Brian Whitton, Verizon's Executive Director of Access Technologies

At least Verizon is honest about it.  As providers contemplate slapping customers with usage limits, overlimit fees, and other tiered pricing systems, they’ve typically said they’re justified because of the strain they claim heavy users place on their broadband networks.  One network that doesn’t face that problem is Verizon’s robust fiber optic FiOS network, which is on the way to upgrading from the ridiculously fast current speeds to the “next generation” of FiOS speed: delivering 10 Gbps downlink and 2.5 Gbps uplink, shared among 32 locations.  That makes the cable modem competition, which shares slower speeds among many more customers wilt at the prospect.  DSL instantly becomes the dial-up service of the decade in comparison.

Make no mistake, Verizon tells all who ask: Fiber to the Home is near-infinitely upgradeable for decades to come, simply by swapping out some hardware at each end of the pipe.

Yet Verizon began making noises about ending its all-you-can-eat broadband buffet this past September, when Verizon Chief Technology Officer Dick Lynch said Verizon was in favor of consumption-based billing, too.

But why should Verizon FiOS, often priced higher than the cable competition, opt for Internet Overcharging schemes when it has a network that is nowhere near capacity and will increase its speeds even further next year?

As GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham found out, the answer is – because they can:

Brian Whitton, executive director of access technologies at Verizon did acknowledge how valuable broadband has become—precious enough that people will pay for premium access to it, especially those using up a disproportionate amount of network assets. “Ultimately this is the fairest cost-recovery model, and with a tiering plan or a meter everyone is paying their fair shares to finance the network,” Whitton said. Unlike other ISPs, Verizon doesn’t view heavy bandwidth users as hogs, but it does view them as potentially high-end customers.

Yet Verizon already does charge users a fair share to finance their network, based on the speed tier that customer chooses.  Those high-end customers are already paying Verizon premium prices for the fastest available speeds on Verizon’s fiber optic system.  Verizon’s ability to recoup their investment becomes easier and easier as costs decline to construct the fiber optic systems that will protect Verizon’s viability for decades to come, unlike those traditional phone companies sticking with copper wire lines until the last customer out the door turns the lights out for good.  Verizon’s average revenue per subscriber has never been higher with its ability to market video programming, speeds that make most cable operators blush, and an infinitely more reliable telephone network, all on one bill.  That helps achieve subscriber loyalty, particularly when offering service that keeps customers happy.

Creating Internet Overcharging schemes for your broadband service simply to monetize consumption does not keep customers happy.  Verizon sees the cream rising to the top — charging broadband enthusiasts more while promising nothing for customers who use the service less.  With average consumption per broadband user rising, there’s going to be a lot more cream to skim, charging an increasing number of customers more money for the exact same level of service.

No consumption billing scheme to date has ever provided customers with a “fair share” system, because none of them result in no charge for no consumption or charge a flat fee per gigabyte.  Instead, customers are allocated a pre-determined allowance for usage, charged whether they use it or not.  If they exceed it, punishing overlimit fees are always the result, unless a provider takes another step towards monetizing broadband by inventing overpriced “insurance plans” to protect consumers from overage fees.  The cost of delivering that data is already built-in to the price of today’s broadband plans, and those costs continue to decline.

Higginbotham adds another factor in the equation: with insufficient competition, those “fair share” schemes can inflate prices and lower allowances at a whim, as most customers lack a wide variety of competitors to choose from, which could help keep the greed factor in check.

Most places have two providers that offer slightly different sets of services and plans, making it hard to compare prices. I don’t mind paying more for a better network (I do so for my cell phone), but most consumers lack that option when it comes to wired access. Comcast—which competes against Verizon in about 12% of its footprint—is rolling out faster broadband to ensure that customers don’t leave the cable provider for Verizon’s fiber. But in other areas of the country, such as here in Austin, Tex., folks must choose between DSL (with some U-verse) and cable that hasn’t been upgraded to the faster DOCSIS 3.0 speeds.

Austin was one of the test markets for Time Warner Cable’s reviled “consumption billing experiment” this past April.  In other test cities, it’s more of the same.  In Rochester, New York broadband service is realistically available from two major players — Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications.  The former has apparently passed over Rochester for DOCSIS 3 upgrades because the cable operator sees little need to upgrade service in an area whose only primary competitor believes DSL service is good enough, one that has stubbornly kept an Acceptable Use Policy defining an appropriate amount of usage at a piddly five gigabytes per month, and thinks fiber is for breakfast cereals, not for Flower City residents.

Verizon’s words help call out the fiction that some providers have used to peddle Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers.  It’s not about “fairness,” it’s not about “exafloods and Internet brownouts,” nor is it about “expanding networks.”  It’s about profit, pure and simple.  When you have a duopoly in place for broadband and almost no regulation governing that service, the sky is the limit for price increases and limits on usage.

[flv width=”480″ height=”284″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Whitton On Telecom Delivery 2-25-09.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Executive Director of Access Technologies Brian Whitton speaks about the future of telecommunication delivery technologies with Kimberlie Dykeman of Web2point0.tv at The Future of Television East conference in New York (February 25, 2009 – 11 minutes)

Regulating mobile broadband data usage on a constrained network has posed a challenge for mobile broadband providers that can’t always easily expand their networks to accommodate growing demand.  As mobile broadband providers work with the frequency allocations they have either been assigned or won through airwave auctions, simply adding more capacity by using additional frequencies isn’t always possible.  So most providers have increasingly turned to usage allowances to artificially control demand on their existing networks.

Who wins the next round of spectrum auctions sets us up for the mobile broadband chicken and egg scenario.  Providers cannot bid the enormous dollar amounts these auctions routinely command without revenue from customers craving access.  Customers aren’t about to commit paying even more for mobile broadband service that, in the United States, is almost universally limited to five gigabytes of consumption per month.  Finding ways to attract new customers who have been resistant to the current pricing of mobile broadband service could provide a source for additional revenue.

But as far as consumers are concerned, the current model of “usage allowances” combined with punishing overlimit penalties is extremely unpopular, and will keep many potential customers away.

Camiant, which helps create and manage traffic management solutions for broadband networks, today announced the findings of its latest study, “Rethinking Mobile Broadband Data Rate Plans.”  Although some of the study was no doubt designed to help sell the case for Camiant’s product line devoted to “intelligent” network management and quota systems, it provides important insight into the European mobile broadband market.

The conclusion: Europeans don’t like Internet Overcharging schemes either.

In fact, when the 263 survey respondents using plug-in mobile broadband modems in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden were asked about their preferences for various rate plans, the key finding was consumers don’t like ‘Cap + Overage’ style rate plans.  Among their concerns:

• 62% didn’t know what their usage cap was;
• 76% didn’t know how much data they actually used;
• 39% didn’t know what happened if they went over the usage cap;
• 45% were very/moderately concerned about exceeding the cap.

When presented with four alternative rate plan structures and asked their preference — “Cap + Overage” was least preferred by consumers.  ‘None of the above’ was not an option, so those surveyed chose the plan most acceptable under the parameters of the study.  The result showed almost half wanted unlimited service, and just over one-third wanted to pay less for a plan with an allowance, but one that wouldn’t empty their wallets if they happened to exceed the limit:

Many users were willing to pay additional fees beyond the base subscription for potential “extras”:

• 43% of all respondents would pay €5 in addition to base plan for unlimited usage of one specific application. Of those that were interested, 90% said it was important that they select the application.
• 45% of respondents interested in a service that might provide lower speed at some point said they would be willing to pay between €1 and €3 for on-demand higher speed “for a short duration (e.g. 1 hour).”

“It’s becoming very clear that network operators need to offer a wider range of package options to users of mobile data users,” said Graham Finnie, Chief Analyst at Heavy Reading. “This study provides strong evidence that end users are willing to consider a range of alternatives to conventional usage management schemes.”

Some similar studies and focus groups being conducted in the United States testing additional rate plan options, most of which carrying a lower usage cap and lower pricing.  Many of the private studies are including the dreaded ‘I wouldn’t buy any of these plans because they are all too expensive for what you get’ option to determine if consumers are simply going to continue turning their noses up at overpriced data plans.

Mobile broadband growth at the $60 for five gigabytes price level has been accepted by the on-the-go traveler or business person dreading hotel Internet connection fees, but have been difficult to sell to occasional users, residential customers, or those who consider the price out of line for the amount of access it includes.  Most of these types of customers rely on free or reduced price wi-fi instead.

With 49% of survey respondents looking for unlimited plan options at reasonable prices, and most of the rest looking for a lower price with some limitations, today’s American mobile broadband pricing platform charging high prices for highly limited service is the worst of both worlds for consumers.

New Zealand, along with Australia and Canada are often cited by broadband providers as examples of places where broadband usage limits are commonplace.  With dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes in their heads, Time Warner Cable, among several others, have routinely pointed to Internet service abroad to justify limiting your usage at home.

But providers always ignore the fact customers despise the limitations on their service, in several cases ranking it among the biggest problems they have with their Internet Service Provider.  Internet rationing plans that barely budge in broadband allowances are a major factor in broadband mediocrity, and government officials are increasingly taking notice.  In some countries, national broadband policies seek to expand infrastructure where private providers won’t.

In New Zealand, the push for better connectivity comes through expansion of the undersea fiber cables that connect the country with the rest of the online world.  In the south Pacific, it is that connectivity problem which directly impacts consumer pricing of broadband and bring limits on service.

Today, the only major connection New Zealand has with the world is through Southern Cross Cable Networks, which have cables stretching from Auckland in New Zealand to Sydney, Australia and between Auckland and Hawaii.

Now, a second company hopes to dramatically expand connectivity with an expanded capacity cable to be laid between Auckland and Sydney.  Kordia, a state-owned enterprise, which plans to run the 2,350km cable, says this expansion will dramatically lower broadband pricing for New Zealand and allow providers to vastly expand or discontinue broadband usage caps.

Kordia says the cable, costing between $112-149 million dollars US, will be operational by the end of 2011 if all goes according to plan.

“Our proposed cable will take the most direct, quickest and least expensive route for New Zealand customers.  OptiKor is a better proposition for New Zealand than any other cable project – we are the most direct route to Australia and through our partners, we can deliver New Zealand traffic all the way to the United States,” Kordia Chairman David Clarke says.

Prices are already dropping in New Zealand just from the threat of competition.  Southern Cross Cable slashed prices on its cable 75 percent in anticipation of Kordia’s future competition.  Kordia claims that price cutting is designed to help drag down the company’s efforts to obtain contracts with telecommunications companies in advance of construction.

Still, should the cable be laid, in addition to the prospect of ending aggravating usage caps, Kordia estimates New Zealanders will save almost $1.5 billion US on Internet access between now and 2020.

Phillip Dampier

Lobbyists, corporate executives, and several interest groups are busy lobbying the newest additions to the Federal Communications Commission in an all-out effort to stop Net Neutrality.

The Hill newspaper today reports Mignon Clyburn, daughter of House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), is particularly under pressure to reject Net Neutrality.  The Hill reports industry lobbyists believe that if her father is amenable to their position, his daughter might also be.  To date, several hundred letters from minority groups and organizations, many opposed to Net Neutrality, have been filed with the FCC.

After reviewing dozens of those letters, it’s readily apparent many are the fruits of AT&T and Verizon lobbying labor, because several adopt both companies’ anti-Net Neutrality talking points, often word for word.

Even the newest Republican commissioner, Meredith Attwell Baker, is under a lobbying assault.

The thinking on K Street is that Baker’s views on net neutrality may not be set. Lobbyists and corporate executives have sought out Baker before the FCC votes on a final rule sometime next year.

“They are trying to get in there and remind her where she comes from to shore up her vote for the anti-net neutrality camp,” said one lobbyist working on the issue.

While the special interest blitz attempts to kill Net Neutrality, one pro-Net Neutrality advocate got into a dispute with some of the minority interest groups opposing Net Neutrality, which was gleefully covered by the broadband industry trade press. Public Knowledge got a bit too close to a nerve of several of these groups who put their logos on a letter sent to the FCC opposing Net Neutrality.  The letter represents the groups’ concerns that broadband for many in America is simply not available, especially for the economically disadvantaged.  They’ve been swayed by industry propaganda to characterize Net Neutrality as a threat to addressing the digital divide by making service ultimately even more expensive.  Some of those groups fired back against Public Knowledge, offended by some of the language used on their blog they felt suggested minority groups were naive and possibly even “selling out” the people they represent.  A few public exchanges later led to an apology from Public Knowledge if feelings were hurt and a plea from Free Press to put aside some of the personal disputes and rhetoric and argue the merits of the issue pro or con.

We agree with Free Press that personality disputes and pointless name calling don’t work and serve only to distract from the issues at hand. These groups advocating against Net Neutrality should be open to receiving additional information that doesn’t come from the broadband industry, particularly arguments that debunk those fear-mongering industry talking points.  Perhaps those groups will be amenable to changing their position once they gather additional facts.

But we also feel the first rule of politics must always be to “follow the money” and that is true for non-profits, for-profits, and government interests.  There must be full disclosure of the financial support and board membership of all of the groups claiming to represent consumer and minority interests.  Consumers, and more importantly members of the groups themselves, deserve to know where the money is coming from and if their boards have members working for or with the telecommunications industry or its friends.

For example, in our own research of the background of 100+ members of Broadband for America, we found instances of telecommunications industry involvement in virtually every single group.  If one chooses to believe that is a coincidence and still feels comfortable with that organization, so be it.  However, if one is concerned to learn that in several cases those ties were being scrubbed from interest groups’ websites, or were not openly disclosed to members, learning about that could be a cause of concern.  People should have the right to make an informed decision.  Some of the groups complaining about Public Knowledge are also members of Broadband for America and have telecommunications industry money backing them.  There is nothing wrong, in my judgment, in making sure that information is out there for readers to consider.

Be aware that while pro-Net Neutrality groups ring their hands over potentially offending one another, opponents are wasting no time mass mailing anti-Net Neutrality correspondence to the FCC.  Let’s remember our first priority is to fight for Net Neutrality.  If a group is offended, send them flowers, apologize quickly if you must, and be done with it.  Don’t entertain the trade press.

Navarrow Wright on BlackWeb 2.0 called proponents of Net Neutrality “digital elites” and then condensed many of the industry talking points that are common to many of the anti-Net Neutrality letters heading to the FCC:

The risk that a regressive pricing mandate that net neutrality rules could impose will shift online costs to the poor is real.

The risk that over-regulation will depress deployment and access is real.

The risk that restrictions on network management will reduce the quality and reliability of Internet service for light users — students, the poor on fixed incomes, the elderly, and community organizers who rely on Internet access to reach their communities – is real.

Wright doesn’t bother to provide any evidence to back up these claims.  Underlining the word real does not make it reality.

We recognize these talking points from the broadband industry’s lobbying efforts against Net Neutrality.  The industry scare tactic about raised prices is exactly the same one they use to justify Internet Overcharging schemes like forced consumption billing and usage caps, despite earning healthy profits and enjoying a decline in their traffic costs.  Read the financial reports from the major players about broadband profits for yourself.  Don’t take our word for it.

Net Neutrality simply demands the status quo — open and equal access to everyone, including the economically disadvantaged Wright is concerned about.  If Wright is concerned about the cost of broadband services for the economically disadvantaged, giving the providers the right to monetize content delivery in new ways, it will lead to even higher prices than we cope with today.

Industry rate hikes come in spite of Net Neutrality, and we call on Wright to join our effort to demand increased competition so these kinds of price increases become untenable.  Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest provider, is busily increasing prices for Road Runner service right now in several regions, even without the “imminent threat” of Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is hardly “over regulation,” and the empty rhetoric about it depressing investment, deployment, and access has been made every time this industry has faced the prospect of some oversight.  Wright should remember the industry used the same arguments to resist universal wiring requirements made in franchise agreements to guarantee that income challenged neighborhoods had the same access to cable and telephone broadband services as wealthy suburbs.  In their fight to obtain quick and simple statewide video franchising, they argued that without it, it would discourage investment, deployment, and access to competition.  Regulating rates?  Same argument.  The Discovery Institute, which has produced suspect studies on demand for the industry, paid for by the industry, provides an excellent example of “we’ve heard this song before” in comments they made to the FCC back in 2006 to try and reform cable franchising:

V. LEVEL-PLAYING-FIELD REQUIREMENTS ARE ANTICOMPETITIVE

Build-out requirements were an appropriate quid pro quo for the telephone, cable and wireless companies who received an exclusive franchise. An exclusive franchise ensured the viability of average pricing by eliminating the risk of cherry-picking by a competitive entrant, and allowed providers to serve the most profitable customers first who could then, in turn, subsidize the cost of serving everyone else.

Competitive entrants already have an incentive to expand their networks: They must produce consistent revenue gains, and the cost of adding additional users declines as a network grows. But unless flexibly and intelligently applied, a build-out requirement threatens the entire undertaking by creating the possibility that the initial investment will be effectively lost if, for whatever reason, it just isn’t possible to meet the deadline. The evidence that cities possess the inclination to perform this thoughtful and delicate task is entirely conjectural.

Build-out is typically not required of competitive entrants, because it imposes costs that may not be recoverable in a competitive market. Exceptions are Personal Communications Service (PCS) providers and Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs). However, these examples are clearly distinguishable. As the Commission has noted in another context, the grant of a PCS license confers on the licensee an exclusive right to use a designated portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. In that decision, the Commission rejected a Texas build-out requirement applicable to competitive entrants in the local exchange market.

ETCs are required to provide service and advertise their rates throughout the area for which they seek Universal Service support, but an ETC has the right to resell another carrier’s services. There is no suggestion in the current proceeding that telephone companies seeking to offer video services should have the right to resell the services of the incumbent cable operator, nor should there be. However, in view of the fact that telephone companies cannot be assured of the capital needed to build out their advanced services networks, a resale requirement would probably be the only practical way ensure that a competitive entrant could serve every household.

Build-out is not the same thing as redlining. Redlining is illegal, but by its terms, 47 U.S.C. 621(a)(4)(A) does not require build-out. It merely imposes a reasonableness requirement on the amount of time locally-enacted build-out requirements provide for the competitive entrant to serve every household. There is no Congressional mandate for build-out.

Since cable operators are not required to offer voice services to every household, it is not clear why telephone companies should be required to offer video services throughout their service area. There is no way to predict whether competitive entrants will have access to sufficient capital or be able to gain enough market share to make build-out requirements objectively reasonable. These risk factors suggest that build-out requirements would be anticompetitive.

It is also utter nonsense to suggest network management restrictions will reduce the quality and reliability of Internet service for light users.  In fact, the industry’s proposed “light user” solution is a consumption billing scheme that includes usage allowances and limits, overlimit penalties for exceeding them, and consumers forced into limited use plans, often for little or no savings over existing under-marketed “lite” plans.

Most providers currently tier broadband based on speed.  If a consumer wants to get “light service,” they can purchase a discounted lower speed package perfectly adequate for most web use, and never have to worry about how much they choose to use it.  They want to continue offering speed tiers, but also limit customers’ use of their accounts, giving them a paltry usage allowance and then subjecting them to steep penalties for exceeding it.  Residents in Rochester, New York fought back against two such schemes advocated by Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications, the local phone company.  It is under the guise of “network management” that these Internet Overcharging schemes were born.  A word to the wise – this price gouging hurts the economically disadvantaged far more than wealthy suburbanites.

I also point Wright’s attention to the broadband situation in Canada, which has adopted the viewpoint of our provider friends.  There, Internet usage is limited by allowances, with fees of $1-5 per gigabyte for exceeding them.  Net Neutrality is not protected, and certain Internet services are “network managed” with speed throttles, reducing their speed by 90% or more, making their use untenable.  Yet, Canadian broadband dropped in global broadband rankings, service providers increased prices anyway, and the digital divide Wright is worried about has not been addressed.  In fact, it’s arguably worse, because the industry won efforts to also limit and ration wholesale broadband access used by independent service providers to create competitive, lower-priced alternatives.

Does that make Wright stupid or a “sell-out?”  Of course not.  It means we have a lot of information to share with Mr. Wright and others like him.  As consumers ourselves, we believe in getting affordable broadband access to disadvantaged communities, and support Universal Service Fund reform and appropriate stimulus funding, or providing municipally built networks to introduce needed competition to get quality, affordable broadband service into urban and rural homes that are woefully underserved.  The industry advocated “don’t regulate us” approach has been in place since the 1990s and has not come close to solving the problem.

It’s our view broadband service is rapidly becoming as important as water, gas and electric, and telephone service, and must be provided to every American that wants a connection, at an affordable price.  When private providers won’t do that, it’s time to follow the same path we took to assure electrification of this country decades earlier, with public projects to get the job done.

We think every person should check out these issues for themselves.  As a consumer, confronting Internet Overcharging schemes was what got this site started, and once I examined the facts about the profitable state of broadband, and the quest to make it even more profitable at consumer expense, I got angry and involved.  That doesn’t make me an “elitist.”  It makes me an informed and involved citizen.

We have always told providers this isn’t personal and we respect the work done by the employees to serve their customers.  Most of us are customers ourselves.  We will debate policy matters and advocate for our position, and try and bring supporting evidence to the table, and let the best argument win.  Along the way, disclosing who represents who and where they money comes from is part of that debate.

It will remain our policy to expose industry connections in organizations that purport to advocate for consumer interests, particularly when those connections are not routinely disclosed.  Consumers have a right to know whether the industry is writing checks to ostensibly independent groups, or have executives seated on their governing boards, potentially influencing their public policy positions.  To not provide this needed information would sell out our readers, and not living up to the standards we set for ourselves.

For the record, Stop the Cap! has zero industry money backing us.  We are 100% consumer-funded and have no involvement in any online business or telecommunications company.

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.

“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.”