Stop the Cap! reader John writes to let us know Teresa Dixon Murray from The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, who broke the story about Verizon’s mysterious $1.99 data usage charge is back again with an update.

In a column last summer, I chronicled my battle with Verizon after I discovered Verizon had been concocting $1.99 monthly charges for supposed Web use by my family plan numbers. Verizon’s ruse ended the month that my son’s phone was dead and locked away for weeks.

Verizon responded directly to me in a meeting with several top executives, and they promised to investigate the problems suffered by thousands of customers nationwide. The company in August also promised to change its policy of charging customers if they accidentally hit their phone’s “mobile Web” button. The new policy: To get charged, customers now supposedly have to type in a Web address.

Dixon Murray

But Murray considers Verizon’s response more clever than truthful.  And the charges just keep on coming.  So are the comments piling up below Murray’s article on The Plain Dealer website reporting more mysterious charges.

Verizon’s response to the Federal Communications Commission claimed Verizon doesn’t charge customers who accidentally hit the mobile web button on their phones, because Verizon exempts the home page those phones first reach.  Murray points out Verizon forgot to tell the Commission that’s the policy now, after the bad press, but wasn’t the policy earlier when thousands of others were being billed as well.

But no matter, because Murray suggests Verizon has found all-new ways to sock those $1.99 fees on unsuspecting consumers.

Take my case. I got a new phone the first week of November and within 24 hours after I activated it, Verizon said I had incurred a $1.99 data usage charge. Never mind that I hadn’t actually used the phone yet.

Verizon said it accidentally eliminated the mobile Web blocks I had when it activated the new phone. Puh-leez.

So Verizon re-blocked my phone lines. Yet, the company says it recorded online access on Nov. 8, Nov. 14 and Nov. 21. Chris, a supervisor from Pittsburgh, is dumbfounded. He confirmed my phones are blocked. He doesn’t know how this is happening. He’s supposed to get back to me.

While I’m waiting, I’m making a few notes, actually a lot of notes, to give to the FCC.

Amazing that these billing errors always seem to work out in Verizon’s favor.  Maybe the cat has been using the phone to browse when you weren’t looking.  Maybe Verizon can continue to reap the rewards of collecting $1.99 from subscribers who feel it’s not worth the time and effort to protest the charges with a customer service representative.

This is ripe for one of those class action lawsuits where the lawyers make the big money and you get a coupon for a free cell phone case with your next purchase at a Verizon store.  Before that happens, Murray suggests you file a complaint with the FCC yourself.  Also, please do take the time to make the call to Verizon Wireless and demand credit if you’ve been hit with this charge.  It will cost them more than $1.99 just to handle your call, and you’ll probably get something more tangible than the outcome of a class action lawsuit.  It never hurts to ask them for additional discounts or free features to keep you a satisfied customer.

File A Complaint With the Federal Communications Commission

For nearly 100 years, D&E Communications has served the people of eastern and central Pennsylvania from its headquarters in Lancaster.  But the company founded in 1911 by William F. Brossman, an area farmer and fertilizer distributor, never saw its centennial after being snapped up by Windstream Communications in a $333 million dollar deal.

What Brossman planted so long ago brings a bountiful crop of benefits for the top five former executives of D&E and the plowing under of 70 percent of D&E’s other employees, who are being shown the door between today and April 9th.

The Winners

Four high-ranking executives had provisions in their contracts with D&E that required the company to pay six-figure payments should the company be sold.   Thomas E. Morell, Albert H. Kramer, Stuart L. Kirkwood and Leonard J. Beurer are offered the stacks of cash as an incentive to get them to stay with the company, even as hundreds of others don’t get that choice.

Former D&E CEO James W. Morozzi gets a consolation prize of $942,000, not including benefits.

The Losers

D&E employees will be let go with considerably less (perhaps a cardboard box to hold their possessions as they are escorted from D&E buildings.)

Windstream filed papers months ago with the state Department of Labor and Industry detailing the slashing of D&E’s workforce, declaring most redundant and no longer needed, providing some of the “cost savings” that fuel these telecommunications deals.

For Lancaster County, as many as 270 of D&E’s 340 workers will be abandoned.  For eastern and central Pennsylvania as a whole, 500 jobs will be reduced to 200 or less in Ephrata and Birdsboro.  What made D&E “local” to Lancaster County and this part of Pennsylvania will be no more.  Local customer service and support call centers are also being eliminated — transferred to existing Windstream centers in Cornelia, Georgia and Charlotte, North Carolina.  Customers who have paid their D&E bills in person at the company’s Birdsboro office will have to make other arrangements — they are weeding out that service as well.

Back in 1992, when cable pricing enjoyed unfettered rate hikes only a health insurance company could appreciate, sufficient anger among the American people helped push passage of a cable re-regulation bill to control the cable industry’s insatiable Ca$h Quest.  The legislation recognized that most consumers had little choice in pay television providers.  Although approximately three million Americans, mostly residing in rural areas, owned satellite dishes at the time, the vast majority of people stayed with cable.  The 1992 Cable Act covered broadcast basic service, usually local channels and a handful of home shopping and local public access channels, as well as enhanced basic service, usually called “standard service” these days, which included popular basic cable networks like CNN, The Weather Channel, and ESPN.  Your cable company could not raise prices on these services willy-nilly without authorization from regulators, which helped keep the price of cable down.  It also guaranteed that competitors could buy access to popular cable networks, many of which were owned or controlled by cable operators themselves.

But the Cable Act also provided a way out of rate regulation — when a local community enjoyed competitive choice among pay television providers, and when a certain percentage of local residents subscribed to that competitor.  For the remainder of the 1990s and early 2000s, that competition largely came from satellite providers DirecTV and DISH Network.  Unfortunately for cable, most communities didn’t have enough residents subscribing to satellite service to lift rate regulation, so the cable industry sent in the lawyers to sue over the Act’s constitutionality (they claimed it violated their freedom of speech) and the lobbyists to convince Washington to deregulate them once again.

The Clinton Administration presided over the wholesale deregulation of the industry once again in 1996, proof that lobbyist influence and big campaign contributions are about as bi-partisan as Washington gets.  But the revised law left in place access rights to cable programming, and rate regulation of the broadcast basic service.  It was open season for rate increases on standard service, and cable didn’t disappoint.  In most areas, the basic package quickly rose to nearly $50 after 1996.

Since only a small percentage of cable customers choose broadcast basic service, one might wonder why cable companies remain intent on bugging the FCC to get those rates deregulated as well, especially when the industry claims it won’t be dramatically raising prices on service post-deregulation.

Yet companies like Cablevision have employees who sit around and file “waiver requests” with the Commission to get rates deregulated across their service area.  Recently, they managed to get a waiver for service across Westchester County and Long Island, New York.  The FCC has determined Verizon FiOS provides sufficient competition for Cablevision, so the rate brakes are off.

Cablevision files for competition waivers routinely and does not expect the change to affect prices, a Cablevision spokesperson said.

“This is a routine acknowledgment by the FCC that Cablevision operates in a highly competitive marketplace, and we have received hundreds of these certifications across our service area over the last several decades,” the company said in a statement.

That leaves only one major point of contention between Cablevision and Verizon – access to the MSG Network, a regional sports channel.  Cablevision owns it and has it, Verizon wants it but Cablevision won’t let them have it.  Verizon contends that’s illegal under the program access provisions of the Cable Act, and the dispute is ongoing.

[Clarification: Cablevision will sell MSG in standard definition to Verizon, but refuses to provide the HD feed for FiOS customers, although it happily does so for some of its cable industry friends — Comcast and Time Warner Cable among them.  Further details in the comments.]

Negotiations between Scripps and Cablevision continue to drag on in the northeast as New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey Cablevision cable subscribers go without their HGTV and Food Network.

Progress has been incremental at best as Cablevision continues to refuse to accept paying the increased fees Scripps wants.  Cablevision’s declaration that is expects to never carry Scripps programming again doesn’t help.

Meanwhile, Food Network president Brooke Johnson has been running from one news channel to another to talk about Scripps’ position on the dispute, and that “hundreds of thousands” of viewers have complained about the loss of their two networks, a number Cablevision disputes.

Pali Research analyst Richard Greenfield, who covers the cable industry, defended Cablevision, giving credit to the Dolan family that owns Cablevision for standing up to Scripps’ rate increase request.

Greenfield accused Comcast and Time Warner Cable of “essentially rolling over” in their negotiations with Scripps, agreeing to price hikes for their networks, an allusion to Time Warner Cable’s campaign to fight back against programmer price increases.

If those cable companies “had taken a far harder stance with Scripps, Cablevision’s pushback may actually have forced Scripps’ hand,” Greenfield wrote.

Still, most viewers could care less about the power plays between cable and the programmers.  They just want their HGTV and Food Network back.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCBS New York Cablevision Scripps Dispute 1-4-10.flv[/flv]

WCBS-TV New York ran these two reports during their 6pm and 11pm newscasts describing the battle between Scripps and Cablevision, and consumer reaction.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTNH New Haven Cablevision Dispute 1-7-10.flv[/flv]

Same story, different city as WTNH-TV viewers in New Haven, Connecticut share their views on the dispute.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Brooke Johnson Cablevision Scripps Dispute 1-4-10.flv[/flv]

Food Network president Brooke Johnson appeared on CNBC to take questions about the dispute and changing business model of cable TV and programmers.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Business News Scripps Dispute With Cablevision 1-10.flv[/flv]

Johnson also turned up on Fox Business News to discuss the dispute, how negotiations are going, and how viewers are reacting.  (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Brooke Johnson Cablevision Dispute 1-4-10.flv[/flv]

…And Johnson also appeared on Bloomberg News accusing Cablevision of paying themselves top dollar for AMC, a network they own, while refusing to negotiate over a price increase for the “more popular” HGTV and Food Network amounting “to pennies per subscriber.”  (6 minutes)

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?

• Video No Longer Available.

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?