You can’t blame a guy for trying.  As the Cablevision-Fox dispute continues to drag on — keeping several Fox-owned cable networks and two New York stations off Cablevision screens, Hamilton Mayor John Bencivengo decided it was time to start shopping for some cable competition.

Bencivengo wrote thoughtful letters to executives of Comcast and Time Warner Cable trying to sell the two cable companies on coming to Mercer County.

“I am writing to inquire as to any interest your company may have in entering into Hamilton Township (Mercer County), NJ as a cable television provider,” Bencivengo’s letter reads. “I understand that any business decision would be predicated on the economic feasibility of entering into a new market, either through a franchise agreement with Hamilton Township or through a statewide franchise agreement available from the State of New Jersey through the BPU (Board of Public Utilities),” the letter reads. “It is a vibrant market that seems ripe for picking at this time.”

He’s also reminding both cable companies they are free and clear to deliver service just by signing a franchise agreement — the one Hamilton Township had with Cablevision expired back in 2005.

The New Jersey Times notes the area is not well-served by cable competition.  Verizon FiOS is an option for only about half of the residents of Hamilton, and only a quarter of residents in nearby Robbinsville.  The only other alternative is attaching a satellite dish to the roof.

“Here we are again with stations that are pretty popular off the cable network without any reimbursement to the cable customers, and that’s unfortunate,” Bencivengo told the New Jersey newspaper. “I want to be proactive to try to woo these people to Hamilton Township.”

Unfortunately, the cable industry in the United States resembles an organized crime network (their prices sure are a crime), each with their own respective territories companies have quietly agreed never to cross.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable are the Godfathers of their respective service areas, and neither will compete head-to-head.  Even though many residents affected by the Fox blackout may think of Cablevision as the Fredo of the cable industry, the chances of another cable company arriving in town to compete with them is next to zero.

Verizon offers the most immediate opportunity for cable competition, but consumers will find pricing generally comparable to what Cablevision charges.

The mayor of Hamilton need not tilt at windmills, however.  There is another way.

If Hamilton Township is fed up with Cablevision’s HissyFits and Verizon’s high prices, the alternative is to build support for a community-owned municipal system that can deliver video, phone, and broadband service to residents.  That’s what communities ranging from Wilson and Salisbury, North Carolina to Opelika, Alabama are doing, among many others.

They’ve decided the future of their communities’ telecommunications needs can no longer be entrusted to a handful of bully boys who put customers in the middle of every dispute over the money those customers will ultimately have to pay no matter who wins.

It’s a far better long term solution than replacing one bad cable company with another.

Early adopters of Google TV will find nothing but frustration if they want to watch ABC’s “Modern Family” and Fox’s “Glee” with the new broadband-driven TV service.  They can’t, thanks to America’s content companies erecting Berlin Wall-like blockades of programming the service was supposed to provide.

Google TV has already come under a state of siege from a coordinated campaign by the four major broadcast networks to keep programming off the new service until Google agrees to pay retransmission consent fees.  Even Hulu, which delivers online access to hundreds of shows for free, has successfully manned the barricades to keep “unauthorized” Google TV out in the cold.

Some of the virtual barbed-wire fences have become so sophisticated, many wonder whether the biggest players in online video are spending more time and energy on innovating new ways to stop people from accessing content than on actually delivering it.

For a service trying to gain attention out of the starting gate, Google TV has remarkably little mainstream programming to show on it.  To date, their most significant content partners are HBO’s Go service, available only to authenticated HBO subscribers, Turner’s TNT and TBS channels, also only available to current cable, satellite, or telco-TV video subscribers, and a CNBC “app.”

The spat between Google and the broadcasters is similar to the one between Cablevision and Fox in suburban New York City — until a company like Google agrees to pay a fee for the right to deliver content already given away for free online, the online portals that provide access will identify and block Google TV customers from accessing any of it.

Those fees are likely to be passed down to subscribers, and now some are wondering just how successful ventures like Google TV can be if consumers have to pay another monthly TV bill.

Wall Street is one, Variety notes:

That’s a major problem for any business plan, but excessive fees could also destroy interest in Google’s nascent entry into the world of online entertainment television.  Consumers already face steep hardware costs up to $300 just to make Google TV work.  Whether they would also part with a monthly subscription fee should not be too difficult for the folks in Mountain View to answer.

In fact, it’s the same answer Hulu’s owners are getting from viewers about its Hulu Plus pay-TV service, which delivers the same commercials as its free companion and charges $10 a month to watch them.

Subscribers to Hulu’s premium tier were promised access to entire runs of popular shows, programming not available on its free alternative, and a library of episodes that don’t expire and disappear after a few weeks.  But many paying customers complain Hulu Plus still limits most of its shows and offers few exclusives. Even less-in-demand shows like Fox’s “COPS,” profiling the criminally stupid for more than 23 years, remain limited on the premium (and free) service to a single month of episodes.

But nothing causes more annoyance than Hulu’s recently-increased advertising load, dumped equally on both sides of the pay wall.

“Why should I pay $10 a month when I get (mostly) the same shows for free on Hulu, and have to watch the same ads?” asks our reader Stephanie.  “It should be one or the other — ad-free pay or ad-supported free.”

Because Stephanie is hardly alone in asking that question, there are reports Hulu is about to slash its premium asking price in half to attract more subscribers.

Peter Kafka, who writes The Media Memo for All Things Digital, wrote Hulu is preparing to change its pricing as early as this week.

The idea is that paying subscribers get access to a deeper catalog of TV shows and movies than what the free service offers, as well as the ability to watch Hulu on devices like Apple’s iPhone and iPad, Microsoft’s Xbox 360 game machine and Internet-connected TVs from Samsung and Sony.

But a price cut would indicate that consumers haven’t bought in to the pitch. That shouldn’t be a shock, considering the other video options that consumers have, and the limits that Hulu’s content providers have placed on the service.

But even at half-price, many former Hulu Plus customers won’t be back.

Zwei, commenting on the rumored price change, said he dropped his subscription before the first month was up because of the Hulu’s byzantine rules and technical limitations over how premium shows can be accessed.

“You aren’t guaranteed the ability to stream to anything but your computer! “Fringe?” Not available to stream to my other devices. “Caprica?” Not available to stream to my other devices.  Why the heck would I want to pay $10 a month if I still have to watch a lot of the content on my Mac,” he writes.

Paul notes it’s also hard to attract paying customers when most of your library consists of old shows already rerun into the ground:

“The problem is that they are cutting all the most appealing content from the service, Hulu Plus has a huge catalog of content, but it’s 95% leftovers from the 80’s.  Give us current content when and how we want it (quickly and on the devices we want) and people will pay for it, even more than $10/mo.  But if they give us 20 year-old content that we might not even have liked the first time, they shouldn’t expect our money,” Paul says. “It’s funny when they get worked up about piracy too. It’s just another market force — people only go to it when they don’t have other valid options,  just like they’re doing here.”

Networks increasingly treat their programming as a valued commodity that can be sold, re-purposed, re-packaged, and re-sold again and again.  Syndication, DVD box sets, online rental, cable company on-demand, and online ad-supported streaming each can fetch plenty of money, and many agreements include temporary restrictions on other distribution mechanisms to avoid “diluting” the programming’s value.

Consumers don’t care about these restrictions, because many will simply search out the shows they want regardless of the source — legal or otherwise, preferably for free.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google TV 10-25-10.flv[/flv]

Two reports about Google TV — a review of the service from KSTU-TV Salt Lake City’s ‘Kurt the Cyberguy’ and a report from KTBS-TV in Shreveport, Louisiana (5 minutes)

A controversial proposition on the ballot to extend a 1970 telecommunications tax to cell phones and “digital phone” service that largely did not exist when the tax was originally enacted has created a war of words between Chula Vista, Calif., mayor Cheryl Cox and the cable company that bears her last name (but no relation) — Cox Cable.

The proposed tax extension would broaden the types of telecommunications services that are subject to it, including Cox Cable’s “digital phone” service and broadband.  Cox officials appeared at city council meetings to oppose the tax, saying it would result in higher bills for customers.

But when Cox went on the air with “informational ads” the mayor accused of undermining support for Proposition H, Cox and the cable company started trading barbs in the local media.

Now the controversy has drawn the attention of San Diego’s local ABC affiliate.  On Monday, Mayor Cox accused Cox Cable of punishing the city by withdrawing free Internet access at the end of the year for City Hall, public libraries, and public safety agencies including the fire and police departments.

Mayor Cox called the timing of Cox’s announcement suspicious, coming the same day she did an interview complaining about Cox on San Diego’s KGTV-TV.

Under the terms of Cox’s franchise agreement with the city, Chula Vista was supposed to receive free Internet service through 2019, but now the cable company is reneging on the deal, a charge Cox Cable vigorously disputes.

With Chula Vista’s current budget crisis, the cash-strapped city is weighing the $30,000 a year it will cost to obtain the service at Cox Cable’s business rates, which could cause the city’s 1,012 computers, most available to the public, to lose access Jan. 1st.  Mayor Cox is also concerned the police department will lose its own connection, which it uses to communicate with other police departments and the Department of Justice.

The tax at the center of the debate, known as the City’s Utility Users’ Tax or U.U.T., amounts to 5 percent and is charged primarily to landline telephone customers.  Because of the way the tax ordinance was worded in 1970, technology changes that have taken place since have allowed more residents to escape paying the tax by switching to cell phone service or “digital phone” Voice Over IP service offered by Cox Cable or other broadband providers.

As a result, potential revenue earned from the tax has dropped over the years, especially as residents disconnect landline service.  With Chula Vista facing a $4 million deficit in the city budget, city officials are looking for new revenue sources.

Proposition “H,” before local voters Nov. 2nd, would keep the rate at 5 percent, but extend the tax to other telecommunications services, including:

• Wireless communications
• Text Messaging
• Prepaid/Postpaid telecommunications
• Private communication services
• Paging
• VoIP
• Toll free numbers

“Proposition H is all about continuing to fund the services we all benefit from: maintaining streets and parks, keeping libraries open, and the police protection and fire services that keep us safe,” Mayor Cheryl Cox wrote in a recent guest editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

City officials are warning that without the estimated $5.6 million in estimated revenue from the tax, the city will have to cut services to cover the budget shortfall or raise other taxes.

Like many cash-strapped communities and states who have watched tax receipts plummet from dramatically lower property tax collections and increases in funding mandates, Chula Vista is trying a combination of budget cuts and tax increases to cover the difference.  But local voters are in no mood for tax increases, and last year rejected a proposal to raise the area’s sales tax by one percent.

Judging from the well-organized opposition campaign, local voters may be on track to disappoint the city a second time.

Mayor Cox’s editorial advocating approval of the tax extension even met resistance from the newspaper it was printed in:

But business and taxpayer organizations question that claim and contend the long-term tax hike could be much bigger than 5 percent as new communications devices come to the fore. They argue Chula Vista hasn’t done enough to shore up its finances long-term to deserve voter support of a tax increase.

On balance, we agree. While city leaders have overseen some $40 million in budget cuts and eliminated 259 jobs, they mostly have been AWOL on one of the most crucial issues in modern government finance: the extreme cost of public employee pensions.

[…]This framing of the debate is not fair to Chula Vista taxpayers who now cover the entire cost of pensions that allow city firefighters and police officers to retire at age 50 with 90 percent of their final annual pay and general employees to retire at age 60 with 90 percent of annual pay.

These policies must be recognized as unsustainable and then be drastically changed. Only when that happens will Chula Vista’s leaders have the credibility to ask voters to raise their own taxes.

Vote no on Proposition H.

The San Diego South Chamber of Commerce ridiculed the tax as a “dash for cash” and many area small business associations are also opposed.

While the debate rages, the mayor’s office accused Cox Cable of being too cute by half by pretending to be a “neutral” party.  The cable company claimed its ads were “informational” and did not take a position either for or against the proposition.

But KGTV notes the ad only mentions groups opposed to the tax — no supporters, and ends with the tagline, “Proposition H: It’s not what it seems.”

An expenditure report obtained by 10News shows Cox Communications spent more than $2,400 on the Proposition “H” ad and additional literature. The report also lists money going towards Proposition H opposition. A Cox spokesman said they wanted to choose “neutral” but had to chose between “support” and “opposed” on the filing.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Chula Vista Debate 10-20-10.flv[/flv]

Three reports from KGTV-TV San Diego trace the dispute over the tax over the last few months.  Also included is a portion of a video from a taxpayer’s group opposed to the telecom tax.  (13 minutes)

Verizon’s lobbyists are warning western New York politicians that unless they defeat a state measure to allow Verizon ratepayers to share in the proceeds of any future landline network sell-offs, Verizon may take a multi-billion dollar proposed data center elsewhere.

The Niagara county community of Somerset, population 2,900, is the planned home for the new high-tech infrastructure project.  Verizon officials propose to use Lake Ontario breezes and water to help cool the energy-intensive facility, to be located on 160 acres just yards from the shoreline.  In all, the Verizon campus will consist of three buildings — each 300,000 square feet in size.  If built as proposed, it would be among the largest of Verizon’s 250 data centers around the world.

But there’s a hitch.

While Verizon project manager Bruce Biesecker showed drawings and answered questions from an eager audience of local residents, Verizon lobbyists were telling reporters the entire project could end up in another state because of legislation under consideration in the state legislature.

Our regular reader Smith6612 dropped us a note wondering if we knew about the project.  Yes, we did.  But we also noticed company officials spending almost as much time complaining about interference from Albany threatening to derail the data center as they spent talking about the project itself.  Company officials also rarely named the exact bill in question or how it would directly threaten its data center investment.

Stop the Cap! covered the introduction of New York Assembly Bill 2208/Senate Bill 7263 earlier this year.  Introduced by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) and Senator Brian X. Foley (D-Blue Point), the companion bills came in response to watching Verizon sell off large segments of its landline network in a dozen states to Frontier Communications.  Both legislators were concerned the deal forced subscribers to deal with a new phone company that earned an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau, all while personally enriching company executives and shareholders in a tax-free transaction.  They don’t want to see a repeat performance for rural New York residents.

Brodsky and Foley argue that such sales should be in the interests of ratepayers, especially rural customers who have few alternative choices.  Their legislation would compel Verizon to share 40 percent of the proceeds of any sale with their customers — the ones that pay the monthly bills that made Verizon’s network possible.  Alternatively, Verizon could spend an equal amount on verifiable infrastructure improvements and escape writing checks to ratepayers.  In either case, the legislation forces Verizon to spend less on bonus bonanzas for a handful of deal-making executives and more on the customers who have to live with the results.

Verizon lobbyists and company officials have routinely mischaracterized the legislation, claiming it singles out the state’s largest phone company with a “40 percent tax” that “exempts cable companies.”  They have also repeatedly hinted the legislation could force Verizon out of the state.

“That weighs as heavily in our decision as do things like power, taxes, environment,” Verizon spokesman John Bonomo said. “The business climate in the state is as important as some of those other factors.”

Verizon officials have not exactly been subtle about what they want to get the multi-billion dollar project ultimately built:  solid opposition to the two bills, which garnered support from consumer and ratepayer groups and the Communications Workers of America.  The legislation passed the state Assembly but ultimately died in the Senate several weeks ago.  Verizon is obsessed about keeping such bills from being reintroduced.

With billions at stake, the western New York delegation of politicians in Niagara and nearby Erie Counties have been especially supine to Verizon’s arguments.  In particular, some Republicans in the state legislature have made it their mission to see the bill permanently killed.

Unfortunately, the quality of the reporting done by local media about Verizon’s lobbying agenda has been especially underwhelming — frequently shallow, lazy, and downright inaccurate.  The assertions raised about the Brodsky/Foley legislation in area newspapers and television news reports makes one wonder if any of the reporters actually read the bills in question.

Take Bill Wolcott’s piece in the Lockport Union-Sun & Journal.

Wolcott never strays far from Verizon’s talking points, describing the bills as “[containing] conditions for givebacks of 40 percent for telephone providers, but does not do the same with cable TV corporations.”

Wolcott does not bother to accurately depict “givebacks” in terms of what they actually are — refunds to Verizon customers.

Verizon’s red herring complaint of unfair treatment is also repeated by the reporter, who apparently does not realize there are major differences between Time Warner Cable, which controls the overwhelming majority of cable subscribers in western and central New York and Verizon’s telephone operations:

1. Time Warner Cable has no plans to sell off its network to the highest bidder, abandoning rural and suburban areas served today.  Verizon did exactly that in most of the dozen states it left on July 1st;
2. Verizon’s landline network provides universal service to New York telephone customers, for which it receives a substantial subsidy from the Universal Service Fund;
3. Time Warner Cable is not held to universal service standards, something Verizon rarely complains about these days now that the phone company is in the same business as Time Warner through its selectively deployed FiOS network (which incidentally is not available in the Niagara county area where the data center is proposed.)
4. Verizon’s prior landline selloffs have almost always resulted in bankruptcies for the buyers, leaving phone customers uncertain about the level of service they will ultimately receive.

The Buffalo News reporter did little better, misrepresenting a fundamental part of the bill (underlining ours):

Under the weight of a multibillion- dollar deficit, the State Assembly in the spring passed a bill that would require telephone companies to return 40 percent of their proceeds to the state if they reached a joint venture with another company or sold off some of their properties in New York.

Reporter Teresa Sharp managed to bungle an important fact.  The state of New York would not receive the proceeds — Verizon ratepayers would.

Most television coverage didn’t bother to challenge the inaccurate assertions made by Republican lawmakers or Verizon representatives either.  Talking points were read and reporters simply nodded their heads.

As a public service to the Buffalo-area media, Stop the Cap! presents a primer on the actual language of the legislation Verizon wants to see dead (underlining ours):

         (1) PROVIDES SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO RATEPAYERS.
   49    (2)  EQUITABLY ALLOCATES, WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS RATEMAKING AUTHORI-
   50  TY, THE TOTAL SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM FORECASTED ECONOMIC BENEFITS,  AS
   51  DETERMINED  BY  THE  COMMISSION, OF THE PROPOSED MERGER, ACQUISITION, OR
   52  CONTROL BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS AND RATEPAYERS.  RATEPAYERS  SHALL  RECEIVE
   53  NOT  LESS  THAN  FORTY  PERCENT OF SUCH BENEFITS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT
   54  REINVESTMENT OF SUCH BENEFITS  IN  A  TELEPHONE  CORPORATION'S  IN-STATE
   55  INFRASTRUCTURE MAY BE DEEMED TO SATISFY SUCH REQUIREMENT.

What this means is that Verizon has two choices if it chooses to throw its rural New York landline customers overboard — before paying enormous cash bonuses to executives and deliver subscribers into the waiting hands of a potentially unstable buyer, up to 40 percent of the proceeds must be reinvested in improving the existing telephone network.  Barring that, the same percentage of proceeds must be returned to ratepayers in the form of refund checks or service credits.

Verizon may have a major problem giving customers their fair share, but they have no problem asking New York taxpayers for generous tax breaks.

Verizon has applied for a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes, or PILOT agreement, which would deliver substantial property tax savings, not a small matter in a region with the highest property taxes in the country.  It also wants a sales tax exemption on building materials and the equipment to be installed at the data center.  The sales tax break alone is expected to cost state taxpayers up to $330 million in lost tax revenue.

Because Verizon is upset about the legislation, local politicians have done one better expressing outrage that Albany politicians could drive Verizon to pack up its data center and head out of state.

Somerset Supervisor Richard Meyers was quoted in Wolcott’s piece suggesting New York residents don’t want any part of a bill that returns money to phone customers if Verizon sells them out.

“I’ll tell you who’s calling the shots in the Senate, and that’s the residents of New York state,” Meyers said. “The average citizen in New York state does not like this bill, and I don’t either. I think it stinks. It’s not a necessary bill, and there’s a lot of time and energy wasted.”

Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, (R-Clarence) characterized the legislation as a union plot, quoted bashing the bills in the Lockport newspaper:

“It’s a very bad bill, being pushed by the Communication Workers of America, the union that represents the workforce at Verizon,” she said. “Of all the people that stand to get hurt, it’s the employees that would get hurt the most, and the investors as well. The whole bill doesn’t make sense.”

“This bill chills any business incentive to invest in New York state … because they stand to lose 40 percent of that investment down the line. The playing field will be made uneven, if we start taking 40 percent of that potential away from Verizon and not from the cable companies and Internet companies.”

She  contends that the CWA was putting pressure on the Assembly. “The shame of it all is that it’s been driven by a special interest group. They are the ones pushing this bill.”

What is especially chilling is that Corwin never bothers to mention concern for the one group affected above all others: Verizon landline customers.  To her, they are incidental.  The CWA?  A “special interest group.”  Verizon?  A source of campaign contributions for her.  This year, she has already picked up some nice change from the folks at Big Red:

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC 140 WEST ST. ROOM 2613 NEW YORK, NY 10007	250.00	16-MAR-10	JANE CORWIN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE	2010 July Periodic	B	Member of Assembly	142
VERIZON GOOD GOVERNMENT CLUB-NEW YORK 140 WEST ST; RM 2613 NEW YORK, NY 10007	300.00	01-SEP-10	JANE CORWIN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE	2010 32 Pre General	C	Member of Assembly	142

Source: New York State Board of Elections

That’s not bad for a New York Assemblywoman serving a rural district whose total campaign take since her first election is just under $125,000.

State senator George Maziarz (R-Newfane) is just as bad.

“It’s a terrible piece of legislation, and I’m doing all I can to make sure it doesn’t pass,” said Maziarz, who heads the Senate’s Energy and Telecommunications Committee.

Verizon also thanks Maziarz for his efforts, for which he has been well-rewarded in the last two election cycles:

VERIZON COMM FOR GOOD GOVT 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	500.00	06-MAY-08	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2008 July Periodic	C	State Senator	62
VERIZON COMM INC GOOD GOVT 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	4,000.00	26-MAR-08	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2008 July Periodic	C	State Senator	62
VERIZON COMM INC GOOD GOVT CLUB 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	3,000.00	12-FEB-10	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2010 July Periodic	C	State Senator	62
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS PAC 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	3,000.00	11-MAY-10	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2010 July Periodic	C	State Senator	62
VERIZON GOOD GOVT CLUB NY 140 WEST NY, NY 10007	3,000.00	27-JUL-10	COMMITTEE TO ELECT MAZIARZ STATE SENATE	2010 32 Pre General	C	State Senator	62

Source: New York State Board of Elections

The prospect of new high technology jobs and investment are more than promising to an upstate economy that has suffered difficult economic times for years.  But Verizon’s threats to skip Somerset for its new data center because of “anti-business” hostility ignores the company’s own willingness to abandon its rural customers.  In states where Verizon has sold off landline service — ending the prospects for real improvements in broadband and other modern services — communities like Somerset were the first to go, seen as too small and isolated for Verizon’s urban-based business plans.

The legislation Verizon fears protects New York residents, including those in Niagara County, from deals that enrich a handful of executives and Wall Street bankers while delivering sub-standard service to customers left behind.  Verizon’s record of sell-offs has been a disaster for customers, forced to endure long-term service disruptions, inaccurate bills with unfair charges, low quality broadband, and high prices.

Ironically, Verizon’s fear is totally misplaced, assuming they intend to remain committed to serving customers across the state — from cities as large as New York -and- towns as small as Somerset.  Even using Verizon’s own language, they can avoid the 40% “tax” if they simply keep providing service to their customers.

That’s just one of many facts the media in western New York needs to do a much better job of communicating to their readers and viewers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Data Center 10-18-10.flv[/flv]

WIVB and WKBW-TV in Buffalo delivered several one-sided reports about the proposed Verizon Data Center while allow inaccurate information about Assemblyman Brodsky’s proposed bill to go unchallenged.  (8 minutes)

Frontier Communications continues to alienate customers up and down the state of West Virginia with more service outages, billing problems, and emergency 911 service interruptions.

This time, it’s the community of Marmet that suffered an outage the company described as “temporary.”  Service to the area’s Metro 911 emergency operations center was interrupted Monday and residents knew what to do when Frontier could not deliver landline service that works — they grabbed their cell phones.

In Dunbar, the funeral director at Keller Funeral Home noticed he stopped getting calls from local area customers after Frontier took over operations July 1st.  Michael McCarty told a Charleston television station Frontier initially blamed him for the problems, but later discovered malfunctioning switching equipment was at fault and forked over a $344 refund.  McCarty’s business probably took a bigger financial hit than that when potential customers could not get through — for months.

“People would call, but it wasn’t ringing here,” McCarty told the Charleston Gazette. “There really wasn’t much we could do but wait it out.”

Two dozen complaints about Frontier’s performance are still pending at the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The state’s consumer advocate says Frontier’s service quality in the state is not improving.  Frontier blames Verizon’s aging and poorly maintained network for most of the problems.

But many of Frontier’s complaints, not just in West Virginia, are about unfair early cancellation fees, inaccurate billing, lost service orders, and lousy customer service.  Here’s a sample:

• “The customer service representative was extremely rude and angry. We called in response to the unfair cancellation fee of $250.00. Last week we were told that we had until 9/30 to opt for other phone service without a cancellation fee. Each representative gives different information. Small business were treated horribly by Verizon and now Frontier. After the rudeness, I will never bring my business service back to Frontier!”
• “I have fought this company for six months because every month they cannot get billing right. They are the absolute WORST I have ever dealt with. They charge for services not wanted. They charge late fees when none should have been charged and then didn’t remove them after admitting their mistakes. If you have any other choice, avoid Frontier like it’s a plague, because it is.”
• “They never processed my order to transfer my service. I called back 4 times in a week to get them to do their job. On the last day, I was left on hold for 2 hours in the morning and then 1.5 hours in the afternoon, only to be told I would have to wait another 3 days for a servicemen to come out. The wait times were nothing less than abusive.”
• “Horrible folks to do business with. Verizon sold my FiOS/Phone account to Frontier and soon afterward mysterious charges for “ID protect” etc. started appearing on my bill. Whenever I call their service, it loops and hangs up. I tried the option for “we will call you back” – when it calls back , it will give another number to call back, where you have to wait again. Can’t wait to get rid of them.”
• “Frontier recently bought out Verizon’s service in my area. The automated phone tree system goes in loops and hangs up on you. Furthermore, once I finally figured out how to get someone on the line (responding to every question the automated system asked with “operator”) and moved up to a supervisor… the supervisor got very short with me when I tried to cancel my service and then hung up on me. When I called right back, I got an automated message saying the offices were closed.”

Some enterprising Frontier customers have learned their hold times will be much shorter if they opt to speak with a Spanish-speaking operator.  “Many of the call centers are in Florida anyway, so you may get a bilingual operator no matter which language you choose,” writes our reader Danielle.  “I cut my hold times from over an hour to less than five minutes this way.”

Meanwhile, one of Frontier’s primary competitors in the state, Citynet, accused Gov. Joe Manchin’s office of wasting $126 million in taxpayer money that will benefit Frontier Communications far more than state residents starved for broadband.

Citynet CEO Jim Martin urged federal officials Wednesday to suspend the grant after the state defended plans to allocate a large amount of the grant exclusively to connect state agencies.

“The state’s response clearly highlights why the federal government needs to suspend the award until there are major modifications to the plan,” Martin said. “It is clear from the state’s letter that little will be done with the federal taxpayer funds to increase the availability of adequate and competitively priced high-speed infrastructure in West Virginia. The current approach will cost the state future job growth.”

Martin is upset that more than half of the grant, $69 million dollars, will be spent on Frontier’s behalf to construct a broadband network for the state government.  The agencies who get access will still have to pay Frontier market rates for high speed broadband access, despite the fact taxpayer dollars were spent to construct the network Frontier will operate.

Citynet wants stimulus funding diverted to construct a “middle mile” broadband network that every telecommunications company can access at wholesale rates to deliver improved broadband services to residents and businesses, not just government buildings.

Martin says the Manchin Administration is making “blatantly false” claims that the stimulus money would deliver high-speed Internet to 700,000 homes and 110,000 businesses.  Unless those homes and businesses are stuffed into government agency buildings, it won’t.

According to Martin, all of the benefits will go to only two places — state agencies and Frontier’s pockets.

“It’s a political favor to Frontier,” Martin charged.

“The citizens of West Virginia deserve transparency and accountability from their public servants, and this is even more true given the magnitude and importance of the need for broadband enablement in our state,” Martin said Wednesday. “I was born and raised in West Virginia, and I am aware of the consequences this program could have for West Virginia in terms of job growth and competing for high-paying 21st century jobs.”