A Kennewick, Washington couple became so exasperated with Charter Cable’s unwillingness to fix a cable hanging off their roof and into their yard they finally called a local television station for help.

Over a seven month period, the Dunbar family contended with a series of broken promises from Charter to fix the problem, but the company never did.  Ralph Dunbar, 82, finally climbed on the roof himself to get the cable out of the yard where someone might trip over it.

“I don’t want it on the ground where a child or dog could get hurt or my meter reader. It doesn’t belong on the ground or it would have been there in the first place so I want it fixed,” Laura Dunbar told KEPR Action News.

The Dunbar family endured this Charter Cable line hanging off their roof for seven months

Within hours of the station calling Charter, the problem was finally fixed.

Laura Dunbar remains upset it took a local television station to get Charter moving on their behalf, and KEPR reporter Chelsea Kopta called Charter looking for an explanation for the delay, to no avail.

“I called Charter headquarters in Phoenix with my questions,” Kopta reports. “By the close of business no one said they had time to answer my questions over the phone.”

John Miller, Director of Communications for Charter, later issued this statement:

We apologize for any concern this may have caused our customers or their neighbor.  We are pleased the issue has been successfully resolved for the Dunbars, who are long time Charter customers.

The story apparently drew enough attention the first day it was reported, the station’s follow-up report led the newscast the following evening.

Charter Cable recently emerged from bankruptcy reorganization.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KEPR Pasco Dunbar Family Endures Charter Cable’s Bad Service 1-4 and 1-5-10.flv[/flv]

KEPR-TV in Pasco, Washington ran two reports about the Dunbar’s ongoing problems with Charter Cable. (January 4 & 5, 2010 – 3 minutes)

We’ve heavily covered the proposed sale of Verizon landline service to Frontier Communications since the deal was announced last spring.  This should not come as a big surprise, considering Frontier Communications’ decision to insert a 5GB monthly usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy in the summer of 2008 was what instigated the launch of Stop the Cap! in the first place.  Frontier’s decision was boneheaded at best in a city like Rochester with a very aggressive cable competitor only too willing to bash Frontier for implementing it if they thought it would win more customers.

But of course Frontier Communications’ Rochester operation is an anomaly for ‘rural America’s phone company.’  For the majority of rural customers, it’s far easier to slap customers around with a usage cap and 1-3Mbps DSL service when those customers have few, if any practical alternatives.  Unfortunately, there is real money to be made from their business plan serving frequently non-competitive communities with incrementally-upgraded “just enough” broadband service with unfriendly terms and conditions attached.

In several of the 14 states impacted by the proposed sale, the relatively small number of customers involved made it easy for regulators to quickly approve the proposal with few conditions attached. The deal flew under the radar and got scant press in most of these states.  Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia are another matter.  Regulators are taking a closer look at the deal in all three states where most of the controversy is taking place.  The deal is most contentious in West Virginia, where Verizon’s exit threatens to turn most of the state’s landline business over to Frontier Communications.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing the public comments left on more than a dozen news sites, forums, and printed letters to the editor regarding the deal.  We’ve seen comments obviously coming from Frontier employees, union members, politicians, business leaders, and competitors.  But the vast majority come from ordinary consumers who have concerns about what the deal will do to their telephone and broadband service.  Most of the comments from consumers that embrace the sale don’t do so because they are fans of Frontier.  They simply loathe Verizon and want an alternative.  Boiled down, the consensus among those in favor of Frontier taking over is “let them try… they can’t do any worse than Verizon.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston PSC Phone Hearing 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covers West Virginia’s Public Service Commission hearings reviewing the proposed deal.  Frontier employees arrived in Charleston to lobby for the sale. (1 minute)

Desperate for Broadband

There are a lot of West Virginians who still have no broadband options.  Frontier claims Verizon provides only 60 percent of their customers with a broadband option — DSL service that tops out at 7Mpbs, if you live in an urban area.  Those that don’t have often waited years for Verizon to extend DSL service into their communities or neighborhoods.  It’s a problem common in mountainous, often rural states like West Virginia where infrastructure costs can be prohibitive.  Customers believe that Frontier Communications will tolerate a lower return on their investment providing DSL service to those customers Verizon ignored.

Promising to expand broadband service in rural, unserved areas is a common sales point for all of the prior Verizon sell-offs.  Hawaiian Telcom promised improved broadband service and speed.  Fairpoint promised to expand DSL availability to 75 percent of all access lines within 18 months of the sale, 85 percent within two years and 95 percent within five years.  Frontier Communications promises to expand broadband service as well, claiming they already provide 92 percent of their existing West Virginia customers with the option.  Of course, Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint both reneged on their commitments before going bankrupt.  Frontier Communications hasn’t yet been held to any specific commitment or timeline in West Virginia as part of their proposed takeover of service.

Consumer Reports rated TV, phone, and Internet providers, including Verizon and Frontier, in its February 2010 issue

To those suffering with dial-up or satellite fraudband, -any- broadband option seems like a miracle, even if it turns out to be 1-3Mbps DSL service with a 5GB allowance.  But as those kinds of anemic speeds arrive, cutting edge multimedia-rich broadband applications will become increasingly mainstream and leave these customers behind, again.  With a 5GB usage limit, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because customers will never be able to take advantage of services that will rapidly blow through those limits.  Make no mistake, a user’s broadband experience at 1.5Mbps with a 5GB allowance is going to be considerably different than a customer enjoying online multimedia from a cable provider or the next generation broadband service from Verizon FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse.  Think e-mail and basic web browsing, and that’s about all.

What kind of broadband experience does Frontier Communications bring?  This month, Consumer Reports rated Frontier dead last among DSL providers that own and operate their own broadband networks (subscription required).  The magazine rated 27 regional fiber, cable, and satellite providers and Frontier’s DSL ended up #19 on the list, the lowest rating of any DSL provider selling service on its own network.  Only Earthlink, which usually buys access on other providers’ networks came in lower among DSL providers.  Verizon actually scored higher than Frontier.

Frontier’s DSL service merited a 67 out of 100 score, rating only fair on value, speed, reliability, and customer support, based on 56,080 Consumer Reports subscribers who have a home Internet account.

Frontier’s phone service rated even lower, second to last in the survey.  Frontier was rated fair on value, reliability and call quality.  Only Mediacom did worse.  Verizon scored much better on reliability.  The magazine’s survey of phone companies was based on 37,484 respondents with phone service and was completed in the spring of 2009.

The consumer magazine did not recommend DSL for broadband access, suggesting consumers would do better with fiber optic broadband first, and cable modem service second.

Union Bashing – The enemy of my enemy is my friend

A significant minority of comments were focused entirely on union bashing, completely ignoring the specifics of the Frontier-Verizon sale.  All these people knew was that if the Communications Workers of America or other union was involved, they were the “real problem,” accusing union bosses of opposing the deal until they were paid off.

Nonsense.

Reality trumps anti-union talking points.  Consumers can review for themselves who correctly predicted the outcome of the last two deals of the recent past.  They were the CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who accurately identified the service problems, the network transition problems, the debt load that prevented service expansion and upgrades, and the eventual bankruptcies experienced at Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint Communications.  It turns out that asking front line employees who work in the office and out in the field maintaining the network are well positioned to give an honest assessment of these transactions that others seek to candy coat to get the deal done.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Charleston Frontier Defends Deal 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV in Charleston delivered this decidedly pro-Frontier news report on the company’s efforts to counter opposition to the proposed sale. (3 minutes)

The Opposition

A large number of comments from those who oppose the deal believe they will actually be far worse off with Frontier.  Most relate the experiences of themselves or their friends and family who live in Frontier service areas, and they’re unhappy with Frontier’s poor customer service, reliability, and slow speed DSL.  Many were also unhappy with Frontier’s automatically-renewing contracts committing customers to stay with the company or face a steep early cancellation penalty.  Many more lament the lack of a future with Verizon fiber optics.

David Swanson, who blogs from his home in Golden Valley, Arizona just dumped Frontier for his local cable provider – Golden Valley Cable & Communications.  He says he was overpaying for Frontier’s DSL and phone package.  Together, after fees and taxes, $90 a month went to Frontier and $73 a month went to DirecTV for television service.  With his new cable bundle, he pays $100 a month for everything.  He uses Boost mobile for his phone, and has no need for a landline.

Reviews on DSL Reports aren’t exactly positive about Frontier either.

One Rochester customer isn’t happy with the “spotty service” he’s experienced on Frontier’s aging copper wire infrastructure, noting they don’t seem to be in any hurry to upgrade facilities in western New York.  He’s stuck with unreliable DSL service far slower than what Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service can provide. Another customer in Lowville, New York admits he has to live with Frontier’s slow speed DSL because there is no other provider available.  In Kingman, Arizona one customer rated the company’s DSL service “slightly better than nothing.”

Even customers who had had good things to say about Frontier in forums often acknowledge their service simply isn’t a good value when considering the high cost charged for the slow speed received.

What Can Be Done?

At this point, it is critical impacted customers contact their state utility commission and state representatives and tell them this deal does not work for you.  It is true Verizon wants out of these service areas, and should they win the right to withdraw someone will have to assume control of landline operations in these communities.  But the terms and conditions for the company seeking to provide service should favor customers and not the Wall Street dealmakers.  Strict financial pre-conditions should be in place to guarantee the buyer is up to the task of providing service and upgrades.  Historically, it’s been far too easy to simply renege on the deal with a quick trip to Bankruptcy Court to shed the debt these deals pile on, and be rid of the service commitments that were part of the approval process.

A company that believes they’ll earn plenty from this deal should be spending plenty to provide quality broadband service starting at 10Mbps, not the 1-3Mbps service Frontier provides most of its rural service areas.  What chance do communities in West Virginia have to stay competitive in a digital economy that requires faster broadband access without the ridiculously low usage limits Frontier includes in their customer agreements?  In fact, usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes should be explicitly banned as part of any sales agreement.

Holding Verizon responsible for the outcome of deals that benefit them and their shareholders while sticking customers with a bankrupt provider must be considered.  An important component of past Verizon’s landline-dumping-deals involves the Reverse Morris Trust — delivering a tax-free transaction for Verizon and piles of debt for the buyer. That puts all the risk on ratepayers, lower level employees who are among the first to go when cost-cutting begins, and head-scratching regulators wondering where it all went wrong.  The only ones not doing any hand-wringing are Verizon’s accountants and the executive management of both companies who conjure up such deals.  That’s because they are rarely held accountable, and often win retention bonuses even while a company is mired in bankruptcy.

Regulators should insist Verizon play a fundamental role in insuring that customers are protected even after the deal closes, honoring commitments and financing operations should the buyer fail soon after the sale is complete.  Under these conditions, customers are protected and Verizon might think twice about structuring a deal that loads the buyer down in insurmountable debt.

“This deal is driven by greed — and we can learn from Northern New England’s and Hawaii’s experience to make sure it does not come to pass here or in the other 13 states,” said CWA’s District Two Vice-President Ron Collins, who has been leading the campaign in West Virginia.

A Torrington man wants a law empowering consumers to charge their cable companies “rent” for allowing their unwanted cable boxes to stay in customers’ homes.

“I’ve got to keep it warm, I’ve got to feed it electricity. If anything happens to it, I’ve got to pay $175,” Stephen Simonin shared with the regulatorily-toothless Litchfield County Cable Television Advisory Council.  “It’s absolutely insane,” he said before being elected chairman of the Council.

The Republican-American covered the converter box debacle, and the ongoing dispute between Cablevision and Scripps-owned HGTV and Food Network, thrown off the cable lineup on New Year’s Day.

The growing variety and intensity of disputes between consumers and largely deregulated cable operators may signal a growing backlash against the cable industry and its potential for a more regulated future.

In the absence of regulation, Simonin said, “it is like the wild west.”

Simonin lodged official complaints about his converter box long before his wife began griping about the absence of Food Network from the family television. State regulators are equally powerless to force cable companies to provide content without converter boxes, or specific channel offerings, as are the various cable advisory councils.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate, said he opposed the federal law that deregulated the cable television industry in 1996, and continues to oppose it.

“I have said again and again and again over the years, Congress not only stripped states of their power to effectively protect consumers, but also failed to provide for federal protections,” Blumenthal said. There “really is no effective oversight or scrutiny.”

Telecommunications company-owned equipment, and the rental fee income earned from it, can occasionally be a source for profit-padding, especially when providers don’t allow customers to purchase and own their own equipment.  Television sets were supposed to be designed to accommodate digital cable transmissions without a required converter box as the country adopted new digital television-capable sets, but consumer experiences with a cable-box-free CableCARD plug-in cards have been mixed.

“The situation is infinitely more complicated than that suggests,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of Media Access Project. Schwartzman said about 90 percent of the televisions currently in use do not have the capability Simonin describes, though he agrees “companies like Cablevision are, in fact, monopolizing the set top box to their benefit.”

Schwartzman said the FCC has promised prompt review of a petition filed two weeks ago that demands consumers be allowed to purchase a converter box from a third party, rather than be forced to rent a box from their cable provider.

“This is a very active issue right now,” Schwartzman said.

Some of the crowd at Sunday's rally in Charleston

Verizon employees affiliated with the Communications Workers of America turned out in force Sunday to protest the proposed sale of Verizon’s West Virginia operations to Frontier Communications of Connecticut.

Hundreds of workers and union members rallied at the West Virginia Culture Center in Charleston, the state capital, to protest the deal.

The CWA is concerned the transaction will enrich a handful of corporate executives and Wall Street bankers while saddling the state with sub-standard phone and Internet service for years to come.  Frontier Communications will assume enormous debt to make the deal happen with Verizon, and set itself down the same path that ended in bankruptcy for two similar deals in the recent past involving FairPoint Communications and Hawaiian Telcom.

Union members are, of course, concerned about their future employment prospects at a Frontier-owned operation, but insist they are also concerned with the citizens of West Virginia.

“I work in the community and live in the community. I want to be able to go out to the stores with nobody yelling at me for not being able to provide service for them,” said Jim Radcliff, a Verizon employee.

(from left to right) CWA Pres. Larry Cohen, Local 2003 Pres. Anekia Greiner, and CWA District 2 VP Ron Collins

West Virginia’s governor Joe Manchin made an appearance at the rally, saying he has concerns about the proposed sale, and joined labor and community leaders to say he would do everything in his power to make the proposed deal work for working families in the state, not just Wall Street bankers.

Other rally speakers included Sen. Jack Yost, Del. Mike Caputo, state AFL-CIO President Kenny Perdue, and representatives from the firefighters, nurses and senior citizens.

Firefighters and other public safety officials are concerned about potential disruptions of 911 service, which were an ongoing problem after FairPoint Communications took control of Verizon lines in northern New England.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA 911 Service At Risk Ad.flv[/flv]

The Communications Workers of America is concerned the sale of Verizon’s phone lines to Frontier Communications could cause disruptions in 911 service, as happened with FairPoint Communications in northern New England.  The CWA is running this ad in West Virginia.

“We need to bring high speed broadband to West Virginia and communities across the country, to foster economic growth,” CWA President Larry Cohen said.  “Instead, Verizon is using an obscure tax loophole to do a tax free deal that will leave West Virginia without a platform for achieving the speeds that are necessary for economic development.  This deal is only good for Wall Street, not Main Street.”

Cohen was speaking about Verizon’s use of the Reverse Morris Trust provision in corporate tax law, which Stop the Cap! explored last fall in detail.  This transaction could cost taxpayers as much as $600 million in lost tax revenue.

Audio Clip: Communications Workers of America Frontier-Verizon Radio Ad (30 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston Union Opposes Sale of Verizon Landlines 1-10-10.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covered the weekend rally by CWA opposing the sale of Verizon’s landlines to Frontier Communications. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Rally Excerpts 1-10-10.flv[/flv]

Here are some excerpts from Sunday’s rally including speakers protesting the proposed sale and praising union involvement in consumer protection. (courtesy: LairdWilliam) (10 minutes)

Under stiff opposition from the nation’s broadcasters, the Federal Communications Commission has dropped a proposal to reallocate a significant chunk of the UHF broadcast television spectrum to wireless communications companies.

As Stop the Cap! recently reported, the wireless industry sought the reallocation to broaden the bandwidth available for wireless broadband services.  The proposal would have paid broadcasters to adopt a new “cell tower”-like model of repeater antennas to provide broadcast television in more localized areas, reducing distant signal reception.  This would permit stations to be packed closer together with less chance of interference with each other.  Broadcasters reacted angrily to the proposal, suggesting it would limit reception and the launch of additional channels and communications services available from their new digital television service.  It would also cause a nightmare for consumers less than a year after the end of most analog television transmissions.

For now, the FCC will adopt a voluntary strategy allowing stations to relinquish spectrum and receive compensation.

The wireless industry was not happy with the decision, and the industry’s trade and lobbying group weighed in.

“The record overwhelmingly demonstrates there’s a need for additional spectrum for mobile broadband services,” said CTIA President and CEO Steve Largent. “We continue to believe that all spectrum should be on the table for potential reallocation, including the almost 300 MHz allocated for broadcast television use, which is spectrum most favorable to mobile broadband. We look forward to working with the Commission and the broadband team to consider mechanisms to put spectrum to its highest use.”