Brian Whitton, Verizon's Executive Director of Access Technologies

At least Verizon is honest about it.  As providers contemplate slapping customers with usage limits, overlimit fees, and other tiered pricing systems, they’ve typically said they’re justified because of the strain they claim heavy users place on their broadband networks.  One network that doesn’t face that problem is Verizon’s robust fiber optic FiOS network, which is on the way to upgrading from the ridiculously fast current speeds to the “next generation” of FiOS speed: delivering 10 Gbps downlink and 2.5 Gbps uplink, shared among 32 locations.  That makes the cable modem competition, which shares slower speeds among many more customers wilt at the prospect.  DSL instantly becomes the dial-up service of the decade in comparison.

Make no mistake, Verizon tells all who ask: Fiber to the Home is near-infinitely upgradeable for decades to come, simply by swapping out some hardware at each end of the pipe.

Yet Verizon began making noises about ending its all-you-can-eat broadband buffet this past September, when Verizon Chief Technology Officer Dick Lynch said Verizon was in favor of consumption-based billing, too.

But why should Verizon FiOS, often priced higher than the cable competition, opt for Internet Overcharging schemes when it has a network that is nowhere near capacity and will increase its speeds even further next year?

As GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham found out, the answer is – because they can:

Brian Whitton, executive director of access technologies at Verizon did acknowledge how valuable broadband has become—precious enough that people will pay for premium access to it, especially those using up a disproportionate amount of network assets. “Ultimately this is the fairest cost-recovery model, and with a tiering plan or a meter everyone is paying their fair shares to finance the network,” Whitton said. Unlike other ISPs, Verizon doesn’t view heavy bandwidth users as hogs, but it does view them as potentially high-end customers.

Yet Verizon already does charge users a fair share to finance their network, based on the speed tier that customer chooses.  Those high-end customers are already paying Verizon premium prices for the fastest available speeds on Verizon’s fiber optic system.  Verizon’s ability to recoup their investment becomes easier and easier as costs decline to construct the fiber optic systems that will protect Verizon’s viability for decades to come, unlike those traditional phone companies sticking with copper wire lines until the last customer out the door turns the lights out for good.  Verizon’s average revenue per subscriber has never been higher with its ability to market video programming, speeds that make most cable operators blush, and an infinitely more reliable telephone network, all on one bill.  That helps achieve subscriber loyalty, particularly when offering service that keeps customers happy.

Creating Internet Overcharging schemes for your broadband service simply to monetize consumption does not keep customers happy.  Verizon sees the cream rising to the top — charging broadband enthusiasts more while promising nothing for customers who use the service less.  With average consumption per broadband user rising, there’s going to be a lot more cream to skim, charging an increasing number of customers more money for the exact same level of service.

No consumption billing scheme to date has ever provided customers with a “fair share” system, because none of them result in no charge for no consumption or charge a flat fee per gigabyte.  Instead, customers are allocated a pre-determined allowance for usage, charged whether they use it or not.  If they exceed it, punishing overlimit fees are always the result, unless a provider takes another step towards monetizing broadband by inventing overpriced “insurance plans” to protect consumers from overage fees.  The cost of delivering that data is already built-in to the price of today’s broadband plans, and those costs continue to decline.

Higginbotham adds another factor in the equation: with insufficient competition, those “fair share” schemes can inflate prices and lower allowances at a whim, as most customers lack a wide variety of competitors to choose from, which could help keep the greed factor in check.

Most places have two providers that offer slightly different sets of services and plans, making it hard to compare prices. I don’t mind paying more for a better network (I do so for my cell phone), but most consumers lack that option when it comes to wired access. Comcast—which competes against Verizon in about 12% of its footprint—is rolling out faster broadband to ensure that customers don’t leave the cable provider for Verizon’s fiber. But in other areas of the country, such as here in Austin, Tex., folks must choose between DSL (with some U-verse) and cable that hasn’t been upgraded to the faster DOCSIS 3.0 speeds.

Austin was one of the test markets for Time Warner Cable’s reviled “consumption billing experiment” this past April.  In other test cities, it’s more of the same.  In Rochester, New York broadband service is realistically available from two major players — Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications.  The former has apparently passed over Rochester for DOCSIS 3 upgrades because the cable operator sees little need to upgrade service in an area whose only primary competitor believes DSL service is good enough, one that has stubbornly kept an Acceptable Use Policy defining an appropriate amount of usage at a piddly five gigabytes per month, and thinks fiber is for breakfast cereals, not for Flower City residents.

Verizon’s words help call out the fiction that some providers have used to peddle Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers.  It’s not about “fairness,” it’s not about “exafloods and Internet brownouts,” nor is it about “expanding networks.”  It’s about profit, pure and simple.  When you have a duopoly in place for broadband and almost no regulation governing that service, the sky is the limit for price increases and limits on usage.

[flv width=”480″ height=”284″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Whitton On Telecom Delivery 2-25-09.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Executive Director of Access Technologies Brian Whitton speaks about the future of telecommunication delivery technologies with Kimberlie Dykeman of Web2point0.tv at The Future of Television East conference in New York (February 25, 2009 – 11 minutes)

AT&T Mobility wanted Verizon Wireless to stop showing ads that call out the differences between the two wireless competitors’ national 3G networks.  When Verizon didn’t, AT&T sued.  This week Verizon Wireless doubles down with three new holiday season ads that are guaranteed to enrage AT&T even further.

Anyone who has seen a Rankin/Bass holiday special will instantly recognize at least one of the ads is a play on the Island of Misfit Toys, seen in the 1964 holiday classic Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

[flv width=”620″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Wireless Verizon Misfit Toys Ad.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless – “The Island of Misfit Toys” (30 seconds)

AT&T accuses Verizon Wireless of misrepresenting its national data coverage by showing non-3G areas in white, a color AT&T says traditionally represents no service at all.  AT&T says its wireless data network, in its entirety, is more expansive than Verizon’s.  Verizon counters its ads only compare 3G coverage, and clearly label the maps as such, including a fine print disclaimer indicating “voice and data services available outside 3G coverage area.”

AT&T further argues watching frustrated consumers shaking their phones or sitting alone because they were unable to meet up with their friends would suggest to a casual viewer they weren’t able to access any service.

[flv width=”620″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Wireless Blue Christmas Ad.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless – “Blue Christmas” is sure to draw the ire of AT&T as a frustrated father visibly shakes his iPhone and never seems to be able to use it. (30 seconds)

Verizon Wireless’ attorneys officially responded to the AT&T request for a temporary restraining order to pull the ads off the air with a direct opening: “AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s ‘There’s A Map For That’ advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.”

The attorneys argue, “Remarkably, AT&T admits that the 3G coverage maps — the one thing that is common to all five ads — are accurate and that the ads’ express statement that Verizon has ‘5X More 3G Coverage’ than AT&T is true.”

AT&T has been one of the loudest voices in this advertising battle, spending many millions of dollars to market its 3G network as the “Nation’s Fastest 3G Network” and, with its exclusive partner Apple, naming the latest iPhone (only available on AT&T’s network) the “iPhone 3GS.”

The stark truth, as revealed by the concededly accurate coverage maps in Verizon’s advertising, is that the geographic reach of AT&T’s 3G network is far less extensive than AT&T would have the public believe — and far less extensive than Verizon’s 3G network. Consumers who are interested in smartphones have a strong interest in knowing the comparative 3G coverage offered by Verizon and AT&T.  Cutting off the free flow of information about Verizon’s more extensive 3G coverage would harm consumers in a way that could not be redressed.  And because injury to First Amendment rights is by definition irreparable, suppressing Verizon’s speech on an “emergency” basis before a definitive and fair adjudication would irreparably injure Verizon and its goodwill in addition to costing Verizon customers. Any harm to AT&T, in contrast, is merely speculative.

In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon’s side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T’s confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business, and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger.

[flv width=”620″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Wireless Elves Ad.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless – “Elves” includes the line “good luck browsing the web with that one.” (30 seconds)

AT&T has gone all out to find confused consumers to back up their request for a temporary restraining order, running a survey asking ordinary cell phone users what they thought Verizon Wireless’ ads meant.  But Verizon Wireless answers the survey wasn’t limited to smartphone customers, who are already well aware of the differences between 3G and older, slower speed data networks, and for that reason the results are invalid.

Verizon Wireless says it will continue the aggressive campaign beyond the all-important holiday season, when cell phone handset sales are at some of their highest traditional levels.

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.

Bray Cary, Host of Decision Makers

A network of West Virginia television stations spent 20 minutes this past Sunday airing a puff piece that could have been a video press release straight out of Frontier’s public relations department.  Decision Makers, a self-described “agenda setting” public affairs program ostensibly puts important people on the “hot seat” to answer “tough questions about where West Virginia is heading and how it will get there.”

Hardball this was not. Host Bray Cary, who also happens to serve as president and CEO of the television station group, presided over a one-sided softball tournament for Ken Arndt, Frontier’s new Southeast region chief in a 20 minute interview where the hardest question was likely posed off camera – ‘where would you like to do lunch?’

Decision Makers is seen across West Virginia on Cary’s statewide network of television stations — WOWK in Charleston-Huntington, WBOY in Clarksburg-Morgantown, WTRF in Wheeling and WVNS in Beckley-Bluefield.

The appearance of Arndt on the program comes the same week Frontier reportedly committed to purchasing significant advertising time on the stations, leading a Stop the Cap! reader who informed us about the program to ponder whether this Fluff-Fest was part of the ad deal.

Viewers on the public comment section for the show were unimpressed.

“I can’t believe Mr. Cary didn’t ask the Frontier guy any hard questions. It was like a 20 minute commercial for Frontier, is that what you get for buying advertising with the station,” asked one.  “I believe that we would all like to hear and understand Frontier’s direct response to challenging questions from an involved, and knowledgeable speaker. We need to hear more then a branding speech,” said another.

The interview was loaded with misleading and occasionally false statements, often coming from the program host, who served as presiding cheerleader.  You can watch the program’s two segments, and then take a look at our reality check (and if an all-consumer volunteer website can manage this, why can’t Mr. Cary?)

[Video No Longer Available]

Now that you’ve watched, let’s review the misleading statements, some made by Arndt, some by the host:

“You guys are serving 35% of West Virginia – that’s a third of the phones.”

Frontier may serve 35% of the landmass of West Virginia, but not 35% of the population, which is a very important distinction.  Verizon has the overwhelming majority of customers in the state, not the tw0-thirds this statement suggests.

“I guess the only guys fighting you all right now are the Communications Workers of America union workers.”

Ken Arndt - Frontier Communications

That, along with other dismissive comments made by Cary represent just how biased his interview was.  In many communities, citizens, businesses, utility commission staff, and yes – company workers are fighting this deal, because it’s bad news for every community facing a Frontier takeover.  Of course, Cary doesn’t have anyone on his program to refute his guest (or him for that matter.)

“From a timelime perspective, and we’re actually finishing our [broadband expansion] engineering plan right now — by December 15th, my expectation is within the first 18 months we will make a substantial increase raising that 60% (of Verizon broadband penetration) exponentially and making a large investment and bringing in the individuals — the engineering and construction talent to be able to get it done as quickly as possible.”

Frontier anticipates cutting $500 million in costs per year if the deal consummates, according to Bloomberg News. Job cuts at both Frontier and Verizon will create some of that savings, according to Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier’s CEO.  Customer service and field-technician jobs won’t be eliminated, she claims, but with a need for that level of cost savings, combined with the enormous debt Frontier will assume, where the resources to accomplish this expansion will come from is not explained.

Frontier’s broadband expansion targets so-called “middle-mile” expansion.  That was precisely what was done in Rochester.  Fiber optics are used to connect various central offices and some remote network extenders (known as DSLAMs) to try and extend DSL service into more distant areas further away from the central office.  DSL speed is highly dependent on distance.  The further away you get, the lower the speed you can obtain.  Frontier plans to install limited amounts of fiber linking their offices in hopes of providing DSL service in areas that do not have access to it currently.  Unfortunately, every indication is that Frontier’s DSL in most parts of West Virginia will provide a maximum of 3Mbps, if you’re lucky.  In communities like Rochester, DSL service is marketed at 10Mbps, but as I’ve experienced myself, that speed really turned out to be 3.1Mbps living less than one-half mile from the city line.

To many consumers, hearing talk about fiber optics may leave the impression they’ll have this type of connection in their home or business.  That’s highly unlikely.  Frontier fiber serves their own internal network.  Verizon FiOS serves you directly on a fiber optic cable.

‘In West Virginia in 2007 Frontier lost 2.7% of our access lines.  In Verizon’s footprint they lost 6.7%.  In 2008, Frontier’s lost just 2% while Verizon increased [their loss] to over 8%.  Frontier has put together unique packages that continually add value to landlines.  It’s through [Frontier’s] packaging, providing unique services and unique technologies [that the company limits losses].’

Frontier is in the enviable position of focusing on rural markets long bypassed by the phone company’s biggest threats: cable and wireless competition.  Verizon is not.  The real reason for the dramatic difference in line loss is that Frontier customers often have no other choices for telecommunications services.  In West Virginia, cable does not serve many rural communities, so there is no “digital phone” competition to worry about.  Mobile phones in the most mountainous regions of the state can offer problematic service if it’s the only phone you have.  Verizon, which does face relentless cable television competition, pays the price in greater line loss.  Rural West Virginia has a much higher population of elderly residents, who are usually the least likely to drop traditional phone service.  In fact, no state has a higher population of the rural elderly except Florida.

These factors afford Frontier more protection from line loss, not the so-called “unique services and unique technologies” the company only speaks about generally.

Arndt also responds to a question about Frontier’s plans for fiber and other forms of “telco-TV” such as that provided by Verizon FiOS.  After noting the company does plan to move forward on an extremely limited basis by finishing FiOS projects already under construction, Arndt signals Frontier believes its status as a simple reseller of DISH satellite service somehow provides a superior solution to telephone company provided television.

Not really.

Who needs Frontier to sign up for DISH?  Customers can sign up directly themselves.  The advantage of “telco TV” really comes from the construction of the network to support it.  Both AT&T and Verizon have built television-ready networks which not only compete with cable, but also give their customers more and better broadband choices that Frontier cannot and will not offer consumers.  Frontier tries to valiantly spin its copper cable future by saying satellite television offers a better service, but in reality, being a DISH Network reseller hardly is in the same class as FiOS or U-verse.

Residents in the affected areas need to consider whether they are tying themselves to a company that believes copper wire slow speed DSL is good enough for now and into the indefinite future, has no plans to directly compete with cable and other providers in delivering a wired telephone company cable service, will not build FiOS-like fiber optic networks in areas that one day could have been wired by Verizon, and will live with a company content with delivering “ubiquity” of service across all of its service areas, which in reality means large communities will suffer with lowest common denominator service, and rural communities will be lucky to get “good enough for you” broadband.

Arndt’s comments about fiber connectivity in selected portions of their service area refer mostly to multi-dwelling units and new housing developments where service was provided more cost effectively through a shared fiber connection.  That’s not FiOS either.

Color us unexcited about the prospect of Frontier’s ‘unique cable television via broadband service’ Arndt hints at.  That is almost certainly the new DISH set top box that can connect to your Frontier DSL service to stream on-demand television shows.  With Frontier’s 5GB Acceptable Use Policy for broadband, don’t expect to watch too much if and when they enforce the limit.

Among the most shameful segments of the 20 minute video press release Cary presides over is in the second half, when he asks and answers his own questions, spun in Frontier’s direction, about their ability to digest Verizon’s operations that dramatically dwarf Frontier’s current size and scope.  He’s even done “his research,” which suspiciously appears to be surfing through Frontier’s own talking points from their website and public relations efforts.  As far as Cary is concerned, Wall Street says they “like” the deal, and opposition to it is “a lot of noise.”

Arndt responds that the opposition to the deal comes because of FairPoint Communications, which he says failed because of the complexities of integrating their billing systems.  As Stop the Cap! readers already know, FairPoint’s troubles went well beyond computer integration problems.  Arndt’s reasoning is akin to saying New Orleans drowned in Hurricane Katrina because a storm sewer up the street was clogged.  More than 20 news reports on this site alone document the entire sordid story.  On every level, FairPoint failed New England for a range of reasons:

1. The enormous debt FairPoint was saddled with made it difficult for the company to spend the money necessary to maintain and grow their network and survive an economic downturn.  Frontier will also take on enormous debt during a challenging economy and claims it will spend millions to expand broadband service into rural areas where fewer potential customers mean a longer Return On Investment;
2. FairPoint’s acquisition of Verizon New England involved more customers than FairPoint served nationwide before the buyout.  The exact same thing is true of Frontier in this deal;
3. FairPoint’s earlier acquisitions were small, independent phone companies run with limited bureaucracy.  Verizon, and its predecessor Bell System businesses, have done things their own way for decades, making theoretical transitions doable on paper and chaotic in reality.  The exact same scenario exists with Frontier’s purchase of Verizon service areas;
4. Poor service, unresponsive and overwhelmed customer service centers, insufficient investment, and broken promises plagued FairPoint’s New England adventure from day one.  Frontier risks repeating FairPoint’s mistakes, putting customers with no other options for telecommunications service at serious risk.

Cary doesn’t have the insight or the interest in digging down into Arndt’s claims.  Maybe he forgot.  As far as Cary is concerned, everyone in West Virginia should just get familiar with the Frontier name.

Of course, actual consumers aren’t invited on Decision Makers.  Nor are any groups opposed to the deal.  But West Virginians and others can be “decision makers” and choose a different path for their telecommunications future.  They can get on the phone and call their state representatives and tell them to oppose the deal.  They can also contact the state utility commission and file their own comments telling them this deal isn’t worth the risk — three bankruptcies out of three earlier deals.

Even when playing this kind of softball, three strikes should mean you are out.

Washington State

Saying the sale would harm customers, Washington state utilities’ commission staff is recommending rejecting a proposed sale of Verizon’s landline residential and commercial telephone business in Washington to Frontier Communications.

In raising objections to the proposed Frontier-Verizon transaction, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) staff members concluded the business deal is not in the public interest. The proposed purchase does not include Verizon Wireless customers.

The three-member UTC, which will make the final decision early next year, will consider whether state ratepayers would be harmed by the proposed transaction, which is part of an $8.6 billion bid by Frontier to acquire 4.8 million Verizon phone lines in 14 states.

“There may not be any way for Frontier to provide benefits to Washington customers that offset the financial harm and operational risks,” said commission staff in their written testimony. “The failure of the companies to offer adequate consumer benefits or protections puts customers at risk of being served by a company without enough financial strength to make necessary improvements to local telephone facilities and widen deployment of broadband access.”

The Commission staff believes Frontier’s proposal to improve service is loaded with risk:

• The company’s credit rating is lower than Verizon, making capital difficult to obtain in a credit-challenged economy.  Without such capital, Frontier cannot make improvements to the telephone network.
• Frontier’s ranking as a relatively small independent phone company means it will face “higher per unit” costs because of the unavailability of volume discounts super-sized companies like Verizon enjoy.
• Frontier could easily face the same fate as three other Verizon spinoffs – a fast trip to bankruptcy court, but only after providing lousy service and broken promises to customers along the way.

Frontier said it would file a formal rebuttal to the comments later this month.  The company disputes the conclusions reached by the utility commission staff, saying the company will reduce its dividend to free up financial resources and will aggressively expand broadband availability in their service areas.

But the findings from Washington state are familiar to readers of Stop the Cap! They are largely the same echoed by the campaign to stop the sale of West Virginia’s landlines to Frontier.  The Communications Workers of America issued a press release reminding West Virginians Frontier enjoys abysmal approval ratings for its broadband service, based on an independent survey done by PC Magazine we covered a few months back.  Verizon ranks number one in customer satisfaction, in part thanks to its FiOS fiber to the home service.

Union spokeswoman Elaine Harris said, “The economic growth and development of West Virginia depends on having modern, high-speed Internet access. It’s not in the public’s best interest for West Virginia to replace the leader in broadband service with a smaller company whose customer satisfaction is appallingly low.”

Frontier’s defense to union objections is that Verizon hasn’t yet wired any customers in West Virginia for FiOS, and many parts of the state don’t have any broadband, so customer satisfaction numbers don’t matter if you don’t have any service.  Frontier claims it has good customer reviews in West Virginia, but offered no evidence to back up their claim.

So far, the Washington state commission has received 93 public comments with five in favor, 40 undecided and 48 opposed to the proposed sale. Washington customers who would like to comment on the case are encouraged to send correspondence to:

Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 47250
Olympia, WA 98504

e-mail comments: [email protected] or call toll-free 1-888-333-9882.

The commission’s deadline for accepting public comments is Jan. 11, 2010.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg News Frontier Maggie Wilderotter 11-4-09.flv[/flv]

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter appeared on Bloomberg TV on November 4th to discuss the company’s challenges from declining wireline telephone service. Wilderotter’s spin is that disconnected dial-up residential lines and business data circuits represent some of that loss.  Wilderotter agrees with the anchor’s contention that delivering broadband in rural areas where there is not a lot of competition is good for Frontier. But is it good for consumers?(3 minutes)

Frontier Communications reported its third quarter results earlier today with an 11% increase in net profits “attributable to shareholders,” but a 6% decline in revenue, mostly due to losing an additional 34,000 consumer and business line accounts in the third quarter.  Thanks to selling add-ons like calling features and broadband, the company managed an average 1% increase in revenue per line.  Wilderotter said improved customer metrics and disciplined cost control was responsible for the increase in profits.