Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them.

This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment of some $4 million dollars in its broadband networks in Charles Town and Princeton, West Virginia.  But the best part was the claim the upgrades would “offer customers fast broadband speeds and near-unlimited bandwidth capacity.”

In Princeton, 44 miles of fiber-optic cable will connect all Frontier High-Speed Internet (HSI) equipment to the exchange`s main switch, and 37 additional miles of fiber cable are being installed in the Charles Town exchange. These upgrades will allow Residential HSI speeds of up to 6 Meg and Business HSI speeds of up to 12 Meg. The upgrades will allow provisioning of Metro Ethernet service of up to 100 Meg, resulting in very high data speeds for private networks among multiple business locations.

These upgrades are all well and good, and are perhaps more than urban-focused Verizon was willing to do in the state, but before West Virginians get too excited by the words “fiber cable” and “near-unlimited bandwidth capacity,” it might be wise to consider the implications of transferring an entire state’s telephone business to a company that still insists on defining an “appropriate amount of usage” on that near-unlimited network at a piddly 5GB per month.

The company also promoted their “computer giveaway” program:

Recognizing that the lack of a personal computer is a barrier for many families, since 2006 Frontier has provided more than 10,000 free computers to qualifying customers in West Virginia. A large percentage of the computers went to first time computer households, who also benefited from free on-site installation.

To the uninitiated, that may suggest a benevolent phone company handing out free computers to the needy with no strings attached.  In fact, this was a Frontier customer acquisition promotion.  Customers signing up for a bundle of telephone and broadband and/or satellite service could qualify for a free basic Dell Netbook (valued at under $400), if they are in good standing with the company, agree to a “price protection agreement” holding them to the company for two years (or facing a nasty early termination fee running several hundred dollars), and also pay a handling fee:

Customer pays handling charges and taxes totaling $45. Customers must subscribe to a new package of Frontier residential local service with features, Unlimited Nationwide or Statewide Long Distance voice-calling and qualifying High-Speed Internet service. Requires a two-year Price Protection Plan on Frontier services (excludes satellite TV) with a $300 early termination fee. Offer available while supplies last. Frontier reserves the right to substitute a comparable Mini Laptop. Other offers available for existing High-Speed Internet customers. Applicable taxes and surcharges apply. Electronic or other written contract signature for Frontier services is required. Some Frontier services are subject to availability. Installation charges may apply. Unlimited U.S. Long Distance minutes are for residential voice usage and exclude 900, international, directory assistance and dial-up Internet calls.

For a whole lot of West Virginia, broadband service means one thing – DSL from the phone company.  Satellite broadband is costly, capped, and has terrible customer satisfaction ratings.  Cable television is a dream for significant parts of the mountainous state.  Do West Virginians want to risk their broadband future on a company that insists on an Acceptable Use Policy with a 5GB usage limit in it?

Residents of Rochester, New York know Frontier Communications all too well.  They’ve been our local telephone company since being absorbed by Citizens Communications after the colossal downfall of Global Crossing, which took ownership of the formerly independent Rochester Telephone Corporation.

Don’t let dreams of fiber dance too much in your head.  Frontier routinely installs fiber, but only between their central offices and remote equipment that helps reduce the distance between telephone switch equipment and the copper wiring out on the telephone poles.  It does help provide the potential of speed increases for DSL service by reducing the length of copper wire DSL travels on, but by no means should imply West Virginia will see fiber to the home in their near future.

If Frontier Communications lacks the means and the will to wire New York’s second largest economy and third largest metropolitan area with more than 1,000,000 residents with fiber to the home, don’t think for a moment they’re going to be any hurry to light up the state of West Virginia.

Indeed, for many residents of the Flower City, the bloom is well off Frontier’s rose, trapping this community in a broadband backwater with a telephone company unwilling and/or unable to provide the kind of 21st century broadband service that is presently being provided in several other upstate cities as Verizon installs its FiOS fiber network.  For Rochester, and for too many other cities, the broadband superhighway from the phone company has little more than tumbleweeds blowing across.

This site was founded last year when Frontier introduced its 5GB usage cap, and we coordinated a consumer response which forced the company to pull back from its enforcement.  But the threat still looms over the heads of their customers from coast to coast as long as it remains a part of their Acceptable Use Policy.

The time has come for Frontier to banish the 5GB language from its Acceptable Use Policy once and for all and stop toying with Internet Overcharging schemes altogether, especially as it seeks to bring the threat of those schemes to millions of Americans that may find their only realistic broadband option coming from this provider.  Otherwise, it’s time for consumers to get on the phones and tell their elected officials and public utility commissions how they feel about getting broadband service from a phone company that tells them:

Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

I usually don’t spend a whole lot of time debunking the more crazy conspiracy theories about Net Neutrality because I presume most online users are smart enough not to be suckered into sideshow distractions, usually paid for by providers trying to wave shiny keys at consumers to get them to support things exactly opposite their own best interests.  Unfortunately, there are a few shills out there who insist on trying to conjure up bizarre conspiracy theories about Net Neutrality representing some sort of Obama Administration/left wing takeover of the Internet.

When Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog group, bought into this (and also sprang for the deluxe undercoatings, fabric protection, and deluxe floor mats), it was time to fire up the Debunk-o-matic once again and set the record straight.

What is particularly insulting is the ongoing effort to try and co-opt conservatives into this corporate protection circus, when truth be told, conservatives should absolutely be in favor of Net Neutrality for the same reasons any other person, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, should be — it protects their rights to be able to speak out on the issues that concern them the most, judged on the quality of their content, not on how much money they can pay to be sure those views can travel unimpeded to interested readers across the country and beyond.

Put on the rubber boots, because we’re going to splash through some inch deep puddles:

Enter the similarly-misnamed ‘net neutrality’ movement, which advocates total government control of Internet browsing. Net neutrality would forbid Internet service providers from regulating traffic on their networks, and would place that regulatory control in the hands of the FCC.

While the left bemoans restrictions by private companies on their subscribers’ use of the Internet, progressives have few qualms with allowing the federal government a say in what we can or cannot see, do, or say on the Internet.

The centralized control of Internet use by the federal government would provide a powerful tool for the censorship of websites deemed politically unfavorable. The current administration’s labeling of right-wing fringe groups as ‘extremists’ and potentially national security threats, and the labeling of town hall protestors as ‘political terrorists’ suggests that the realm of impermissible internet use could conceivably include groups that espouse intense opposition to federal policies.

I think author Lachlan Markay has been stuck in a parallel universe, like in that Star Trek episode, because he defined Net Neutrality the exact opposite of its reality.

The FCC can’t even get rational limits on cable system ownership to survive court review.  How Markay believes a naked attempt by the FCC to regulate political content on the Internet will pass muster requires something more than simply writing alarmist claims it will happen because he says it will.

The feeble effort to link town hall protesters and Obama conspiracy theories to the issue of Net Neutrality is a transparent effort to co-opt conservatives into a cause that means standing with the providers waiting to throttle their broadband speeds and charge their favorite websites more money.  I don’t believe for a second conservatives trust the local cable or phone company to do the right thing by them, as they continue to be stuck with ever-increasing bills for channels they don’t watch and certainly don’t want to pay for and phone features they don’t want or use, but end up paying for anyway.

Though no elected net neutrality advocate would ever suggest that the movement intends to regulate content, pundits on the left have been far more forthcoming. In March, a blogger at the Huffington Post lauding net neutrality wrote, “We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing.”

Markay attempts to bolster his argument by linking to a Huffington Post blogger that supposedly lets it all hang out in public — conspiracy revealed, case closed.  He assumes his readers won’t bother to click on the link, because if they do, they’ll discover Markay’s source didn’t have to be linked via HuffPost, he could have just turned around to the guy figuratively sitting at the desk behind him and quoted him directly.  Yes folks, he linked to a “Contributing Editor for NewsBusters.org,” the very site Markay writes for.

Seton Motley isn’t the go-to-guy for the quality expose either.  Indeed, Motley himself quoted from Joseph A. Palermo, another HuffPost blogger who penned a piece that proved he didn’t really understand Net Neutrality either.

Palermo instead advocated that progressive causes use broadband to bypass the “media filter” and talk to audiences directly.  Motley saw the words “Net Neutrality” in the headline and figured he’d done his job for the day.

Not so much. Not one of these people appears to understand what Net Neutrality is all about.

Net Neutrality is completely above the partisan divide because it insists, regardless of content, if it’s legal it should not be impeded by a broadband provider and should be allowed to travel unfettered across their wires.  Indeed, it also demands that the Internet be a true democracy of ideas, not one of entrenched interests with lots of money that can buy their way onto the fast lane while others make due with a potentially slower “free lane” that some providers proposed.

There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. The left is seeking net neutrality as a means of consolidating control over the Internet, the same way it sought consolidated control over the airwaves with the Fairness Doctrine, and the same way it is now seeking that same objective in the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘localism.’ Those on the center-right should not be fooled into thinking that ‘localism’ or ‘net neutrality’ promote free enterprise or free speech.

Yes, three people who completely misunderstand the basic premise of Net Neutrality have weighed in and passed judgment on Net Neutrality. Palermo wasn’t writing about Net Neutrality and it should have not been in his headline.  Motley went along for the ride and assumed Palermo knew what Net Neutrality was, and then reflexively attacked just because Palermo plays for the blue team and Motley plays for the red.  Markay just provided the frosting for this big cake of wrong and added even more rhetorical sprinkles on top.  All that’s missing from this recipe for disaster is a provider to come on by and overcharge everyone for a piece.

The true risk of consolidation of control of the Internet isn’t coming from the federal government, it is coming from the providers themselves.  Where Markay has no concrete examples of actual government abuse, I do have real world examples of what happens when Net Neutrality protection is not guaranteed by law.  Providers in Canada, where Net Neutrality does not exist, uniformly throttle the speeds of certain content, and at least one provider directly blocked access to a website because of a political/business dispute the site had with that provider.

What should really scare conservatives is not having Net Neutrality.  These policies guarantee the right for all Americans to speak their minds and share their views, even those polar opposites Glenn Beck and Janeane Garofalo.  Let the best ideas win.

Bazinet

Citigroup media analyst Jason Bazinet is among the first Wall Street investment analysts to call for the mother of all cable mergers – Comcast snapping up control of Time Warner Cable, respectively the nation’s largest and second largest cable operators.  Comcast reported having nearly 23.9 million customers at the end of June; Time Warner Cable said it had about 13 million customers.

In a research note issued today, Bazinet argued that a merger would result in major cost savings for both operators, including $1.6 billion dollars in savings possible from volume discounts for cable network programming to $1.1 billion in savings from employee layoffs, reduced marketing expenses, technical and customer service support, billing, and combining equipment purchases, among other things.  The total net present value of the synergies would come to around $11 billion to $12 billion. That’s not far from Time Warner Cable’s current market value of about $14 billion, according to The New York Times.

A super-sized Comcast would also be able to leverage lower prices when competitively necessary to keep a price advantage over satellite television and telephone company TV, according to Bazinet.

Both Time Warner Cable and Comcast have not publicly indicated any interest in combining forces.  Aside from the regulatory headaches probable from a more skeptical Obama Administration that might aggressively counter such a merger, Comcast Chief Operating Officer Stephen Burke questioned whether the cost savings were anywhere near as high as Bazinet speculated.

Multichannel News quoted Burke:

“We would like to get bigger if the economics were right,” Burke said. “Its pretty hard for me to see how there would be synergies on the programming side or on the hardware side when you go from 24 million subscribers to 27 [million] or 30 [million].”

Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt refused comment.

Still, Wall Street investors were interested.  Time Warner Cable stock shot up 3.5% this afternoon, while Comcast’s rose just a few cents during afternoon trading.

“Comcast isn’t looking to make a $50 billion purchase.”

Stephen Burke, Comcast Chief Operating Officer

Now that Comcast has been freed from that pesky provision of the 1992 Cable Act, authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to set a maximum size for large corporate cable operators, the nation’s largest cable operator is now considering breaking out the checkbook and going on a shopping spree.  That is likely to spark a merger and acquisition frenzy among several players in the industry which could dramatically reduce America’s choices for telecommunications services.

Bloomberg News this evening quotes Stephen Burke, Comcast’s Chief Operating Officer, that it will consider buying other cable operators at a “good price.”

“If there is a way to acquire cable systems for what we consider a good price, ones that are well managed, we would certainly look at whatever is out three,” Burke, 51, said today at a Bank of America Corp. conference in Marina del Rey, California. Still, the company “isn’t waking up every morning” evaluating how it can become bigger, he said.

The Wall Street Journal calls the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, freeing Comcast from its limits, the start of “the coming cable consolidation.”

Martin Peers, writing for the Journal, said that when the dust settles, phone companies might own satellite TV providers and cable companies might end up consolidating into one or two super-sized providers blanketing the entire country with service.

Consumers would be left with a handful of providers for all of their communications needs, from telephone to broadband to television, if the courts open the door with more decisions favorable to the industry and antitrust reviews aren’t aggressively undertaken.

Starting with Comcast, Burke thinks Comcast’s first priority might be to buy up more programmers.  Comcast already has ownership interests in several cable networks, and Burke feels “content channels are good businesses, and we wouldn’t be doing out job if we didn’t try to figure out a way to get bigger in those businesses.”

With Comcast and Cablevision joining forces to sue their way out of the cable network exclusivity ban, owning and controlling those networks, and what competitors get access to their programming, could be an important asset in an ever-consolidating marketplace.  Imagine if U-verse or FiOS was denied access to ESPN, The Weather Channel, CNN, and other popular cable channels.  Would subscribers be compelled to switch providers if they could no longer get the channels they want to watch?

The Journal ponders the coming consolidation frenzy:

Comcast and other cable companies will probably need to consider more consolidation — if not now, in the next couple of years. They are still losing market share to satellite and phone rivals. Comcast lost nearly 700,000 basic subscribers in the year to June. Time Warner Cable has fallen to No. 4 among TV providers, behind satellite firms DirecTV Group and Dish Network.

Cable operators are more than offsetting video losses by selling phone and Internet-access. Eventually, though, those opportunities will peter out. And phone companies’ competitive threat in video could be enhanced by a combination with satellite TV.

The newspaper speculates about this kind of marketplace in the near future:

Today's pay television marketplace

AT&T DirecTV: The Journal ponders an AT&T buyout of DirecTV resulting in a reduction in AT&T’s investment in U-verse, pushing consumers to its newly-acquired satellite service and redirecting investment into the overburdened AT&T mobile phone network.

VerizonDISH: A Verizon buyout of DISH would allow the phone company to push more rural customers to DISH satellite service, and reduce the expense of wiring all but the nation’s largest cities with fiber optics.

Comcast (formerly Comcast & Time Warner Cable, if not others): A supersized Comcast absorbs Time Warner Cable and becomes an even more dominant cable operator, leveraging its investment in Clearwire to offer a  wireless data option to stay competitive with the mobile phone companies like AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

That would leave most Americans with just three choices for telecommunications services capable of bundling multiple products together.  Wouldn’t such a merger-mania trigger antitrust implications and government review?

The Journal doesn’t think so:

Would such a deal pass antitrust scrutiny, even absent the ownership cap? There is a good chance, say several antitrust lawyers. A major focus of antitrust law is whether a merger reduces competition in a way that could raise prices or otherwise hurt consumers. As cable operators generally don’t compete with one another, merging wouldn’t cut competition.

But what kind of benefits would be found for consumers?  If one resides in a city too small to be judged worthy of fiber optic deployment, consumers could be told to get the satellite television service and live with the copper wiring the phone companies provide today.

Cable operators would be in a fine position to compete, as they traditionally have, against satellite television because of the technical limitations of satellite service, ranging from consumer objections to having a dish on their home, to a limit on the number of sets that can be wired, to the inability to get a clear view of the satellite because of nearby trees or other obstructions.

Who pays for the debt likely incurred from a bidding war during a merger frenzy?  Guess.

Back in the mid-1980s, I first got involved in the fight against the cable television industry’s consumer abuses.  Cable had gotten cocky, and began to use their monopoly position to extract ever-increasing amounts of money from consumers, providing lousy service and engaged in anti-competitive abuse all over the marketplace.  Back then, competition for the overwhelming majority of consumers came from just one place – giant 10-12 foot satellite dishes.  These were the days before Direct Broadcast Satellite providers like Echostar/DISH and DirecTV (and PrimeStar, the cable industry’s own satellite provider that claimed to ‘compete’ with cable) provided competition to cable.

In the mid and late 1980s, your choice was a giant TVRO (TV-Receive-Only) satellite dish in the backyard or you hooked up to cable.  A tiny handful of communities had wireless cable, a service that was supposed to compete with cable but was seriously limited in channel capacity (in many communities, wireless cable ended up providing access to ‘adult’ content that cable wouldn’t carry as their biggest selling point) and quickly faded from view by the mid 1990s.

The abusive practices were all over the place back then:

• Cozy arrangements between cable companies and local governments resulting in outright bans of satellite dishes for aesthetic reasons, using zoning laws either prohibiting their installation or requiring landscaping to hide them from view (to the neighbors and to the satellites they were trying to receive, making them useless), or requiring expensive permit fees;
• A rush to scramble/encode satellite signals and then require consumers to purchase, outright, a costly descrambler from General Instruments called the VideoCipher II for $399 (or have it incorporated within a satellite receiver that typically cost $800-1000 and was available only for purchase), only to be replaced a few years later by the VideoCipher II+ (which consumers were also forced to purchase).
• Cable companies, which had ownership interests in most cable networks (which was nearly a pre-condition for getting your network on cable systems), often had exclusive rights to sell that programming, and frequently provided it “only on cable” or to satellite customers who could not subscribe to cable.  Some networks refused to sell to competitors, including dish owners, at any price.
• Anti competitive pricing was by far the biggest problem.  Prices for programming packages encrypted on satellite were sold to consumer dish owners in small or large bundles at pricing comparable or above what cable subscribers paid, despite the fact all of the costs to provide, install, and service reception equipment were borne by consumers.  No cable TV company overhead, no infrastructure or staffing and support costs, yet satellite dish owners were expected to pay the same high costs that cable subscribers paid, and also purchase their own equipment.  That was quite an investment: a 12 foot dish, satellite reception equipment, decoder, and installation routinely ran well over a thousand dollars, depending on the equipment and installation complexity, and that was before programming costs were factored in.

Rural consumers really got the short end of the cable stick, not able to buy cable even if they wanted to, and forced to spend big money, upfront, just to get satellite TV.

That inspired the consumer groundswell of support for legislation to stop the abuses, which overrode a White House veto by President George H.W. Bush.  Among other things, the Cable Act of 1992 put a stop to exclusive programming contracts which denied competitor access to cable networks.

Without that legislation, there would be no DirecTV or DISH today.

Now the cable industry is back, high-fiving over their victory to have the 30% ownership cap dispensed with, and are now taking on the next provision of the 1992 Cable Act they don’t like — the ban on exclusive programming contracts.

That’s right, it’s Back to the Future as Comcast and Cablevision take their legal business to the same friendly DC Court of Appeals that savaged the 30% cap, now seeking an immediate repeal of the exclusivity ban as well.

Oral arguments start September 22nd.

Most amusing of all is the argument made by Comcast and Cablevision, who claim despite the time and attention they are spending on overturning the law, not to mention the legal expense, the practical effect of an end to exclusivity bans would be… absolutely nothing.

“Widespread withholding is now implausible,” said the attorneys in the filing. “[T]here are proportionally fewer services to withhold. The limited withholding that may still occur will not threaten competition: most vertically integrated services have closely similar substitutes, and, when competitive MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors] have sunk massive investments, withholding can no longer cause market exit.”

That’s right.  Big cable companies throw money away on attorneys who will presumably fight this case and the inevitable appeals for the next few years for no practical change whatsoever in the current competitive landscape.  The believe people will accept that an industry that had to be forced by regulation to compete on a level playing field will continue to respect that playing field once they plow it up.

Just trust us.  We’re your cable company.  You love us.

So it could be “nothing” as they suggest, or it could be a defensive response to challenges of their business plans from telephone company TV and online video competition.  Would you subscribe to a competitor that didn’t offer the networks you wanted to see because they were “exclusively” available only from the cable company?

Be it usage caps, consumption billing, exclusive contracts, “price protection agreements” that hold customers in place for 12-24 months (or longer), the war to keep consumers from choosing when, where, and how they access content is becoming fully engaged.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Satellite television in the mid-1980s was highlighted by Granada Television