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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report agrees with the IBEW position:

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

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

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

McCarthy

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

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

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

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

Among the Illinois communities impacted by the transaction:

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

A major service outage impacting Road Runner and Digital Phone service from Time Warner Cable began early this morning is ongoing.  Customers contacting Time Warner Cable in Maine, New York, and western Massachusetts are being told there is a service outage ongoing with both services, resulting in no dial tone and slow/no Internet service.

Presumably, there is a problem at the Regional Operations Center in Syracuse.

There is no estimated time for service restoration.

Cable television service is not affected.

[Update 2:00pm EST — Time Warner Cable blamed the outage on a defective router, which we heard was in the Binghamton area.  Service was “restored” at 9:45am although we’ve noticed that meant they shifted traffic onto other regional networks and that was still causing some page loading problems until late in the morning.

The outage was acknowledged on Time Warner Cable’s customer service lines in New York, Massachusetts, and Maine.  Rochester had the first recorded message up very early this morning, with the others coming by 8:45am.]

[Update 4:36pm EST — Customers impacted by the outage can obtain one day of Road Runner service credit, but only if you call or write to ask.  You can use the online customer form on Time Warner Cable’s website for your area or call your local customer service number.  The outage began around 5:20am this morning.]

Time Warner Cable customers with deep pockets and a need for speed will find Time Warner Cable’s new Wideband Internet service arriving in certain North Texas neighborhoods on or around March 19th.

Made possible by DOCSIS 3 upgrades, the new service will provide 50/5 Mbps service for as low as $99.99 per month.

As has been the case in other cities getting TWC’s Wideband service, self-install kits are not yet available and a formal service call is required.  You will also need a new DOCSIS 3-capable cable modem.

Interested customers in the Dallas area can call Time Warner Cable after March 19th at (972) 742-5892 to determine if service is available yet in your neighborhood.

Time Warner Cable competes with both AT&T and Verizon across its North Texas division.

AT&T U-verse maxes out at 24 Mbps currently, and although Verizon FiOS can match Time Warner Cable’s speed, the phone company’s current price is $40 higher for the service.

Customers who need this level of speed should call Verizon or Time Warner Cable and inquire about any promotional pricing that could lower your bill for several months.  In New York City, some customers received discounted Time Warner Cable Wideband service for six months.

Eventually, competition should result in lower prices for super fast broadband connections.  DOCSIS 3 upgrades offer a win-win for both customers and the cable company providing the service.  Increased capacity resolves neighborhood congestion issues and also permits higher speed, premium-priced tiers to deliver additional profits to providers.  In return, customers who need ultra-fast speeds get them, and are only to happy to pay for them, as long as they are not usage-capped.  Nothing destroys the value of premium-priced tiers better than unjustified usage limitations.

Comcast is back with another rate increase effective April 1st, amounting to 3.5 percent for many cable, broadband, and telephone customers.

Although prices vary depending on your specific service area, the range of the price increase is more consistent.

In southern New Jersey, for example, here is the breakdown — all prices are by the month:

• Expanded/Standard service cable-TV tiers are increasing $2.  Expanded service customers could pay up to $50.10, Standard customers $60.55;
• Triple Play customers will see a $5 increase in the second year of their two-year contract from $114.99 to $119.99.  First year pricing remains $99 for new customers;
• Digital Premium Packages are increasing $2;
• Economy Broadband (1Mbps) increases $2, Performance (12Mbps) increases $2, Blast! (16Mbps) increases $2, Ultra sees no price increases (but goes away for new customers effective 4/1);
• Comcast phone line prices are also increasing in certain cases;
• Each additional DVR drops by $5 — Verizon FiOS was hammering Comcast about DVR pricing.

There are no rate changes for business service customers or subscribers with “limited basic service.”  There is also no change in the company’s broadband usage allowance — 250 GB, the only part of Comcast’s service that seems to stubbornly remain at the same level year after year.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator, blamed the mid-year price increases on increased programming and other business costs.

But the company is not exactly hurting.  Comcast’s 4th quarter earnings last year jumped 132 percent to $955 million dollars.  Rate increases that are designed to drive consumers into profitable service bundles, combining television, Internet, and telephone service, guarantee even better financial results in 2010.

Verizon is already capitalizing on Comcast’s rates by offering residents in southern New Jersey an even better price for Verizon FiOS — dropping from $109.99 for two years to $89.99, not including taxes and fees.  But like Comcast, Verizon wants you take a bundle of services, or else face higher prices.  The company recently increased the price for FiOS TV to $64.99 for standalone service.

A column this week in The Post-Standard falls into the trap of believing usage caps on wired broadband service represent “fairness.”

Al Fasoldt, who writes a technology column for the Syracuse, N.Y. newspaper, told readers they should investigate buying and/or using usage measurement tools in order to protect themselves from a surprising bill at the end of the month.

Caps can make their service fairer to all customers by blocking excessive downloads that clog the network, and those who exceed their caps can be charged a great deal extra for service. This amounts to free money for ISPs.

But there is something counterintuitive about promoting new ways to get entertainment on the Internet — by using Hulu, for example, to stream TV shows to your home computer — while telling customers they can’t use more than a certain amount of data.

[…]

What’s needed is a simple way to measure how much data you use per month. Cable providers sometimes provide a Web page that logs each customer’s transfer totals — call your ISP to find out if your plan has such a feature — but you can easily track usage yourself with data-usage software utilities.

Time Warner Cable headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Fasoldt assumes facts not in evidence.  Simply put, there is nothing fair about usage caps, particularly on wired broadband service.  Fasoldt can be partly excused for making the assumption because he lives in Syracuse, where Verizon FiOS and Time Warner Cable compete heavily for customers in the Salt City.  Veterans of actual Internet Overcharging experiments, and those who live under usage caps and usage-based billing can testify about the true implications of such schemes.

They are nothing short of rationing broadband service for fatter profits.

In Rochester, where Fasoldt notes customers successfully fought off Time Warner’s experiment, customers do not have the luxury of two closely-matched competitors.  They have the cable company and a telephone company that stubbornly clings to its own 5 GB usage allowance in its terms and conditions, albeit presently unenforced.  Where competition is at bay, higher prices for limited service are in play.

At least Fasoldt admits it’s also about the money.

There is nothing counter-intuitive about promoting online video services and then slapping usage caps on them when you realize it’s really ALL about the money and not about “fairness.”  Limiting video consumption is critical to protecting cable television packages.  If you can watch it all online, why keep paying for cable-TV?  With a usage cap, there are no worries about that ever happening.

As this website has repeatedly documented, consumers do not need to invest in usage measurement tools that are a nuisance to install and monitor.  They just need a broadband provider that can be happy living off the billions in profits already earned from today’s unlimited broadband service without greedily trying to overcharge consumers even higher pricing for limited service in the future.

Fasoldt would do better by his readers telling them to follow the example of communities who have been exposed to such schemes.  They got involved, threatened to cancel service, and created a sufficiently large enough headache for providers who eventually determined, for now, it just wasn’t worth alienating customers with unwanted pricing schemes.