Verizon is notifying some of its FiOS TV customers they will be paying $8 more a month “within 1-3 billing cycles” and a dollar more a month for the Regional Sports Network Fee, applicable in some areas.

(Courtesy: andrade6503)

Cable operators are increasingly breaking out high cost programming, including sports and local broadcast stations, from the basic cable tier and adding surcharges on the customer’s bill, often with no option to cancel the offending programming. Many operators also leave the price of their basic cable packages the same, creating a surcharge-driven, hidden rate increase.

Pay television providers have argued that some of the biggest rate increases occur after programmers raise prices during contract renewal talks. Breaking the fees out on the bill can re-target blame for rate increases on programmers instead of the cable, satellite, or telephone company, assuming customers scrutinize their bill.

Verizon “redacted” hundreds of pages of information about its controversial Voice Link project, including its User’s Guide.

Verizon today lost its appeal to keep company documents about its controversial Voice Link wireless landline replacement away from company critics that allege the company is intentionally undercutting its landline network and redirecting investment towards its more profitable wireless service.

In a 20-page decision published this afternoon, Kathleen Burgess blamed Verizon for hurting its own case with excessive secrecy.

“But for Verizon’s failure to submit documents with fewer redactions, as directed by the Records Access Officer (RAO), it might have satisfied its burden of proof,” that the company would suffer harm if it released proprietary information that could be accessed by competing providers, ruled Burgess.

Burgess took a dim view of Verizon’s attempt to claim blanket confidentiality for its Voice Link project, even including a redaction of Voice Link’s User’s Manual — the same one given to customers subscribing to the service. Burgess noted in response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request from consumer groups, Verizon responded with “13 documents – 330 pages – with blanket redactions except for the page headings and page numbers.”

Verizon needed to meet its burden of proof by “presenting specific, persuasive evidence that disclosure will likely cause it, or another affected enterprise, to suffer a competitive injury.”

“Verizon apparently believes that it is possible to meet the burden of protecting information under FOIL by providing a cogent and persuasive explanation of how a competitor could use the information and why it is likely to lead to harm,” Burgess observed (emphasis ours). “As an initial matter, [Verizon] has not parsed out each of the 13 documents and demonstrated how each, if disclosed, would competitively injure it. Instead, Verizon is attempting to obtain a blanket exemption for all 13 documents by summarily stating that disclosure would enable competitors to obtain, for free, information on processes that the company developed at considerable expense and effort. Verizon has, however, failed to demonstrate, in adequate detail, how the complete disclosure of all 13 documents would result in substantial competitive injury.”

Verizon hurt its own case by “co-mingling” detailed cost information that might otherwise win confidentiality with the Public Service Commission with less proprietary marketing information and even publicly available documents and then redacted all of them, according to Burgess.

As a result, Verizon lost its case:

The Commission recognizes that limiting competitor access to proprietary material is an important policy. Exemptions are to be narrowly construed, however. The entity resisting disclosure bears the burden of proof and, therefore, must demonstrate a particularized and specific justification for denying access to the subject documents. Absent such a showing of competitive injury covering each document that comprises the response, the speculative concerns articulated by Verizon are not enough to sustain the company’s burden of proving that the information should remain protected as trade secret materials.

[…] Under FOIL case law, the burden is on Verizon to demonstrate a particularized and specific justification, supported by evidence, for denying access to the documents at issue and, inasmuch as Verizon has failed to meet its burden, I uphold the RAO’s November 4, 2013 Determination.

Absent a court order or later ruling, full versions of the blacked-out documents may become public two weeks from today.

“Use it or lose it” is the policy under which the Federal Communications Commission licenses scarce, publicly owned airwaves, but in practice companies warehousing unused spectrum can sell it off and make a handsome profit.

Reuters today reports T-Mobile USA is exploring a spectrum buy from its rival Verizon Wireless to bolster wireless data services to effectively compete against Verizon, AT&T and Sprint.

A source told Reuters the deal is in the early stages and could involve the purchase of Verizon’s unused “A” Block 700MHz spectrum, ideal for long distance and indoor reception. Verizon chief financial officer Fran Shammo earlier said the company was not going to sell its unused spectrum at “fire sale” prices and recently rejected an offer deemed to be too low. One analyst estimated the value of Verizon’s excess “A” spectrum to be as high as $3 billion.

T-Mobile, owned by Deutsche Telekom, told investors on Nov. 12 it was launching an equity offering to raise money for spectrum deals with a private, unnamed party. T-Mobile raised $1.8 billion through a sale of its common stock last week and offered $2 billion in bonds on Nov. 18 with the expected aim of funding future spectrum purchases.

Verizon acquired the spectrum in 2008, part of a broader auction that sold off frequencies formerly used by UHF TV channels 52-69. The “A” block is considered less desirable because of adjacent interference concerns in areas where a television station operates on Ch. 51. Those stations may not be there for long. The FCC is proposing to auction off UHF channels 31-51 to wireless companies in the future, reducing UHF TV to channels 14-30. Verizon’s “A” block licenses do not blanket the entire country, but can cover a number of major cities. Verizon Wireless deployed its LTE 4G network on its “C” block.

Verizon’s Home Phone Connect base station

Despite assertions that Verizon created Voice Link as a solution for customers suffering from chronic landline problems, in reality the wireless landline replacement is nearly identical to Verizon Wireless’ Home Phone Connect and was produced only because of a complicated business relationship the wireless carrier had with its part owner Vodafone.

A Verizon spokesman told Stop the Cap! in June Voice Link was created for use where Verizon’s copper customers had chronic repairs issues:

Verizon will maintain the copper network where it makes customer service and business sense to do so.  Please keep in mind that the vast majority of our copper customers have no issues at all with their service; we are only considering the universe of customers where the copper network is not supporting their requirements.  Again, the exception is the storm-impacted areas in the western portion of Fire Island and a few New Jersey Barrier communities where copper facilities were damaged beyond repair.  In these locations Voice Link will be the single voice option available to customers. Verizon will offer these customers the opportunity to use our state-of-the-art, tried and tested wireless network at the same rate (or better) that they pay today.

Business sense appears to have played a great deal in Verizon’s strange decision to produce and market two nearly identical products. Hired by Verizon, William E. Taylor, a special consultant with National Economic Research Associates, Inc., testified last week that both Voice Link and Home Phone Connect are intended to compete in the landline replacement marketplace:

Home wireless services are a rapidly growing alternative to wireline plain old telephone service for many customers throughout New York State. In competition with Verizon’s Voice Link service, AT&T offers a Wireless Home Phone and Internet service with unlimited nationwide voice service at $20 per month with broadband internet service at higher prices, wherever its 4G LTE network is available. Sprint offers a competing wireless home service at $20 per month, as does U.S. Cellular. Wal-Mart sells its comparable Straight Talk prepaid wireless home voice service for $15 a month together with additional optional prepaid broadband internet access service. These offerings are similar to Verizon Wireless Home Phone Connect service, and differ in some features from Verizon New York’s Voice Link service but compete directly with both services.

Thus, one immediate and real competitive effect of the public release of Verizon’s wireline and Voice Link cost data would be to enable these four competitors (and others) to assess Verizon’s price floor for wireline voice service as an element in pricing their wireless home network services and calculating the profitability of expanding their wireless networks to provide wireless home phone service on Fire Island and elsewhere.

Verizon Voice Link

Taylor’s provided his declaration as part of Verizon’s case not to reveal certain documents (for competitive reasons) to the public about Voice Link deployment in New York and New Jersey. Verizon has offered Voice Link either as an option or, originally, as a sole landline replacement in areas considered uneconomical for landline restoration. But Taylor’s testimony also suggests Voice Link wasn’t necessarily created to solve chronic landline problems or replace landlines in natural disaster areas. In fact, Taylor testified Voice Link is just one of several competitors in the landline replacement market, including one from Verizon Wireless. In 2011, Verizon Wireless began national marketing of Home Phone Connect, a home wireless landline replacement product marketed to cord-cutters.

Verizon Communications chief financial officer Fran Shammo explained why Verizon Voice Link and Verizon Wireless Home Phone Connect both exist during remarks at the Wells Fargo Technology, Media & Telecom Conference on Nov. 12. Shammo blamed a complicated business relationship between Verizon, Verizon Wireless, and Vodafone which owned 45% of Verizon’s wireless venture for the near-twin services. The result was an informal “wall” between two Verizon entities, one devoted to landline and FiOS service, the other wireless — both selling essentially the same wireless product.

“The easiest way I can explain this is if you look at our product called Home Phone Connect, which was developed on the wireless side of the house,” Shammo said. “This is the product that you plug into your wall at home, converting the copper wire inside your home to an LTE network for voice. So in essence it is a copper voice replacement product. Now you would think that we would be able to take that same product and market it on the wireline side of the house. But we were prohibited because of governance and affiliate transactions. So the wireline business went out and developed their own product called Voice Link, which now they sell to their copper and DSL customers.”

Shammo admitted creating both Home Phone Connect and Voice Link was “a pretty inefficient way to develop product.”

So when this governance affiliate transaction-wall is taken away, you then can become a much more efficient company to launch one product to your customer, whether it is a wireline product or a wireless product,” he added. Shammo also believes tearing down that wall and tightly integrating Verizon’s wireline and wireless businesses will create “the soft synergies of the new Verizon that we believe we can create here.”

That might be bad news for Verizon’s rural landline customers, because Verizon’s current CEO is no fan of maintaining rural copper landline service when Verizon Wireless can do the job for less money and the open the door to higher profits.

“In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” said Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam in June of last year. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it. The vision that I have is we are going into the copper plant areas and every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper. We are going to just take it out of service and we are going to move those services onto FiOS. We have got parallel networks in way too many places now, so that is a pot of gold in my view.”

The wall that divided Verizon and Verizon Wireless may eventually be rebuilt between rural landline customers transitioned to wireless service as the only available landline replacement technology and urban and suburban customers offered Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home service FiOS.

The WiredWest Cooperative
Towns shown above are official voting members of the WiredWest Cooperative. The town of Montgomery has also recently become a member. Requirements for new towns including being contiguous and directly accessible by road from another WiredWest member town, and less than 50% served by cable broadband.

Although plans to offer publicly owned fiber to the home service in 42 western Massachusetts communities are moving forward, a proposed $10 million taxpayer-funded incentive to encourage Comcast to expand cable service in western Massachusetts could mean the cable giant might get to some of those communities first.

Reps. Stephen Kulik (D-Worthington), Paul Mark (D-Cuba) and Sens. Stanley Rosenberg (D-Amherst) and Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfield) have filed an amendment to Gov. Deval Patrick’s $40 million community broadband bond bill requesting a $10 million incentive be included to underwrite Comcast’s expenses to expand cable service into areas the company has long declared unprofitable.

“It’s challenging, because you cannot overbuild a new broadband network where there is existing service,” Kulik told The Recorder. “What we’re proposing is to add language to this bill, to provide incentive money to expand cable service.  The partial cable towns aren’t eligible for federal funds. Carving out a way to reach out to these towns and extend cable seems a better way to do this.”

The dozens of communities participating in the WiredWest community broadband consortium have waited years for better broadband service. Rural western Massachusetts has been largely bypassed by Verizon, which only offers limited DSL service to some customers. Dominant cable provider Comcast primarily serves denser neighborhoods in selected towns.

Life is particularly complicated for the handful of communities that have some service from Verizon and/or Comcast, because almost all federal broadband grants are available only to communities that don’t have Internet access. These partially served areas, dubbed “cable towns,” are frustrated by government grants that only direct funding to areas where no service is available and are on the receiving end of endless complaints from local residents suffering broadband envy, knowing a neighbor up the street has had cable service for 30 years while many others are left in limbo.

Kulik

In August, Chris Saner of Huntington told the newspaper Comcast’s cable line ends 1.4 miles down the road from his house. The cable company would be happy to extend service to the roadway in front of his home for $24,000. If Saner had to sell his home, that investment might be mandatory to help find a buyer. Saner should know, as he works in real estate. Prospective buyers tell him, “don’t even show me anything where there’s no cable.”

Broadband access has become so critical, some don’t care whether they get it from WiredWest’s future fiber network or Comcast’s coax.

Fiber broadband “is lobster and filet mignon. Cable is hamburger, but give us hamburger —we’re starving out here,” Saner said.

The $10 million proposal from the four Massachusetts Democrats could bring faster cable Internet service for some residents, but could also potentially undercut fiber access down the road.

Comcast isn’t likely to expand service on its own, citing Return On Investment formulas that make expansion unprofitable. A $10 million incentive could resolve some of those cost concerns, but critics call it corporate welfare.

Robbie Leppzer, a Wendell documentary filmmaker who has been involved in the struggle to improve broadband in western Massachusetts for years, suggests that taxpayer funds would be better spent in the public sector, “where towns and their residents have more say in the process.”

“Personally, I would love to see a nonprofit, community-based solution because it would be a more effective use of money, and it would keep it in the fiber-optic realm,” Leppzer told the newspaper. “While [coaxial cable] may be adequate for now, it will not meet the needs of the 21st century.”

Ironically, western Massachusetts may eventually get the fastest Internet speeds in the state from the Massachusetts Broadband Institute’s $71.5 million middle-mile network, now 95 percent complete. MBI’s priority is to build the regional fiber network and provision it for institutional customers including municipal buildings, schools, hospitals, libraries, fire and police departments. Once complete, the network’s second phase involves expanding access to the public.

The WiredWest consortium will be the public-facing part of the project, responsible for marketing high-bandwidth, affordable Internet, phone, high-definition television services and ancillary services to residents and businesses. WiredWest wants to build a 1,952-mile fiber-to-the-home network off MBI’s regional fiber backbone and institutional network.

One of the most common questions from eager would-be customers is exactly when the fiber network will be finished and open for business to the public. Funding remains the biggest impediment. The cost of wiring residents for fiber service across the 42-town consortium ranges from $70 million to $130 million. It’s a substantial sum for small communities to cover, but the project does enjoy economy of scale that could ultimately save taxpayer dollars.

In Leverett, which has been building a fiber-to-the-home network on its own, the price tag for the 1,900 residents is $3.6 million — the amount of the bond secured to launch the project. Leverett residents will cover the costs of the fiber network through a tax increase that will amount to $295 a year over 20 years for a home assessed at $278,700.

The state can continue to budget about $40 million annually to gradually connect residents to the WiredWest fiber network or find Comcast expansion a better choice at a quarter of the price in some communities. It could even fund both. For some elected officials, getting broadband to communities using any means necessary is the primary goal. Downing thinks the western half of the state has waited long enough for broadband, noting the improvement initiative started in 2008. He wants the project finished before Patrick leaves office.

“We should all recognize that 18 months from now is the end of this administration,” Downing said. “And there is no guarantee that the next governor will share the same commitment for this project.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Viodi Broadband – Unique to Each Locale 11-13-13.mp4[/flv]

The western Massachusetts middle-mile/fiber to the home project is being developed in cooperation with Axia Technology Partners, a consulting, engineering, and construction firm. Tim Scott talks to Viodi.tv about Axia’s role as the operator for the Massachusetts community network. (7:45)