Ethernet over Copper is becoming an increasingly popular choice for business customers stuck in areas where companies won't deploy fiber broadband (Graphic: OSP Magazine)

With Verizon and AT&T effectively stalling expansion of their respective “next generation” fiber and hybrid fiber/coax networks, and independent phone companies fearing too much capital spent improving their networks will drive their stock prices down, telephone companies are desperately seeking better options to deliver the faster broadband service customers demand.

The options over a copper-based landline network are not the best:

• ADSL has been around for more than a decade and is highly distant dependent. Get beyond 10,000 feet from the nearest switching office and your speeds may not even qualify as “broadband;”
• DSL variants represent the second generation for copper-broadband and can deliver faster speeds, but usually require investment to reduce the amount of copper between the customer and the switching office;
• Fiber networks are more expensive to build, and some companies are using it to reduce, but not eliminate copper wire in their networks. But companies traditionally avoid this solution in rural/suburban areas because the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t work for shareholders;
• Ethernet Over Copper (EoC) is increasingly the solution of choice for independent phone companies because it is less expensive to deploy than fiber and can quickly deliver service at speeds of up to 50Mbps.

Unfortunately for consumers, EoC is typically way above the price range for home broadband.  Most providers sell the faster service to commercial and institutional customers, either for businesses that have outgrown T1 lines or where deploying fiber does not make economic sense.  Some companies have tried to improve on DSL by bonding multiple connections together to achieve faster speeds, but Ethernet is quickly becoming a more important tool in the broadband marketing arsenal.

With phone companies pricing EoC service from several hundred to several thousand dollars a month, depending on the speed of the connection, they hope to remain competitive players against a push by the cable industry to more aggressively target business customers.  In more rural areas, phone companies lack cable competition, so they stand a better chance of success.

Fierce Telecom‘s Sean Buckley published an excellent series of articles outlining the current state of EoC technology and what phone companies are doing with it:

• AT&T: Inherited EoC from its acquisition of BellSouth, and barely markets it. Instead, AT&T uses it as a quiet solution for challenging customers who cannot affordably be reached by fiber.  AT&T will either deliver the service over copper, copper/fiber, or an all-fiber path depending on the client’s needs.
• CenturyLink: No phone company is as aggressive about EoC as CenturyLink. When CenturyLink acquired Qwest, interest in the technology only intensified. EoC is a CenturyLink favorite for small businesses that simply cannot get the speeds they need from traditional DSL.  Most EoC service runs up to 20Mbps.
• Verizon: Verizon’s network is the most fiber-intense among large commercial providers, so EoC is not the first choice for the company. However, it does use it to reach multi-site businesses who have buildings and offices outside of the footprint of Verizon’s fiber network/service area.
• Frontier: In the regions where Frontier acquired Verizon landlines, EoC has become an important component for Frontier’s backhaul traffic. EoC has been deployed to reach cell tower sites and handles broadband traffic between central office exchanges and remote D-SLAMs, used to let the company sell DSL to a more rural customer base.  Frontier looks to EoC before considering spending money on fiber service, even for commercial and institutional users.
• Windstream: EoC is the way this phone company gets better broadband speeds to business customers without spending a lot of money on fiber. Small and medium-sized customers are often buyers of EoC service, especially when DSL can’t handle the job or the company requires faster upstream speeds.  Windstream markets upgradable EoC capable of delivering the same downstream and upstream speeds and can deliver it more quickly than a fiber project.
• FairPoint: Much of this phone company’s EoC efforts are in territories in northern New England acquired from Verizon.  FairPoint targets small and medium sized companies for the service, especially those who have remote offices or clinics that need to be interconnected. FairPoint has also gotten more aggressive than many other companies working with ADSL2+ or VDSL2 to deliver faster broadband to office buildings and complexes more economically than fiber.
• SureWest: This company is strong believer in fiber to the premises service, so its interest in EoC has been limited to areas where deploying fiber makes little economic sense. In more out-of-the-way places, EoC is becoming a more common choice to pitch businesses who need more than traditional broadband.
• Hawaiian Telcom: HawTel uses copper-based EoC to provide connectivity across the diverse Hawaiian Islands.  Speeds are generally lower than in mainland areas, partly because HawTel still relies heavily on traditional copper-based service. But fiber-based EoC is increasingly available in more densely populated areas.

FairPoint Communications is under fire for counting customers “broadband ready” when, in fact, they can’t buy DSL service from the northern New England phone company at any price.

One of the commitments FairPoint made to regulators who approved their buyout of Verizon landlines in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in 2007 was that the company would expand broadband availability to at least 87 percent of residents in states like Maine.  In October, FairPoint claimed it had met that target, but now the Office of the Public Advocate has found instances where the phone company counted customers who live too far away from the phone company’s facilities to buy the service as “served.”

FairPoint is apparently counting most customers within a DSL-equipped exchange as reachable by broadband, even if only some of them actually are.  The rest either live too far away to get proper broadband speeds, or are connected to inferior lines that will not sustain a serviceable connection.

Maine’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) is upset FairPoint seems to be padding the numbers in its favor.  Maine’s Public Broadcasting Network talked with commissioners:

“I just find it hard to reconcile that it’s in the public interest to include in the definition of addressable lines, a line on which no customer can be connected and to which Fairpoint has made no planning or economic commitment to serve in the future,” said Vendean Vafiades. She, along with fellow commissioner David Littell, voted in favor of a decision which is likely to require Fairpoint to re-calculate the 87 percent figure using a stricter methodology.

“And I do believe that Fairpoint has a commitment to be economically viable in this state and to provide good quality service. And at a minimum I think Fairpoint should be required to provide actual access to meet its merger condition and obligations,” said Vafiades.

The holdout vote was that of PUC Chairman Tom Welch, who sympathized with Fairpoint on this issue.

The vote in Maine is likely to force FairPoint, which had hoped it was “all done” fulfilling broadband obligations, to spend more to upgrade its network to sufficiently service customers it promised it would.

FairPoint defends their interpretation of the numbers, noting the company has spent more than $169 million across their northern New England territories on broadband, making good on their commitment.  The state’s consumer advocate and PUC disagree, so now all parties will be re-evaluating their numbers, and FairPoint customers still waiting for DSL might still have a chance to get it after all.

Maine’s Public Broadcasting Network reports on the controversy over FairPoint’s promise to serve at least 87% of Maine with broadband service. Maine’s public utility commissioners voted to ramp up the pressure on Fairpoint Communications with regard to their broadband rollout. The expansion of high-speed internet to most areas of Maine was one of the conditions of Fairpoint’s purchase of Verizon’s former landline operation in 2007. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

FairPoint Communications, which took control of Verizon landlines in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in 2009 and then promptly went bankrupt is now appealing to New Hampshire’s regulators and legislature for deregulation.

Teresa Rosenberger, the company’s New Hampshire president, told the Nashua Telegraph that before FairPoint Communications took over Verizon’s northern New England landlines in 2009, that means of communication was the “only game in town.” Now that Verizon’s “monopoly” no longer exists, FairPoint wants the “shackles [removed from] our ankles.”

Setting aside the fact Verizon and FairPoint both faced identical competitors — Comcast and AT&T in parts of the state, the primary difference between the incumbent landline phone company and its cable competition is that the latter enjoys the right to choose its customers.  Landline providers must deliver universal access to basic service, something both FairPoint and Verizon managed for more than a century.

Rosenberger claims that with the rapid decline of landlines, FairPoint should be free from regulatory constraints it argues limits its ability to compete on pricing and service.  Rosenberger uses FairPoint’s biggest failure — its rapid loss of customers — as the core argument for allowing deregulation, which would deliver few checks and balances from state regulators.

FairPoint’s market share in New Hampshire is now down to 49% and dropping.  Its competition — Comcast and wireless mobile providers, now account for the majority of phone lines in the state.  FairPoint’s line losses spiked when the company took over providing service in northern New England from Verizon Communications.  Many FairPoint customers would describe that level of service as poor, with billing and service complaints reaching epic proportions before the company ultimately declared bankruptcy.

Rosenberger points out that the traditional way utility services deal with changing business models is to sell off non-performing or excess assets.  Electric utilities sell excess power, but phone companies like FairPoint have few things other providers want.

In particular, FairPoint is upset it is saddled with a statewide network of telephone poles that “nobody wants.”

“We lose a ton of money on these poles” when work has to be done on them, Rosenberger told the newspaper. “There is the flag rate, the excavation fee, paying for a cop out there – and that’s before taxation and reporting requirements.”

FairPoint notes their competitors gets to use those poles, and are not necessarily contributing their fair share towards their upkeep.

FairPoint isn’t asking to abandon its universal service obligation, something AT&T has lobbied for throughout its territories.  But it does want to do away with pricing regulations and reporting requirements.  If FairPoint offers a business customer a special discount rate, it must file that rate publicly with state regulators, which is public information.  FairPoint says its competitors may be using that information to undercut them in contract negotiations.  But the public price regulations are in place to prevent a phone company from offering dirt cheap service for a select few, effectively subsidized by other ratepayers.

FairPoint also wants quality of service reporting regulations eased, and that comes as a concern to some New Englanders who lived through FairPoint’s messy transition from Verizon service.  Even today, there are ongoing disputes over whether FairPoint is meeting state obligations on everything from how quickly they answer customer calls to whether or not service problems are resolved on a timely basis.

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.

So who is for the ABC Plan?  Primarily phone companies, their business partners, and dollar-a-holler astroturf friends:

American Consumer Institute:  SourceWatch called them a telecom industry-backed astroturf group.  Karl Bode from Broadband Reports discovered “the institute’s website is registered to ‘Stephen Pociask, a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic [today Verizon].”  The group, claiming to focus “on economic policy issues that affect society as a whole,” spends an inordinate amount of its time on telecommunications hot button issues, especially AT&T and Verizon’s favorites: cable franchise reform and opposition to Net Neutrality.

Anna Marie Kovacs:  Determining what is good for Wall Street is her business, as founder and President of Regulatory Source Associates, LLC. RSA provides investment professionals with analysis of federal and state regulation of the telecom and cable industries.

Dollar-a-holler support?

Consumer Awareness Project: A relatively new entrant, CAP is AT&T’s new darling — a vocal advocate for AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile.  But further digging revealed more: the “group” is actually a project of Washington, D.C. lobbying firm Consumer Policy Solutions, which includes legislative and regulatory advocacy work and implementation of grassroots mobilization.

That is the very definition of interest group-“astroturf.”

Randolph May from the Free State Foundation supports "state's rights," but many of them want no part of a plan his group supports.

Free State Foundation: A misnamed conservative, “states rights” group.  Leader Randolph May loves the ABC Plan, despite the fact several individual states are asking the FCC not to impose it on them.

Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership:  Whatever Verizon and AT&T want, HTTP is also for.  The group was embroiled in controversy over its unflinching opposition to Net Neutrality and love for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  Its member groups, including MANA and LULAC, are frequent participants in AT&T’s dollar-a-holler lobbying endeavors.

Robert J. Shapiro: Wrote an article for Huffington Post calling the ABC Plan worth consideration.  Also worth mentioning is the fact he is now chairman of what he calls an “economic advisory firm,” which the rest of the world calls a run-of-the-mill D.C. lobbyist firm — Sonecon.  It comes as no surprise AT&T is a client.  In his spare time, Shapiro also writes reports advocating Internet Overcharging consumers for their broadband service.

Indiana Exchange Carrier Association: A lobbying group representing rural Indiana telephone companies, primarily owned by TDS Telecom.  It’s hardly a surprise the companies most likely to benefit from the ABC Plan would be on board with their support.

Indiana Telecommunications Association: A group of 40 telephone companies serving the state of Indiana.  For the aforementioned reasons, it’s no surprise ITA supports the ABC Plan.

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation:  Reuters notes this group received financial support from telecommunications companies, so lining up behind a plan those companies favor comes as little surprise.  ITIF also believes usage caps can deter piracy, so they’re willing to extend themselves way out in order to sell the telecom industry’s agenda.

Internet Innovation Alliance:  Another group backed by AT&T, IIA also funds Nemertes Research, the group that regularly predicts Internet brownouts and data tsunamis, which also hands out awards to… AT&T and Verizon.

The Indiana Exchange Carrier Assn. represents the phone companies that will directly benefit from the adoption of the ABC Plan.

Bret Swanson:  He penned a brief note of support on his personal blog.  When not writing that, Swanson’s past work included time at the Discovery Institute, a “research group” that delivers paid, “credentialed” reports to telecommunications company clients who waive them before Congress to support their positions.  Swanson is a “Visiting Fellow” at Arts+Labs/Digital Society, which counted as its “partners” AT&T and Verizon.

Minority Media & Telecom Council: Tries to go out of its way to deny being affiliated or “on the take” of telecom companies, but did have to admit in a blog posting it takes money from big telecom companies for “conference sponsorships.”  Some group members appear frequently at industry panel discussions, and mostly advocate AT&T’s various positions, including strong opposition to reclassify broadband as a utility service.

MMTC convened a Broadband and Social Justice Summit earlier this year that featured a range of speakers bashing Net Neutrality, and the group’s biggest highlighted media advisory on its website as of this date is its support for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  Yet group president David Honig claims he can’t understand why some consumer groups would suspect groups like his of engaging in dollar-a-holler advocacy, telling The Hill, “We’ve seen no examples of reputable organizations that do things because of financial contributions. It’s wrong to suggest such things.”

Mobile Future: Sponsored by AT&T, Mobile Future curiously also includes some of AT&T’s best friends, including the Asian Business Association, LULAC, MANA, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Montana Independent Telecommunications Systems: Primarily a group for Montana’s independent telephone companies, who will benefit enormously from the ABC Plan.

What major corporate entity does not belong to this enormous advocacy group?

The National Grange:  A group with a long history advocating for the interests of telephone companies.  Over the years, the National Grange has thrown its view in on Verizon vs. the RIAA, a request for Congress to support industry friendly legislation, a merger between Verizon and NorthPoint Communications, and USF issues.

The Keep USF Fair Coalition was formed in April 2004. Current members include Alliance for Public Technology, Alliance For Retired Americans, American Association Of People With Disabilities, American Corn Growers Association, American Council of the Blind, California Alliance of Retired Americans, Consumer Action, Deafness Research Foundation, Gray Panthers, Latino Issues Forum, League Of United Latin American Citizens, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, National Association Of The Deaf, National Consumers League, National Grange, National Hispanic Council on Aging, National Native American Chamber of Commerce, The Seniors Coalition, Utility Consumer Action Network, Virginia Citizen’s Consumer Council and World Institute On Disability. DSL Prime helps explain the membership roster.

Taxpayers Protection Alliance:  One of the tea party groups, TPA opposes higher USF fees on consumers.  The ABC Plan website had to tread carefully linking to this single article favorable to their position.  Somehow, we think it’s unlikely the group will link to the TPA’s louder voice demanding an end to broadband stimulus funding many ABC Plan backers crave.

TechAmerica: Guess who is a member?  AT&T, of course.  So is Verizon.  And CenturyLink.  TechAmerica call themselves “the industry’s largest advocacy organization and is dedicated to helping members’ top and bottom lines.”  (Consumers not included.)

Tennessee Telecommunications Association: TTA’s independent phone company members stand to gain plenty if the ABC Plan is enacted, so they are happy to lend their support.

Rep. Terry's two biggest contributors are CenturyLink and Qwest.

Representative Greg Walden (R-Oregon):  His top five contributors are all telecommunications companies, including CenturyLink, Pine Telephone, and Qwest.  He also gets money from AT&T and Verizon.  It’s no surprise he’s a supporter: “We are encouraged by the growing consensus among stakeholders as developed in the ‘America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan’ filed with the Federal Communications Commission today, and we hope that consensus will continue to grow.”

Representative Lee Terry (R-Nebraska): He co-signed Rep. Walden’s statement.  Rep. Terry’s two biggest contributors are Qwest and CenturyLink.  Now that CenturyLink owns Qwest, it’s two-campaign-contributions-in-one.  And yes, he gets a check from AT&T, too.

Representative Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana): “Today’s filing of the ‘America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan’ is welcomed input on the intercarrier compensation and Universal Service Fund reform front,” Scalise said.  Now Scalise is ready to welcome this year’s campaign contribution from AT&T, which he has not yet reportedly received.  In 2008, Scalise received $13,250.  In 2010, $10,000.  This cycle, so far he has only been able to count on Verizon, which threw $2,500 his way.  Scalise voted earlier this year to overturn the FCC’s authority to enact Net Neutrality.

USTelecom Association: The only news here would be if USTA opposed the ABC Plan.  Included on USTA’s board of directors are company officials from: Frontier Communications, AT&T, CenturyLink/Qwest, Windstream, FairPoint Communications, and Verizon.  That’s everyone.

Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association:  Their active members, including Frontier Communications, are all telephone companies inside Wisconsin that will directly benefit if the ABC Plan is enacted.