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.

In Search Of… Savings

The cable industry’s week-long feeding frenzy over consolidating Time Warner Cable out of existence comes with the theory that growing larger guarantees cheaper programming costs from volume discounts and influence. But hang on, says Wall Street analyst firm Sanford C. Bernstein.

This week, senior analyst Todd Juenger released a report, “Will Cable Consolidation Slow Down Affiliate Fee Growth? We Say ‘No,’” that questions the theory the bigger the company, the more leverage available to keep costs down.

Juenger says that few customers are in love with their local cable company, and programmers know it. If another brawl erupts between CBS and a cable operator, the presumption of leverage to quickly resolve the dispute is more hope than reality because customers will readily abandon one provider for another to get what they want.

“Consumers are much more loyal to their favorite TV networks than they are to their distributor,” Juenger says. “Every time a distributor has tried to fight back by dropping the content from one of these [big programming] companies, it has ended badly for the distributor because consumers will switch distributors, not TV networks.”

Programming carriage wars will continue to hurt cable companies as long as there is a satellite or telco-TV competitor ready to sign up disgruntled customers. If a suite of Viacom-owned networks are dropped during a cable fee dispute, the cable operator will save around $2.75 a month per subscriber. But if that subscriber decides to change providers, operators lose as much as $40 in marketing costs paid to attract that subscriber in the first place.

Juenger believes the only way combining cable operators will save on programming fees is when smaller cable operators like Charter get the benefit of big discounts on programming offered to larger, high volume providers like Time Warner Cable.

Juenger adds bringing Comcast in as a buyer gets complicated because if Comcast tries to drop networks, programmers might have leverage by appealing to the federal government with claims Comcast is violating its agreement with the federal government to avoid abuse of market power to strangle competitors.

It’s happy days at Comcast’s marketing and public relations department. How does a cable company pocket an extra $1.50 a month from 21.6 million cable TV customers without facing the wrath of the masses? Blame it on greedy broadcasters and quietly bank up to $32.4 million a month in new revenue.

Comcast wants to break out the cost of some of its programming disputes with local stations from your monthly cable bill and add an extra $1.50 monthly surcharge the company is calling a “Broadcast TV Fee” starting in the new year.

Comcast isn’t promising this $1.50 fee covers the total cost of licensing local stations for cable carriage, and they have no plans for similar surcharges for cable networks that have also been known to ask for a lot at contract renewal time. Customers may not realize that in some cases, the local NBC station just so happens to be owned by Comcast-NBC, offering easy opportunities to boost the asking price without too much trouble from co-workers at Comcast Cable.

Broadband Reports notes that isn’t the only new fee coming soon to a Comcast bill near you, starting Jan. 1. The company is also raising prices for cable television by $1-2 for many tiers, increasing the modem rental fee another dollar to an unprecedented $8 a month, and jacking up rates by $2 a month on almost all levels of broadband service.

Can you drop by your local supermarket and walk out with a year of free home broadband service? In the United Kingdom, Tesco shoppers can.

For several weeks, Tesco shoppers have been offered a “Broadband and Phone Deal” that will return $117 in savings during the first year by waiving the cost of the broadband part of the package.

Tesco Broadband normally runs around $9.75 a month on a one year contract for up to 14Mbps unlimited-use service including free installation and a free wireless modem/router combo. Customers are asked to pay a $24 monthly BT line rental charge, but part of these fees are returned to Tesco shoppers as part of the supermarket chain’s rewards program which supplies vouchers based on the amount spent on Tesco products and services.

There are many ways to spend with Tesco. The chain is the second largest retailer in the world behind Wal-Mart and sells books, clothing, computers, software and electronics, furniture, music downloads and DVD rentals, and operates a financial services division that sells auto, home, and pet insurance to UK residents. It entered the telecom business years ago selling rebranded services from other providers, notably BT, formerly British Telecom.

The Don’t Care Bears

If the former Soviet Union ran a cable company, it would probably resemble Comcast’s customer care centers, filled with long lines and inflexible, bureaucratic representatives that refuse to think outside the (cable) box. Philebrity.com calls the cable company’s downtown office on Delaware Avenue in Philadelphia the Comcast Get Out of TV Jail Center:

If you have ever had to return your cable boxes or pay your shut-off cable bill in cash because there’s a big pay-per-view wrestling event you need to see that night, you know this place. We know you know. And we know you feel hot shame for ever even knowing what this place is, or standing in its soul-sucking lines on the other side of the bulletproof glass, and we know that you don’t want anyone to know you’ve been there. So we’ll talk about it for you. To know the Comcast Get-Out-Of-TV-Jail Center is to know failure up close, to be on intimate speaking terms with failure, and to know that the conversation with failure is always mostly in the bitter parlance of popular t-shirts from the 1980s: Life’s a bitch and then you die. 

The apparatchiks ensconced behind Comcast’s bulletproof glass know you cannot get to them, so some have their worst behavior on full display. Some think they know you before you even reach the counter. That angry-looking customer with the file folder? ‘Not for me,’ Carol says, stalling for time with the customer in front of her just long enough to let Brenda the Temp deal with him as next in line. It’s the closest thing to the Department of Motor Vehicles, where long waiting times never interfere with an on-time lunch break or extended chat with a colleague while you sit the day away.

“When many of us here in Philly think about Comcast, this is what we think of,” writes the online magazine. “Not the gleaming tower, nor the endless fun of Xfinity, but this place. This sad awful place. Because this is the place that says, “This is really what we think of you. We know you are worthless. Look at you, with your cardboard box of outdated remotes and modems, and your folded up twenties, hauling our sad s*** back to us like a doting animal with a dead rodent between its teeth.”