Several staff members working for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), the regulatory agency reviewing the proposed Frontier purchase of Verizon territories in Washington state, have reversed their opposition to the Frontier-Verizon deal because of concessions they believe will better serve consumers impacted by the deal.  But the provisions don’t come close to protecting consumer rights and do not sufficiently protect local telephone and broadband service.

The WUTC must be told that broadband expansion from a service provider that insists on a 5 gigabyte usage limit in its Acceptable Use Policy makes such expansion barely worth the effort.  The WUTC must insist on a permanent exemption from any usage limits for Washington state consumers, especially because many may find Frontier DSL to be their only broadband option for years to come.  To allow a company with such a paltry limit to be the monopoly provider of broadband puts Washington residents and small businesses at a serious economic disadvantage in the digital economy.

Would you choose to reside or locate your business in a community with one broadband provider offering a limit so low, your broadband usage will be limited to web page browsing and e-mail?

High Speed Internet Access Service

Customers may not resell High Speed Internet Access Service (“Service”) without a legal and written agency agreement with Frontier. Customers may not retransmit the Service or make the Service available to anyone outside the premises (i.e., wi-fi or other methods of networking). Customers may not use the Service to host any type of commercial server. Customers must comply with all Frontier network, bandwidth, data storage and usage limitations. Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier will be a part of the lives of almost 500,000 state residents, including those in Wenatchee and other parts of North Central Washington.  That covers a lot of rural residents with no hope of cable competition or other broadband options.  Verizon is the second-largest local telephone service provider in Washington, serving cities such as Redmond, Kirkland, Everett, Bothell, Woodinville, Kennewick, Pullman, Chelan, Richland, Naches, Westport, Lynden, Anacortes, Mount Vernon, Newport, Oakesdale, Republic and Camas-Washougal.  Currently, Verizon has approximately 1,300 employees in Washington, who would be transferred to Frontier once the deal is complete.

Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to assuring residents they can get the kind of broadband service they need in the 21st century, especially from a company that could easily find itself swamped in debt.  Let’s look at what Frontier has offered:

• Invest $40 million to expand high-speed Internet access in Washington.
• Submit quarterly financial reports to identify merger savings.
• Branding and transition costs to be paid by stockholders, not ratepayers.
• Increase financial incentives to prevent a decline in service quality.
• Adopt Verizon’s existing rates and contracts for at least three years.

Frontier would also be required to pay residential customers $35 for missed service repairs or installation appointments. That’s $10 more than Verizon now pays. Current Verizon customers would also have 90 days after the transition to choose another provider without incurring a $5 switching fee. Low-income customers who qualify through the Washington Telephone Assistance Program will also receive a one-time $75 credit if the company fails to offer appropriate discounts or deposit waivers.

Our take:

• Investing $40 million in low speed DSL service with a 5GB usage allowance saddles residents with yesterday’s technology with a usage allowance that rations the Internet.
• Customers don’t care about merger cost reductions because they’ll never enjoy those savings, but they’ll feel their impact if they include layoffs and reduction in investment.
• Consumers will be more concerned about what happens to their phone and broadband service when the “transition” results in service and billing problems.  Will stockholders pay inconvenienced customers?
• Vague promises of increased financial incentives for a company to do… its job, without declines in service quality, exposes just how unnecessary this deal is.  Why not offer incentives for Verizon to stay?
• Freezing rates for three years doesn’t prevent massive increases to make up the difference in year four and beyond.

The WUTC staff had it right the first time when it opposed the deal.  A healthy, financially secure Verizon is still a better deal than a smaller independent company saddled with debt.  Frontier seals the fate of Washington state residents from the benefits of fiber optics wired to the home, delivering high speed broadband for the future because Frontier doesn’t do fiber to the home on its own.  With a tiny usage allowance, just waiting for the company to decide to enforce it means you won’t be using your broadband account too much anyway.

The WUTC is accepting comments and you need to start calling and writing.  Make sure to tell the Commission it must secure a permanent exemption for Washington from any Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption/usage-based Internet billing and any usage limits Frontier defines in its Acceptable Use Policy.  Better yet, tell them Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to making you feel good about Verizon turning over your phone service to a company that is traveling the same road three other companies took all the way to bankruptcy.

Customers who would like to comment on the provisions can call toll-free: (888) 333-9882 or send e-mail to [email protected]. The deadline for comments is January 10th.

Cablevision serves communities surrounding the metropolitan New York region

Despite the tight economy for most Americans, executives at some of the nation’s largest cable players will enjoy millions from their contract extensions, bonuses, and eye-popping stock options that could net upwards of $10 million more for a select few.  And you thought your rate increase was due to “increased programming costs.”

Cablevision is where the real Money Party has just gotten started.  The top three executives alone could receive a combined $50,000,000 next year… that is fifty million dollars, just for running a regional cable company with just north of three million subscribers.

Here is the breakdown:

Dolan

Cablevision CEO James Dolan: Cablevision has always been under the control of the Dolan family, who own a controlling interest in the stock.  James Dolan gets a five-year extension in his contract, with a base salary of $1.5 million per year plus a bonus of up to four times that amount.  In 2010, Dolan is also entitled to an additional bonus package in cash and equity worth around $7 million.  He is also on track to get that same bonus each of the next five years, but only if the company does well.  Dolan is also CEO of Madison Square Garden/MSG/Radio City Music Hall.  For managing those assets, he’ll receive an extra $500,000 in salary, a bonus up to four times that amount, and an extra cash and equity bonus expected to be about $1.75 million per year.

Dolan founded Cablevision in 1973.

Ratner

Cablevision Vice Chairman Hank Ratner: Ratner gets a base salary of $500,000 a year, an annual bonus up to four times that salary, $1.2 million annually for his role with MSG, and extra cash and equity around $1.4 million annually.  And just because he’s a great guy — a one-time stock award worth $1.75 million due on March 31, 2010.  But wait, there’s more.  He also deserves extra cash and equity as MSG’s chief, targeted at $5.4 million in 2010 and each year thereafter.

Ratner joined Cablevision in 1987.  Ratner helps to set corporate direction and strategy, and is the primary executive overseeing major business partnerships and transactions.  Prior to being appointed Cablevision vice chairman, he served as vice chairman of Rainbow Media Holdings, the company’s programming subsidiary.

Rutledge

Tom Rutledge, Cablevision’s chief operating officer: He’ll get $1.63 million annually in salary, plus an annual bonus up to four times that amount.  He’s a special guy, so he also gets a “special payment” of $7.75 million within ten days of putting his ‘John Hancock’ on the new contract.  Call it a signing bonus.  But he also gets extra cash and equity compensation aiming at $6.8 million in 2010.

Cablevision isn’t alone is spreading around the walking around money.

Liberty Media, one of those programmers that keeps upping the rates charged to cable and satellite providers, who in turn pass those increases on to you, have a reason for doing so.  Their salary costs keep going up for the special few on the top floor.

Maffei

Greg Maffei, prexy-CEO of the company, just got his own five year contract renewal taking effect January 1st.  He’ll earn a base salary of $1.5 million per year, with a guaranteed 5 percent raise every year and an annual bonus amounting around $3 million.  But he’ll also get more than 10 million options of Liberty’s three stocks, most in the high-tech Liberty Interactive, which is developing online applications and services.

What do you get?  A rate increase and programming you don’t want but have to pay for, and now you know why.

Redefining their "new position" to basically mean their "old position"

AT&T’s all-new position on Net Neutrality suspiciously sounds like its old position on Net Neutrality.

In a three-page letter addressed to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, James W. Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president for external and legislative affairs wrote in glowing terms about the Obama Administration’s efforts to expand broadband service and preserving the “open Internet.”  Those goals are shared by AT&T, according to Cicconi.  But are they?

AT&T has spent millions fighting Net Neutrality policies, calling them unnecessary and harmful to broadband innovation and investment.  Ed Whitacre, Jr., AT&T’s former chairman and CEO infamously kicked off a contentious debate when he declared content producers shouldn’t be allowed to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”

Little has changed.

Yesterday’s letter to Genachowski brings nothing new to the table from AT&T.  In short, they still feel broad-based Net Neutrality regulations will be harmful to investment.  AT&T wants the FCC’s definition of Net Neutrality to be “flexible enough to accommodate the types of voluntary business agreements that have been permitted for 75 years.”  Flexible, in this instance, means gutting the clear, unambiguous prohibition against fiddling with Internet traffic and inserting loopholes that gut the policy’s effectiveness.  AT&T’s “voluntary agreements” never include consumers.

AT&T wants to provide “value-added” services to content producers who agree to pay more to obtain them.  That typically means additional speed or a guarantee of prioritized service.  Unfortunately, on a finite broadband network, those getting preferential treatment can reduce the quality of service for those who don’t pay.  By trying to refocus the FCC’s attention on obsessing over subjective interpretations of “unreasonable and anti-competitive” content discrimination, AT&T gets a free pass to configure a broadband protection racket and rake in money from content producers afraid to be stuck in the slow lane.

Cicconi

AT&T also continues to complain that such regulations would prevent the company from offering consumers “value-added” broadband services.  As long as those services do not discriminate, providers can freely provide network enhancements like faster speed tiers, “Powerboost” technology which temporarily speeds up connections, and even network management which keeps viruses, malware, and other junk traffic away from subscribers.

Ben Scott at Free Press, a consumer advocacy group, read between AT&T’s latest lines and saw a naked effort to gut Net Neutrality before being enacted:

“After leading a rabid anti-net neutrality lobbying campaign for years, AT&T now submits a letter to the Federal Communications Commission purporting to offer common ground,” Scott said. “What they are proposing would allow them to violate the core principle of Net Neutrality — letting them control the Internet by picking winners and losers in a pay-for-play scheme. That would destroy the free and open Internet, and the FCC should reject this false compromise out of hand.”

“Make no mistake, AT&T opposes Net Neutrality. Their proposed solution is a bait and switch. As bait, they ask to return to a standard of nondiscrimination that was long applied to the telephone network. But they fail to mention that this standard was part of a system of pro-competitive common carriage rules that they have railed against applying to broadband networks for years. They haven’t changed their mind about common carriage. They are simply cherry-picking one piece of the old rules and calling it a compromise. The entire Net Neutrality debate is about the creation of a new system of nondiscrimination that fits broadband networks, not telephone networks –a debate the telephone companies forced by stripping away consumer protection rules from broadband under the Bush administration,” Scott added.

Public Knowledge also called out AT&T in a statement from Gigi Sohn.

AT&T has tried to draw what is an imaginary line among types of discrimination. The company advised the FCC that while ‘unreasonable’ discrimination can be banned, any discrimination caused by ‘voluntary commercial agreements’ is just fine because the parties involved agreed to it. That is nonsense.

As we have said consistently, the Internet has functioned as well as it has because control of the crucial roles at each end of the network. Side deals made by a carrier like AT&T and a content provider or other company take that control out of the hands of the consumer.

Similarly, it is unfortunate that AT&T has resorted to the old tactic of threatening not to invest in its network if the company does not get what it wants in a rulemaking. The growth of the Internet will be driven by consumer demand, not by gimmicks. If the company is truly interested in consumers, it will allow consumers to remain in control.

Sometimes the marketing hype associated with broadband products goes just a tad too far.

Michael is a Verizon DSL customer living with Verizon’s $34.99 3Mbps DSL service.  He reported to The Consumerist that a nearby friend in the same zip code was able to get Verizon’s 7Mbps service for $42.99 a month, so he called Verizon to see if he could obtain the same service.

I was told that it wasn’t available at my address, which is in the same zip code, but they sure can offer me 5MB for $49.99. After the run around, I politely declined and left everything be.

[Upon further checking their website] 7MB is available for my address, and for $42.99 with contract! Call #1 ended up me being told that I can in fact get 7MB but for $49.99. I declined and said no thank you. Call #2 told me that 7MB was not available, only 5MB, and it also was $49.99. I declined and called back a third time. Call #3 told me I can upgrade to 7MB but only online as “they have different specials we don’t honor over the phone.” The problem? My address states it has 7MB available… as a NEW account. If I log in my account and choose to upgrade, I can only order 5MB. I call back again, and a couple calls routed me to either the Philippines or India, and I politely hung up in frustration even before I started a conversation.

[…]

At this point I was livid and called to cancel my service.  The woman told me 7MB is absolutely 100% definitely not available for my address. She couldn’t explain why I could order it as a new account but not as an existing customer. The next part takes the cake from every reply I’ve ever heard. I directly asked “why is it I can open a new account with 7MB but I cannot order it as an existing customer?” Her response: “Your home cannot handle the 7MB speed. If I put in the order for 7MB, it will burn your house down.”

Michael was, of course, flabbergasted.  Besides, it’s usually cable installers that set your house on fire.

Verizon’s rate plan shell game guarantees they are always the winner:

“Last night surprisingly I get an email about my Verizon account. My rates are being raised to $36.99 for my current 3MB service.”  Presumably Verizon needs to purchase fire insurance to protect customers from the blazing fast speeds.  Or is that red hot glow coming from customers?

The Consumerist recommends an e-mail carpet bombing of Verizon executives’ e-mail accounts to get someone to resolve his problems.  Here’s a better answer for unresolved complaints regarding Verizon: Call the Verizon Executive Customer Relations office at 1-800-483-7988 and press 3.

AT&T Mobility has been sending out their blogger team to try and clean up the damage from CEO Ralph de la Vega’s not-too-subtle hint that the days of unlimited iPhone data plans are numbered:

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation, rumor and pure speculation floating out there during the last day on this topic.

[…]

We carry more smartphone data traffic than any other U.S. provider, with traffic growing 5,000 percent over the past three years. As a result, we are working aggressively and investing heavily in our network to support this tremendous growth. Our $17 – $18 billion CapEx spend for 2009 includes:

• Nearly doubling the wireless spectrum serving 3G customers in hundreds of markets across the country, using high-quality 850 MHz spectrum.  This additional spectrum expands overall network capacity and improves in-building reception.
• Adding about 2,000 new cell sites, expanding service to new cities and improving coverage in other areas.
• Adding about 100,000 new backhaul connections, which add critical capacity between cell sites and the global IP backbone network.  We’re doubling the number of fiber-served cell sites this year.
• Enabling widespread access to our Wi-Fi network – the largest in the country with more than 20,000 hotspots in all 50 states – allowing them to take advantage of the best available AT&T mobile broadband connection.
• Rolling out even faster 3G speeds with deployment of HSPA 7.2 technology, with availability in six markets planned by the end of the year.
• Preparing for field trials of next generation, LTE wireless networks next year, with deployment planning to begin in 2011.  This schedule aligns with industry expectations for when a wide variety of compatible 4G wireless devices should be available.

We have seen very positive results from our efforts thus far.  In one of the most common measures of reliability – dropped calls – AT&T’s national performance is within two-tenths of 1 percent of the highest score among major providers as measured by an independent firm, with only 1.32 percent of calls dropped nationally.

Ralph de la Vega

AT&T’s blogger team says it isn’t true that de la Vega is definitively saying he’s “capping” services.

But de la Vega never said in his original statements that he was advocating “capping” service.  He said, “there’s got to be some sort of a pricing scheme that addresses … usage.”  Scheme is right.  That’s code language for consumption or usage-based billing, something the blogger team doesn’t rule out.  A strict usage cap simply says a customer cannot exceed a specified amount.  Most consumption billing schemes monetize data consumption, not with a true pay-for-use system that bills by the megabyte, but rather a fixed monthly price with an allowance and overlimit penalties for exceeding it.  AT&T already uses consumption-based billing for its prepaid and postpaid mobile broadband plans, so extending it to the iPhone isn’t exactly novel.

The iPhone customer has been treated as a profit engine by AT&T since the phone was first introduced.  Compelling customers to purchase a mandatory data plan that was originally priced at $20 and was raised to $30 was the price iPhone customers had to pay for bragging rights.  Should AT&T impose consumption billing, that price may go much higher.

AT&T must believe iPhone users are willing to pay that price or dramatically cut usage.  Either way, AT&T milks the very last nickle out of its exclusivity arrangement that some industry observers believe will expire in the early summer of 2010.  When that happens, AT&T must be quietly pondering what customers will do once they can buy an iPhone from other carriers.

Leafing through January’s issue of Consumer Reports, I find one possible answer in the magazine’s annual survey of America’s best and worst cell phone providers (subscription required for detailed results).  More than 50,000 subscribers rated their wireless carrier, and AT&T turned in dismal ratings, usually ending up at the bottom except in some cities where Sprint achieved that dubious honor.  AT&T’s problems, reported in cities from coast to coast:

• No service where service should exist
• All circuits busy
• Dropped calls
• Static

Results have been so poor, the magazine recommended that those affected should call AT&T and demand credit.  Many customers have gotten at least three months’ worth of service credits valued at more than $200 for doing so.

Logical conclusion: customers love the iPhone but hate the network it is tied to.  With de la Vega’s recent data usage temper tantrum, it’s just one more reason to be annoyed with AT&T.

For customers who entertain the notion of owning an iPhone, but simply refuse to leave their current provider to obtain it, that’s nearly $3,000 left on the table over the life of a two-year contract.  That should concern both Apple and AT&T.  For Apple, it means potentially losing new iPhone customers to impr0ved competing phones, such as those running Google’s Android operating system.  For AT&T, once the Berlin Wall of exclusivity falls and two year contracts expire, years of consumer frustration with their network could lead to a stampede for the exits.