This ad turned up a few days ago in West Virginia newspapers, hammering home the point earlier Verizon deals ended in bankruptcy for the buyers.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/There’s a Map for That 1.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s “There’s a Map for That” Advertising Campaign: Spot 2 (pre-revision — includes “out of touch” language (30 seconds)

Verizon's advertising only displays network coverage of 3G service areas

AT&T Mobility has filed suit against Verizon Wireless in the Northern District Court of Georgia (Atlanta Division) demanding the court order Verizon to stop running ads that suggest AT&T has lousy wireless 3G data coverage.

The suit comes in response to a series of advertisements from Verizon that compare the coverage maps of both companies “3G” wireless data networks.  The term “3G” refers to the third generation (3G) of mobile telephony standards – IMT-2000.  In general terms, local wireless networks upgraded to provide 3G service can provide much faster wireless data speeds than those still operating under older standards like “2G.”

Verizon Wireless has aggressively deployed 3G upgrades across its service area, while AT&T has largely focused on more urban population centers for their 3G upgrades, something Verizon’s advertising calls out.

The crux of the suit is exactly how Verizon depicts the differences in coverage.

AT&T claims the ads leave viewers with the impression that those vast white areas depicted on the coverage map designated by Verizon as “AT&T,” are areas without any data coverage at all.  Most cell phone company coverage maps routinely depict “no service” areas in white, and AT&T claims Verizon underlined the impression in its ads, including one on radio, that included the phrase “out of touch” when speaking about non-3G AT&T service areas.  AT&T described the ad above as showing “a frustrated or sad AT&T customer sitting alone on a bench because she is not able to use her wireless device to meet up with her friends.”

AT&T Mobility’s own coverage map depicts data coverage in varying hues of blue, designating the different types of data service coverage available nationwide, but those different hues and service areas only become apparent after starting to zoom in on specific regions of the country.

AT&T's "Nationwide" Coverage Map for Data

AT&T's coverage map changes when you zoom in, depicting the different types of network standards used in different areas. This map of eastern Texas shows coverage ranging from 3G to woefully slow EDGE networks owned by "AT&T partner" companies

On AT&T’s maps, areas in white are labeled “no service available.”

On October 7th, AT&T Mobility contacted Verizon Wireless and demanded that they either cease the ads or modify them to make them, in AT&T’s words, “less misleading.”

In response, Verizon dropped the “out of touch” language from the ads and inserted a fine print disclaimer at the bottom indicating “Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas.”

AT&T considers the modifications inadequate and filed the lawsuit asking for a cessation of the ads and monetary damages from perceived ill-gotten profits from Verizon snatching away AT&T customers.

Verizon’s defense?  Accuracy.  Verizon Wireless’ ads never stop referring to “3G service” and both maps include specifically labeled “3G Coverage.”

AT&T argues that their network is actually more expansive than Verizon’s, when you also include AT&T’s more prevalent 2G and earlier wireless data standards.  But that’s arguing apples and oranges.  Verizon intends to promote and leverage benefits from upgrading its service areas, large and small, to 3G service.  AT&T has not done that, and in fact has been on the receiving end of criticism from customers frustrated at times with the poor performance of its network, including slow data speeds, dropped calls, and insufficient coverage in certain areas.

Verizon's ads clearly depict "3G Coverage" on their map comparison

The gadget enthusiast press has not been enthusiastic about AT&T’s lawsuit, wishing the company would be as enthusiastic with network upgrades as they are engaging their legal team to fight Verizon, or is little more than a whining villain that has been exposed for its inadequacies.

AT&T customers frustrated with their mobile experience are probably still better off than T-Mobile customers, some of whom spent much of yesterday with no service at all.  In the second nationwide outage in two months, T-Mobile claims about two million customers nationwide experienced voice and data service outages for much of the day, although anecdotal reports suggest a company estimate of “five percent of customers impacted” is low.  No explanation for the outage was given.  This comes after an embarrassing server failure in October which led to some T-Mobile Sidekick customers being without service for up to a month, as well as a loss of stored data which company officials have slowly tried to restore weeks after the system crashed.

Hong Kong Broadband Network, the wholly owned subsidiary of City Telecom, has just slashed the price for its 100Mbps “bb100” fiber optic broadband service.  When a customer finds a friend willing to sign up, both will receive the broadband service for $13 US per month for 24 months, which represents a 50% discount for each customer.

At this price, Hong Kong residents pay just $0.06/megabit-per-second, which includes a speed guarantee that customers will receive at least 80% of advertised speed when surfing domestic websites.

William Yeung, Chief Executive Officer of HKBN noted that at least 32% of Internet users in Hong Kong suffer from broadband speeds below 10Mbps, and the Hong Kong special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China lags behind Korea and Japan in terms of fiber to the home service, something Yeung would like to see changed.

He considers Hong Kong’s broadband development rating “comfortably enjoying today’s applications” to be inadequate, and wants to see Hong Kong have universal access to 100Mbps or greater speed broadband.

“Being the second largest broadband service provider, we have a duty to improve Hong Kong’s global standings,” Yeung said.

HKBN provides speeds up to 1Gbps in Hong Kong over its fiber optic network.  Hong Kong’s broadband ranking is important to the region for economic reasons, attracting new industry and high paying technology jobs with fast, affordable broadband service.

What Hong Kong considers inadequate is still well ahead of the United States, which continues to lag behind several Asian nations in constructing advanced high speed broadband platforms.

Hong Kong’s population density, which poses a challenge for some services, is actually a benefit for telecommunications, because construction costs are lower when wiring densely populated multi-dwelling units and apartments.

The company currently has 391,000 broadband customers, attracted to the company in part by their creative advertising campaigns.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/HKBN Member Get Member Promotion.flv[/flv]

HKBN makes Hong Kong’s population density a net plus for fast, affordable broadband.  William Yeung announces “Member Get Member Promotion” from HKBN and unveils new advertising campaign. (3 minutes)

Several weeks ago, Stop the Cap! included several HKBN ads for your review.  We’ve now obtained English subtitled copies to share, below the jump.

… Continue Reading

Phillip Dampier

The Concord Monitor published an editorial Sunday suggesting that FairPoint Communications’ crash and burn bankruptcy is, in fact, a good thing for New Hampshire.

FairPoint’s bankruptcy was always a distinct possibility. At this point, it’s good that it happened. The massive reduction in debt that will result will either allow the company make good on its promise to provide widespread broadband service or make it attractive to a buyer capable of doing so. Surviving on landlines alone isn’t an option.

FairPoint’s debt would have been hard to repay even in good times by a smoothly operating company. The severe recession, lousy service that caused customers to flee in droves and high interest rates on its debt doomed FairPoint.

This is like saying the GM’s bankruptcy was a great thing for Detroit.  The Concord Monitor would do better to beat the drum for utility commission reform, to make sure such bad deals don’t get approval in the first place.  As it stands, FairPoint’s promises aren’t worth much in good times or bad.  How many broken promises should cust0mers endure before realizing money alone does not resolve bad decisions, bad implementation of those decisions, and now “cost savings” from a company that cannot afford to lose a single technician or customer service employee.

Making FairPoint attractive for a buyout or merger means slashing costs, and we all know where that will happen – among local employees who do the work to keep the company running.  Another merger or buyout with a sweet bonus for management will do little for New Englanders who rely on FairPoint for telephone and broadband service unless the buyer has the resources to provide a more advanced platform for telecommunications in this century.

The editorial is right in calling out the enormous debt FairPoint took on to make the deal happen.  It would be hard to repay in good times by a smoothly operating company, which is precisely why those who live in the next round of cities Verizon is about to cast into the wild Frontier should be so very wary.  The economy, it’s suggested, is getting better, but for those of us in economically challenged states like New York, Ohio, West Virginia, and others where Frontier operates wouldn’t know it from looking around their communities.  If FairPoint thinks it has a challenge now, watch as customers trying to economize continue to pull the plug on their phone lines.  As cell phone plans continue to offer more minutes (or unlimited access), why pay for two phone bills when one is high enough?

Most of FairPoint’s customers have another option: cell phones. Between June 2008 and June 2009 the company lost 11 percent of its landline customers. They’ll lose customers even faster if they raise prices. There are other threats to FairPoint’s future. Small companies and cooperatives are beginning to offer wireless internet service in rural areas. So even if FairPoint succeeds in extending broadband into the boonies, it could face competition.

Considering FairPoint, like Frontier, is relying on rapidly aging ADSL technology for broadband, and has few apparent plans to meet the needs of a wider bandwidth future, old fashioned DSL broadband isn’t far behind copper wire landlines on the endangered species list.  But FairPoint, like Frontier and other independent companies focusing on rural communities may be betting their business plans that for the same reason Verizon said goodbye, would-be competitors will never drop in and say “hello.”  In communities too small for cable companies, the prospect for wireless broadband, or other competition, isn’t exactly rosy.

Not so the investors in FairPoint, who will exchange hundreds of millions of dollars in debt for stock that at week’s end was trading for just over a dime a share. The investors gambled and lost. The free market worked.

The free market worked particularly well for Verizon, who played the system and won an enormous bounty.  Investors taking a beating will write off their losses and move on.  Where do rural FairPoint customers go to write off their loss in the broadband backwater they’ll be stuck in indefinitely?  FairPoint actually represented another failure in the free market, because of the lack of appropriate oversight which should have taken one look at this deal and the debt pile-on it represented, and then rejected it as inappropriate for a utility to gamble with ratepayers’ money.

FairPoint made a number of commitments to win state approval of its purchase. Whether such agreements must be kept is now up to the court.

Utilities are classically required to provide universal service. Urban customers subsidize service for rural ones for the good of society and because they may want to communicate with them. But the game changed when technology allowed other unregulated companies to poach on a utility’s turf by offering cheaper or better service.

FairPoint will keep operating, and its customers are unlikely to see any effect from its decision to declare bankruptcy to reorganize and shed debt.

Don’t pick me up off the floor shocked and surprised when FairPoint and its banker-owners walk into court begging to be freed from the “onerous commitments” they made to get the deal done in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  Those “hard won” concessions by utility oversight boards may be nothing but memories soon enough.  The game change of telecommunications choice has come to more urban areas, where customers have options.  That isn’t necessarily the case for rural New England consumers without cable and with zero bars on their cell phone from home.

Customers who earlier thought that no changes in the quality of their FairPoint service meant “more crappy” service in their future may find the “crap bar” still has plenty lower to go should the company seek to realize its fiscal conservatism at the expense of its experienced and competent workforce who have coped with bad management decisions since day one.  Somehow the “must keep” employees might just turn out to be the same folks at FairPoint headquarters in North Carolina who made the bad decisions that put the company in its current predicament.

Strong, careful oversight of any restructuring is essential to protect New England ratepayers from being victimized all over again.

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.