when they can let the company that buys those assets deal with it?

On July 2nd, Verizon announced it was going to offer DSL service to another 1,800 lines in Morgan County, expecting to reach parts of the following areas: Route 522, near the Morgan County Business Park; Route 9 East in the River Road and Clone Run Road areas; the Johnsons Mill Road area that includes parts of Highland Ridge, Duckwall, Spriggs and Rupenthal roads; Great Cacapon, including the Maidstone and Cacapon River Meadows communities; Spruce Pine Hollow area, including Chestnut Grove and Spruce Pine Hollow communities, plus parts of Burnt Mill, Potter, Michael’s Chapel and Victory Lane roads; the River Road area, including Sleepy Creek Farms community and parts of Rover, Householder, Crone Lane and Poole roads; parts of Pious Ridge, Culp and River roads; Mountain Run Road area, including New Hope Acres and Deer Run Woods communities, and parts of Mountain Run, Shades Lane, Swaim Lane and Duckwall roads; Winchester Grade Road in the area of Sleepy Creek Forest community and parts of Virginia Line, Highland Ridge, Posey Hollow and Barnes Lane roads; and Spohrs Cross Road area, including areas along Route 9 and parts of Spohrs and Potomac roads.

Verizon’s entry-level DSL service offers speeds of up to 1 Mbps (megabits per second) downstream and 384 Kbps (kilobits per second) upstream. Consumers who want faster speed can order Verizon’s offering of up to 3 Mbps downstream and 768 Kbps upstream.  No guarantee for customers actually achieving those speeds is provided, however.  Providing service at speeds better than that will be up to the new owner of West Virginia’s telecommunications future.

Morgan County, West Virginia

That company will be Frontier Communications, if a deal can be approved by state regulators.

Frontier Communications is aggressive about deploying DSL broadband service to its mostly-rural customers. That’s because broadband is one of the company’s growth areas. Frontier wired telephone line customers are declining as customers switch to competitors or rely on their mobile phone for telephone service. But broadband service is a bright spot for Frontier, as it’s often the only player in town beyond incredibly cumbersome and expensive satellite broadband services in rural areas.

Will Frontier bring DSL to the Peak family and their neighbors if the deal is approved? Almost certainly, eventually. For West Virginia, the question of what kind of broadband service Frontier will provide is an entirely different, but equally important question.

Frontier continues to rely on increasingly dated ADSL standard service across most of its service areas. It’s a technology more than a decade old, with plenty of limitations and little room for growth. Frontier should be willing to provide at least ADSL 2+ service in less populated areas, and either VDSL service or fiber-to-the-home in more populated town and city centers. Both DSL “standards” are improvements over the original, and can often provide substantially faster speeds and room for growth well into the future. It also creates the potential for equity of access for rural and more urban consumers, or at least something approximating it.

In rural areas, standard DSL speeds often don’t exceed 1.5Mbps, and are sometimes even slower. Installation costs can be substantial, along with the monthly subscriber fees, taxes and surcharges, and modem rental costs. The further away one lives from the telephone company central office, the slower and less reliable the service becomes. Some customers living more than 18,000 feet from a central office will not be able to obtain the service at any speed.

Additionally, Frontier Communications continues to define an acceptable amount of residential broadband usage at a paltry 5GB per month. Although the company has not enforced that limitation to date, nothing precludes them from cutting customers off who exceed that minuscule amount of usage, or charge them overlimit penalties and fees for exceeding it down the road. That puts Frontier in a league shared only by wireless data providers like Verizon Wireless, AT&T Mobility, and Sprint. No other wired provider of note “limits” consumers to that tiny amount of usage. We continue to call on Frontier to delete the entire reference to “5GB” of usage from their Acceptable Use Policy, particularly if the company truly intends not to enforce it.

Should rural residents find themselves with Frontier as their only broadband service provider, the kind of broadband service they will endure, without revolutionary upgrades, could be essentially suspended in time while the rest of the nation marches forward with ever-increasing speeds and potentially lower pricing as a result of competition. It’s a phenomenon known as establishing a “broadband backwater,” where consumers are trapped with sub-standard service with onerous limits, slow speeds, and high pricing with little or no competition.

Although companies like Verizon have the financial resources to rewire even the smallest states with advanced broadband networks, even if they are currently unwilling to do so, smaller providers could find themselves in a reverse position – wanting to deploy advanced networks but lacking the financial capacity to do so.

The unnerving part about all of this is the Obama Administration is set to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to improve and enhance broadband networks, particularly in rural areas across states like West Virginia. Telecommunications companies nationwide are hiring consultants and grant specialists to tailor-write grant applications to receive public funds to build out their broadband networks. It would be a terrific shame if public money went to providers building networks based on yesterday’s technology, with paltry usage limits and high pricing for consumers, with some or most of those costs to construct the networks paid by taxpayers like you and I. That’s having your broadband cake and eating it too.

No telephone company should ever be given public money to construct broadband networks that cannot meet the need for increased speeds and consistent levels of service for every customer, today and in the future, regardless of whether they live in the largest city or a small mountain town in West Virginia. No sales transaction transferring assets from one phone company to another should be granted unless the needs of consumers are given first priority, not the afterthought they were given with some prior deals (FairPoint, Hawaiian Telecom, etc.) No public money should ever be handed over to a broadband provider that wants to establish Internet Overcharging schemes like paltry limits and tiers either, especially in non-competitive areas where consumers have just one choice.

This article was published originally on ConsumerTel, our new pro-consumer website protecting the interests of telephone company subscribers.

Share/Save

The price of providing lousy telephone and broadband Internet service in three New England states?  $2.8 million dollars in fines, and counting.

FairPoint Communications has been piling up fines and penalties for almost a year now, providing third world phone service with the competitive spirit of Hugo Chavez.  Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont officials started fining the company after it blasted FairPoint’s “failure to meet certain standards for quality and timeliness of interconnections.”  FairPoint is required by law to open its networks to local competitors, and the results of those trying to purchase access at wholesale rates have been about as acceptable as those residential customers have dealt with since Verizon threw them under the bus and left town more than a year ago.

The company’s response?  It wants Maine’s Public Utilities Commission, for one, to waive the $845,000 it owes to local phone carriers.  In a filing with the PUC, it asks that waiving or modifying the payments will let it return its focus to fixing faulty networks to normal operating levels.

In other words, it was penalized for not doing its job and promises, if the penalties go away, it will do its job.  What happens if the penalties don’t go away?

FairPoint’s plans for broadband expansion in its service area were called into question when the company announced it has the potential to go bankrupt if bondholders don’t agree to waive certain payment requirements.

Share/Save

Without an agreement by Fairpoint’s bondholders to delay repayment of at least 95% of FairPoint’s debt, the troubled phone company could find itself in bankruptcy by the end of the year.

That is the company’s own assessment in its most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  FairPoint’s crushing debt was taken on in order to purchase the assets of Verizon Communications in three New England states — Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  Verizon has been dumping customers in less proftable areas to concentrate on more populated areas.

Since the sale, it has been one nightmare after another for consumers in those three states, dealing with a phone company called “abysmal,” and a “third-world telephone company” by its customers, and “completely unacceptable” by several state regulators.  From Vermont, where inept employees bungled even the simplest tasks of maintaining basic telephone and Internet service, to New Hampshire where incompetence forced a few businesses to seriously contemplate moving to Massachusetts just to get a telephone line installed, to Maine, where life-threatening 911 failures caused havoc, FairPoint has not proven worthy of running telephone service for any customer in New England.

“There’s no satisfaction in saying I told you so,” said Rand Wilson, a spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2222 in Boston. “FairPoint said their experience would be different.”

The IBEW was one of the first critics of the sale, and focused their attention directly on point – the debt the company would take on to make the deal.  They ran advertising in all of the impacted states and also pressured lawmakers to review the deal more carefully.

Audio Clip: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Radio Spots (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The IBEW has experience with bad telephone companies.  In Hawaii, their members blasted a deal where a private equity firm borrowed heavily to purchase Hawaii’s largest phone company from Verizon in 2005.  It was also a disaster for consumers, with lousy customer service, declining revenue, and eventual bankruptcy.  IBEW warned state officials pondering a Verizon-FairPoint deal about their experiences.  State officials didn’t listen.

Now those same officials are hiring consultants to prepare their states for the real possibility of FairPoint going bust by the end of the year.  Should that happen, phone service will almost certainly continue for millions of New England FairPoint customers.  But as far as a restructured FairPoint keeping all of the promises it made to get approval of the deal, residents may find those deals are disconnected or no longer in service.

Share/Save

Verizon is concerned about potential risks for data hacking and security breaches associated with mergers and acquisitions in undertakes.  The Verizon Business Risk Team reported that 13% of the breaches studied in 2008 involved companies undergoing transition as part of a merger or acquisition.

Verizon signaled caution to prospective Frontier Communications territories about to be spun away from Verizon:

“Mergers and acquisitions bring together not only the people and products of once separate organizations, but their technology environments as well. Integration rarely happens overnight or without a hitch.”

TheDeal.com writes Verizon has the experience to understand the risks, as both a buyer and seller.

Verizon’s selling of its operations in New England to FairPoint Communications was particularly noted, because of ongoing billing, customer care, and other transition problems, some of which are still unresolved to this day.

Share/Save

In this wrap-up report on the saga of FairPoint, it's not hard to see a risk for establishing "telecommunications backwaters" in states where major phone companies exit for "greener pastures." The companies taking over service must be held to high standards, even if it means rejecting the deal. (Image courtesy: pfly)

Unlucky part thirteen is especially appropriate.  Is this the final chapter?  Hardly, as the telephone company’s endless problems perpetuate a never-ending saga of bad service, woefully inadequate planning, and unprepared regulators.  It’s an illustration of the future telecommunications backwaters that many communities will cope with as major providers leave for richer returns elsewhere.

However, we have reached the end of the beginning — the review of the entire sordid history of Verizon-FairPoint transaction from its beginning in 2007 until June 2009.

In this wrap-up, the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are coping with ongoing delays in service requests, major billing problems from FairPoint, and company requests to begin enforcing collection action against those with past due accounts.

We begin with a friendly interview, from FairPoint’s perspective, with WMUR’s New Hampshire Business.  Host Fred Kocher is one of the few people we’ve seen speak in positive terms about FairPoint.  FairPoint spokesperson Jill Wurm didn’t exactly need to squirm in her seat in this interview on May 22nd.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Billing issues have been part of the long lasting problems customers have faced with the switch from Verizon to FairPoint, with wrong amounts, payments going unapplied, and new charges for disconnected lines driving customers crazy.  FairPoint sought approval to begin collection activity on past due accounts, and as WMUR reports on June 3rd, state regulators wanted to monitor the process to make sure a new nightmare wouldn’t begin:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Finally, back on June 9th, New Hampshire regulators decided it would be appropriate to review where things stand with FairPoint, with another hearing with the public and company executives.  WMUR closes our series with their report:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Where do we go from here?  The FairPoint story has hardly ended, and we’ll continue coverage as issues warrant.  Meanwhile, Frontier Communications’ proposed takeover of Verizon customers in multiple states is just beginning.  We’ll be advocating that customers, as well as regulatory officials, take to heart the experiences of New England’s endless adventures with FairPoint and make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

Share/Save

March ended with yet another public hearing on the seemingly endless series of problems customers in New Hampshire were experiencing from FairPoint.  The Public Utilities Commission sent FairPoint a letter in April laying out benchmarks it expected the company to comply with to address the problems once and for all.

Meanwhile, a FairPoint spokesperson pushed the goal post even further away, now claiming the company’s “plan all along” was to resolve problems by June 30, 2009.  WMUR summed up the problems, and what New Hampshire regulators hoped would finally be the solution.

Click here to view the embedded video.

By May of this year, FairPoint finally started putting a dent in the number of customer complaints filed with Public Utilities regulators in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  Billing problems were now the biggest challenge for the company.  Customers receiving incorrect bills (or not receiving them at all) started refusing to pay until an accurate bill could be sent.  Many others found they were still being billed for lines disconnected weeks or even months earlier.

Wall Street, and credit rating agencies were following the chaos in New England, and didn’t like what they saw.  Customers were fleeing to the competition in high numbers.  The company cannot pay its debt without paying  customers.  The stock price had been declining as well.  Considering all of those factors, along with FairPoint’s quarterly earnings report, a range of rating services downgraded FairPoint’s credit rating, with one openly speculating FairPoint could face bankruptcy.

WCSH in Portland, Maine picks up the story on May 8th:

Click here to view the embedded video.

It was only a matter of time before business customers would bring in attorneys and find a way to make FairPoint pay for the lost business and other problems associated with messing up their phone service.  One business in Casco, Maine threatened to do just that, and it led the news on May 15th on WCSH Portland:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share/Save

Robert Cyran, writing for BreakingViews, is concerned about the profit capacity of telephone and cable companies in the coming years.

Noting that wired, high speed services often account for more than half the revenue of providers, anything that challenges those margins could provoke hostile reaction from Wall Street, dissatisfied with diminishing returns.

Cyran specifically calls out Frontier Communications, FairPoint Communications, and Qwest for not having wireless (mobile phone) divisions and for their high level of debt.

He’s also been absorbing Sanford Bernstein’s views on the telecommunications industry, which typically guarantees Verizon fiber-to-the-home cost bashing.  And yes, it’s in there:

True, in urban areas where Verizon and AT&T are laying optical fibre, their fixed-line businesses are doing relatively well. Customers like super-fast internet connections, and the companies can pump bundles of services such as voice and television through it. But in rural areas, fibre is prohibitively expensive to lay, and customers without high-speed service options have more reason to rely solely on a mobile phone.

Verizon and AT&T won’t escape unharmed. Verizon is spending about $4,000 per customer to lay fibre.

Verizon is spending money on fiber service that customers like and are generating healthy revenues, but the fiber optics “harms” Verizon.  At least the bashing is consistent.

Cyran claims cable’s biggest problem is that margins for their broadband divisions have been slowly dropping.  Should customers defect en masse to competitors, things could get bad fast:

And when businesses like these with high fixed costs see customers defect, margins can contract quickly and even go negative.

One way to guarantee mass defections is to try to gouge consumers with Internet Overcharging schemes.  In markets where equivalent levels of service are available, customers have the option of leaving the Overcharger behind for a more customer-friendly option.  Unfortunately, not every market has equivalent competitors.

Cyran’s predictions for the future?  Big troubles for Frontier, FairPoint, and Qwest who he predicts will see ongoing declines in their cash flow and increasing difficulty in paying back their debts.  The companies will also struggle with the limitations of aging copper infrastructure to provide advanced class services (high speed broadband, video, and telephone) customers increasingly expect.  In larger communities, many customers will leave for competitors who can provide those services (in these cases that means the cable company).  In rural communities, customers will increasingly rely on cell phones as their only telephone line.

Fairpoint’s stock has fallen about 70% over the last 12 months and Hawaiian Telecom, which Carlyle bought in 2005, filed for bankruptcy at the end of last year. Yet Quest and Frontier’s stocks both still trade at more than 10 times estimated 2010 earnings. Since there’s little chance customer defections from wired telecom businesses such as theirs will stop, their stocks could have much further to fall.

Share/Save

FairPoint customers pay $25 fee to stop automatic payment withdrawals FairPoint failed to make, causing accounts to fall past due

By late March, those customers who had dial tones from their FairPoint lines began to grow concerned about the newest nightmare from the company that took over telephone service across three New England states.  Billing problems began immediately after FairPoint converted to its own billing systems, and customers noticed.

The company explained it had a “loss of data” when their own billing system went online, and information from Verizon’s old billing system never made it to the new FairPoint system.

The result was loss of confidence in FairPoint, as customers grew increasingly concerned about inaccurate bills, lost payments, and as one New Hampshire couple discovered, the company’s inability to process “automatic payments” from customers on time, generating past due bills.  Concerned about the impact late notices will have on their credit rating, they spend $25 to get their bank to stop automatic payments that FairPoint failed to make on time.  WMUR reports:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In Vermont, customers frustrated with bills that never arrived wanted out.  As one customer working in Saint Johnsbury discovered, there was no way to reach the company to tell them to cancel service.  Vermont state regulators finally grew tired of FairPoint’s Public Relations excuses.  They demanded evidence service was improving.  WCAX reports:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission held an emotional hearing at the start of April, with some customers driving more than an hour to give regulators, and the president of FairPoint, a piece of their minds:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share/Save