Phillip Dampier

The Concord Monitor published an editorial Sunday suggesting that FairPoint Communications’ crash and burn bankruptcy is, in fact, a good thing for New Hampshire.

FairPoint’s bankruptcy was always a distinct possibility. At this point, it’s good that it happened. The massive reduction in debt that will result will either allow the company make good on its promise to provide widespread broadband service or make it attractive to a buyer capable of doing so. Surviving on landlines alone isn’t an option.

FairPoint’s debt would have been hard to repay even in good times by a smoothly operating company. The severe recession, lousy service that caused customers to flee in droves and high interest rates on its debt doomed FairPoint.

This is like saying the GM’s bankruptcy was a great thing for Detroit.  The Concord Monitor would do better to beat the drum for utility commission reform, to make sure such bad deals don’t get approval in the first place.  As it stands, FairPoint’s promises aren’t worth much in good times or bad.  How many broken promises should cust0mers endure before realizing money alone does not resolve bad decisions, bad implementation of those decisions, and now “cost savings” from a company that cannot afford to lose a single technician or customer service employee.

Making FairPoint attractive for a buyout or merger means slashing costs, and we all know where that will happen – among local employees who do the work to keep the company running.  Another merger or buyout with a sweet bonus for management will do little for New Englanders who rely on FairPoint for telephone and broadband service unless the buyer has the resources to provide a more advanced platform for telecommunications in this century.

The editorial is right in calling out the enormous debt FairPoint took on to make the deal happen.  It would be hard to repay in good times by a smoothly operating company, which is precisely why those who live in the next round of cities Verizon is about to cast into the wild Frontier should be so very wary.  The economy, it’s suggested, is getting better, but for those of us in economically challenged states like New York, Ohio, West Virginia, and others where Frontier operates wouldn’t know it from looking around their communities.  If FairPoint thinks it has a challenge now, watch as customers trying to economize continue to pull the plug on their phone lines.  As cell phone plans continue to offer more minutes (or unlimited access), why pay for two phone bills when one is high enough?

Most of FairPoint’s customers have another option: cell phones. Between June 2008 and June 2009 the company lost 11 percent of its landline customers. They’ll lose customers even faster if they raise prices. There are other threats to FairPoint’s future. Small companies and cooperatives are beginning to offer wireless internet service in rural areas. So even if FairPoint succeeds in extending broadband into the boonies, it could face competition.

Considering FairPoint, like Frontier, is relying on rapidly aging ADSL technology for broadband, and has few apparent plans to meet the needs of a wider bandwidth future, old fashioned DSL broadband isn’t far behind copper wire landlines on the endangered species list.  But FairPoint, like Frontier and other independent companies focusing on rural communities may be betting their business plans that for the same reason Verizon said goodbye, would-be competitors will never drop in and say “hello.”  In communities too small for cable companies, the prospect for wireless broadband, or other competition, isn’t exactly rosy.

Not so the investors in FairPoint, who will exchange hundreds of millions of dollars in debt for stock that at week’s end was trading for just over a dime a share. The investors gambled and lost. The free market worked.

The free market worked particularly well for Verizon, who played the system and won an enormous bounty.  Investors taking a beating will write off their losses and move on.  Where do rural FairPoint customers go to write off their loss in the broadband backwater they’ll be stuck in indefinitely?  FairPoint actually represented another failure in the free market, because of the lack of appropriate oversight which should have taken one look at this deal and the debt pile-on it represented, and then rejected it as inappropriate for a utility to gamble with ratepayers’ money.

FairPoint made a number of commitments to win state approval of its purchase. Whether such agreements must be kept is now up to the court.

Utilities are classically required to provide universal service. Urban customers subsidize service for rural ones for the good of society and because they may want to communicate with them. But the game changed when technology allowed other unregulated companies to poach on a utility’s turf by offering cheaper or better service.

FairPoint will keep operating, and its customers are unlikely to see any effect from its decision to declare bankruptcy to reorganize and shed debt.

Don’t pick me up off the floor shocked and surprised when FairPoint and its banker-owners walk into court begging to be freed from the “onerous commitments” they made to get the deal done in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  Those “hard won” concessions by utility oversight boards may be nothing but memories soon enough.  The game change of telecommunications choice has come to more urban areas, where customers have options.  That isn’t necessarily the case for rural New England consumers without cable and with zero bars on their cell phone from home.

Customers who earlier thought that no changes in the quality of their FairPoint service meant “more crappy” service in their future may find the “crap bar” still has plenty lower to go should the company seek to realize its fiscal conservatism at the expense of its experienced and competent workforce who have coped with bad management decisions since day one.  Somehow the “must keep” employees might just turn out to be the same folks at FairPoint headquarters in North Carolina who made the bad decisions that put the company in its current predicament.

Strong, careful oversight of any restructuring is essential to protect New England ratepayers from being victimized all over again.

Charleston, West Virginia is just one of many cities potentially served by Frontier

Frontier Communications has won approval from state utility commissions in California, South Carolina, and Nevada to take over telephone service currently provided by Verizon Communications.  The decisions were unanimous in all three votes by Commission members, and involve telephone service in several small communities in all three states.

Circles represent Verizon service areas transferred to Frontier in Nevada and California

Verizon’s castoffs serve a small percentage of customers, which made the transaction fly under the media radar in most cases.  In California, Verizon dumps customers in a small section on the northwest border with Oregon.  In Nevada, several small communities south of Reno are involved.  In South Carolina, Verizon drops scattered groups of customers in small clusters across the state.

These state regulatory approvals follow an October 27 announcement by Frontier that its shareholders have approved the transaction, which will result in Frontier owning Verizon’s wireline operations in all or parts of 14 states.

While the approval appeared pro forma in those three states, West Virginia is another matter.  Strong employee union and consumer group protests continue across the state, with many consumers concerned about the implications of Frontier controlling nearly all wired phone lines in the state.  The Communications Workers of America held a conference call with the media Wednesday to outline its opposition to the deal.

The CWA has been a vocal opponent of the deal, claiming it will risk West Virginia’s telecommunications future with a company without the financial capacity to provide the type of advanced services Verizon is providing in other states.  Kenneth Peres, an economist with the Communications Workers of America, said the deal was extremely risky for consumers, workers and the affected communities.

Peres pointed to the perfect record of three out of three failures for earlier Verizon spinoffs.  FairPoint Communications declared bankruptcy early this week after trying to take on the service needs of three New England states.

Peres told the Charleston Daily Mail that if the deal goes through, Frontier “will find it extremely difficult” to meet its $8 billion in debt obligations while simultaneously investing enough capital to maintain its physical plant, improve service quality, set up a new system in West Virginia, lease systems from Verizon in 13 other states, provide video service for the first time (in Indiana), and ensure adequate staffing “while paying out a lot more in dividends than it makes in profits.”

Frontier went on the attack Thursday, accusing the union of interfering just to grab concessions for itself.

Verizon service areas sold off to Frontier in South Carolina

Steve Crosby, Frontier spokesman, said, “They’re just throwing stuff up against the wall. They know this is a good transaction and they’re trying to extract their pound of flesh. They want more concessions. This is their opportunity to ask for more money for their union membership and more benefits. That’s what they want. Union membership across the country is declining. This is how they’re trying to extract as much as they can from either Frontier or Verizon.”

As for Frontier’s debt load, “This is actually a de-leveraging transaction,” Crosby said. “We’re taking on debt but we’re taking on a whole lot more revenue. We’re currently at a 3.8 times revenue-to-debt ratio, going down to 2.6. So we actually get better in terms of revenue to debt. And today we’re fine. We’re able to pay a nice dividend. The day the transaction closes, we are approaching investment-grade borrowings.

“Our board of directors made the decision to lower our dividend by 25 percent when the transaction closes to give us even more cash to invest in infrastructure and to give us even more financial flexibility,” Crosby said.

“Every time we have an argument we win and they bring up other stuff,” Crosby said. “They never bring up the de-leveraging because it undermines their argument. They never bring up the fact that we will reduce our dividend because it undermines their argument.

“We have said we will maintain employment levels for 18 months” after the transaction closes, Crosby said. Because of required regulatory approvals and other factors, the deal can’t close before April 2010.

“So you can figure that’s two years,” Crosby said. “Who nowadays has that kind of job security? I think we’re bending over backwards. I wish I had the pension plan, the job security the CWA has. They’re looking at extracting more from Verizon and Frontier.”

When asked by the newspaper why Frontier shareholders would approve a deal that was destined for failure, Peres told the newspaper:

Frontier’s business model is built on acquisitions. Frontier bought a portion of Global Crossing’s business which increased revenue and access lines “but that began to decline,” he said. “They bought Commonwealth Telephone but that’s flat-lining. What’s the next step? What were they going to do – improve infrastructure or go through the acquisitions route again?” Continuing with acquisitions “postpones the day of reckoning,” he said.

Commentary: Our Take

Crosby’s comments seem more suited for a talk show audience that hates unions.  Obviously the union does not think this is a good deal for West Virginia, and considering the track record of earlier Verizon deals, and the correct predictions from employee unions on their inevitable outcomes, they have every right to oppose the deal on its face.  Crosby apparently has time to address declining union membership, but not the much more relevant decline in the traditional phone company’s bread and butter business – landlines.  Frontier, like other phone companies, continues to see disconnect requests coming from coast to coast as customers dump the phone company for a cable digital phone product, Voice Over IP line, or rely on their cellphone.

West Virginia would be solidly Frontier territory if the state approves the sale

Verizon recognizes their traditional business is a dying one, which is why they are in a hurry to diversify into competitive broadband and video services over their fiber optic FiOS network.  Where it doesn’t make economic sense (under their current business plan) for Verizon to deploy FiOS, decisions are being made about whether to keep those smaller phone operations within the Verizon family, or sell them off to companies like Frontier.  What Frontier acquires today from the standpoint of customers and revenues could represent the high water mark, and without offering robust options for a digital future, Frontier will likely continue to see customer erosion.

FairPoint acquired seemingly healthy Verizon companies serving the entire states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  When their efforts to seamlessly combine Verizon’s legacy systems with FairPoint’s own systems failed, that along with an inability to properly service customers, caused a death spiral as customers dropped service, which led FairPoint straight into bankruptcy.

Frontier’s record of investment and service in western New York speaks for itself.  Time Warner Cable eats Frontier for lunch, with less expensive “digital phone” service, much faster and more reliable broadband, and a video package that Frontier doesn’t offer (reselling DISH Network is hardly the same as providing video service that doesn’t come from a third party company’s satellite dish nailed to the roof).  Frontier is ready and willing to stick with DSL service at speeds that are basically maxed out.  Time Warner Cable evidently doesn’t even consider Frontier a significant enough player to deploy upgrades in this area while they are in a hurry to provide them where Verizon FiOS is under construction.

When a company isn’t prepared to keep up with the rest of New York with fiber deployment to the home, the chances of that kind of service reaching West Virginia anytime soon are near zero.

But Frontier’s unique position as a specialist in “rural service” allows it to eke out an existence in areas where cable isn’t a big competitive threat, and where any broadband is better than no broadband at all, at least for now.  But without a plan for keeping up with the fast changing broadband world, customers happy with 3Mbps service today will despise the company for being stuck with those speeds later.  A lot of people in Rochester sure aren’t happy being stuck with Frontier DSL, and that nasty 5GB “reasonable use” language in the Acceptable Use Policy.

Crosby’s comments about CWA member job security, which he evidently envies, says more about the union’s commitment to its members than Frontier has to him.  Perhaps Crosby can quit his spokesman job and switch to a position that gets him CWA membership with a pension and job security.  Perhaps if the people of West Virginia say thanks, but no thanks, Frontier will be in a better economic state than it would be if this mega-deal collapses under the weight of debt and integration challenges.  Then Crosby can keep his job with the evidently lousy benefits.

Peres’ assumption that Frontier lives only through acquisitions isn’t the complete story.  Just like the myth sharks must constantly swim to survive, Frontier doesn’t constantly have to acquire to survive either.  It does have to concern itself with an ever-consolidating telephone line industry, where the smaller independent companies continue to be snapped up by a dwindling number of players.  If a Windstream or CenturyTel comes along with a great offer, Frontier itself may have a new name — Windstream or CenturyTel.

The economies of scale and cost savings are routinely cited by investors promoting consolidation.  It’s no surprise Frontier shareholders voted for the deal.  Bigger is often better for many investors, as long as the quarterly financials play to their interests.  Listening to Frontier investor conference calls, the Wall Street bankers, and the media that support them, are constantly concerned with keeping costs cut to the bone, customer defection limited, risk reasonable, and that dividend being paid.  They are satisfied with Frontier’s rural, less competitive market focus, even if the customers that end up served by them are not.

I realize this is a bit off topic for us, but I was bemused to learn Cablevision, the cable operator in suburban New York (and elsewhere), has launched iO TV Quick View, three new channels that display nine different kids, sports and news networks all on one screen.

Who is this for?  I suppose the carpel tunnel-suffering channel surfer that has worn his finger out moving up and down the cable dial looking for something to watch and never making it all the way to the end of the lineup.

Cablevision says these three channels will let viewers highlight each window showing a network and, with one button press, jump to the channel they want to see.

No doubt these three channels will be part of the pointless bragging rights cable companies play over the number of channels they offer customers, as if most are still concerned with counting them.

The 500 channel universe already threatens to become littered with networks like Cat Fur Entertainment, Dorm Room Cooking Channel, Log Rolling 24/7, Uncle Fred’s Aquarium TV, and the Uighur News Network, before someone came up with this.

Channel 670 (like you’ll find that):  Kids Quick View channel features box views of Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Boomerang, Discovery Kids, Disney XD, Nicktoons, Nick Jr. and Kids Thirteen.

Channel 671: News Quick View channel features News 12, News 12 Traffic & Weather, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, CNN Headline News, Bloomberg TV and BBC World News.

Channel 672: Sports Quick View, featuring MSG, MSG+, YES Network, ESPN, ESPN2, Speed Channel, Golf Channel, SportsNet NY and Versus.

Versus TV

I can already guess there will be some clashing between Cartoon Network’s more-adult oriented cartoons and Nick, Jr., among others.  Putting channels with Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, and Ed Schultz all on one channel will blow a hole in the fabric of space on 671, and few will pay attention to actual sports on 672 when the scantily clad ladies on Versus turn up… regularly.

“Our focus in the development of iO TV Quick View has been on discoverability and helping our customers find the perfect program to watch,” Cablevision’s SVP of strategic product development, Patrick Donoghue, said in a prepared statement.

“With so many channels to choose from, this new enhancement allows us to present current options in a number of popular programming categories, literally at a glance. And the end result is a visually beautiful presentation with easy navigation both within the mosaic and to the specific channels being spotlighted.”

Yeah, you’re going to pay for it.

Mountain Cablevision becomes part of the Shaw Cable family with the approval of the CRTC

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has given approval to Shaw Communications for its acquisition of Hamilton-based Mountain Cablevision, Ltd., a small independent cable operator in southern Ontario.  The $300 million dollar transaction brings 41,000 cable customers, 29,000 Internet subscribers, 30,000 digital phone lines, and 135 Mountain Cablevision employees into the Shaw family, making the Calgary-based cable company Canada’s largest.

“This is a great move for us to come in there and be able to start being around that market. We always said that […] we want to be in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario,” Shaw chief executive Jim Shaw said Friday.

“Rogers had passed on the acquisition so we decided to go in there,” Shaw told analysts. “This is a great move for us, being around that market.”

Mountain Cablevision serves a small part of Hamilton and surrounding communities in southern Ontario

Shaw’s entry into Ontario upset Rogers Communications, eastern Canada’s dominant cable provider.  Rogers sued Shaw in an Ontario court, claiming the purchase violated a near-decade long agreement made personally between Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw to stay out of each other’s territories — Shaw stays out of eastern Canada if Rogers moves no further west than Ontario.

Canadian courts aren’t compelled to recognize handshake deals made over dinner, and the court ruled against Rogers.

With the agreement swept away, some analysts predict Rogers will investigate acquisition opportunities in western Canada, probably in the more populated regions.

Shaw claims it will upgrade Mountain Cablevision’s small cable footprint, which serves only a portion of greater Hamilton – Hamilton Mountain and East Hamilton, as well as the communities of Mount Hope, Caledonia, Hagersville, Jarvis, Dunnville/Byng, Cayuga and Binbrook, all in Ontario.  The company promises better broadband, cable, and telephone service after the upgrades are complete.  Shaw also says it will expand the Mountain Cablevision system into several unserved neighborhoods and townships.  That’s an important distinction, because it indicates Shaw has no intention of competing head to head with Rogers or Ontario’s other dominant cable company Cogeco.

The deal comes during challenging times for Shaw, who announced a 6% decline in profits in the fourth quarter, with gains only from new digital cable additions.  More than 110,000 Shaw customers signed up for digital cable in the third quarter, up from 23,000 in the third quarter a year ago.

In other areas, Shaw lost customers — 5,000 canceling broadband, 4,500 dropping Shaw’s direct to home satellite service, and nearly 9,000 disconnecting their Shaw digital phone line.

Shaw’s next product introduction will likely be its new cell phone service.  The company spent $190 million dollars last year acquiring 18 airwave licenses in northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.

Mountain Cablevision's concentrated service area in the city of Hamilton (click to enlarge)

But Shaw is taking a “very cautious approach” to wireless mobile services, according to the company.  It has refused to set a timetable when service would begin.  Shaw faces a growing number of wireless competitors introducing service in Canada late this year and into early 2010.  DAVE Wireless, Wind Mobile, and Public Mobile are all poised to launch in major Canadian cities, expecting to put competitive pressure on pricing and bring about lower priced, more generous service plans.

Shaw claims it’s not concerned, telling The Financial Post, “If they’re in there, we don’t really care. We already have a relationship with customers and they have zero,” Shaw said. “We have 3.4 million customers we have a relationship every month with.”

Telecommunications companies are increasingly concerned with offering customers “bundles” of telecommunications services from video, broadband, wired phone lines, and now increasingly wireless data and mobile phone services.  Customers purchasing bundles tend to remain loyal to the companies offering them.

Shaw Communications, western Canada’s largest cable company, has expanded its High-Speed Nitro DOCSIS 3 broadband service in British Columbia and Alberta.  Offering speeds of 100Mbps downstream and 5Mbps upstream, Shaw charges customers $149 per month for the new plan, assuming you also subscribe to other Shaw services.  The three latest cities to obtain upgraded service join Victoria in British Columbia, Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, where upgrades were unveiled earlier this year.

“The expansion of High-Speed Nitro into the cities of Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver demonstrates Shaw’s commitment to continually enhancing our Internet services to meet our customers’ changing needs,” said Peter Bissonnette, President, Shaw Communications Inc.

Paying $150 a month doesn’t buy you unlimited broadband, however.  Despite the premium price, Shaw insists on slapping a usage allowance of 400 gigabytes per month.  While at first glance that limit seems generous, particularly compared with Comcast’s 250GB limit, paying $150 a month for Internet access apparently is not enough to spare their most generous customers from a pesky Internet Overcharging scheme.

Jeff from Calgary, a Stop the Cap! reader writes, “exactly how much profit does Shaw need to earn from customers before they turn the damn meter off?”

“It’s bad enough with a 100GB limit on their so-called High-Speed Extreme plan, which gives my family up to 15Mbps service for $45 a month.  If I am going to pay them $100 more a month for service, there shouldn’t even be a limit,” he adds.

The High-Speed Extreme plan seems to be the pricing “sweet spot” for Shaw, because the next step up in Calgary is High-Speed Warp, which brings 25Mbps service for the warped high price of $96 a month.  For nearly twice the price, Shaw only throws another 50GB towards customers’ usage allowances, limiting service to 150GB per month.