Gerace

The former head of corporate communications for Verizon Wireless will now serve as head lobbyist for Verizon Communications’ New York and Connecticut region.

As president of the New York region, Jim Gerace will be responsible for Verizon’s corporate interests — including public policy, government and external affairs, regulatory matters and philanthropy — in New York and Connecticut.

Gerace began his wireless communications career with NYNEX Mobile Communications in 1986 as a manager in employee communications.  He went on to serve in a variety of communications positions and was named director-public relations in 1991.

In 1995, he directed the announcement of the merger between Bell Atlantic Mobile and NYNEX Mobile, then the largest merger in the wireless industry, and was named vice president- public relations and a member of the senior staff of the new business.  In 2000, he directed the communications for the merger of Bell Atlantic Mobile and AirTouch, which launched the Verizon Wireless brand.

Verizon has a track record of signing up non-profit groups to support its telecommunications causes.  In addition to providing corporate executives for board positions of various community service groups, Verizon financially supports a wide range of not for profit groups, many of which later turn up writing letters of support in favor of Verizon’s policy positions.

Phillip "The only New Deal my cable company brought to the table was a $150 monthly broadband bill for exactly the same level of service I had when paying $50" Dampier

Joe, a regular Stop the Cap! reader noticed the National Review this morning published another one of their “in the pocket of big telecom” editorials proclaiming Net Neutrality is “anti-consumer.”  Right into the first paragraph, it was clear the editors either fundamentally misunderstand the reality of today’s broadband industry or honestly didn’t care as long as it suited their business-friendly agenda.

Readers, you need not go along with the charade.  While the publishers of National Review can probably afford to buy their way around anything the phone and cable industry can dream up, you probably cannot.  What those opposed to Net Neutrality frame as “freedom from government intrusion” is in reality an attempt to keep your broadband provider from screwing around with your connection in hopes of charging you more for the same service you used to have.

Turn on your TV these days and within minutes you are likely to see several commercials from your local cable, satellite, or telecommunications company trying to convince you that their cable, DSL, or mobile broadband services are superior to those of their competitors. That’s because the market for broadband service is robustly competitive: If service providers didn’t advertise, they would lose business.

Actually, most of the advertising I see on my television comes from free ad inserts Time Warner Cable hands themselves during ad breaks on national cable channels.  My local phone company, Frontier Communications, hasn’t advertised on television for quite awhile.  The mobile broadband advertising I see fights over coverage and who has the coolest new device.  They aren’t advertising on price because they almost all charge exactly the same $60 for 5 GB of usage per month.

None of this represents “robust competition” when one of the players on the wired side is absent from the airwaves and the wireless folks have convenient cartel-like pricing for wireless broadband.

They would also lose business if they did something that made their customers unhappy, such as slowing or blocking the delivery of popular content over the Internet. Or they might gain customers if they created a model that, for a fee, guaranteed uninterrupted high-speed access to certain services, such as telemedicine, video conferencing, or some other use of the Internet we have yet to imagine. This competition directs broadband toward its most efficient uses. It is pro-consumer in that it allows for the proliferation of choices and pressures companies to offer a variety of pricing options.

Of course, the editors who wrote this did not have to fight back a 300 percent rate increase with an Internet Overcharging scheme that would have limited broadband access in at least five cities to start.  Let’s test their theory by asking a few questions.  First, did anyone ask for this kind of pricing to begin with?  Answer: No.  Second, did the plan make customers unhappy?  Answer: Emphatically yes.  Third, upon hearing from customers that they did not want this kind of pricing, did they discard the plan?  Answer: Not on your life.  Fourth, did it take two members of Congress to drive the company to finally pull back their plan?  Answer: You bet.

Now ask the same types of questions about slowing down your web connection to make room for the neighbor up the street willing to pay more to get more while you enjoy less for the same price you’ve always paid.

Lesson learned: when you effectively have a duopoly or monopoly in your market, you don’t have to listen to customers — they have to listen to you.  Indeed, even where competition exists, there is every indication the competitors would themselves increase prices or limit service to rake in additional revenue.  That happens routinely even in more competitive industries like the airlines — something you realize when you try and check bags and are asked for a credit card.  In Canadian broadband, foreshadowing a non-Net Neutral USA, when one player limits usage and throttles connections, the competitor more often than not joins in.

The other fallacy raised in this useless editorial is that Net Neutrality somehow bars companies from offering all of those wonderful innovative Internet applications.  It’s a common talking point straight out of the industry’s playbook.  Nothing precludes the broadband industry from expanding and improving their networks to offer all of these services.  Under Net Neutrality, they simply wouldn’t be allowed to do it on the backs of their other Internet customers, whose connections are automatically impeded to make room for that “innovation.”  The saddest part is that the only innovation at work here is price-gouging customers instead of upgrading networks.

It would be a huge mistake to impose by fiat a single business model on the carrier side of the Internet.

Tell that to AT&T and Verizon who have exactly the same pricing in their business model for mobile broadband service.  Is it a huge mistake for them?

Specifically, they want the government to prohibit broadband providers (such as Comcast) from discriminating against content providers (such as Google) by, for instance, charging them different rates for different levels of network service. They argue that, in the absence of such regulation, broadband providers can act as self-appointed censors, slowing down or blocking content they don’t like. Keep in mind that in no instance has this actually happened. So far, broadband providers have acted only to slow down noisome bandwidth hogs in order to manage traffic and ensure a high quality of service for the majority of their customers. Net-neutrality proponents counter that other customers — those unhappy about the slowdowns — lack meaningful options; that is, that the market for broadband service is not sufficiently competitive.

It is -shocking- the government would want to make sure broadband providers don’t block or discriminate against other people’s content.  We can’t have that!

The National Review needs to consider studying up on history.  The cable industry, for example, is notorious for blocking competitor access to its content.  To this day, the industry is fighting to keep the cable networks they own off competitors’ lineups.  The same company that provides your broadband service wants to make sure their telephone competitor cannot show a regional sports channel they own.  At least one broadband provider in the United States tried to block competing Voice Over IP phone companies from being used on their broadband service.  The same “blocking” mentality popped up in Canada where a broadband provider purposely blocked a website critical of that company.  Want access to cable programming online but don’t have a cable-TV package?  Good luck.  TV Everywhere projects are specifically designed to block non-cable TV customers from accessing that programming online.

National Review‘s afterthought admission that providers like Comcast were diddling with customers’ Internet speeds is waved away as somehow the fault of bandwidth piggies, another common meme in the talking points packet provided by the broadband industry.  Never mind the company had effectively spied on customers to determine what they were doing with their connections, that they first denied reports they were throttling, effectively throttled everyone — piggies or not — and then quickly stopped when the FCC protested.  If Comcast wasn’t doing anything wrong, why not inform customers first?  After all, the “majority of customers” would want throttling to preserve their “high quality of service,” right?

Of course they don’t, and when customers found out the company charging them good money to provide a service was also trying to systematically reduce its value with speed throttles, they howled in protest.  Who knows what online application would fall next to the throttle?

This would effectively mean applying to broadband providers the rules designed for landline telephone companies in the 1930s. We know Obama wants to emulate FDR, but this is getting ridiculous.

Oh now see how they tried to be funny with the slap against Obama and FDR?  The National Review would have been the magazine defending the railroad robber barons and utility trusts — unregulated monopolies — back during FDR’s day.  They’d be just as wrong then as they are now.  The only New Deal my cable company brought to the table was a $150 monthly broadband bill for exactly the same level of service I had when paying $50.

The current regulatory framework for broadband was constructed by Michael Powell’s Republican-majority FCC, classifying broadband as an “information service.”  It was bureaucratic incompetence because it relied on vaporware authority that a court found, to nobody’s surprise, didn’t exist.  The court does recognize the FCC’s authority to regulate “telecommunications services,” so by simply reclassifying broadband as such, the basic question of authority is solved.  The National Review pretends this will automatically mean 1930s-like regulations as applied to copper wire-phone companies, but that’s not true.  The National Review simply doesn’t want the FCC to have any authority in the first place.

But the FCC’s authority to reclassify broadband to suit its desires is also open to legal challenge. As a result, we are sure to hear louder calls for Congress to regulate the Internet or to grant the FCC the explicit authority to do so. These calls should be ignored. The Internet has thrived in the absence of homogenizing federal regulations, and this organic development should be allowed to continue so long as competition can act as a check on anti-consumer practices.

The calls to enshrine Net Neutrality, stop Internet Overcharging, and force open broadband markets and expand service all do not come in a vacuum.  They are ideas born from past provider abuses that have demanded consumer protections in response.  Who would have dreamed up Net Neutrality if AT&T’s Ed Whitacre didn’t insist Internet traffic could not use his pipes for free.  What about when the industry started toying with developing premium tiers of service that relied on slowing down the connections of their other paying customers.  Why worry about forcing markets open to additional competition?  Oh yeah, because of statements like those from Landel Hobbs (Time Warner Cable COO) who told investors Time Warner Cable could use its market position in broadband to jack up prices whenever they chose.  And they did.

The National Review‘s “hands off” attitude is the same one they’ve had towards banks, and now every American is paying for that mistake.  Let’s not repeat it.

Besides, as it stands these companies compete vigorously against one another in a way that is beneficial to consumers. If one of them makes an unpopular business decision, its customers can go elsewhere. If, however, an unelected FCC chairman dictates uniformity in the services these companies provide, then there is nowhere Americans can turn for innovations the government may have strangled in the cradle.

Where exactly do consumers in rural areas go for alternative broadband when their monopoly phone company provider limits their service or charges them confiscatory pricing?  Where do residents go when both providers limit service?

Consumers have far more power to deal with the “unelected FCC Chairman” than dealing with intransigent phone and cable companies.  Elections every few years have consequences.  There are no elections for Comcast, Verizon, Cox or AT&T.  They’re effectively Providers-for-Life in the communities they serve.

The National Review has little to fear from a broadband dark ages where innovation disappears.  Somehow, an industry that rakes in billions in revenue every year will manage to get by living under basic guidelines that require them to earn their money fairly and spend some of those profits to keep up with very profitable demand.  They’ll sue anyway, of course.  But that could buy us enough time to spur additional competitive choices in a duopolistic market for broadband, helping put to work those free market principles of fierce competition the National Review believes in.

[Article Correction 4/15/2010: The original piece laid blame for the classification of broadband as an “information service” on former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.  In fact, the classification was made by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who served during the first term of the Bush Administration.  We regret the error.]

The 'Prince of Wales,' one of Inter-Island Ferry Authority's boats that connect the island to the mainland (Courtesy: Inter-Island Ferry Authority)

Providing broadband to 6,000 residents of Prince Wales Island, located along the western strip of Alaska that borders on British Columbia, Canada is the ultimate challenge.  Parts of the island don’t even have access to traditional landline phone service, relying instead on fixed wireless service.

Residents have complained loudly about the poor quality of phone service on the island for years, particularly when it is provided to the 1,000 residents of Klawock, Craig, and several adjacent communities served by Alaska Communications Systems (ACS).  Ten percent of ACS customers are stuck with fixed wireless, which guarantees no Internet access, and sub-standard phone service.  What perturbs many of them is the fact another phone company’s landlines are within the sight of their homes and communities, but they can’t get service from that company.  Those lines are owned by ACS competitor Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), an employee owned utility that serves many areas ACS doesn’t.

Friends and neighbors served by AP&T are happy with their telephone service.  Residents served by ACS are not.

The Alaska Dispatch tells the story:

Every three months Ron Fitch drives five miles down a state highway so he can use a friend’s telephone to monitor his pacemaker.

Fitch, who lives on Price of Wales Island, has a phone at home, but he gets his service via fixed wireless, which is similar to a cell phone signal but is routed through a box mounted in the house. Since you can’t recalibrate a pacemaker over a wireless signal, Fitch makes the drive four times a year.

“Times have changed, and it doesn’t seem right that we can’t get Internet or a fax or anything over our phones,” said Eric Packer, a builder who lives outside Klawock. “It’s like living in the dark ages.”

ACS customers on the island have been complaining about their phone service for years, and for some the frustration is sharpened by the view of lines — owned by ACS competitor Alaska Power and Telephone — running near their homes. Two years ago the Regulatory Commission of Alaska opened an investigation into ACS service on the island, citing numerous customer complaints and a request from Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

With all of the negative press focused on ACS, the company relented, telling the Regulatory Commission it will offer to connect those fixed wireless customers to landline service, but will only pay for up to 1,000 feet of wiring between the nearest ACS junction box and the customer’s home.  ACS will bill customers the balance of costs beyond 1,000 feet if a customer insists on landline service.

ACS is a major recipient of universal service funds which subsidizes phone service in rural areas to keep it affordable.  ACS receives about $4 million a year.  ACS fixed wireless customers on the island pay about $26 a month.

ACS customers perennially without broadband have complained to the Regulatory Commission, according to the Dispatch, suggesting it hurts the island’s economic development.  Some customers have managed to switch to cell phone service and dropped landline/fixed wireless service, and a select few are trying to rely on satellite Internet service, which customers characterize as expensive and slow.

Pricing for landline DSL service from either ACS or AP&T is itself slow and expensive, and AP&T service is usage limited:

ACS promotes the fact their service is unlimited.  Includes local and long distance telephone service.  One year contract term required.  Pricing may be higher in rural areas not specified on the ACS website.

The 1Mbps service tier is currently available in select areas dependent upon local infrastructure.  Each additional gigabyte of usage is pro-rated at $5.00/GB.  AP&T provides wireless broadband in selected rural areas.

Milton, Vermont

Jesse and his nearby neighbors on the west side of Milton are frustrated.  They live just 20 minutes away from Burlington, the largest city in the state of Vermont.  Despite the proximity to a city with nearly 40,000 residents, there is no cell phone coverage in western Milton, no cable television service, and no DSL service from FairPoint Communications.  For this part of Milton, it’s living living in 1990, where dial-up service was one’s gateway to the Internet.

Jesse and his immediate neighbors haven’t given up searching for broadband service options, but they face a united front of intransigent operators who refuse to make the investment to extend service down his well-populated street.

“After many calls to Comcast, they eventually sent us an estimate for over $17,000 to bring service to us, despite being less than a mile from their nearest station,” Jesse tells Vermont Public Radio.  “They also made it very clear that there was no plan at any point in the future, 2010 or beyond, to come here unless we paid them the money.”

Jesse and his neighbors want to give Comcast money, but not $17,000.

For at least 15 percent of Vermonters, Jesse’s story is their story.  Broadband simply remains elusive and out of reach.

Three years ago, Vermont’s Republican governor Jim Douglas announced the state would achieve 100 percent broadband coverage by 2010, making Vermont the nation’s first “e-State.”

Vermont Public Radio reviewed the progress Vermont is making towards becoming America’s first e-State. (January 20, 2010) (30 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Gov. Douglas

In June 2007 the state passed Act 79, legislation that established the Vermont Telecommunications Authority to facilitate the establishment and delivery of mobile phone and Internet access infrastructure and services for residents and businesses throughout Vermont.

The VTA, under the early leadership of Bill Shuttleworth, a former Verizon Communications senior manager, launched a modest broadband grant program to incrementally expand broadband access, often through existing service providers who agreed to use the money to extend service to unserved neighborhoods.

The Authority also acts as a clearinghouse for coordinating information about broadband projects across the state, although it doesn’t have any authority over those projects.  Lately, the VTA has been backing Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” Initiative, except it promotes the state as a great choice for fiber, not just one or two communities within Vermont.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Fiber Vermont 3-22-10.mp4[/flv]

Vermont used this video to promote their bid to become a Google Fiber state.  (2 minutes)

Some of the most dramatic expansion plans come from the East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network.  ECFiber, a group of 22 local municipalities, in partnership with ValleyNet, a Vermont non-profit organization, is planning to implement a high-capacity fiber-optic network capable of serving 100% of homes and businesses in participating towns with Internet, telephone and cable television service.  In 2008, the group coalesced around a proposal to construct a major fiber-to-the-home project to extend broadband across areas that often don’t even have slower speed DSL.

The ECFiber project brought communities together to provide the kind of broadband service private companies refused to provide. Vermont Public Radio explores the project and the enthusiasm of residents hopeful they will finally be able to get broadband service. (March 8, 2008) (24 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

ECFiber's Partner Communities

The Vermont towns, which together number roughly 55,000 residents, decided to build their own network after FairPoint Communications and local cable companies refused to extend the reach of their services.  Providers claim expanding service is not financially viable.  For residents like sheep farmer Marian White, interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, that means another year of paying $60 a month for satellite fraudband, the speed and consumption-limited satellite Internet service.

White calls the satellite service unreliable, especially in winter when snow accumulates on the dish.  Unlike many broadband users who vegetate for hours browsing the web, White actually gets an exercise routine while trying to get her satellite service to work.

“I open a window and I take a pan of water and, a cup at a time, I launch warm water at the satellite dish until I have melted all the snow off the dish,” Ms. White says. “It works.”

Other residents treat accessing the Internet the same way rural Americans plan a trip into town to buy supplies.

Kathi Terami from Tunbridge makes a list of things to do online and then, once a week, travels into town to visit the local public library which has a high speed connection.  Terami downloads Sesame Street podcasts for her children, watches YouTube links sent by her sister, and tries to download whatever she thinks she might want to see or use over the coming week.

A fiber to the home network like ECFiber would change everything for small town Vermonters.  The implications are enormous according to project manager Tim Nulty.

“People are truly afraid their communities are going to die if they aren’t on the communications medium that drives the country culturally and economically,” he says. “It’s one of the most intensely felt political issues in Vermont after health care.”

Despite the plan’s good intentions, one obstacle after another has prevented ECFiber from making much headway:

• The VTA rejected the proposal in 2008, calling it unfeasible;
• Plans over the summer and fall of 2008 to approach big national investment banks ran head-on into the sub-prime mortgage collapse, which caused banks to stop lending;
• An alternative plan to build the network with public debt financing, using smaller investors, collapsed along with Lehman Brothers on September 14, 2008;
• An attempt by Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) to insert federal loan guarantees into the stimulus bill in February 2009 was thwarted by partisan wrangling;
• Attempts to secure federal broadband grant stimulus funding has been rejected by the Commerce Department;
• Opposition to the plan and objections over its funding come from incumbent providers like FairPoint, who claim the project is unnecessary because they will provide service in those areas… eventually.

For the indefinite future, it appears Ms. White will continue to throw warm cups of water out the window on cold winter mornings.

Vermont Edition takes a comprehensive look at where the state stands in broadband and wireless deployment. (April 8, 2009) (46 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

For every Tunbridge resident with a story about life without broadband, there are many more across Vermont living with hit or miss Internet access.

Take Marie from Middlesex.

Most residents in more rural areas of Vermont get service where they can from FairPoint Communications

“I am in Middlesex, about a half-mile off Route 2, and five minutes from the Capitol Building. Yet up until just recently, we had no sign of high-speed Internet. I understand that my neighbors just received DSL a few weeks ago, but when I call FairPoint, they tell me it’s still not available at my house, which is a few hundred yards up the hill. Hopefully, they’re wrong and I’ll see DSL soon,” she says.

Marie is pining for yesterday’s broadband technology — FairPoint’s 1.5Mbps basic DSL service, now considered below the proposed minimum speeds to qualify for “broadband” in the National Broadband Plan.  For Marie, it’s better than nothing.

Geryll in Goshen also lacks DSL and probably wouldn’t want it from FairPoint anyway.

“We have barely reliable landline service. A tech is at my house at least three times per year. I was told the lines are so old they are decaying. Using dial-up is impossible. I use satellite which is very expensive and is in my opinion only one step up from dial-up. I am limited to downloads and penalized if I reach my daily limit,” he says.

Many Vermonters acknowledge Douglas’ planned 100-percent-broadband-coverage-by-2010 won’t come close to achievement and many are highly skeptical they will ever see the day where every resident who wants broadband service can get it.

Chip in Cabot is among them, jaded after six years of arguments with FairPoint Communications and its predecessor Verizon about obtaining access to DSL.  It took a cooperative FairPoint engineer outside of the business office to finally get Chip service.  His neighbors were not so lucky, most emphatically rejected for DSL service from an intransigent FairPoint:

“I laughed when Governor Douglas announced his e-State goal “by 2010” three years ago. Now I’m thinking I should have made some bets on this claim. It took years of legal battles and a zoning variance to obtain partial cell coverage here in Cabot. Large parts of the town still do not have any cell coverage. Governor Douglas can perhaps be forgiven – he has no technical knowledge, and as a politician would be expected to be wildly optimistic about such “e-State” claims. The Vermont Telecommunications Authority and the Department of Public Service should know better however. We’re talking about rural areas where there is no financial incentive to provide either DSL or cell service. It will take a huge amount of money to provide service to those remaining parts of the state. I’m not optimistic.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Wall Street Journal Vermont Broadband Problems 03-02-09.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal chronicled the challenges Vermonters face when broadband is unavailable to them.  ECFiber may solve these problems.  Some of the stories in our article are reflected in this well-done video.  (3/2/2009 — 4 Minutes)

A lobbying campaign to add language to a Senate bill that would retroactively apply a federal ban on a tax loophole could derail plans by Verizon to sell off landlines in 14 states to Frontier Communications.

Verizon has relied on provisions of the “Reverse Morris Trust” (RMT) — which lets companies spin-off subsidiaries that merge into smaller companies do so tax free — to dump landlines across the United States, leading to crushing debt and bankruptcy for the buyers.

The House Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010 includes provisions killing off the tax loophole, and the measure passed the House at the end of March by a vote of 246 to 178.  But the House measure only applies to new deals, not to those already on the table.

Union officials and several public interest groups are asking consumers to contact their senators and request insertion of language in the Senate companion bill that would apply the ban retroactively to the latest Verizon deal with Frontier Communications.

Such a ban would prevent Verizon and Frontier from walking away from a $600 million dollar tax obligation.

Ironically, one of the House leaders strongly supporting the loophole-closing legislation is Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), whose district covers Frontier’s largest service area — Rochester, New York.

“This tax avoidance loophole does nothing to help people in rural communities who rely on traditional landlines for their phone service,” Slaughter said. “If these transactions are allowed to go forward, Verizon may drop landlines in 14 different states, a development that would mean a loss of jobs for workers and poor quality phone service for millions of Americans.”

For Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), passage of the ban represents some late justice for the disastrous tax-free deal between Verizon and FairPoint Communications, which took over phone service in his state and other parts of northern New England.  FairPoint staggered under the debt load from the deal before collapsing in bankruptcy.

Slaughter

“The RMT was used by Verizon to avoid federal taxes when it sold its northern New England landline operations to FairPoint Communications in 2008,” Welch’s office noted.

“This loophole is bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers and bad for workers. By closing it and investing the savings in job creation, hardworking Americans – not corporations – will benefit,” Welch said.

The ban has special importance for West Virginia, which faces the prospect of turning over most of the state’s phone business to Frontier.

“The House has recognized the Reverse Morris Trust as a greedy grab by corporations to avoid paying their fare share of taxes,” said Elaine Harris, spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America. “We pay our taxes. Why shouldn’t Verizon have to pay one cent on an $8 billion deal?”

“The Reverse Morris Trust was designed by Wall Street for Wall Street, not West Virginians,” said Ron Collins, a union vice president. “We’re happy Congress shares our view that the Reverse Morris Trust is a tax break for corporations, not a job-creating tool. Without this tax loophole, I don’t believe Verizon would be so eager to sell to Frontier.”

The Charleston Gazette attempted to get the views of Verizon and Frontier over the bill’s passage in the House.  Verizon spokeswoman Christy Reap declined comment. A Frontier spokesman couldn’t be reached for comment.