Byron L. Harris heads the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission

Strong opposition to the proposed spinoff of Verizon service in West Virginia to Frontier Communications erupted Monday as the state Public Service Commission (PUC) published a flurry of written testimony filed with the state agency.

Some of the strongest criticism of the deal came from the state’s Consumer Advocate (CAD), an independent division of the PSC that represents residential utility customers.  Division director Byron Harris testified the deal carried “too many risks” for the state, and suggested Frontier failed to do its homework before considering the implications of the deal for nearly the entire state’s telephone system.  Harris added residents faced higher phone bills, early termination fees, little improvement in service, and was highly skeptical of Frontier’s promises to expand broadband service in the state, suggesting the company will not be in a financial position to offer acceptable “plain old telephone service,” much less broadband.

Harris testimony called on the Commission to reject the deal:

The proposed transaction poses too many risks for retail telephone customers in West Virginia from both a financial and an operational standpoint. The proposed transaction also poses too many risks for Verizon-WV’s wholesale customers and, ultimately, the tens of thousands of West Virginians served by these entities.

In his testimony on behalf of the CAD, Mr. Roycroft [one of two expert consultants hired to analyze the proposed sale] explains the operational difficulties that Frontier will face in assimilating the Spinco properties and operating systems. As Mr. Roycroft makes clear, the operational difficulties associated with a transaction as large as the one proposed are exacerbated by the fact that the proposed transaction – from an operational standpoint – actually involves two mergers in one:

1. The acquisition of the legacy Bell Atlantic network and OSS in West Virginia, and
2. The acquisition of the old GTE network and systems in 13 other states.

Mr. Roycroft details the multitude of risks that the proposed transaction presents for retail and wholesale telephone customers in West Virginia. Not only do customers face service and service quality risks, but they also face the risk of higher rates and/or other adverse terms and conditions of service such as early termination fees.

Mr. Hill points out, in his testimony, the many unrealistically optimistic financial projections Frontier makes in support of the proposed transaction. As Mr. Hill points out, Frontier’s projections rely too much on financial information that has been provided by the seller, Verizon, without independently verifying Verizon’s numbers. Frontier’s projections similarly rely on a number of assumptions about reducing access line loss, cutting operating expenses and capital expenditures, and realizing merger savings that would require Frontier to substantially reverse recent trends.

The fallout from the proposed merger not going well obviously affects retail and wholesale customers currently served by Verizon-WV and Frontier-WV as well. As discussed below, and in Mr. Roycroft’s testimony, Verizon-WV’s customers already have experienced sharp declines in their service quality, which is the predictable result of years of falling investment in the company’s telephone plant and workforce in West Virginia, as Verizon has focused its attention on other markets in other states and other service offerings, such as wireless service and video/Internet/telephone service provided via its FiOS offering (which is not offered in West Virginia).

The financial and operational risks associated with the proposed transaction jeopardize the combined company’s ability to maintain even current service quality in Verizon-WV’s service territory, let alone follow through on Verizon-WV’s obligation to improve that service quality going forward under the Plan.

Although the CAD obviously is (and has for some time been) concerned with the poor service quality currently provided to customers by Verizon-WV, the CAD believes that service is likely to get even worse under Frontier’s ownership. The proposed transaction will result in a post-closing Frontier that will not have the financial resources to be able to improve service quality for “plain old telephone service” – as voice-grade traditional telephone service is often called – in Verizon-WV’s service territory, much less to deploy broadband to the extent suggested in Frontier’s direct testimony.

Harris likened the deal to Frontier buying a used car from Verizon without knowing what’s under the hood.

“Frontier has essentially agreed to purchase a used car without first having the car examined by a mechanic. Without a thorough investigation of Verizon-WV’s plant, Frontier has no way of knowing whether its buying a pre-owned car that has had regular oil changes and proper tune-ups, or whether it is buying a clunker with a new paint job and a blown transmission. If Verizon-WV’s network has not been properly maintained (as the evidence seems to suggest), just like a car that hasn’t been properly maintained, getting it back to serviceable condition will be a very expensive proposition,” Harris testified.

Harris gave five specific reasons why the deal was bad for West Virginia:

First, Frontier has not done any in-depth analysis of the quality of the Spinco facilities that it is acquiring. This lack of analysis is disturbing on its face, as it would seem to be a fundamental area of inquiry for any prospective buyer. But the importance of this lack of meaningful review is magnified in West Virginia by the fact that Frontier knows, or reasonably should know, that Verizon-WV’s outside plant facilities in West Virginia are not in good shape. The Commission is well aware of the significant decline in service that Verizon- WV’s customers have experienced over the last several years. This decline is documented in the public record (in both the informal complaint records maintained by the Commission’s Staff, and in the record in proceedings related to Verizon-WV’s service quality docketed in the last few years). That record should have triggered a much more searching analysis by Frontier. This lack of analysis also impacts the overly optimistic assumptions that Frontier has used in its financial analysis of the transaction.

Second, Frontier’s overly optimistic financial projections increase the risk that the post-merger company will not be able to remedy Verizon-WV’s current poor service quality or to provide its promised broadband deployment. Verizon is obviously a larger and more financially sound company than Frontier. For a company such as Frontier which historically pays out greater dividends than its net income, the risk that the optimistic financial projections will not transpire is magnified.

Third, as of October 14, 2009, Frontier still had not determined how it will handle the additional call center volumes that will occur when the company acquires access lines in West Virginia.  Obviously, the proposed transaction would adversely affect the public if it is approved without a concrete plan to handle service calls from current Verizon-WV customers.

Fourth, similarly, no concrete plan has been put forth by Verizon for serving customers in West Virginia who are currently served out of central offices in Maryland. Again, the proposed transaction would adversely affect the public if it is approved without a concrete plan to serve Verizon-WV customers who are currently served from central offices in Maryland.

Fifth, current Verizon-WV retail customers face the prospect of increased rates and/or early termination fees as a result of having their current package or bundle service migrated to a similar package or bundle offered by Frontier. In discovery, Frontier has to date refused to identify the packages that will be offered to replace current Verizon-WV packages or to state at what price the packages will be offered to such customers. Verizon- WV customers with bundles that include Verizon broadband service also appear to likely face significant early termination fees of at least $120 if they elect not to transition or migrate to Frontier’s service after closing. This likelihood appears even greater when the companies’ obtuse response on this subject is considered. When the CAD asked whether Verizon-WV customers who elected not to remain with Frontier post-closing, would be charged any early termination fees, the companies merely stated that they will “honor the terms of their contracts with customers.” Obviously, “honoring” the terms of a contract that includes an early termination fee could very well mean enforcing that provision of the service agreement.

Hundreds of New York state residents were unfairly charged early termination fees that eventually brought Frontier to the attention of the New York Attorney General’s office, which obtained relief in the form of full refunds for affected New York residents.

Ironically, even though Verizon may seek to exit West Virginia’s landline telephone business, the company will continue to exist as a competitive player in the state — through Verizon Wireless, its mobile telephone division.  Verizon Wireless sent letters to customers urging them to terminate their home phone lines.  That will spell additional competition for Frontier Communications, as Stephen Hill testified, on behalf of the Consumer Advocate Division:

“Simplify your life and your budget by cutting the cord on your home phone today.”  It is reasonable to believe that such a letter coming from the company that had been a customer’s land-line phone service provider urging them to end that type of service and return to their former provider’s wireless service, would have an impact on Frontier’s ability to maintain that customer. The presentations to Frontier’s board of directors regarding the merger do not discuss potential competition from Verizon.

Perhaps the more troubling aspect of Verizon as a formidable competitor, however, is that, under the current post-merger plan, Verizon will continue to operate the billing and back-office functions of most of the local exchange operations sold to Frontier. Under such circumstances, Verizon becomes both a business partner and a competitor of Frontier-a situation that would put Verizon in an even greater competitive position than it would be otherwise (Le., if it weren’t also leasing operating systems to Frontier). Therefore, it is quite possible that, due to competition-in which Verizon is likely to play an important role-the reduction in the rate of revenue decline forecast for the future may not be realized. Instead, the rate of access line loss may accelerate from historical conditions, making the fbture financial picture for a combined Frontier/Spinco more tenuous than now forecast.

Strong opposition also came from other providers, some of whom who may be affected by the sale through wholesale agreements currently in place with Verizon, as well as from the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Susan Baldwin, who served as Director of Telecommunications for the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Utilities, submitted testimony on behalf of CWA.  In her testimony she stated, “If the transaction goes awry, consumers will bear the consequences….Even if the transaction does not go awry, it will adversely affect consumers because Frontier’s financial constraints will prevent it from investing in the WV telecommunications infrastructure.” Baldwin strongly urged rejection of the proposed deal.

David Armentrout, on behalf of FiberNet stated, “Frontier lacks the requisite resources, experience, and incentive to comply with wholesale obligations it will take on …in West Virginia.”

Some companies waived their right to file direct testimony but asserted their right, along with the parties who did file today, to file rebuttal testimony in December.

Coming up… The truth about Frontier’s DSL products, network capacity, and why their 5GB Acceptable Use Limit is part of official testimony calling on the Public Service Commission of West Virginia to just say no to Frontier Communications.

Are you a cable or telephone company scared of the costs associated with tearing out existing underground or overhead copper-based wiring to upgrade to fiber optics?

Why bother going through all of that effort when you can just yank the old copper wire out and push state-of-the-art fiber cable in.

Buckeye CableSystem, a Toledo, Ohio cable operator intends to do just that, using a process invented by an Austrian company, Kabel-X.

Buckeye will inject a Kabel-X supplied fluid between the outer jacket and the inner core of the cable.  This allows the cable company to pull the copper center conductor and the insulating material right out of the center of the cable, leaving plenty of space to insert new fiber optic cables, without having to tear up streets, get permission from local zoning authorities to string new cable, or go through the expense of completely replacing it.

Better known in Europe, where the process has been used throughout the continent, Kabel-X is now making inroads in North America with small scale projects with companies like Buckeye.  Kabel-X has been particularly attractive in eastern Europe, where the process is more affordable than complete cable replacement.  With more limited budgets, re-using existing cable already in place provides an attractive alternative.

Buckeye CableSystem in Toledo

The company claims it can replace up to 1000 feet of existing coaxial cable with fiber in as little as three hours.

Buckeye intends to experiment with the technology in a Toledo subdivision to see how well it works.

The one major downside to using Kabel-X is that service is typically interrupted while the cable work is being done.  Should something go wrong, customers could be left entirely without service, a prospect that mandates small scale experiments to train cable engineering crews to work speedily and efficiently, and prove the technology can work well in a variety of conditions.

“We see the Kabel-X technology as an innovative tool that will allow us to cost effectively deploy a fiber-to-the-home architecture in areas currently served by a traditional hybrid fiber coax network,” Buckeye Cablevision chief technology officer Joe Jensen said.

Buckeye’s efforts to upgrade to true fiber-to-the-home service may come as a response to AT&T’s U-verse service, which began competing for Toledo customers about a year ago.  Buckeye has 150,000 subscribers in the Toledo area, and remains the largest pay television operator, but U-verse is positioned to steal away some of those customers over time.

Buckeye’s cable broadband service, bex-Buckeye Express, offers customers up to 20Mbps service, if you opt to subscribe to other Buckeye services.

The company’s Acceptable Use Policy indicates they do not impose limits on usage at this time, but curiously do admit to throttling the speed of peer-to-peer traffic and dynamically reducing speeds for customers who are considered “high bandwidth users” during peak demand periods.  Both of these seemed to get Comcast into hot water with the Federal Communications Commission.

BUCKEYE EXPRESS™ HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY

Buckeye uses reasonable network management techniques to improve overall network performance and reserves the right to employ additional techniques as necessary or desirable. Some applications, including certain peer-to-peer applications, can consume inordinately high amounts of bandwidth on the network and degrade network performance. Buckeye’s current network management techniques include:

Speed Caps – limiting the speeds that a modem can transmit or receive data. Buckeye may lower the transmission rate or reception rate of high bandwidth users during times of high network demand. This may slow the transmission or reception rate for affected modems.

Connection Limits – limiting the number of simultaneous connections for any modem during an online session. With a typical user having a dozen or so simultaneous connections for routine use, this limit provides a means of identifying and hopefully thwarting malicious attempts to harm the network or other users. This limit is currently set well above the number of connections used by typical user in a session.

Application-based Rate Limiting– limiting transmission speed of certain high bandwidth applications. Some applications, typically peer-to-peer applications, can consume large amounts of bandwidth, often without the knowledge of the user/customer. By limiting the portion of the network capacity available for these applications during periods of high traffic, Buckeye is able to improve the overall performance of the network for all users. Transmission of traffic subject to this technique may be slower during periods of high network usage.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Kabel-X Demo.flv[/flv]

Watch the Kabel-X process at work in this company-produced demonstration video. (7 minutes)

Like many cable companies, the results for cable television subscriptions continue to be challenged by the downturn in the economy.  So cable operators are increasingly looking to their broadband and “digital phone” divisions to make up the difference in revenue.

Comcast also believes that “pure content” is the place to be, to avoid becoming the owner of “dumb pipes” that simply pass through someone else’s content.  Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator, is seeking to leverage that content through a reported offer to acquire NBC-Universal.

CNBC explores the likelihood of the deal going through with Tuna Amobi, senior media & entertainment equity analyst with Standard & Poor’s.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC – Comcast NBC Merger Outlook 11-4-2009.flv[/flv]

CNBC’s Martin Soong reviews Comcast’s third quarter earnings results and discusses the chances Comcast will pull off its interest in acquiring NBC-Universal.  (11/4/09 – 4 minutes)

Frontier customers are advised to recycle their directories after November, but the new books won't arrive until March.

The dead tree format telephone directory lives on, dropped on the front doors of millions of Americans each year, often whether they want them or not.  The ubiquitous “phone book” has been with us for 100 years, and continues to be the source of controversy, anger, and irritation for those who advertise in it, want either to be listed or unlisted from it, or simply want to stop killing trees to print it.

Now two phone companies have riled up their customers over the books — Frontier Communications for changing the printing schedule of the Yellow Pages, forcing businesses trying to economize to continue to pay for advertising they no longer want, and FairPoint Communications for omitting a large number of customers from their 2010 White Pages.

Coincidentally, the controversies impact two communities sharing the same name – Rochester, New York and Rochester, New Hampshire.

Even though this coupon expires in December 2009, Agatina's Restaurant will still be paying for their advertising until March, 2010.

In Frontier’s largest service area in western New York, businesses are confronting the fact they’ll be forced to pay up to four additional months for Yellow Pages advertising, including for coupons that expire in December.  That’s because Frontier has decided to change the publishing schedule for telephone directories from the traditional month of November, in place in Rochester for decades, to next March.  Residential customers may also accidentally discard their phone books, which indicate they should be recycled in November, assuming new directories are on the way.

The change impacts existing businesses who want to reduce or stop their Yellow Pages ads, as well as new area businesses that will have to wait until spring before their listings appear in the printed directories.

Although many customers now look up telephone numbers online and don’t use the White Pages print edition, many consumers still rely on the Yellow Pages to size up businesses, look for coupons, or learn more about businesses from their advertising.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHEC Rochester Frontier Delays Phone Books 8-18-09.flv[/flv]

WHEC-TV Rochester’s I-Team 10 reporter visits with the owner of Agatina’s Restaurant, who is upset to discover he’s going to be paying for his Yellow Pages ad longer than he thought. (2 minutes)

In southern New Hampshire, scores of customers receiving new directories from FairPoint are discovering they are not in the book, or have outdated addresses listed, some nearly 19 years old.

The New Hampshire Union-Leader covered the story Wednesday:

“Basically, they left a lot of our numbers out of the phone book,” said Rochester City Manager John Scruton.

“My main concern is we want to provide good service to the city of Rochester, and it is difficult for people if they cannot find key phone numbers using the phone book,” he said.

“Hopefully, they’ll correct it in the next generation of books, but that’s not going to help people who have trouble finding them right now,” he said.

Plaistow Town Clerk Maryellen Pelletier said, “We didn’t even get the right directory.” After years of getting the Haverhill, Mass., directory, the town suddenly was delivered the Manchester-Derry book.

In that same book, Union Leader-New Hampshire Sunday News, a reference to the company that publishes the statewide newspaper and this web site, is listed twice in succession, once with its current address, once with an address it left 19 years ago.

Ironically, FairPoint’s phone books are printed by another Verizon castoff that declared bankruptcy earlier this year: Idearc.

Customers are outraged by the latest FairPoint foul-up.

Jim in Hillsboro: “Other than hoodwinking the Public Utilities Commission, name me one thing FairPoint has done right. Anybody?”

Mo in Plymouth: “Is this strike three and out of business? I hope so. Maybe we can get some company who will at least tell us the truth.”

Doris in Manchester: “Good ole FairPoint. What else would you expect from this fine outstanding company? I have never seen such a screw-up company as FairPoint.”

Frank in Bedford: “Waste of paper = phone book. When everyone has a computer there should be no more phone books allowed. Speaking of being allowed, FairPoint is another thing that shouldn’t be allowed to screw up anymore in New Hampshire. Give them the boot.”

DL in Nottingham: “In Nottingham, we keep getting new phone books every week for all different sections of the state. They just keep showing up.”

Chris in Bow: “Let’s all hope FairPoint managed to print the correct home telephone numbers for members of the Public Utilities Commission.”

Bren in Manchester: “Three months running now my home phone has been disconnected for “non-payment.” Three times I’ve called, spent my lunch hour giving the date that my payment was processed, waited while they figured out where it was misapplied and then had to wait several hours for the service to be reinstated. Then the insult of a phone book that isn’t going to be used, delivered into a rain puddle – the result is a wasted tree.”

FairPoint Communications’ performance in New England, finally leading to bankruptcy, harms not only itself but also smaller local Internet companies providing jobs and service across the region.  That’s the gist of a report in this morning’s Kennebec Journal outlining a dispute between FairPoint and Great Works Internet, a Biddeford, Maine Internet Service Provider caught between FairPoint’s fiber optic network and a billing dispute that demands GWI pay more than $3 million dollars by December 19th, or face service termination by FairPoint.

GWI leased fiber optic cables with FairPoint’s predecessor Verizon back in 2005.  As part of the Communications Act of 1996, designed to spur competition, GWI obtained access at special interconnection rates, lower than the prices charged for retail customers.  Verizon felt the price was too low, and went to court in 2005 to seek the right to charge “market rates” for access, but the issue was never settled before Verizon sold its landline network to FairPoint last year.  In March of this year, FairPoint stopped accepting new orders from GWI for fiber service, which has kept the company from growing beyond its current fiber network agreements, costing the company plenty in new business.  Then, in September, FairPoint back-billed GWI for $3,085,025, representing the price FairPoint felt GWI should have been paying since 2006.  If the Maine-owned ISP doesn’t pay up, it has been threatened with having its service cut off altogether.

Fletcher Kittredge, GWI’s founder and chief executive officer, has been around the ISP business a long time.  The company was founded in 1994, before Internet access became common, and he has grown the company into a locally owned business serving 18,000 customers with phone and Internet connections.  At risk are the loss of up to 75 local jobs and a significant part of $13 million in annual revenues earned by what the Journal calls one of Maine’s leading Internet providers.

“For us, it’s vital that this be settled soon,” Kittredge told the newspaper. “FairPoint has been threatening us with some pretty draconian action.”

FairPoint’s threat has already cost the company customers, Kittredge said, and the uncertainty makes it hard to go after new business accounts.

But growth has been trimmed by FairPoint’s actions, according to Kittredge. For instance: The company signed a contract with the Skowhegan school system for high-speed access and set up equipment. But the connections it needed from FairPoint were never made, Kittredge said, and he had to cancel the school contract. That has had a chilling effect on efforts to go after new accounts.

“We can’t go out and solicit new businesses,” he said. “We can’t say, ‘This is going to be great, but we may not be able to deliver it to you.’ ”

Great Works hasn’t wanted to make a big deal in public of its fight with FairPoint. It’s concerned that the news will cause existing customers to worry that they could lose their Internet connections.

“It’s a threat I’m going to watch,” said Mitch Davis, chief information officer at Bowdoin College in Brunswick.

Bowdoin gets phone service from FairPoint, but most of its Internet access is from Great Works. Davis was aware of the initial court dispute, but didn’t realize FairPoint was threatening to cut line access. He hopes the bankruptcy judge will let the case go forward and get settled.

GWI told the Journal the company may just be trying to steal Great Works’ lucrative business customers.  That might come to pass if the circuits are cut.  Despite Davis believing FairPoint probably wouldn’t make good on their threat because of the bad publicity it would generate, he admits if they do, he might be forced to transfer the college account to FairPoint. Businesses need to seriously consider getting the best business law attorney to handle disputes such as this one.

“I would do what I need to do to keep the college running,” Davis said.

One Journal reader characterized the dispute as just one more consequence of approving FairPoint Communications’ takeover of Verizon service in Maine.

“I would like to thank the governor of Maine for letting such a strong stable company like FairPoint in this state. You really did your homework.  I thought we had a Public Utilities Commission that watched out for public interest.  Boy are they on the ball.  I am glad to see […] they are not running my business.”