West Virginia residents are assured of an indefinite future with 1-3Mbps usage-capped “broadband” as Frontier won conditional approval of its plan to assume control of the majority of the state’s landlines.

Frontier Communications, the phone company with the 5 gigabyte monthly acceptable usage allowance, won approval from West Virginia’s Public Service Commission after nearly a year of opposition from several unions and consumer advocacy groups.  The opposition, led by the Communications Workers of America, charged that Frontier’s balance sheet made it impossible for the company to fulfill promises to deliver quality phone and broadband service to the majority of the state’s residents.  Consumer groups, including Stop the Cap!, argued Frontier’s DSL broadband service is inadequate for the state’s needs, because it typically only provides 1-3Mbps speed and is usage-limited for residential customers.

Verizon’s history of bad service in the state helped drive some to believe Frontier can do better

Verizon’s West Virginia division has frequently achieved a poor rating among many West Virginians upset with the company’s service record and broadband deployment.  Last Monday, the PSC announced that Verizon’s service in the state was so poor, it ordered the company to place $72.4 million in an irrevocable escrow account to be used to improve the quality of service.  The PSC found Verizon’s disinterest in delivering service in West Virginia had resulted in the deterioration of Verizon’s essential infrastructure.

The PSC-ordered escrow account will be used to maintain and improve everything from restoring copper wiring to vegetation control and pole replacement.

With a history of complaints like that, it comes as no surprise West Virginians are ready to wave goodbye to Verizon, hoping for better times with Frontier Communications.

Bray Cary

Bray Cary, a TV station owner in West Virginia, has hosted editorials on his network of local stations across the state promoting the transaction, believing it will bring a better future for the state’s telecommunications needs.  Just two weeks ago, he demanded the PSC make a decision on the proposed merger, claiming the state needs a “modern, cutting edge communication system that will bring high-speed Internet to every corner of this state.”  Unfortunately for Cary, there is nothing from Frontier that comes close to “cutting edge,” with the exception of the company’s brazen Internet Overcharging scheme now being tested in Minnesota that threatens to bring $250 monthly broadband bills to some residents.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston State Must Act on Verizon-Frontier Deal 5-4-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV’s Bray Cary criticized the West Virginia Public Service Commission for stalling on a decision to move forward the Verizon-Frontier landline transfer in the state.  Just about ten days later, the PSC conditionally approved the deal.  [Video problems were a part of the original clip] (Aired: May 4, 2010 — 1 minute)

Frontier specializes in delivering slow-speed DSL service to most of its rural service areas, usually less than 3Mbps in speed.  Even in its largest service area, Rochester, N.Y., the company’s broadband options are an also-ran against the far faster and more reliable cable modem service from Time Warner Cable, which also beats Frontier’s out-the-door price.

Unfortunately, West Virginian media has never given important details to residents about the specific services Frontier is willing and able to offer residential customers.  It also never informed customers about the important limitations the company attaches to its “high speed Internet” Cary hopes to see available in every corner of the state.

Sometimes change for change’s sake is not an improvement.

The PSC attaches conditions to its approval

The Commission did not grant blanket approval to the transaction.  The PSC is requiring that Frontier:

• Honors all existing obligations of Verizon following the close of the sale, including the currently effective Retail Quality Service Plan approved by the Commission to continue through at least July 2, 2011.
• Makes capital investments in Verizon of $30 million during the second half of 2010, $75 million in 2011 (including $12 million targeted at service quality), $63 million in 2012 and $63 million in 2013.
• Makes additional capital investments of at least $48 million to increase broadband deployment and subscription in the Verizon service territory.
• Expands broadband availability in Verizon service areas so that by no later than the end of the fourth year following the close of the sale, access to broadband service will be available to no less than 85 percent of the households within Verizon service areas.
• Locates its Southeast regional headquarters in Charleston, WV, after closing the sale. Charleston will be Frontier’s Southeastern regional headquarters, and will be a major employment center for Frontier in the region. It will be the hub for engineering, technical, operation and executive personnel for Frontier’s operations in West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
• Adopts all of Verizon’s tariffs, price lists and contracts, including long distance, under the same terms and conditions at closing.
• Caps all regulated rates subject to jurisdiction of the Commission for one year after close of the transaction.
• Provides E-911 functionality provided by Verizon prior to close.
• Waives early termination fees for current Verizon customers participating in a Verizon bundled service package for the first 90 days after closing.

Reactions from all over

“We’re pleased the commission has approved the transaction. The record developed in this case provides comprehensive evidence and assurances that the transaction with Frontier Communications is in the public interest and will provide many benefits to West Virginia residents, including increased investment and broadband availability in the state, while protecting jobs and promoting employment.”

— Verizon-West Virginia President B. Keith Fulton

“We’re in the process of evaluating the order. After full review we’ll look at what we can do that will best serve West Virginia consumers and CWA members. Of course, we’re disappointed but we’re heartened by the fact that at least one person on the three-member commission agreed with us and more than 80 legislators, several county commissions and a broad coalition of consumer, union and first responder organizations that this deal is too risky and not in the public’s interest. The split decision shows our arguments about the deal had validity.”

— Communications Workers of America, District 2 Vice President Ron Collins

Byron L. Harris heads the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission

“There are many areas of West Virginia that will always be dependent on landlines, absent some sea of change in technology. Those are the people I’m most concerned about. They’re the truly captive customers of now Verizon and, in the future, Frontier.”

— West Virginia Public Service Commission’s consumer advocate Byron Harris

“We’ve seen how Wall Street’s investments can backfire. Like Frontier today, Wall Street once put its confidence in Global Crossing and that led to a disastrous bankruptcy. We’re concerned that the Rochester-area and other existing Frontier properties may be starved to fund this expansion.”

— John Pusloskie, President of CWA Local 1170 in Rochester, N.Y.

“Today’s approval is a welcome and important step. Our goal is to gain the approval of the FCC so that we can close the transaction and begin bringing its benefits to consumers and businesses.”

— Maggie Wilderotter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Frontier

West Virginian media covers the conditional approval

A handful of television stations covered the conditional approval, most without much depth.  West Virginian newspapers covered the fight between Verizon and Frontier and the unions and consumer groups, but no paper really provided in-depth coverage into the challenges of West Virginia broadband and what precisely Frontier is capable of providing to solve it.  Consumers will discover soon enough that West Virginia has yet again gotten the short end of the online stick.  Only this time, they better not wave it around too much — it might exceed your monthly stick-waving allowance.

[flv width=”500″ height=”395″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Union – Verizon-Frontier Deal Bad for W.Va., Verizon Responds 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV in Charleston delivered the most substantial report on the sale, including this brief interview with PSC spokeswoman Sarah Robertson.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTAP Parkersburg Verizon-Frontier Deal Approved 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WTAP-TV in Parkersburg ran this brief in-studio report about the Verizon-Frontier approval.  (1 minute)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDTV Bridgeport Verizon Sells Land Lines to Frontier 5-14-10.mp4[/flv]

WDTV-TV in Bridgeport explained the requirements of the conditional approval.  This was the only report on the approval that included the opposition’s perspective.  (1 minute)

The U.S. Copyright Group sells its services: "Congratulations! By reviewing our site you have decided to take the first step down an efficient, no-hassle and no-cost path to recovering losses due to illegal downloading and stopping film piracy. With well over seventy combined years of legal and technical experience, the US Copyright Group will work for you at no cost." For those they accuse of piracy, a quick and easy $1,500 cash settlement will make the nightmare go away.

Stop the Cap! already deals with a variety of ISP-invented Internet Overcharging schemes, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t more profit-making schemes out there.  For 50,000 movie downloaders who grabbed copies of Steam Experiment, Uncross the Stars, Gray Man, Call of the Wild 3D, or Far Cry, chances are a letter like this sent to Verizon customers was in the mail a few weeks ago, warning your identity was about to be disclosed:

Dear Customer:

This is to notify you that Verizon has received a deposition subpoena requiring the production of records associated with the following IP address:

(xx.xx.xx.xxx)

Verizon has no information as to the purpose of the deposition subpoena or has the nature of the action or investigation being undertaken. Any questions you have should be directed to the party who issued the deposition subpoena.

Please be advised that, unless Verizon is served with a motion for a protective order or a motion to quash by 12:00pm on May 13, 2010, Verizon intends to produce the records by the date specified in the deposition subpoena. Motion papers can be served upon Verizon via fax number xxx-xxx-xxxx.

If you are a Time Warner Cable customer, chances are your letter never arrived.  That’s because the Internet Service Provider is fighting back against what it considers requests that have grown “out of control.”

A group of Washington, D.C. lawyers calling itself the U.S. Copyright Group has developed a profit-making business scheme seeking quick cash settlements from those accused of downloading copyrighted movies created by independent producers.  The group has filed thousands of requests for identities of those behind the IP addresses logged while downloading movies produced by its clients.  While this isn’t new — the record industry used to file lawsuits to discourage piracy — the U.S. Copyright Group is among the rare breed that treats the offense of copyright infringement as a for-profit business opportunity.

Only the Group’s methods may in fact cost every consumer, pirate or not, higher broadband bills as providers deal with tens of thousands of demands for identification.

Time Warner Cable is among the ISP’s that have had enough.

They’re upset after being included in the U.S. Copyright Group’s latest trawling effort against those who downloaded Uwe Boll’s Far Cry.  Critics say the only real crime was the movie itself.  But Time Warner Cable faces combing through 809 IP addresses identified as theirs in hopes of identifying the presumed-guilty offenders, who will later receive U.S. Copyright Group’s legal threats and offers for a settlement.  For a provider that says it receives only 567 IP identity requests a month, almost entirely from law enforcement officials, the prospect of dealing with 809 more over a single obscure movie is daunting.

Time Warner wants the requests quashed — telling the court if it has to reply to this volume of requests, it will not be able to fulfill urgent law enforcement requests that pertain to suicide threats, child abduction, and even terrorism.  Besides, at an average cost of $45 per request, someone will have to pay.  That someone is eventually you — all to fulfill the profit motivations of a group of DC lawyers.  Even worse, the group demanded compliance within 30 days, quite a demand for four full-time workers (and one temp) who make up the ISP’s Subpoena Compliance team.

For those receiving advance warning that their identity is about to be disclosed, the settlement offer package that is certain to follow weeks later leaves little doubt about what outcome the Group wants for these cases — a quick settlement and no time inside an actual courtroom.

Making your copyright infringement allegation go away with a $1,500 confidential settlement is as easy as writing your credit card number in the appropriate box. You can even earn reward points!

The group even offers an online, easy-to-complete PDF settlement form with spaces to enter your Visa, Mastercard, or Discover card number to pay the $1,500 settlement.  You don’t even have to admit you did anything wrong, as long as they get their money.  If you regret your decision later on, however, look out.  If you open your mouth in public or online to disparage the agreement or your participation in it, you automatically owe a $15,000 penalty (plus costs) for breaching confidentiality.  You also sign away your rights to challenge the group in court, even if it later turns out you were wrongly identified.

While the U.S. Copyright Group cashes settlement checks they only had to ask to receive, the group doesn’t seem to mind increasing everyone else’s costs.

Ars Technica notes Time Warner thinks the entire approach to these lawsuits may be invalid:

Filing lawsuits can be expensive; Most federal courts charge a $350 filing fee per case, along with a new set of paperwork. Each case also creates another docket to keep track of, making thousands of cases an administrative nightmare.

Instead of going this route, plaintiffs have gone the RIAA route, simply filing mass lawsuits against groups of “John Does,” in some cases by the thousands. But, says TWC, channeling its inner Ray Beckerman, “It is not evident from the complaint in this case that there is anything common to the 2,094 defendants that would justify joining them in a single litigation… Courts facing these identical circumstances have repeatedly held that a plaintiff may not join in a single action multiple defendants who have allegedly downloaded or facilitated the download of copyrighted material at different times and locations.

“Thus, if the plaintiff wants to sue these 2,094 defendants, it owes this court 2,094 separate filing fees, and it must file individual actions. Plaintiff then would be unable to combine together a single, massive discovery request with which to burden non-party ISPs such as TWC.”

Third, plaintiff lawyers keep expanding the scope of their subpoenas. The first complaint filed alleged 426 infringing IP addresses belonging to TWC subscribers. But when the company finally received a subpoena, it found requests for 809 IP addresses.

Taken together, said TWC, these “discovery abuses” mean that the judge should quash the subpoena. Alternately, the judge should limit the plaintiff to 28 TWC subpoenas each month.

Regardless of your views on piracy, compliance on the terms the U.S. Copyright Group demands raises the prospect of increased costs for providers like Time Warner Cable — the same increased costs used repeatedly as justification for rate increases.  Turning copyright compliance into a for-profit business may enrich a select group of DC lawyers, but ultimately every broadband customer could pay the price.

One out of every four American families has now cut the cord on their landline phone service.

With cellular bills increasing, many people are deciding the traditional phone line that has been them for decades is no longer worth the expense, especially if you spend most of your time reaching for your cell phone to make or receive calls.

But is dropping landline service such a great idea?

Here are some things to consider:

PRO

• Reduced expense for the family budget
• If you don’t use it much, why pay for it?
• Many cable companies offer less expensive “digital phone” products that can be bundled with your cable and broadband service
• Skype, Google Voice, and Voice Over IP services can often knock phone service costs down to just a few dollars a month
• Portability

CON

• 911 emergency services have a harder time identifying your location
• Call sound quality is usually lower than traditional landlines
• Your telephone directory listing will become unavailable unless you make special provisions to keep it
• The costs for cell phone service are often higher than basic landline service
• Monitored alarms and certain other services require either a landline or added-cost wireless technology
• During periods of unrest or bad weather, call volumes can increase exponentially causing disruptions to cell phone service

Telephone companies are increasingly desperate to hold on to their customers, and many remind departing customers the chance to retain their landline service at dramatically lower pricing.  Many companies offer budget, non-flat rate calling plans for less than $10 a month, but you’ll pay between 8-11 cents for every local call.  Others offer calling allowances of 250 or fewer local calls per month.  A few larger cities have calling plans that charge by the minute.

If you are considering dropping your landline, be sure to consider all of the options and alternatives before disconnecting service.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCPO Cincinnati Pros cons of dropping your landline phone 5-12-10.flv[/flv]

WCPO-TV in Cincinnati provides additional insight into landline disconnections and your alternatives.  (2 minutes)

Arris WBM760 DOCSIS 3 Cable Modem

Time Warner Cable is demonstrating 290Mbps downstream coupled with 90Mbps upstream broadband in its booth at the 2010 Cable Show in Los Angeles.  A Time Warner Cable insider told CED magazine it was the first public showing of the company’s ability to provide faster service outside of a lab environment.

The new high speeds are achieved using DOCSIS 3 technology which can bond multiple “channels” on a cable system together to create additional bandwidth.

The demonstration relies on an Arris CMTS and cable modems manufactured by both Arris and Motorola, which are connected to Time Warner’s Los Angeles cable headend.

CED notes Time Warner Cable has plenty of room for broadband speed growth.

The company is achieving the speeds using 8 x 4 channel bonding. With TWC’s top tier rated at 50/5 Mbps, the demo shows speed increases of greater than fivefold on the downstream and 18-fold on the upstream.

The TWC engineer compared the MSO’s achievement with the 300 Mbps that Bell Labs demonstrated on DSL recently.

“What they’ve got is something in the lab that goes 10 feet, and what we’re showing is live from our headend 22 miles away. We can compete (using) DOCSIS,” he observed.

Such developments are all part of a larger company plan to develop and market additional services the nation’s second largest cable operator can upsell to its customers.  For now, 290Mbps service is more theoretical than practical at Time Warner Cable’s likely pricing.  But it illustrates cable remains technologically ahead of what most phone companies can deliver over non-fiber-to-the-home networks.

MediaPost’s MediaDailyNews reports Time Warner Cable is about to begin market testing a new super-deluxe package that moves beyond the “Triple Play” packages common in the cable industry today.  Targeting wealthy, premium cable customers, Time Warner’s new “Homesuite” service would include all the bells and whistles:

• Multiple DVRs for several rooms in the house, with can eventually be connected together to let you start a recorded show in one room and finish it in another;
• A full range of premium channels at a bundled discount price;
• Faster DOCSIS-3 broadband with free Wi-Fi in and outside the home;
• Enhanced digital phone service, perhaps with more calling features;
• Concierge-like customer service, which could allow Homesuite customers to jump to the front of the queue for everything from service installation, repair and customer service.

Other options might include access to Time Warner’s wireless mobile broadband (rebranded Clearwire service), extended hours for service calls, discounts on pay per view, more deluxe set top boxes, and in some areas, even home security systems.

For Chief Operating Officer Landel Hobbs, the idea of selling $100 a month Triple Play package promotions just isn’t good enough anymore.  Time Warner Cable, MediaPost speculates, is now looking at $250 a month as a potential target price for Homesuite clients.

Time Warner Cable customers in Charlotte, North Carolina will be the first guinea pigs for super premium cable.  Are there enough customers around in Charlotte to pony up $250 a month for service?

TWC has conducted a customer “segmentation” study allowing it to identify opportunities for up-selling. “Our analysis indicates that certain of our large and profitable customer segments continue to hold substantial untapped opportunity,” Hobbs said earlier this year.

TWC says in a recent government filing that it’s likely to continue to lose video subscribers, but is expecting to make up for it by persuading customers to take DVR service, premium channels and other add-ons.

Charlotte is a key market for TWC — a Time Warner Cable Arena is located in the city center. After launching there, “Homesuite” would presumably then roll out in other TWC principal areas, which include Ohio, New York, Southern California and Texas. The working “Homesuite” moniker could be altered.

Telekom Malaysia

A scheme to impose usage limits and speed throttles on Telekom Malaysia’s broadband customers was beaten back just a day after the plan was announced.

Malaysia’s largest telecommunications company announced the limitations at the same time in introduced new speed tiers and new pricing for them.

Customers were not pleased when they discovered TM’s UniFi broadband service came with high prices and usage caps:

TM UniFi Broadband Packages

• 5/5Mbps Service RM149/$46.73 now capped at 60GB per month.
• 10/10Mbps Service RM199/$62.41 now capped at 90GB per month.
• 20/20Mbps Service RM249/$78.09 now capped at 120GB per month.

In comparison, residents in nearby Singapore can buy 100Mbps service, with no limit, for RM200/$62.73 per month.

Those who exceed the limits would find their speeds throttled to about 10 percent of the speed they purchased, for the rest of the month.

Telekom Malaysia CEO Datuk Zamzamzairani Mohd Isa said the measures were part of its Fair Usage Policy.

Dato’ Zamzamzairani

“This policy is a standard industry practice to ensure that all subscribers get to enjoy the same web surfing quality,” he said.

Only it’s not standard industry practice, despite that often-heard excuse.  In countries where usage limits are common, those limits are being eased or discontinued as broadband expansion and competition drives the unpopular usage limits out of the market.

Malaysians weren’t willing to wait.

The social media firestorm of protest that followed the announcement forced the company to back down just one day after announcing the Internet Overcharging scheme.

An announcement on Twitter, noting customer feedback, stated “no volume cap 4 all #unifi packages 4 now.”  The company did say it would continue to “reserve the right to enforce a download limit to ensure all UniFi subscribers receive equal service quality,” but that type of language has been standard in service provider agreements for years.

Company officials told The Malaysian Insider customers “may abuse” the service, which is why they wanted the cap.

But customers feel they deserve value for money — the price being charged can be considered high for many countries in Asia even without the cap.

The Star newspaper notes:

With the latest announcement by Telekom Malaysia, many people are rejoicing. Among them is communications consultant Justin Then, who said he’s happy to note that Telekom Malaysia listens to consumers.

“Capping our high speed Internet access doesn’t make sense, if the Government wants Malaysians to seek out knowledge and be innovative,” he said.

A Twitter user, who asked to be identified only as Flo, said she’s glad Telekom Malaysia has decided not to employ the cap for now.

“We are paying a premium for technology that offers super high bandwidth, so a daily cap shouldn’t be applied. There’s no value in that; we would be better off with regular broadband,” she said.

One caveat.  As has been the case with a handful of U.S. providers seeking to monetize your broadband usage, rescinding usage caps today doesn’t guarantee they won’t be back tomorrow.  Indeed, TM has yet to remove them from their website, instead inserting in the fine print, “The monthly download volume policy will not be implemented until further notice.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Malaysia Telekom UniFi Promotional Video.flv[/flv]

TM’s slick promotional video unveiling the faster UniFi broadband packages asks y0u to “imagine.”  We did… imagining how in the world we can accomplish all of the things they show in the video with the company’s proposed arbitrary usage limits and speed throttles.  Imagine actually getting the service you paid to receive without a provider imagining how much use = “abuse.”  (6 minutes)