FairPoint Communications’ performance in New England, finally leading to bankruptcy, harms not only itself but also smaller local Internet companies providing jobs and service across the region.  That’s the gist of a report in this morning’s Kennebec Journal outlining a dispute between FairPoint and Great Works Internet, a Biddeford, Maine Internet Service Provider caught between FairPoint’s fiber optic network and a billing dispute that demands GWI pay more than $3 million dollars by December 19th, or face service termination by FairPoint.

GWI leased fiber optic cables with FairPoint’s predecessor Verizon back in 2005.  As part of the Communications Act of 1996, designed to spur competition, GWI obtained access at special interconnection rates, lower than the prices charged for retail customers.  Verizon felt the price was too low, and went to court in 2005 to seek the right to charge “market rates” for access, but the issue was never settled before Verizon sold its landline network to FairPoint last year.  In March of this year, FairPoint stopped accepting new orders from GWI for fiber service, which has kept the company from growing beyond its current fiber network agreements, costing the company plenty in new business.  Then, in September, FairPoint back-billed GWI for $3,085,025, representing the price FairPoint felt GWI should have been paying since 2006.  If the Maine-owned ISP doesn’t pay up, it has been threatened with having its service cut off altogether.

Fletcher Kittredge, GWI’s founder and chief executive officer, has been around the ISP business a long time.  The company was founded in 1994, before Internet access became common, and he has grown the company into a locally owned business serving 18,000 customers with phone and Internet connections.  At risk are the loss of up to 75 local jobs and a significant part of $13 million in annual revenues earned by what the Journal calls one of Maine’s leading Internet providers.

“For us, it’s vital that this be settled soon,” Kittredge told the newspaper. “FairPoint has been threatening us with some pretty draconian action.”

FairPoint’s threat has already cost the company customers, Kittredge said, and the uncertainty makes it hard to go after new business accounts.

But growth has been trimmed by FairPoint’s actions, according to Kittredge. For instance: The company signed a contract with the Skowhegan school system for high-speed access and set up equipment. But the connections it needed from FairPoint were never made, Kittredge said, and he had to cancel the school contract. That has had a chilling effect on efforts to go after new accounts.

“We can’t go out and solicit new businesses,” he said. “We can’t say, ‘This is going to be great, but we may not be able to deliver it to you.’ ”

Great Works hasn’t wanted to make a big deal in public of its fight with FairPoint. It’s concerned that the news will cause existing customers to worry that they could lose their Internet connections.

“It’s a threat I’m going to watch,” said Mitch Davis, chief information officer at Bowdoin College in Brunswick.

Bowdoin gets phone service from FairPoint, but most of its Internet access is from Great Works. Davis was aware of the initial court dispute, but didn’t realize FairPoint was threatening to cut line access. He hopes the bankruptcy judge will let the case go forward and get settled.

GWI told the Journal the company may just be trying to steal Great Works’ lucrative business customers.  That might come to pass if the circuits are cut.  Despite Davis believing FairPoint probably wouldn’t make good on their threat because of the bad publicity it would generate, he admits if they do, he might be forced to transfer the college account to FairPoint. Businesses need to seriously consider getting the best business law attorney to handle disputes such as this one.

“I would do what I need to do to keep the college running,” Davis said.

One Journal reader characterized the dispute as just one more consequence of approving FairPoint Communications’ takeover of Verizon service in Maine.

“I would like to thank the governor of Maine for letting such a strong stable company like FairPoint in this state. You really did your homework.  I thought we had a Public Utilities Commission that watched out for public interest.  Boy are they on the ball.  I am glad to see […] they are not running my business.”

Bray Cary, Host of Decision Makers

A network of West Virginia television stations spent 20 minutes this past Sunday airing a puff piece that could have been a video press release straight out of Frontier’s public relations department.  Decision Makers, a self-described “agenda setting” public affairs program ostensibly puts important people on the “hot seat” to answer “tough questions about where West Virginia is heading and how it will get there.”

Hardball this was not. Host Bray Cary, who also happens to serve as president and CEO of the television station group, presided over a one-sided softball tournament for Ken Arndt, Frontier’s new Southeast region chief in a 20 minute interview where the hardest question was likely posed off camera – ‘where would you like to do lunch?’

Decision Makers is seen across West Virginia on Cary’s statewide network of television stations — WOWK in Charleston-Huntington, WBOY in Clarksburg-Morgantown, WTRF in Wheeling and WVNS in Beckley-Bluefield.

The appearance of Arndt on the program comes the same week Frontier reportedly committed to purchasing significant advertising time on the stations, leading a Stop the Cap! reader who informed us about the program to ponder whether this Fluff-Fest was part of the ad deal.

Viewers on the public comment section for the show were unimpressed.

“I can’t believe Mr. Cary didn’t ask the Frontier guy any hard questions. It was like a 20 minute commercial for Frontier, is that what you get for buying advertising with the station,” asked one.  “I believe that we would all like to hear and understand Frontier’s direct response to challenging questions from an involved, and knowledgeable speaker. We need to hear more then a branding speech,” said another.

The interview was loaded with misleading and occasionally false statements, often coming from the program host, who served as presiding cheerleader.  You can watch the program’s two segments, and then take a look at our reality check (and if an all-consumer volunteer website can manage this, why can’t Mr. Cary?)

[Video No Longer Available]

Now that you’ve watched, let’s review the misleading statements, some made by Arndt, some by the host:

“You guys are serving 35% of West Virginia – that’s a third of the phones.”

Frontier may serve 35% of the landmass of West Virginia, but not 35% of the population, which is a very important distinction.  Verizon has the overwhelming majority of customers in the state, not the tw0-thirds this statement suggests.

“I guess the only guys fighting you all right now are the Communications Workers of America union workers.”

Ken Arndt - Frontier Communications

That, along with other dismissive comments made by Cary represent just how biased his interview was.  In many communities, citizens, businesses, utility commission staff, and yes – company workers are fighting this deal, because it’s bad news for every community facing a Frontier takeover.  Of course, Cary doesn’t have anyone on his program to refute his guest (or him for that matter.)

“From a timelime perspective, and we’re actually finishing our [broadband expansion] engineering plan right now — by December 15th, my expectation is within the first 18 months we will make a substantial increase raising that 60% (of Verizon broadband penetration) exponentially and making a large investment and bringing in the individuals — the engineering and construction talent to be able to get it done as quickly as possible.”

Frontier anticipates cutting $500 million in costs per year if the deal consummates, according to Bloomberg News. Job cuts at both Frontier and Verizon will create some of that savings, according to Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier’s CEO.  Customer service and field-technician jobs won’t be eliminated, she claims, but with a need for that level of cost savings, combined with the enormous debt Frontier will assume, where the resources to accomplish this expansion will come from is not explained.

Frontier’s broadband expansion targets so-called “middle-mile” expansion.  That was precisely what was done in Rochester.  Fiber optics are used to connect various central offices and some remote network extenders (known as DSLAMs) to try and extend DSL service into more distant areas further away from the central office.  DSL speed is highly dependent on distance.  The further away you get, the lower the speed you can obtain.  Frontier plans to install limited amounts of fiber linking their offices in hopes of providing DSL service in areas that do not have access to it currently.  Unfortunately, every indication is that Frontier’s DSL in most parts of West Virginia will provide a maximum of 3Mbps, if you’re lucky.  In communities like Rochester, DSL service is marketed at 10Mbps, but as I’ve experienced myself, that speed really turned out to be 3.1Mbps living less than one-half mile from the city line.

To many consumers, hearing talk about fiber optics may leave the impression they’ll have this type of connection in their home or business.  That’s highly unlikely.  Frontier fiber serves their own internal network.  Verizon FiOS serves you directly on a fiber optic cable.

‘In West Virginia in 2007 Frontier lost 2.7% of our access lines.  In Verizon’s footprint they lost 6.7%.  In 2008, Frontier’s lost just 2% while Verizon increased [their loss] to over 8%.  Frontier has put together unique packages that continually add value to landlines.  It’s through [Frontier’s] packaging, providing unique services and unique technologies [that the company limits losses].’

Frontier is in the enviable position of focusing on rural markets long bypassed by the phone company’s biggest threats: cable and wireless competition.  Verizon is not.  The real reason for the dramatic difference in line loss is that Frontier customers often have no other choices for telecommunications services.  In West Virginia, cable does not serve many rural communities, so there is no “digital phone” competition to worry about.  Mobile phones in the most mountainous regions of the state can offer problematic service if it’s the only phone you have.  Verizon, which does face relentless cable television competition, pays the price in greater line loss.  Rural West Virginia has a much higher population of elderly residents, who are usually the least likely to drop traditional phone service.  In fact, no state has a higher population of the rural elderly except Florida.

These factors afford Frontier more protection from line loss, not the so-called “unique services and unique technologies” the company only speaks about generally.

Arndt also responds to a question about Frontier’s plans for fiber and other forms of “telco-TV” such as that provided by Verizon FiOS.  After noting the company does plan to move forward on an extremely limited basis by finishing FiOS projects already under construction, Arndt signals Frontier believes its status as a simple reseller of DISH satellite service somehow provides a superior solution to telephone company provided television.

Not really.

Who needs Frontier to sign up for DISH?  Customers can sign up directly themselves.  The advantage of “telco TV” really comes from the construction of the network to support it.  Both AT&T and Verizon have built television-ready networks which not only compete with cable, but also give their customers more and better broadband choices that Frontier cannot and will not offer consumers.  Frontier tries to valiantly spin its copper cable future by saying satellite television offers a better service, but in reality, being a DISH Network reseller hardly is in the same class as FiOS or U-verse.

Residents in the affected areas need to consider whether they are tying themselves to a company that believes copper wire slow speed DSL is good enough for now and into the indefinite future, has no plans to directly compete with cable and other providers in delivering a wired telephone company cable service, will not build FiOS-like fiber optic networks in areas that one day could have been wired by Verizon, and will live with a company content with delivering “ubiquity” of service across all of its service areas, which in reality means large communities will suffer with lowest common denominator service, and rural communities will be lucky to get “good enough for you” broadband.

Arndt’s comments about fiber connectivity in selected portions of their service area refer mostly to multi-dwelling units and new housing developments where service was provided more cost effectively through a shared fiber connection.  That’s not FiOS either.

Color us unexcited about the prospect of Frontier’s ‘unique cable television via broadband service’ Arndt hints at.  That is almost certainly the new DISH set top box that can connect to your Frontier DSL service to stream on-demand television shows.  With Frontier’s 5GB Acceptable Use Policy for broadband, don’t expect to watch too much if and when they enforce the limit.

Among the most shameful segments of the 20 minute video press release Cary presides over is in the second half, when he asks and answers his own questions, spun in Frontier’s direction, about their ability to digest Verizon’s operations that dramatically dwarf Frontier’s current size and scope.  He’s even done “his research,” which suspiciously appears to be surfing through Frontier’s own talking points from their website and public relations efforts.  As far as Cary is concerned, Wall Street says they “like” the deal, and opposition to it is “a lot of noise.”

Arndt responds that the opposition to the deal comes because of FairPoint Communications, which he says failed because of the complexities of integrating their billing systems.  As Stop the Cap! readers already know, FairPoint’s troubles went well beyond computer integration problems.  Arndt’s reasoning is akin to saying New Orleans drowned in Hurricane Katrina because a storm sewer up the street was clogged.  More than 20 news reports on this site alone document the entire sordid story.  On every level, FairPoint failed New England for a range of reasons:

1. The enormous debt FairPoint was saddled with made it difficult for the company to spend the money necessary to maintain and grow their network and survive an economic downturn.  Frontier will also take on enormous debt during a challenging economy and claims it will spend millions to expand broadband service into rural areas where fewer potential customers mean a longer Return On Investment;
2. FairPoint’s acquisition of Verizon New England involved more customers than FairPoint served nationwide before the buyout.  The exact same thing is true of Frontier in this deal;
3. FairPoint’s earlier acquisitions were small, independent phone companies run with limited bureaucracy.  Verizon, and its predecessor Bell System businesses, have done things their own way for decades, making theoretical transitions doable on paper and chaotic in reality.  The exact same scenario exists with Frontier’s purchase of Verizon service areas;
4. Poor service, unresponsive and overwhelmed customer service centers, insufficient investment, and broken promises plagued FairPoint’s New England adventure from day one.  Frontier risks repeating FairPoint’s mistakes, putting customers with no other options for telecommunications service at serious risk.

Cary doesn’t have the insight or the interest in digging down into Arndt’s claims.  Maybe he forgot.  As far as Cary is concerned, everyone in West Virginia should just get familiar with the Frontier name.

Of course, actual consumers aren’t invited on Decision Makers.  Nor are any groups opposed to the deal.  But West Virginians and others can be “decision makers” and choose a different path for their telecommunications future.  They can get on the phone and call their state representatives and tell them to oppose the deal.  They can also contact the state utility commission and file their own comments telling them this deal isn’t worth the risk — three bankruptcies out of three earlier deals.

Even when playing this kind of softball, three strikes should mean you are out.

America's Broadband Emergency Plan Allows Up to Three Cat-Chasing-Laser-Pointer videos per day

The mainstream media loves a scare story.  Suggestions that a national H1N1 pandemic could bring the Internet as we know it to its knees is a surefire way to get plenty of attention.

The Chicago Tribune, among others, reports that a nationwide outbreak of virus forcing 40% of American workers to remain housebound could result in too many people sitting at home watching Hulu, bringing the entire Internet to a screeching halt.

The answer? Shut down video streaming sites and throttle users during national emergencies.

Of course, even more interesting is what never turns up in these kinds of stories — the news behind the sensationalist headlines.

The report on which this story is based comes courtesy of the General Accounting Office.  The GAO doesn’t simply issue reports willy-nilly.  A member or members of Congress specifically request the government office to research and report back on the issues that concern them.  In this instance, the report comes at the request of:

• Rep. Henry Waxman
• Rep. John D. Dingell
• Rep. Joe Barton
• Rep. Barney Frank
• Rep. Bennie G. Thompson
• Rep. Rick Boucher
• Rep. Cliff Stearns
• Rep. Edward J. Markey

The congressmen weren’t worrying exclusively about your broadband interests.  The GAO notes the study came from concern that such a pandemic could impact the financial services sector (the people that brought you the near-Depression of 2008-09).  The Wall Street crowd could be left without broadband while recovering from flu, and that simply wouldn’t do.

“Concerns exist that a more severe pandemic outbreak than 2009’s could cause large numbers of people staying home to increase their Internet use and overwhelm Internet providers’ network capacities. Such network congestion could prevent staff from broker-dealers and other securities market participants from teleworking during a pandemic. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for ensuring that critical telecommunications infrastructure is protected. GAO was asked to examine a pandemic’s impact on Internet congestion and what actions can be and are being taken to address it, the adequacy of securities market organizations’ pandemic plans, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) oversight of these efforts,” the report states.

Putting aside my personal desire that a little less broadband for deal-making, bailout-demanding “kings of the world” might not be a bad idea, the GAO’s report concludes what we already know — the business model of residential broadband is based on sharing connections and when too many people stay home and use them, it’s slow and doesn’t work well.

Providers do not build networks to handle 100 percent of the total traffic that could be generated because users are neither active on the network all at the same time, nor are they sending maximum traffic at all times. Instead, providers use statistical models based upon past users’ patterns and projected growth to estimate the likely peak load of traffic that could occur and then design and build networks based on the results of the statistical model to accommodate at least this level. According to one provider, this engineering method serves to optimize available capacity for all users. For example, under a cable architecture, 200 to 500 individual cable modems may be connected to a provider’s CMTS, depending on average usage in an area. Although each of these individual modems may be capable of receiving up to 7 or 8 megabits per second (Mbps) of incoming information, the CMTS can transmit a maximum of only about 38 Mbps. Providers’ staff told us that building the residential parts of networks to be capable of handling 100 percent of the traffic that all users could potentially generate would be prohibitively expensive.

In other words, guess your customer demand correctly and 200-500 homes can all share one 38Mbps connection.  Guess incorrectly, or put off expanding that network to meet the anticipated demands because your company wants to collect “cost savings” from reduced investment, and everyone’s connection slows down, especially at peak times.

One way to dramatically boost capacity for cable operators is to bond multiple channels of broadband service together, using the latest DOCSIS 3 standard.  It provides cable operators with increased flexibility to meet growing demands on their network without spending top dollar on wholesale infrastructure upgrades.  Many operators are already reaping the rewards this upgrade provides, by charging customers higher prices for higher speed service.  But it also makes network management easier without inconveniencing existing customers with slowdowns during peak usage.

The GAO didn’t need 77 pages to produce a report that concludes broadband usage skyrockets when people are at home.  Just watching holiday shopping traffic online spike during deal days like “Cyber Monday,” after Thanksgiving would illustrate that.  Should 40 percent of Americans stay home from work, instead of browsing the Internet from their work machines, they’ll be doing it from home.  That moves the bottleneck from commercial broadband accounts to residential broadband networks.

The GAO says such congestion could create all sorts of problems for the financial services sector, slowing down their broadband access.

Providers’ options for addressing expected pandemic-related Internet congestion include providing extra capacity, using network management controls, installing direct lines to organizations, temporarily reducing the maximum transmission rate, and shutting down some Internet sites. Each of these methods is limited either by technical difficulties or questions of authority. In the normal course of business, providers attempt to address congestion in particular neighborhoods by building out additional infrastructure—for example, by adding new or expanding lines and cables. Internet provider staff told us that providers determine how much to invest in expanding network infrastructure based on business expectations. If they determine that a demand for increased capacity exists that can profitably be met, they may choose to invest to increase network capacity in large increments using a variety of methods such as replacing old equipment and increasing the number of devices serving particular neighborhoods. Providers will not attempt to increase network capacity to meet the increased demand resulting from a pandemic, as no one knows when a pandemic outbreak is likely to occur or which neighborhoods would experience congestion. Staff at Internet providers whom we interviewed said they monitor capacity usage constantly and try to run their networks between 40 and 80 percent capacity at peak hours. They added that in the normal course of business, their companies begin the process to expand capacity when a certain utilization threshold is reached, generally 70 to 80 percent of full capacity over a sustained period of time at peak hours.

However, during a pandemic, providers are not likely to be able to address congestion by physically expanding capacity in residential neighborhoods for several reasons. First, building out infrastructure can be very costly and takes time to complete. For example, one provider we spoke with said that it had spent billions of dollars building out infrastructure across the nation over time, and adding capacity to large areas quickly is likely not possible. Second, another provider told us that increasing network capacity requires the physical presence of technicians and advance planning, including preordering the necessary equipment from suppliers or manufacturers. The process can take anywhere from 6 to 8 weeks from the time the order is placed to actual installation. According to this provider, a major constraint to increasing capacity is the number of technicians the firm has available to install the equipment. In addition to the cost and time associated with expanding capacity, during a pandemic outbreak providers may also experience high absenteeism due to staff illnesses, and thus might not have enough staff to upgrade network capacities. Providers said they would, out of necessity, refrain from provisioning new residential services if their staff were reduced significantly during a pandemic. Instead, they would focus on ensuring services for the federal government priority communication programs and performing network management techniques to re-route traffic around congested areas in regional networks or the national backbone. However, these activities would likely not relieve congestion in the residential Internet access networks.

It’s clear some broadband providers are not willing to change their business models to redefine congestion from measurements taken during peak usage when speeds slow, to those that anticipate and tolerate traffic spikes.  That means making due with what broadband providers are delivering today and developing technical and legal means to ration, traffic shape, or simply cut access to high bandwidth traffic during ‘appropriate emergencies.’  Right on cue, the high bandwidth barrage of self-serving provider talking points are on display in the report:

Providers identified one technically feasible alternative that has the potential to reduce Internet congestion during a pandemic, but raised concerns that it could violate customer service agreements and thus would require a directive from the government to implement. Although providers cannot identify users at the computer level to manage traffic from that point, two providers stated that if the residential Internet access network in a particular neighborhood was experiencing congestion, a provider could attempt to reduce congestion by reducing the amount of traffic that each user could send to and receive from his or her network. Such a reduction would require adjusting the configuration file within each customer’s modem to temporarily reduce the maximum transmission speed that that modem was capable of performing—for example, by reducing its incoming capability from 7 Mbps to 1 Mbps. However, according to providers we spoke with, such reductions could violate the agreed-upon levels of services for which customers have paid. Therefore, under current agreements, two providers indicated they would need a directive from the government to take such actions.

Shutting down specific Internet sites would also reduce congestion, although many we spoke with expressed concerns about the feasibility of such an approach. Overall Internet congestion could be reduced if Web sites that accounted for significant amounts of traffic—such as those with video streaming—were shut down during a pandemic. According to one recently issued study, the number of adults who watch videos on video-sharing sites has nearly doubled since 2006, far outpacing the growth of many other Internet activities. However, most providers’ staff told us that blocking users from accessing such sites, while technically possible, would be very difficult and, in their view, would not address the congestion problem and would require a directive from the government.

Enjoy up to one Hogan's Heroes episode per day during the H1N1 flu pandemic

You have to love some of the players in the broadband industry who trot out their most-favored “network management” talking points to handle a national emergency.  It’s interesting to note providers told the GAO they were concerned with violating customer agreements regarding speed guarantees, when most providers never guarantee residential service speeds.  Their first solution is the Net Neutrality-busting traffic throttle, to slow everyone down to ration the “good enough for you” network in your neighborhood.  Shutting down too-popular, high bandwidth websites like Hulu (no worries – you can watch your favorite shows on our cable TV package) is apparently someone’s good idea, but considering providers admit it wouldn’t actually solve the congestion problem, one’s imagination can ponder what other problems such a shutdown might solve.

One provider indicated that such blocking would be difficult because determining which sites should be blocked would be a very subjective process. Additionally, this provider noted that technologically savvy site operators could change their Internet protocol addresses, allowing users to access the site regardless. Another provider told us that some of these large bandwidth sites stream critical news information. Furthermore, some state, local, and federal government offices and agencies, including DHS, currently use or have plans to increase their use of social media Web sites and to use video streaming as a means to communicate with the public. Shutting down such sites without affecting pertinent information would be a challenge for providers and could create more Internet congestion as users would repeatedly try to access these sites. According to one provider, two added complications are the potential liability resulting from lawsuits filed by businesses that lose revenue when their sites are shutdown or restricted and potential claims of anticompetitive practices, denial of free speech, or both. Some providers said that the operators of specific Internet sites could shut down their respective sites with less disruption and more effectively than Internet providers, and suggested that a better course of action would be for the government to work directly with the site operators.

A very subjective process indeed, but one many providers have sought to keep within their “network management” control as they battle Net Neutrality.  One would think “potential claims of anti-competitive practices” would represent an understatement, particularly if cable industry-operated TV Everywhere theoretically kept right on running even while Hulu could not.  As long time net users already know, outright censorship or content blockades almost always meet resistance from enterprising net users who make it their personal mission to get around such limits.

Expanding broadband networks to provide a better safety cushion during periods of peak usage is looking better and better.

Providers could help reduce the potential for a pandemic to cause Internet congestion by ongoing expansions of their networks’ capacities. Some providers are upgrading their networks by moving to higher capacity modems or fiber-to-the-home systems. For example, some cable providers are introducing a network specification that will increase the download capacity of residential networks from the 38 Mbps to about 152 to 155 Mbps. In addition to cable network upgrades, at least one telecommunications provider is offering fiber-to-the home, which is a broadband service operating over a fiber-optic communications network. Specifically, fiber-to-the-home Internet service is designed to provide Internet access with connection speeds ranging from 10 Mbps to 50 Mbps.

Hello.

Sounds like a plan to me, and not just for the benefit of the Wall Street crowd sick at home with the flu.  Such network upgrades can be economical and profitable when leveraged to upsell the broadband enthusiast to higher speed service tiers.  During periods of peak usage, such networks will withstand considerably more demand and provide a better answer to that nagging congestion problem.

The alternative is Comcast or Time Warner Cable, in association with the Department of Homeland Security, having to appear on Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room telling Americans they have a broadband rationing plan that will give you six options of usage per day.  Choose any one:

• Up to three videos of cats chasing laser pointers on YouTube
• One episode of Hogan’s Heroes
• Up to six videos of your friends playing Guitar Hero on Dailymotion
• Unlimited access to Drugstore.com to browse remedies
• Five MySpace videos of your favorite bands
• Up to 500 “tweets” boring your followers with every possible detail of your stuck-at-home-sick routine

Washington State

Saying the sale would harm customers, Washington state utilities’ commission staff is recommending rejecting a proposed sale of Verizon’s landline residential and commercial telephone business in Washington to Frontier Communications.

In raising objections to the proposed Frontier-Verizon transaction, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) staff members concluded the business deal is not in the public interest. The proposed purchase does not include Verizon Wireless customers.

The three-member UTC, which will make the final decision early next year, will consider whether state ratepayers would be harmed by the proposed transaction, which is part of an $8.6 billion bid by Frontier to acquire 4.8 million Verizon phone lines in 14 states.

“There may not be any way for Frontier to provide benefits to Washington customers that offset the financial harm and operational risks,” said commission staff in their written testimony. “The failure of the companies to offer adequate consumer benefits or protections puts customers at risk of being served by a company without enough financial strength to make necessary improvements to local telephone facilities and widen deployment of broadband access.”

The Commission staff believes Frontier’s proposal to improve service is loaded with risk:

• The company’s credit rating is lower than Verizon, making capital difficult to obtain in a credit-challenged economy.  Without such capital, Frontier cannot make improvements to the telephone network.
• Frontier’s ranking as a relatively small independent phone company means it will face “higher per unit” costs because of the unavailability of volume discounts super-sized companies like Verizon enjoy.
• Frontier could easily face the same fate as three other Verizon spinoffs – a fast trip to bankruptcy court, but only after providing lousy service and broken promises to customers along the way.

Frontier said it would file a formal rebuttal to the comments later this month.  The company disputes the conclusions reached by the utility commission staff, saying the company will reduce its dividend to free up financial resources and will aggressively expand broadband availability in their service areas.

But the findings from Washington state are familiar to readers of Stop the Cap! They are largely the same echoed by the campaign to stop the sale of West Virginia’s landlines to Frontier.  The Communications Workers of America issued a press release reminding West Virginians Frontier enjoys abysmal approval ratings for its broadband service, based on an independent survey done by PC Magazine we covered a few months back.  Verizon ranks number one in customer satisfaction, in part thanks to its FiOS fiber to the home service.

Union spokeswoman Elaine Harris said, “The economic growth and development of West Virginia depends on having modern, high-speed Internet access. It’s not in the public’s best interest for West Virginia to replace the leader in broadband service with a smaller company whose customer satisfaction is appallingly low.”

Frontier’s defense to union objections is that Verizon hasn’t yet wired any customers in West Virginia for FiOS, and many parts of the state don’t have any broadband, so customer satisfaction numbers don’t matter if you don’t have any service.  Frontier claims it has good customer reviews in West Virginia, but offered no evidence to back up their claim.

So far, the Washington state commission has received 93 public comments with five in favor, 40 undecided and 48 opposed to the proposed sale. Washington customers who would like to comment on the case are encouraged to send correspondence to:

Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 47250
Olympia, WA 98504

e-mail comments: [email protected] or call toll-free 1-888-333-9882.

The commission’s deadline for accepting public comments is Jan. 11, 2010.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg News Frontier Maggie Wilderotter 11-4-09.flv[/flv]

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter appeared on Bloomberg TV on November 4th to discuss the company’s challenges from declining wireline telephone service. Wilderotter’s spin is that disconnected dial-up residential lines and business data circuits represent some of that loss.  Wilderotter agrees with the anchor’s contention that delivering broadband in rural areas where there is not a lot of competition is good for Frontier. But is it good for consumers?(3 minutes)

Frontier Communications reported its third quarter results earlier today with an 11% increase in net profits “attributable to shareholders,” but a 6% decline in revenue, mostly due to losing an additional 34,000 consumer and business line accounts in the third quarter.  Thanks to selling add-ons like calling features and broadband, the company managed an average 1% increase in revenue per line.  Wilderotter said improved customer metrics and disciplined cost control was responsible for the increase in profits.

When utilities want to “charge you for what you use,” it would be nice to trust the meter is accurately measuring your usage, California consumer advocates say.

In a growing controversy, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is now being accused of installing so-called “smart meters” that were smart for PG&E profits, but financially devastating for California consumers who face higher bills and growing questions about just how accurate those “smart meters” really are.

Customers across California who have had new meters installed, which are supposed to help consumers save energy by charging lower prices at off-peak usage times of day, report enormously higher bills from PG&E after installation.

State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), reports he has seen bills from customers that don’t begin to make sense.

California Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter/Kern County)

“One farmer was charged $11,857 for running a piece of equipment that was never turned on. A local attorney at the hearing clutched a $500 bill from July, a month in which she was visiting family out of state and almost every appliance in her house was shut off,” he reports.

Florez quotes the woman — “My smart meter keeps reading these spikes in usage at noon. But no one was in the house,” she said. “It’s obvious to me that this technology is not ready for prime time.”

Customers across the state with smart meters have reported similar stories, and are angry with PG&E’s response to their concerns, which can be boiled down to, “the meter is right, you are wrong, now pay us.”

PG&E claims that during its own internal reviews, it found nobody being overcharged. Spokesman Jeff Smith says “in all 1700 of those cases we have not found an instance thus far of the smart meter transmitting inaccurate information or incorrect usage information.”

The California Public Utilities Commission doesn’t think that’s enough and has begun ordering an independent review of the “smart meter” program and accuracy of meter readings.

Liz Keogh spent 14 years collecting and analyzing data at the Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and now lives in Bakersfield, California.  She has been pulling out her old PG&E bills and records showing her utility use all the way back to 1983.  What she found since the “smart meter” was installed on her home was disturbing.

Her analysis was printed in the San Francisco Chronicle:

My July, August and September 2009 bills showed the highest usage and cost in 26-plus years, even though I rarely go over “baseline usage.” The dollar difference from 2008 to 2009 was $20 to $30 each month. Billing costs are a product of usage multiplied by kilowatt-hour rates, which, like the federal income tax structure, is “tiered,” so that the more you use, the more you pay – and at higher and higher rates. Analysis of usage is the first step toward understanding fluctuations in cost.According to the smart meter installed on Sept. 12, 2007, the increase in my 2008-09 usage over 2007 was:

	2008	2009
May	+5.6%	+28.6%
June	+7.5%	+32.6%
July	+10%	+50.2%
Aug.	+3.1%	+41.1%
Sept.	-4.8%	+67.9%
Oct.	+4.9%	NA

PG&E’s own data show there was not a significant difference in temperatures for each comparable month. Why, then, did my “usage” increase range from 30 percent to 70 percent in 2009, while the 2008 increases were no more than 10 percent?

Simple answer: Meter malfunctioning, whether accidental and idiosyncratic, or, as some claim, intentional.

The suspicion that funny business is going on might be justified when considering Bakersfield residents have been through this all before.

“[Several years ago] Bakersfield is where PG&E first realized it had made a $500 million mistake, installing tens of thousands of inferior meters that would never live up to the promise. So the utility purchased a new generation of meters from Silver Spring Networks Inc. of Redwood City. PG&E insists that these new meters are glitch-free, though it concedes that it has tested only 50 out of 250,000 meters in Kern County,” Florez said.

At a time when some broadband providers want to install their own meters to overcharge customers for their Internet service, the PG&E experience is telling.  Independent oversight of any meter comes down to the enforcement mechanism available to guarantee accuracy.  But broadband service in the United States is unregulated, and no such enforcement mechanism exists.

And just when you thought you could believe the rhetoric that utility customers who conserve their usage will save more money, another electric and gas utility in San Diego filed a rate increase request that will charge customers who have managed to cut their usage even higher prices than those who have not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGET Bakersfield Senator Florez Questions SmartMeters 9-23-09.flv[/flv]

KGET-TV Bakersfield talked with Senator Florez on September 23 about the SmartMeter controversy (4 minutes)

More video coverage below the jump.

… Continue Reading