Anne Milgram

Verizon New Jersey has agreed to a settlement to resolve a lawsuit resulting from its marketing, sales, billing and customer service practices regarding its FiOS television, telephone and Internet services. The agreement, made by Verizon with Attorney General Anne Milgram and the Division of Consumer Affairs, requires Verizon to pay $795,000 in civil penalties to the state and reimburse attorneys’ fees and investigative costs.  Verizon will also provide 1,160 consumers who filed complaints about the company with a $50 prepaid gift card or allow consumers to terminate their FiOS service without an early termination fee.

“Companies must deliver services at the terms advertised and represented to consumers. This settlement demonstrates Verizon’s commitment to do right by its customers and to adhere to our consumer protection laws and regulations,” Milgram said.

The action, originally brought by the New Jersey Attorney General’s office this past March, came in response to complaints from state residents who failed to receive promised flat-screen televisions offered as part of a sign-up promotion the company ran last year.  The company was also accused of running advertising campaigns quoting prices that did not come close to reflecting the actual total cost of service.  The Attorney General also documented instances of setup and installation fees that were promised to be waived by Verizon representatives, but were billed anyway.

[flv width=”600″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC New York Verizon FiOS Ads Deceptive 3-18-09.flv[/flv]

WABC-TV New York ran this report on March 18th exploring the Verizon FiOS problems leading to the New Jersey lawsuit. (2 minutes)

“Consumers want crystal clear television when they sign up for FiOS and they deserve a crystal clear explanation of service terms and conditions,” David Szuchman, Consumer Affairs Director, said. “This settlement ensures that consumers will get what they are promised when signing up for FiOS service.”

Verizon representatives said the debacle over the flat-panel television promotion occurred when a larger than anticipated demand for FiOS depleted their inventory.  The company indicated it is willing to work with consumers to get them the promotional products promised.  Going forward, as part of the agreement, the company will be certain the inventory levels of promotional gifts are better tied to expected demand, and substitute items of equal or greater value when necessary.

The company will also end its practice of charging consumers a different price than that quoted in advertisements or door-to-door sales. Consumers will no longer be charged an activation fee following a sales representative’s waiver of such a fee. An estimated first bill will also be reviewed with the consumer at their time of ordering. The consumer will also be advised of any estimated pro-rated amounts, one-time and monthly charges, taxes and fees.

Customers who order FiOS service through Verizon’s customer service centers will be sent a copy of their estimated first bill through email or first-class mail within seven days of ordering FiOS service and provided a toll-free telephone number for consumer inquiries as to FiOS service, FiOS promotions and promotional gifts, customer service and assistance, billing and other services.

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPVI Philadelphia Verizon FiOS Sending Refunds 12-08-09.flv[/flv]

WPVI-TV Philadelphia covers the settlement between the New Jersey Attorney General and Verizon New Jersey over it’s problems with FiOS service. (1 minute)

This is part one in a series of stories illustrating how telecommunications companies use a combination of public relations firms, professional lobbyists, friendly regulators, and outmaneuvered state officials to sell “improved service” to the public in return for regulatory “reform.”  Too often, that “reform” is loaded with loopholes and language that guarantees providers can break their promises, tie state and local regulators’ hands when bad service results, and ultimately stick you with the bill.

Over the past several months, several communities in New Jersey have been up in arms about Verizon’s reinterpretation of a state law originally written in the 1940s but “updated” just a few years ago, to mean it no longer has to pay telephone pole and infrastructure taxes to municipalities for using the public right of way.  Verizon’s “reinterpretation” of the state’s Business Personal Property Tax law surprised several municipalities who now face significant financial challenges as a result of the lost revenue.  New Jersey residents will likely make up the difference with a higher property tax rate.

On the surface, it might appear Verizon simply happened upon tax savings.  Verizon claims the law only requires it to pay taxes in communities where it has more than 51% of the area’s phone customers.  Despite protestations from local officials, Verizon has signaled its intent to carry on, estimating 150 communities will join the 50-60 already impacted by next year.

Changes in telecommunications public policy do not occur in a vacuum.  They happen when providers lobby for regulatory reform and bring gift baskets filled with promises for dramatically improved service.  Using a network of high priced lawyers and public relations campaign experts, companies can easily outmaneuver local and state regulators at every turn.  Unfortunately, by the time consumers (and sometimes regulators) realize they were left with a Trojan Horse filled with empty promises, it’s too late.

Some deals just bring consumers higher prices while others saddle communities with highly-leveraged, heavily indebted companies that eventually collapse in bankruptcy.

Just how did we get here?  In this series, we’ll look at New Jersey’s history with its largest resident phone company.  From New Jersey Bell to Bell Atlantic to Verizon, more than 20 years of questionable reform has left residents “touched” in their wallets.  The blame doesn’t rest entirely with the phone company, either.  Local and state officials were repeatedly won-over by professionally-run lobbying campaigns.  After repeated bad experiences, one might assume they’d know better by now.  Those communities no longer getting tax payments from Verizon can testify they haven’t.

Let’s turn back the clock to the dramatic changes in telecommunications that came with the 1984 breakup of Ma Bell and the Bell System.

Telecommunications Industry Sets the Stage for a Money Party

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/1977 The Bell System.flv[/flv]

In 1977, the overwhelming majority of Americans were served by “the phone company,” namely AT&T and its family of Bell companies providing local service. (2 minutes)

AT&T's Bell System in 1977 (click to enlarge)

For decades, telephone service was run largely as a monopoly by the enormous Bell System and several dozen smaller, non-Bell independent phone companies.  Telephone service was regulated by state and federal authorities who approved rate increase requests and made sure providers met service quality standards. Consumers did not own the telephone equipment in their homes – it was rented from the phone company.  Although often uninspired, Bell System telephones were often virtually indestructible, ranging from basic utilitarian black rotary dial phones to the flaunting Princess phone, which had a lighted dial and came in several colors.

As America began earnestly developing data transmission systems in the late 1960s and early 1970s, AT&T kept its monopoly intact there as well.  At the time, a cooperative arrangement between IBM and AT&T ensured most American businesses would probably deal with one or both companies for their data communications needs.

The eventual fall of the monopoly glory days of AT&T and its Bell System monopoly can be laid at the feet of corporate arrogance, particularly from one John D. deButts who became AT&T’s new Chairman and CEO on April 1, 1972.  deButts was AT&T born and bred, rising through the ranks over decades of employment with AT&T.  To him, anything smacking of competition was to be considered a duplication of effort and wasted resources.  AT&T, in his view, had already strayed too far from its past when Americans could go from coast to coast and deal with just one telephone system using uniform standards and practices of operations.  Consistency and quality should be the highest priority for AT&T, not squabbling with smaller competitors fighting with each other for customers.

A politically tone-deaf deButts infuriated a post-Watergate Congress hellbent on reform at a time when Americans had grown suspicious of big power players, be they political or corporate.  The confident AT&T executive delivered a speech before regulatory commissioners in the fall of 1973 that included within it, “[we must] take to the public the case for the common carrier principle and thereby implication to oppose competition, espouse monopoly.”

Not only did the speech irritate many members of Congress, it helped convince one of AT&T’s competitors, MCI to file a 22 count lawsuit against AT&T in March 1974, accusing Ma Bell of being engaged in illegal antitrust activities.

An even more important lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Justice Department on November 20, 1974.  The federal government also accused AT&T of antitrust behavior, claiming the company locked-up the telephone equipment business for itself, and was well-suited to crush any potential competitor from getting a serious foothold in the marketplace.  At the time, AT&T officials sniffed that the lawsuit was completely without merit and promised to fight back at all costs.

deButts ordered company lawyers to stall, delay, and roadblock the government’s case as much as possible, and the company enjoyed years of court delays.  The lawsuit dragged through several preliminary hearings and motions, until the then-presiding judge, Joseph Waddy, fell ill and had to reduce his caseload.  The United States v. AT&T was transferred to a newly-appointed District Judge named Harold Greene in September 1978.  The days of delay were over.  Greene quickly ordered the case to trial starting in September 1980.

While the court case saw some changes, AT&T did as well.  In February 1979, deButts was out, replaced with a far more conciliatory Charles Brown.  He changed AT&T’s tune, publicly welcoming competition into the marketplace, announcing “I am a competitor and I look forward with anticipation and confidence to the excitement of the marketplace.”

Having that attitude probably wasn’t helpful to defending AT&T’s case, and the company eventually threw in the towel, reaching a settlement with the government in 1982.  Overseen by Judge Greene, AT&T was promised it could keep its long distance service, Western Electric (which manufactured telephone equipment), and Bell Labs, the company’s research and development arm.  In return, it had to divest all 22 local phone monopolies.

America's newly independent regional telephone companies post-1984

Judge Greene, issuing a final consent decree to be effective January 1, 1984 formally broke up the Bell System.  The 22 local phone companies under AT&T were merged into seven Regional Bell Operating Companies, each to be run independently:

• Ameritech (acquired by SBC in 1999 – now part of AT&T again)
• Bell Atlantic (acquired GTE in 2000 and changed its name to Verizon)
• BellSouth (reabsorbed back into a newly reorganized AT&T in 2006)
• NYNEX (acquired by Bell Atlantic in 1996 – later to become part of Verizon)
• Pacific Telesis (acquired by SBC/AT&T in 1997)
• Southwestern Bell (changed its name to SBC in 1995, then acquired the remnants of AT&T in 2005, rechristening itself as the ‘new’ AT&T)
• US West (acquired by Qwest in 2000.)

The goal was to create several smaller regional companies not too large to face challenging competition from new independent providers entering the marketplace.

The result of all of this upheaval was competition in the long distance calling marketplace, but very little competition for local residential telephone service over phone company-provided telephone lines.

Still, for a time the post-breakup family of former Bell companies enjoyed stability and a less regulated marketplace, and several raised rates for local phone service, even while cutting long distance prices.  Customers could now buy and install their own telephone equipment, including answering machines and computer modems, and several competitors began to spring up to serve business customers.

By the 1990s, a new upstart appeared on the horizon that would potentially threaten the whole ‘arrangement.’  The cable television industry, subjected to a more regulated marketplace after years of monopoly abuse of customers, was looking for new unregulated add-on services they could provide to bring back the days of big profits they enjoyed just a few years earlier.  Two potential services: providing connectivity to the Internet and providing cable customers with telephone service.

When phone companies realized cable was planning to invade their turf, this meant war.

In part two, learn more about how the telephone companies went ‘back to the future’ and rebuilt the empire Judge Greene broke up.

Senator Amy Klobuchar

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) is expected to introduce legislation this week to protect consumers from excessive early termination fees for ending their cell phone contracts early.

The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act comes a few weeks after Verizon Wireless doubled their cancellation fees November 15 from $175 to $350 for “advanced” mobile phones.

Klobuchar sent a letter to Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell C. McAdam, criticizing the company’s decision to increase its Early Termination Fees (ETFs) for new smart phone customers.  Klobuchar also sent a letter to Federal Communications Chairman (FCC) Julius Genachowski, urging a review of the Verizon Wireless decision to raise these fees.

“These fees are anti-consumer and anti-competitive and they bear little to no relationship to the cost of the handset device,” said Klobuchar, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Klobuchar’s bill is anticipated to specifically target Verizon Wireless over its decision to double fees for consumers.  Although the specific details of how the legislation will control fees is still being worked out, Klobuchar’s bill is expected to force providers to incrementally reduce fees for every month of service a customer completes and possibly set a ceiling on the fee charged depending on the retail price of the phone.

Klobuchar introduced a similar bill during the last session of Congress and many cell phone providers responded by pro-rating cancellation fees for departing customers, typically 1/24th of the fee waived for each month a customer stayed with the provider during a two-year contract.  But Verizon Wireless’ decision to double their fee, which could set a new trend in the industry, directly increases prices for consumers, according to Klobuchar.

“Under the company’s new plan, the penalty for leaving the contact halfway through a two-year contract would be $230 – still higher than the $175 ETF Verizon Wireless previously charged for these phones,” Klobuchar wrote to McAdam.

Verizon Wireless is the nation’s largest cell phone service provider.  Verizon customers purchasing an Advanced Device (smart phone) with a one or two year service agreement will be subject to an ETF of up to $350 if they disconnect service prior to the minimum term.  The $350 ETF will decrease $10 for each month of service completed.

The cell phone industry has defended cancellation fees as necessary because providers subsidize the cost of the cell phones sold to consumers.  Customers can purchase phones at the retail price and not be committed to any contract or termination fees.  Some advanced handsets can cost well over $500 if purchased without a contract.

Copies of correspondence to McAdam and Genachowski appear below.

… Continue Reading

A federal judge Wednesday ruled that Verizon Wireless can continue to run its 3G network ads, suggesting they might be “sneaky,” but are not misleading.  U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten Sr. told AT&T’s attorneys that their request for a temporary restraining order was denied, but the judge indicated he will hear new arguments in a second hearing on December 16.

AT&T claimed that Verizon’s “There’s a Map for That” ad campaign mislead consumers into believing AT&T provided no service in vast areas of the country because Verizon’s ads depicted non 3G service areas in white, a color that traditionally represents “no service” on many cell phone coverage maps.

Judge Batten said people casually viewing the ads might misunderstand the commercials, but a viewer’s misinterpretation “doesn’t mean they’re misleading.”

“Most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic,” he said, prompting laughter from the courtroom. “They’re not fully alive.”

AT&T’s apparent backup plan is a new ad of its own, attacking Verizon Wireless with… Luke Wilson.

[flv width=”640″ height=”450″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Ad Luke Wilson.flv[/flv]

Actor Luke Wilson helps AT&T Mobility fire back at Verizon Wireless as the holiday season approaches. (30 seconds)

The effectiveness of Wilson’s spirited defense of AT&T is debatable, judging from early ad reviews.  We spotted one continuity error straight away.  At the 0:15 second mark, notice the “Access to over 100,000 apps” box is already filled with an “x” before Wilson turns to the board to fill it.  The “x” is there before it’s gone and back again.  Perhaps it’s an unintentional homage to the frustration experienced by AT&T-exclusive iPhone application developers not getting approval for applications previously approved.

One of the promised benefits of permitting the Verizon-Frontier spinoff is that Frontier will bring more and better broadband service to areas Verizon has ignored for years.  The company has been running television ads in West Virginia promoting Frontier’s promised “next generation” of broadband.  But what does that mean?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Verizon Deal Advertisement West Virginia.flv[/flv]

Frontier Communications is running this advertisement in West Virginia.

The West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission brought in Trevor R. Roycroft, PhD., former Associate Professor at the J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management, Ohio University, to examine the details behind the marketing and public relations push to promote the deal.

He was not impressed.

After an extensive review of confidential and public documents from Frontier, his conclusion was that Frontier’s DSL service is just plain bad, and for plenty of West Virginians who may only have one choice for broadband in the foreseeable future, being stuck with Frontier’s idea of broadband is particularly bad.

Indeed, Frontier’s idea of what defines “next generation broadband” would be true, if this was the year 1992.

“Frontier has made no commitment regarding improved broadband deployment in West Virginia. Frontier, while achieving higher levels of DSL availability in West Virginia, generally offers its broadband services at higher prices and provides lower quality than those associated with Verizon’s DSL. Frontier’s ability to increase broadband deployment in West Virginia will depend on the condition of the outside plant that it has acquired, which may negatively impact Frontier’s costs of deployment. Furthermore, Frontier must upgrade substantial numbers of customer locations outside of West Virginia, and West Virginia will be competing with this larger priority,” Roycroft writes in his testimony to the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

The infrastructure Frontier utilizes to deliver its broadband service is revealing even to those Frontier customers not directly impacted by this transaction.  Some of the documents Roycroft reviewed laid bare the nonsense the company has used to defend its Acceptable Use Policy language defining an “acceptable amount” of monthly broadband usage at just five gigabytes.  Company officials have said for more than a year that they were concerned about the growth of usage on their network, and its potential to slow service for other customers.  But company documents, included within the scope of Roycroft’s testimony, tell a very different story:

Frontier plans to increase its core backbone from its current level of 10 Gbps to a capacity of 20 Gbps (should the spinoff be approved). With regard to the capacity of its existing backbone, Frontier states:

Frontier expanded the backbone from OC 48 to 10 Gigabit Ethernet during the first half of 2009. Because of this network expansion we do not have peak usage for the past 12 months. No backbone link has peaked above 2.8 Gigabit/second or 28% of the capacity of a link since the augment was completed in 2009.

Thus, Frontier’s current backbone configuration appears to have excess capacity. With the expansion of its backbone network to 20 Gbps, the company’s current data traffic load results in about 14% of capacity being utilized at peak.

Potentially limiting customers to just five gigabytes of usage is so unjustified, in Roycroft’s analysis, its potential imposition on West Virginian customers should be a deal-breaker.

Roycroft ponders whether Frontier will invest enough resources to make sure capacity is not an issue. The only way Frontier’s network will show signs of strain is if the company makes a conscious decision not to sufficiently upgrade their network as they take on millions of new Verizon customers, or they dramatically underestimate the average Verizon customer’s usage.

Roycroft was also asked to evaluate whether Frontier’s claims of 90% broadband availability in its overall service area and 92% in its West Virginia territory rang true.

Roycroft writes that Frontier’s numbers don’t tell the whole story.  In five states, Frontier admits the percentages are notably lower, so no guarantee can be inferred for West Virginia based on Frontier’s talking points.

Frontier’s “Advanced” Broadband Network Is Hardly Advanced and Barely Qualifies As Broadband

Heavy criticism was leveled at Frontier for its “advanced” broadband service.  Roycroft compared Frontier DSL with several other providers and was unimpressed with the company’s broadband speeds.

Roycroft's table illustrates what's on offer from the competition

“Frontier’s advertised DSL speeds are generally much lower than those available from Verizon and other carriers. Based on a location-based search of Frontier DSL service offerings, it appears that Frontier’s most prevalent DSL speeds are 3 Mbps and 768 kbps (for download),” Roycroft said.

Frontier's DSL Speeds in Selected Cities

Although the expressed upload speed for Rochester should be listed at a higher rate (I managed around 512kbps myself), Roycroft is correct when he says, “it can be seen that outside of Rochester, NY, the DSL speeds associated with Frontier offerings cannot be considered ‘cutting edge.'”

Even while noting Rochester’s potential DSL speeds, real-world speeds are another matter entirely.

[flv width=”640″ height=”405″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Real World Frontier vs Road Runner Speeds.flv[/flv]

One New York customer provided real world evidence of the significant differences in speed offered by Road Runner from Time Warner Cable and Frontier’s DSL (courtesy: 1ComputerSavvyGuy) (1 minute)

Frontier’s DSL offerings in West Virginia are of even lower quality. Frontier indicates that it offers three grades of DSL service in West Virginia:

Up to 256 kbps download/128 kbps upload;
Up to 1 Mbps download/200 kbps upload;
Up to 3 Mbps download/200 kbps upload.

These data transmission speeds, especially upload speeds, are at the very low end of commercial offerings that I have observed.

Comparing Verizon DSL vs. Frontier DSL Pricing & Gotchas, Contracts, and Internet Overcharging Schemes

Roycroft’s study found Frontier’s pricing significantly higher than Verizon for DSL service.

Frontier’s DSL prices, either with telephone service, or on a stand-alone basis, are significantly higher than are Verizon’s. For example, the entry-level Frontier plan has a nominal price that is 100% higher than Verizon’s.

However, when considering the per Mbps price, Frontier’s price is 160% higher. It is also notable that Frontier’s upload speeds are also low when compared to Verizon’s.  Consumers are increasingly relying on upload capabilities to share large files, such as videos. Overall, Frontier’s DSL products are low quality.

Comparing Prices

Roycroft also gave special attention to Frontier’s infamous 5GB Acceptable Use Policy, which he suggested was a major negative for West Virginia’s online experience.

Frontier indicates that it monitors network usage if “it receives a complaint of slow service or if it discovers that network bandwidth utilization is unusually high in a particular area.

Frontier was asked to identify any action taken against a customer associated with its acceptable use policy and, in response, the company stated that it has not “terminated a customer’s service based on exceeding the 5 GB threshold identified in the AUP.” However, the restriction on usage further raises the relative cost of Frontier’s service. Frontier indicates that consumers may face action by the company if they exceed the usage cap, thus indicating that the prices reflect both speed and volume. Verizon’s DSL service does not include a similar limit.

Frontier’s DSL pricing policies and usage restrictions will represent a significant negative impact on West Virginia consumers, should these policies be implemented in Verizon’s service area in West Virginia.

Even more importantly, Roycroft considered the argument for imposing such Internet Overcharging schemes as unwarranted.

“While DSL provides dedicated bandwidth to the customer in the last mile, DSL subscribers will share network capacity in the ‘middle mile.’ For example, shared data networks will carry consumer traffic from the telephone company central office to an Internet gateway. I believe that Frontier’s policy is more likely to reflect an unwillingness on Frontier’s part to invest in ‘middle mile’ Internet access facilities that would require capacity additions as customer demand increases, and choose to restrict customer usage instead of investing in the capacity needed to meet customer demand,” Roycroft writes.

“Furthermore, Comcast’s download-cap policy includes limits that are dramatically higher than Frontier’s. Comcast’s acceptable use policy identifies 250 gigabytes as the threshold at which Comcast may take action against a customer, which is fifty times the usage associated with Frontier’s policy,” he added.

Roycroft was also concerned about the many ‘gotchas’ that are part of Frontier’s marketing efforts which bring even higher prices to consumers choosing to have DSL service installed.

“To receive the services of Frontier’s technician, the consumer will incur a $134 fee unless the consumer signs up for a term service contract. Even with the term service contract, the customer must pay a $34 fee for the on-site set-up. Furthermore, the technicians that Frontier dispatches to new broadband customers’ homes are also sales agents. Thus, while it may be that these individuals can help with system set-up and the like, they also are part of Frontier’s overall up-selling strategy,” said Roycroft.

Frontier markets a variety of services to customers as part of their promotions and service offerings.  For instance, recent Dell Netbook promotions required customers to sign multi-year contracts for service, with an early termination fee up to $400 if the consumer chooses to cancel service.  Such promotions do not come out of the goodness of Frontier’s heart.  Indeed, such promotions provide even more revenue potential by pitching customers on its “Peace of Mind” services, which include computer technical support, backups, and inside wire maintenance for an additional monthly fee.

Customers don’t even qualify for many Frontier promotions unless they accept a bundled service package combining broadband with traditional phone service and a multi-year service contract.

Roycroft says West Virginia should demand modifications to Frontier’s proposal before it should even consider accepting it.  Among the changes:

• Frontier should be required to make broadband services available in 100% of its wire centers, and to 90% of its West Virginia customers by the end of 2013. Frontier should expand broadband availability to 100% of its customers by 2015.
• Frontier should be required to deploy and promote broadband services in West Virginia so that, by the end of 2013, at least 90% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 3 Mbps; 75% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 6 Mbps; and 50% of customers can achieve download speeds of 10 Mbps.
• To achieve these broadband objectives, Frontier should be required to exceed Verizon’s baseline level of capital investment by at least $117 million during the period ending December 31, 2013, or by an amount sufficient to meet the broadband objectives.
• Frontier should be required to offer broadband services at prices that do not exceed those currently offered by Verizon for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps services, i.e., Frontier should offer services at Verizon’s advertised prices for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps service (respectively, $19.99 per month and $29.99 per month) for a period of 24 months following the merger.
• Frontier should be prohibited from imposing its broadband “download cap” in West Virginia.
• Frontier should be required to provide individual written notice to its customers regarding the merger, and should notify customers of any change in services that result from the merger. Changes in billing format should also be clearly explained to customers, both in writing, and through a web-based tutorial.
• Frontier should be prohibited from migrating any Verizon customer to a Frontier plan that either increases the customer’s rates, diminishes the level of service, or has a materially adverse impact on any of the terms and conditions of the customer’s service. West Virginia customers should experience a rate freeze for a period of 24 months.
• Frontier should be required to allow former Verizon customers to take a “fresh look” at their purchases, including those customers who have term contracts with Verizon. All early termination charges should be waived for a period of 90 days following the merger, and the long distance PIC charge should also be waived for Verizon long-distance customers who select a long-distance provider other than Frontier.