Irony: Chesonis' 2007 book has this description on Amazon.com -- "When you put people first, you win. When you operate by the highest principles, you'll see the results in the bottom line. When you put a caring heart into how you operate, in your organization and your community, you build the only true foundation of long-term success."

Eight acres of rubble and a big hole in the ground.

That’s what residents of Rochester, N.Y., are calling the former site of Midtown Plaza, America’s first indoor shopping mall, torn down to make room for the new headquarters of PAETEC Corporation — headquarters that may never be built.

Now the city of Rochester has declared war on the proposed acquisition of PAETEC by Little Rock, Ark.,-based Windstream, suggesting the combined company may renege on its commitment to construct new headquarters in downtown Rochester after New York State and Rochester city taxpayers spent $60 million on an economic development package for the company.

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, the mayor’s office declared its official opposition to the merger proposal, citing the economic impact of wasted tax dollars and the deal’s impact on local jobs:

The Commission will note from the body of this correspondence that the City may be negatively affected if the transfer of PAETEC to Windstream takes place. The federal, state and local governments have worked to develop the site for the purpose of establishing a PAETEC headquarters in Downtown Rochester; tailoring a development package and investing millions to make this location shovel ready for development. New York State provided the Project’s most significant monetary investment, proceeding with the understanding that the Project would retain and grow employment in the Rochester region. It is in the public interest to examine, not just the financial and planning impact that this will have on the City, but to also study the effect this will have on employment, the communities surrounding the City and the lives of the individuals who may be affected.

[…] In anticipation of the PAETEC Project, New York State and the City invested $60 million to demolish the former improvements on the Midtown Site and create a shovel ready building site. To insure the success of the PAETEC Project, the City produced a development package (“Development Package”) which expedited and customized the demolition of the existing buildings at the Midtown Site to accommodate PAETEC’s construction schedule and provide a foundation for PAETEC’s corporate headquarters.

[…] The Development Package was intended to benefit a New York State employer and help that employer retain its current employees and hire additional employees to grow its business. Despite all the efforts of the City to facilitate and provide the positive economic environment for the PAETEC Project, Windstream has indicated that it intends to reduce PAETEC’s current 850-employee Monroe County workforce.

The two companies filed a joint response with the Commission essentially telling the city to stay out of the merger deal, and their concerns about PAETEC’s headquarters and how many jobs will ultimately be lost are not within the Commission’s power to review anyway.

PAETEC CEO Arunas Chesonis, who earlier put the highest praise for his company’s success on the employees who helped build it into what it is today, told a group of fellow business leaders a different story than he told readers of his 2007 book.

“For people who feel let down, we in Rochester should want to be let down like this 50 times a year,” Chesonis said. “Rochester will be a major operating center for the company. So along those lines, we have to figure out how many jobs will be in Rochester. We should be talking about the people that are going to lose their jobs. What are those people going to do next?”

Presumably collect unemployment, critics charge.  Among them is former Mayor William Johnson, who has criticized the city for bending over backwards for the ever-evolving plans for new PAETEC headquarters, which have been downsized repeatedly since they were originally announced.  Johnson thinks Windstream may have effectively put a knife in the back of taxpayers and the mayor’s office, and could ultimately exit the city of Rochester leaving countless local employees out of work.

Windstream seems resolute in its plans to cut what it calls “duplicative staffing positions.”  It reminded the FCC the agency “has routinely approved transactions in which—as will be the case in this transaction—increased efficiencies and economies of scale and scope are expected.”

That is code language for PAETEC employees: Update your resume.  You may need it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHEC WHAM Rochester PAETEC Windstream 10-11.flv[/flv]

Finger-pointing over a messy, uncompleted downtown construction project. PAETEC may be planning to renege on a $60 million taxpayer-financed economic development package after it announced plans to merge with Windstream.  Reports from WHEC and WHAM-TV.  (6 minutes)

The primary backers of the ABC Plan

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is scheduled to deliver a major announcement on reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) — a federal program designed to subsidize the costs of delivering telecommunications services to rural America.

The reform, long overdue, would transition a significant percentage of USF fees every telephone customer pays towards broadband deployment — a noble endeavor.  For years, Americans have paid more than $5 billion annually to phone companies large and small to maintain rural landline service.  Small co-op phone companies depend on the income to deliver affordable service in places like rural Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska.  But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also collect a significant share (around $800 million annually) to reduce their costs of service in the rural communities they serve.

That’s particularly ironic for AT&T, which time and time again has sought the right to abandon universal rural landline service altogether.

Genachowski’s idea would divert USF funding towards broadband construction projects.  The argument goes that even low speed DSL requires a well-maintained landline network, so phone companies that want to deploy rural broadband will have to spend the money on necessary upgrades to provide just enough service to earn their USF subsidies.  The lower the speed, the lower the cost to upgrade networks and provide the service.  Some may choose wireless technology instead.  Since the telephone companies have fought long and hard to define “broadband” as anything approaching 3-4Mbps, that will likely be the kind of speed rural Americans will receive.

At first glance, USF reform seems like a good idea, but as with everything at the FCC these days, the devil is always in the details.

Dampier: Another day, another self-serving plan from the phone companies that will cost you more.

While headline skimmers are likely to walk away with the idea that the FCC is doing something good for rural broadband, in fact, the Commission may simply end up rubber stamping an industry-written and supported plan that will substantially raise phone bills and divert your money into projects and services the industry was planning to sell you anyway.

Stop the Cap! wrote about the ABC Plan a few weeks ago when we discovered almost all of the support for the phone-company-written proposal comes from the phone companies who back it, as well as various third party organizations that receive substantial financial support from those companies.  It’s a dollar-a-holler astroturf movement in the making, and if the ABC Plan is enacted, you will pay for it.

[Read Universal Service Reform Proposal from Big Telcos Would Rocket Phone Bills Higher and Astroturf and Industry-Backed, Dollar-a-Holler Friends Support Telco’s USF Reform Plan.]

Here is what you probably won’t hear at today’s event.

At the core of the ABC Plan is a proposal to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas.  You win a gold star if you correctly guessed this proposal originated with AT&T and Verizon, who together will save literally billions in call connection costs under their plan.

With a proposal like this, you would assume most rural phone companies are howling in protest.  It turns out some are, especially some of the smallest, family-run and co-op based providers.  But a bunch of phone companies that consider rural America their target area — Frontier, CenturyLink, FairPoint and Windstream, are all on board with AT&T and Verizon.  Why?

Because these phone companies have a way to cover that lost revenue — by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.  In the first year of implementation, your rates could increase up to $4.50 per line (and that fee also extends to cell phones).  Critics have been widely publicizing the increased phone bills guaranteed under the ABC Plan.  In response, advocates for the industry are rushing out the results of a new study released yesterday from the Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford that claims the exact opposite.  Dr. Ford claims each customer could pay approximately $14 less per year in access charges if the industry’s ABC Plan is fully implemented.

Genachowski

Who is right?  State regulators suggest rate increases, not decreases, will result.  The “Phoenix Center,” unsurprisingly, has not disclosed who paid for the study, but there is a long record of a close working relationship between that research group and both AT&T and Verizon.

But it gets even worse.

This shell game allows your local phone company to raise rates and blame it on the government, despite the fact those companies will directly benefit from that revenue in many cases.  It’s a real win-win for AT&T and Verizon, who watch their costs plummet while also sticking you with a higher phone bill.

The USF program was designed to provide for the neediest rural phone companies, but under the new industry-written rules being considered by the FCC, just about everyone can get a piece, as long as “everyone” is defined as “the phone company.”  There is a reason this plan does not win the hearts and minds of the cable industry, independent Wireless ISPs, municipalities, or other competing upstarts.  As written, the USF reform plan guarantees virtually all of the financial support stays in the Bell family.  Under the arcane rules of participation, only telephone companies are a natural fit to receive USF money.

Genachowski will likely suggest this plan will provide for rural broadband in areas where it is unavailable today.  He just won’t say what kind of broadband rural America will get.  He can’t, because the industry wrote their own rules in their plan to keep accountability and oversight as far away as possible.

For example, let’s assume you are a frustrated customer of Frontier Communications in West Virginia who lives three blocks away from the nearest neighbor who pays $50 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband.  You can’t buy the service at any price because Frontier doesn’t offer it.  You have called them a dozen times and they keep promising it’s on the way, but they cannot say when.  You may have even seen them running new cable in the neighborhood.

Frontier has made it clear they intend to wire a significantly greater percentage of the Mountain State than Verizon ever did when it ran things.  Let’s take them at their word for this example.

The telephone companies have helpfully written their own rules for the FCC to adopt.

Frontier’s decision to provide broadband service in West Virginia does not come out of the goodness of their heart.  At a time when landline customers are increasingly disconnecting service, Frontier’s long-term business plan is to keep customers connected by selling packages of phone, broadband, and satellite TV in rural markets.  Investment in DSL broadband deployment has been underway with or without the assistance of the Universal Service Fund because it makes financial sense.  Our customer in West Virginia might disconnect his landline and use a cell phone instead, costing Frontier any potential broadband, TV and telephone service revenue.

Under the ABC Plan, Frontier can be subsidized by ratepayers nationwide to deliver the service they were planning to provide anyway.  And what kind of service?  The same 3Mbps DSL the neighbors have.

If your county government, a cable operator, or wireless competitor decided they could deliver 10-20Mbps broadband for the same $50 a month, could they receive the USF subsidy to build a better network instead?  Under the phone company plan, the answer would be almost certainly no.

Simon Fitch, the consumer advocate of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, which advises the FCC on universal service matters, says the ABC Plan is a consumer disaster.

“Although a stated goal of the FCC’s reform effort is to refocus universal-service funding to support broadband, the industry’s ABC plan requires no real commitment to make broadband available to unserved and underserved communities,” Fitch writes. “Companies would receive funds to provide broadband with upload and download speeds that are already obsolete. States would be given no real enforcement power.”

Fitch is certain companies like AT&T and Verizon will receive enormous ratepayer-financed subsidies they don’t actually need to provide service.

Back to AT&T.

In several states, AT&T is seeking the right to terminate its universal service obligation altogether, which would allow the same company fiercely backing the ABC Plan to entirely walk away from its landline network.  Why?  Because AT&T sees its future profits in wireless.  Under the ABC Plan, AT&T could build rural cell towers with your money to provide “replacement service” over a wireless network with or without great coverage, and with a 2GB usage cap.

At the press conference, Genachowski could still declare victory because rural America would, in fact, get broadband.  Somehow, the parts about who is actually paying for it, the fact it comes with no speed, coverage, or quality guarantees, and starts with a 2GB usage cap on the wireless side will all be left out.

Fortunately, not everyone is as enamored with the ABC Plan as the groups cashing checks written by AT&T.

In addition to state regulators, Consumers Union, the AARP, Free Press, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates are all opposed to the plan, which delivers all of the benefits to giant phone companies while sticking you with the bill.

There is a better way.  State regulators and consumer groups have their own plans which accomplish the same noble goal of delivering subsidies to broadband providers of all kinds without increasing your telephone bill.  It’s up to the FCC to demonstrate it’s not simply a rubber stamp for the schemes being pushed by AT&T and Verizon.

CenturyLink has unveiled its own discounted Internet access program for the income-challenged, loaded with tricks and traps buried in the fine print.

Dubbed CenturyLink Internet Basics, the 1.5Mbps DSL service is available to those who currently qualify for Lifeline Affordable Telephone Service, a federal program that provides discounts on basic monthly telephone service to eligible low-income consumers.  The service sells for $9.95 a month, before taxes and fees.

But buried in the fine print are a number of surprises that deliver higher prices and some nasty surprises (underlining ours):

• Listed High-speed Internet rate of $9.95/mo. applies for first 12 months of service (after which the rate reverts to $14.95/mo. for the next 48 months of service), and requires a 12-month term agreement or 24-month term agreement (if purchasing Netbook);
• Customer must either lease a modem/router from CenturyLink for an additional monthly charge or purchase a modem/router from CenturyLink for a one-time charge, and a one-time High-Speed Internet activation fee applies;
• A one-time professional installation charge (if selected by customer) and a one-time shipping and handling fee applies to customer’s modem/router;
• Taxes, Fees, and Surcharges – Applicable taxes, fees, and surcharges include a carrier Universal Service charge, carrier cost recovery surcharges, state and local fees that vary by area and certain in-state surcharges. Cost recovery fees are not taxes or government-required charges for use (which means they are little more than bill padding junk fees). Taxes, fees, and surcharges apply based on standard monthly, not promotional, rates;
• The first bill will include charges for the first full month of service billed in advance, prorated charges for service from the date of installation to bill date, and one-time charges and fees described above.
• Netbook purchase must be paid in full to CenturyLink prior to shipment. Shipping and handling fees, and applicable taxes will apply. If customer purchases Netbook as part of the CenturyLink Internet Basic service, all warranty and support for the Netbook and accompanying equipment will be covered by the manufacturer or other identified third party, not CenturyLink.
• No software applications or wireless service are included with the Netbook.
• An early termination fee will apply based on the applicable monthly recurring service fee multiplied by the number of months remaining in the minimum service period, up to $200.

Unlike Comcast, CenturyLink claims it will provide equivalent discounts for faster speeds — an important consideration for those with school-age children at home who may need multimedia capability for research and studies.

CenturyLink also offers a netbook computer for an additional $150, plus shipping and taxes, at the time of enrollment in the program.  The service also includes educational training, a 30-day money back guarantee, Norton Security Suite, and parental controls.

“While the Internet has become part of daily life for most Americans, many still aren’t connected because the cost is beyond their reach. CenturyLink is pleased to introduce this new program that offers affordable High-Speed Internet service and computers to those who need help getting online,” said CenturyLink CEO and President Glen F. Post, III.

That and the fact the company was required to offer discounted Internet service as a condition for the approval of their acquisition of Savvis, a web hosting company, according to Broadband Reports.

Like Comcast, participation in the program requires meeting a number of terms and pre-conditions:

AT&T has lost a case it appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to win favorable tax treatment for income it received from the Universal Service Fund program, designed to help underwrite the costs of providing rural telephone service.

AT&T was seeking a $500 million income tax refund on its 1998 and 1999 federal taxes from money the government provided AT&T.

Federal tax law requires phone companies to treat the USF revenue as income, subject to regular taxation.  AT&T argued the money was actually a “contribution to capital,” which would have substantially reduced the company’s tax burden.  Contribution to capital, as a concept, has been the subject of several corporate lawsuits over the years.  The genesis of court challenges comes from a 1925 case — Edwards v. Cuba Railroad Co., that held government subsidies provided to induce the construction of facilities and provision of service were not taxable income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

AT&T believed that USF funding subsidized the delivery of phone service, so it cannot be considered taxable income.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.  The justices elected to leave intact a lower court ruling that threw AT&T’s arguments aside.

Considering the long history of court losses for other corporate entities who have argued similar cases all the way back to the 1950s, the decision should not come as a surprise to the phone company, and AT&T’s reaction was muted.

“We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision,” the company said in a statement. “However, AT&T does not expect any impact to our financial statements.”

The case is AT&T v. United States, 10-1204.

Why would a Delaware company holding several dozen patents — several formerly owned and controlled by a semiconductor manufacturer — suddenly decide to sue businesses that offer their customers access to Wi-Fi?  Because that is where the money is.

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC is a patent holding company — one that today holds 31 patents, acquired mostly from Broadcom, that generally deal with “wireless local area network” technology most consumers know better as Wi-Fi.  In reality, Innovatio doesn’t really innovate much of anything in the technology department.  It has no products or services for sale.  But it has managed to innovate what critics are calling a “major shakedown” with the help of its law firm to collect royalty payments from companies large and small who find it easier to settle the lawsuits than hire attorneys to defend them.

That may be precisely the business model companies like Innovatio have in mind.

The company is suing coffee shops, grocery stores, restaurant chains, and even individual hotels and motels where Wi-Fi is provided as a customer convenience.  Among the defendants: Hyatt Corporation, Marriott Hotels, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Ramada Inn, Best Western, Days Inn, Super 8 Hotels, Travelodge, Caribou Coffee, Cosí and Panera Bread Co., and Meijer, Inc.  Within those lawsuits, hundreds of individual business locations are accused of violating Innovatio’s Wi-Fi patent rights.

But there is a way to make Innovatio, and their attorneys, go away.  Agree to a quick, “one-time settlement” in the form of a “licensing payment” between $2,300 and $5,000 per infringing location.

That’s cheaper than putting an attorney on a retainer and spending several hours contemplating a defense strategy, a fact of life many businesses can’t afford to ignore.

Critics of these patent-holding companies call them “patent trolls” that exist solely to rake in settlement payments on broadly-written patents.  Innovatio’s own lawsuits describe anyone who uses Wi-Fi as a potential violator.  It’s a new tactic for patent attorneys who more commonly chase equipment manufacturers and vendors, not the end users of the technology.  Innovatio has set its sights on smaller companies offering Wi-Fi services, perhaps because some of America’s largest equipment manufacturers, Cisco and Motorola, have deep enough pockets to fight back in court.

Who has even fewer resources to defend themselves against a patent infringement lawsuit mill?  Individual consumers, who technically are also violating Innovatio’s patents just by running a wireless network inside their home.  Innovatio defines that as patent infringement themselves, but benevolently suggests it will not sue ordinary consumers “at this stage” of Innovatio’s “systematic campaign,” reports The Patent Examiner:

“Innovatio has made a strategic and business judgment at this stage that it doesn’t intend to pursue [lawsuits on the basis of] residential use of WiFi,” said Matthew McAndrews, the lawyer representing Innovatio in the case. (The law firm’s offices in downtown Chicago are located about five blocks away from Innovatio’s office. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows another address for Innovatio, in a house at the end of a cul-de-sac in Ladera Ranch, Calif.)

As if to assure anyone who owns a laptop, smartphone or tablet that they’re not in danger of finding themselves in the company’s cross hairs, McAndrews added that he doesn’t “perceive” Innovatio’s litigation strategy changing. McAndrews did not respond to queries about who is behind Innovatio.

But that may not last forever:

McAndrews acknowledged the ubiquity of wireless Internet – likening it to a fundamental utility like gas or electricity – but offered a different perspective on the terms of its use. Ultimately, he said, Innovatio’s “plan is to license this portfolio to the fullest extent possible. That would include anyone who’s wireless networking.”