Just weeks after FairPoint Communications and union workers settled a prolonged strike involving more than 1,700 workers that began last October, shareholders are demanding the company sell itself and exit the business.

Investors are reacting negatively to today’s news that FairPoint’s quarterly losses accelerated during the 131-day strike to $136.3 million as the company spent an extra $73.6 million on temporary replacement workers and defending itself in strike-related negotiations.

Since FairPoint declared bankruptcy reorganization in 2011, the company has continued to post losses each year since, and those losses show no signs of ending. The company today abandoned issuing guidance on its future earnings for the rest of 2015, claiming it was uncertain of the impact of the strike on its future revenue.

They could ask customers like John Bouchard in Robbinston, Maine, who canceled after becoming fed up with FairPoint’s impotent customer service department, unable to resolve service problems during the strike.

Bouchard told the Associated Press after his FairPoint DSL service went out, he set up an installation appointment with the cable company and had to leave his home office and drive through a snowstorm to find Internet access while Time Warner Cable caught up with the demand for new service installations.

“It’s very frustrating,” he said.

FairPoint’s unionized workers returning to the job openly worried about the state of FairPoint’s network after a hard winter and how inexperienced temporary workers maintained the facilities while they were on strike.

Multiple press reports documented instances of shoddy repair work from the temporary workers, including some safety hazards.

“We have to win back the confidence of our customers,” said Adam Frederickson, a FairPoint worker in Nashua, N.H.

Barry Sine, an analyst who follows FairPoint for Drexel Hamilton, a New York-based brokerage, said he believes it will take 30 to 45 days for the company’s workforce to restore service quality to pre-strike levels. But by then, thousands of customers are likely to have switched providers.

North Carolina-based FairPoint disagreed that the problems were serious. “The FairPoint network performed exceptionally during the work stoppage and our well-trained and qualified contract workforce provided superb support of that network,” said company spokeswoman Angelynne Amores Beaudry.

Sine believes FairPoint would have been a prime target for acquisition earlier if it were not for its legacy workforce costs, which include benefits the company just successfully cut in the labor contract that ended the strike. With the strike now behind the company, investors believe now is the time FairPoint should sell itself to maximize shareholder value.

“Shareholders are beating the drums; they want to sell this company now,” said Sine. “The unions, there’s no love lost with this management team. The unions would like a new owner as well.”

Union leaders sense the company is already quietly getting the books in order for a sale.

Don Trementozzi, president of the Communications Workers of America Local 1400 in Portsmouth, N.H. told the AP the company seemed fixated on improving its books instead of focusing on customers.

“The brand has put a sour taste in the mouths of customers,” he said. “We’re going to go back to work and do everything we can to make this company profitable. But the brand, the name, suffered greatly in this. I don’t know if you can recover without a sale.”

In any sale, FairPoint executives and shareholders are likely to win the most. FairPoint workers, already challenged by significant benefit cuts, could face pressure from new owners to further reduce pay and benefits. FairPoint would likely sell for $25-30 a share, or around $780 million. But a buyer would also have to assume nearly a billion dollars in prior debt from a company that has never managed to post a quarterly profit since emerging from bankruptcy.

The most likely buyer would be Frontier Communications, already solidly established in the northeastern United States. But it may be too preoccupied with its recent $10 billion acquisition of Verizon landlines in Florida, California, and Texas to consider another acquisition. The next likely buyer would be Arkansas-based Windstream, followed by CenturyLink.

FairPoint’s president of Maine operations dismissed the speculation about FairPoint’s future, claiming it is focused on growing the business, not selling it.

“We have a responsibility to our customers, to our shareholders. We need to run the company as profitably as we can, to provide the best service that we can provide. That’s what we do,” he said. The union’s contention that FairPoint fought to cut worker benefits just to make itself attractive to buyers “is a stretch,” he said.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFFF Burlington FairPoint Workers React to Tentative Deal 2-24-15.mp4[/flv]

A FairPoint employee tells WFFF-TV in Burlington, Vt. how declining service may have finally forced FairPoint to the bargaining table with a proposal workers could accept.  (2:51)

Connecticut’s tough Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) has rejected a settlement between state officials and Frontier Communications to acquire AT&T Connecticut, saying the deal offers very little to Connecticut ratepayers.

The settlement between Frontier, Connecticut’s Consumer Counsel and the Connecticut Attorney General’s office included commitments from Frontier governing contributions to state non-profit groups, phone rates and broadband expansion.

The Authority was told it could either approve or reject the settlement, but not suggest or require changes. It decided late last week to reject the settlement deal.

The regulator cited several reasons for its disapproval:

• A landline rate freeze offers little benefit to Connecticut ratepayers because landline rates have been stable for years and any attempt to increase them will only fuel additional disconnections;
• Frontier’s commitments to improve broadband service in Connecticut are vague, lacking specific speed improvements and rural broadband expansion targets to meet;
• Frontier attempted to insert weakened rules governing pole inspections, which should be part of a separate regulatory proceeding;
• The agreement might limit PURA’s ability to launch cost-recovery proceedings and flexibility to maintain oversight over Frontier’s performance in the state;
• A contractual agreement requiring Frontier to make specific contributions to state non-profit groups is inappropriate and unenforceable;
• A lack of information about how Frontier and AT&T will collaborate after the transaction is complete, particularly with AT&T’s U-verse offering;
• No details about how Frontier U-verse intends to handle Public, Educational, and Government Access channels on its television platform;
• A lack of a detailed disaster preparedness plan from Frontier to handle major service disruptions.

PURA’s Acting Executive Secretary Nicholas Neeley said the goal is to “improve the likelihood of success of Frontier as it assumes the duties, obligations and responsibilities currently held by AT&T in Connecticut.”

“(It seeks to) balance the interests of all parties affected by this transaction, promote competition and preserve the public’s rights to safe and adequate communications services,” Neeley wrote in a public notice. “The Authority hopes that such a session will produce an amended proposal from Frontier that would be deemed acceptable for consideration.”

The rejection also seeks to protect and preserve Connecticut’s regulatory oversight power over Frontier.

Frontier received a better reception from the Communications Workers of America. The phone company has traditionally maintained reasonably good relations with its unionized workforce. CWA approved of Frontier’s purchase of AT&T Connecticut after winning commitments for new union jobs, a job security program, a payout of 100 shares of company stock to each union member, and Frontier’s commitment to prioritize Connecticut-based call centers.

Wall Street is less impressed. This morning, Morgan Stanley downgraded Frontier’s stock to “underweight,” citing complications in the AT&T Connecticut deal and Frontier’s increasing debt load. Frontier is financing $1.55 billion of the $2 billion transaction by selling two groups of senior notes of $775 million each, due in 2021 and 2024. As of June 30, Frontier had amassed $7.9 billion in debt with just $805 million in cash on hand.

Frontier’s proposed northeastern service areas would add almost the entire state of Connecticut to its holdings in mostly rural upstate New York and Pennsylvania and the metropolitan Rochester, N.Y. 585 area code region where the company got its name.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Communications Connecticut 1-2014.mp4[/flv]

Frontier Communications introduces itself to AT&T Connecticut customers in this company-produced video. (4:03)

AT&T today announced it was selling off its residential wireline network in Connecticut to Stamford-based Frontier Communications for $2 billion in a deal that includes an expanded license for U-verse TV that could eventually be available to Frontier customers nationwide.

Frontier will assume control of the Southern New England Telephone Co. (SNET), a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, and its 2,700 employees and 900,000 telephone lines. Included in the deal is AT&T’s U-verse network in the state and the right to expand U-verse TV into all 27 states where Frontier provides service. The deal comes three years after Frontier paid $8.6 billion in stock and cash to buy landline operations in 14 states from Verizon Communications.

In a Stop the Cap! exclusive story published last year, we reported Frontier was interested in acquiring licensing rights to the U-verse brand to potentially offer its customers a unified product suite of television, broadband, and phone service over a fiber to the neighborhood network. Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications, told the Wall Street Journal the deal between AT&T and Frontier had been on the table for years waiting to be finalized. With today’s announcement, AT&T New England president Patricia Jacobs acknowledged Frontier will use the U-verse name at a secondary brand for video service. Frontier now relies on satellite reseller agreements to bundle video service into its packages for consumers.

Frontier’s acquisition will give the company hands-on experience with AT&T’s U-verse network in Connecticut and offer a path to bring improved service to Frontier customers elsewhere. Company officials also acknowledged a key reason for the transaction was boosting Frontier’s lagging dividend, a critical part of its share price. By taking on nearly 1,000,000 new customers, Frontier will boost its cash flow, returning some of that new revenue in a higher dividend payout to shareholders. But the company will take on an extra $2 billion in debt to manage higher dividend payouts.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. arranged the financing for the acquisition and Frontier will likely raise about $1.9 billion from debt markets by selling bonds. Frontier already has $8.13 billion in debt on the books, much of it acquiring landlines originally owned by Verizon.

AT&T’s departure from Connecticut was no surprise to analysts. AT&T operates most of its landline network in the midwest, south, and in the state of California. The company has focused primarily on serving business customers and its wireless network in the northeast, not residential landlines. Frontier described the deal as a perfect fit for Connecticut residents, because Frontier specializes in residential phone and broadband service.

“AT&T has been trying to sell its rural wireline businesses for some time,” Gerard Hallaren, an analyst with Janco Partners Inc., told Bloomberg News. “It looks to me like Frontier cherry-picked a nice asset at a nice price from AT&T.”

SNET began operations in 1878 as the District Telephone Company of New Haven and pre-dated the Bell System. The company founded the first exchange and printed the world’s first telephone directory. It remained independent of Bell System ownership until 1998, when SBC Communications (formerly Southwestern Bell) acquired the company. In late 2005, SBC purchased AT&T and AT&T Connecticut was born.

Over the past seven years, AT&T has watched customers decline from more than two million customers to fewer than one million. AT&T introduced U-verse to improve its position in the market to mixed results. The company’s investments in fiber upgrades have not been as profitable as its wireless network, likely leading to today’s sale.

AT&T says it is not leaving Connecticut altogether. The company plans to keep business and wireless customers in the state.

Much of the proceeds from the deal will be invested by AT&T in its wireless network, mostly to help pay for 4G LTE upgrades. The rest will be spent bringing U-verse to more customers in the midwest and southern U.S.

The acquisition faces regulator approval from both the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice, likely to be forthcoming in the first half of 2014.

Frontier executives promised shareholders the deal will result in $125 million in cost savings over the next three years — code language for layoffs. Some of them are likely to be among the 2,400 workers represented by the Communications Workers of America, which has had a contentious relationship with AT&T Connecticut over job cuts in the past.

Verizon gets out the black marker to redact information it considers “confidential.”

The New York Public Service Commission Monday rejected most of Verizon’s request to keep secret the state of its landline network and details about the company’s plans to distribute Voice Link as an optional wireless landline replacement in the state.

Nearly two months after Verizon announced it was abandoning its original plan to replace defective landlines on Fire Island with Voice Link, Verizon is bristling over a Freedom Of Information Law (FOIL) request from consumer advocates and a union for disclosure of reports filed with the PSC regarding Verizon’s network and its upkeep — information the company considers confidential trade secrets. To underline that belief, Verizon provided the PSC with edited versions of documents it filed with the state considered suitable for public disclosure, one consisting of 330 pages of blanket redactions except for the page headings and page numbers.

“[These discovery requests] are designed solely to advance the Communications Workers of America’s self-serving efforts to prevent Verizon from offering its Voice Link product, even on an optional basis, and to investigate the relationship between Verizon and Verizon Wireless — matters that are beyond the scope of this or any other pending Commission proceeding,” wrote Verizon deputy general counsel Joseph A. Post. “On September 11, 2013, Verizon announced that it had decided to build out a fiber-to-the-premises (“FTTP”) network on western Fire Island, and targeted Memorial Day 2014 for the completion of construction and the general availability of services over the new network.”

The PSC disagreed with Post, ruling the majority of documents labeled “confidential” by Verizon were, in fact, not.

“[…] The information claimed by Verizon to be trade secrets or confidential commercial information does not warrant an exception from disclosure and its request for continued protection from disclosure is denied,” ruled Donna M. Giliberto, assistant counsel & records access officer at the Department of Public Service.

Verizon has until Nov. 14 to file an appeal.

Common Cause New York, the Communications Workers of America-Region 1, Consumers Union, the Fire Island Association, and Richard Brodsky used New York’s public disclosure laws to collectively request documents shedding light on their suspicion Verizon has systematically allowed its landline facilities to deteriorate to the point a wireless landline substitute becomes a rational substitute. They also suspect Verizon diverted funds intended for its landline network to more profitable Verizon Wireless.

“In spite of its obligations under New York law, in spite of the investment by ratepayers in the FIOS wireline system, in spite of the needs and expectations of the people, businesses and economy of the state, Verizon is intending to and has begun to shut down its wireline system,” declared the groups.

Many involved took note of Stop the Cap!’s report in July 2012 that warned then-CEO Lowell McAdam had plans to decommission a substantial part of Verizon’s copper landline network, especially in rural areas, where it intended to replace it with wireless service:

“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,” McAdam said. “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.”

Some consumer groups suspect Fire Island represented an opportunity to test regulators’ tolerance for a transition away from copper landlines in high cost service areas. As Stop the Cap! reported this summer, New Yorkers soundly rejected Verizon Voice Link, with more than 1,700 letters opposing the wireless service and none in favor on record at the PSC.

In early September, a well-placed source in Albany told Stop the Cap! Verizon’s request to substitute Voice Link where it was no longer economically feasible to maintain landline infrastructure was headed for rejection after a constant stream of complaints arrived from affected customers. Verizon suddenly withdrew its proposal on Sept. 11 and announced it would bring FiOS fiber optics to Fire Island instead.

Although Verizon now insists it will only offer Voice Link as an optional service for New York residents going forward, public interest groups still believe Verizon has allowed its landline network to deteriorate to unacceptable levels.

Verizon originally claimed 40% of its facilities on Fire Island were damaged beyond repair when they were assessed after Hurricane Sandy. But residents claim some of that damage existed before the storm struck last October. Some fear Verizon is engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy, allowing its unprofitable copper wire facilities to fall apart and then point to the sorry state of the network as their principle argument in favor of a switch to wireless service.

Herding money, resources, and customers away from landlines to Verizon Wireless

“In fact, the vast majority of defective lines are a consequence of the failure and refusal of Verizon to maintain and repair the system over time,” the groups assert. “The Commission must make a factual determination of the cause of the 40% defect allegation as part of this proceeding. If, as asserted herein and elsewhere, the evidence shows a pattern of inadequate repair, maintenance and capital investment, the Commission can not and should not approve any loss of wireline service to any customer, as matters of law and sound policy.”

“We assert that Verizon has systematically misallocated costs thereby distorting the extent to which the wireline system has suffered losses, if any. […] It is fair to say that substantial losses in the landline system are repeatedly used by the Commission and the Company as a justification for rate increases and regulatory decisions affecting the scope, cost, adequacy and nature of telephone service provided to customers of Verizon NY.”

Verizon would seem to confirm as much.

In 2012, Verizon’s chief financial officer Fran Shammo told investors the company was diverting some of the costs of Verizon Wireless’ upgrades by booking them on Verizon’s landline construction budget.

“The fact of the matter is wireline capital — and I won’t get the number but it’s pretty substantial — is being spent on the wireline side of the house to support the wireless growth,” said Shammo. “So the IP backbone, the data transmission, fiber to the cell, that is all on the wireline books but it’s all being built for [Verizon Wireless].”

Funds diverted for Verizon Wireless’ highly profitable business were unavailable to spend on Verizon’s copper wire network or expansion of FiOS. In 2011, Verizon diverted money to deploying fiber optics to 1,848 Verizon Wireless cell towers in the state. In 2012, Verizon deployed fiber to an extra 867 cell tower sites in New York and Connecticut. Public interest groups assert the costs for these fiber to the cell tower builds were effectively paid by Verizon’s landline and FiOS customers, not Verizon Wireless customers.

Since 2003, Verizon has been subject to special attention from the New York Public Service Commission because of an excessive number of subscriber complaints about poor service. As early as a decade ago, the PSC found Verizon’s workforce reductions and declining investment in its landline network were largely responsible for deteriorating service. Each month since, Verizon must file reports on service failures and its plans to fix them.

In September alone, Verizon reported significant failures in service in rural areas upstate, almost entirely due to the weather:

• Heuvelton: A summer filled with significant thunderstorms resulted in downed poles and service disruptions. Verizon reported the central office serving the community was in jeopardy in June. By mid-July, 7% of customers reported major problems with their landline service.
• Amber: Nearly 11% of customers were without acceptable service in May because a 100-pair cable serving many of the community’s 274 customers was failing.
• Chittenango: Nearly 9% of the community’s 1,059 landline customers had significant problems with service because Verizon’s central office switching system in the exchange was failing.
• Sharon Springs: Almost 11% of Verizon’s customers in this small rural office of 417 lines were knocked out of service in July.
• Elenburg Dept.: More than 8% of Verizon’s 324 lines in this rural Adirondack community were out of service, usually as a result of a thunderstorm passing through.
• Hartford: When it rains hard in this Adirondack community, landline service fails for a substantial number of customers. In September, 2.43 inches of rain left 12.4% of customers with dysfunctional landline service.
• Valley Falls: Nearly one-third of Valley Falls’ 722 landlines were out of service in September after lightning hit several Verizon telephone cables. Problems only worsened towards the end of the month.
• Kendall: Almost 9% of Verizon customers in the Rochester suburb of Kendall were without service after a rain and wind storm. When a cold front moves through the community, landlines service is threatened.
• Bolivar: More than 20% of customers lost service July 19th after heavy rain, winds, and power outages hit.
• Cherry Valley: Verizon blamed seasonal service outages in Cherry Valley on farmers that dig up or damage buried telephone cables. More than 7% of customers were knocked out by harvested phone lines in July.
• Edmeston: More rain, more service outages for the 801 landlines in this small community in area code 607. More than 13.5% of customers called in with complaints in July. Verizon blamed heavy rain.
• Clinton Corners: Service failures come after nearly every heavy rainfall due to multiple pair cable failures in the aging infrastructure. More than 9% of customers reported problems in June, 13.2% in July, 8.2% in August, and 12.5% in September.

Verizon’s landline trouble reports disproportionately come from rural communities, exactly those Verizon’s former CEO proposed to serve by wireless. Weather-related failures are often the result of deteriorating infrastructure that results in outages, especially when moisture penetrates aging cables. Rural communities are also the least-likely to be provided fiber service, exposing customers to a larger percentage of the same copper wiring critics charge Verizon is allowing to deteriorate.

Despite warnings from public safety officials the wireless landline alternative proposed by Verizon is unreliable and potentially a threat to the safety and well-being of customers, Verizon is moving full speed ahead to deploy Voice Link service in New York and New Jersey communities where existing Verizon landlines have deteriorated and FiOS fiber optics is a distant dream.

On July 12, the Communications Workers of America reported that Verizon’s repair call centers in New York City are now assigning employees to Voice Link-related jobs.

“In addition, CWA members report that technicians are receiving specialized Voice Link installation training and are being assigned to carry out installations in the Buffalo and Watertown areas,” said Chris Shelton, vice president of CWA District 1.

The union also confirmed no further expansion work was being done on Verizon’s FiOS fiber network outside of the areas already committed by the company. Verizon FiOS is only available in a few Buffalo suburbs and not available in Watertown at all.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA District 1 VP speaks about Verizon Voice Link 6-13-13.mp4[/flv]

CWA District 1 vice president Chris Shelton summed up Verizon’s aggressive deployment of Voice Link: “We can’t allow these dirty bastards to do this to their own customers, who they don’t give a s**t about….” (Warning: Strong Language) (3 minutes)

Sullivan County

More than 130 county executives, legislators, mayors, town supervisors, and councilors representing 68 New York State communities including Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Binghamton, Plattsburgh, Ithaca, Jamestown, Poughkeepsie, Rome, and Elmira called on the PSC to declare Voice Link an experimental service and not allow it to serve as the sole service offering on Fire Island or anywhere else:

The Commission stated that “[it] has been the Commission’s policy that utilities determine how to provision service via any combination of facilities – wires, fiber optics, electronics – so long as the tariffed service meets the Commission’s prescribed rules and customer expectations.”

Voice Link, as currently offered, does not meet Municipalities’ expectations. Instead, Voice Link would jeopardize municipalities’ ability to fulfill their responsibility to protect the safety of the citizens who reside and work in their communities. The broad and significant implications of Verizon’s proposed tariff warrant a full investigation. New technology should be deployed after solutions are found, not before.

Municipalities urge the Commission to develop a full factual record and to offer interested stakeholders the opportunity to participate fully in this important proceeding. Municipalities rely on the Commission to guide the evolution of the state’s telecommunications infrastructure in a manner that protects citizens’ safety and promotes economic development.

The legislators called Voice Link a threat to public safety and its installation hampered communities from protecting local residents.

In Sullivan County, where Verizon is attempting to introduce Voice Link as an option for seasonal residents, Undersheriff Eric Chaboty said using wireless service carries risks in an emergency.

Chaboty

At a press conference covered by the Mid-Hudson News Service, Chaboty made it clear homeowners should not feel pressured to sign up for Voice Link. Chaboty recounted a story of his neighbor’s house catching fire and the owner called 911 from a cell phone using the same wireless network Voice Link would use. The call was mistakenly routed to another county instead of Sullivan County 911, and by the time the call reached the correct emergency responders, the family’s home burned to the ground.

Stories like that may explain why Verizon has taken great pains to disclaim responsibility for a customer’s inability to reach 911 or be connected to the correct public safety operator.

Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther (D-Forestburgh) was incredulous Verizon would even attempt to introduce Voice Link in the rural Catskill Mountains, which is notorious for lousy cell reception.

“Too much of this county has no service at all and no hope on the horizon,” she told the audience. “Until the time comes when companies like Verizon are willing to make the investment to ensure reliable and thorough coverage, products like Voice Link are an insult and a danger to our community.”

Legislators across the state also suspect Voice Link will create an incentive for Verizon to neglect its already-deteriorating copper wire network, accelerating the need to deploy its preferred wireless solution. But the thought of achieving business priorities at the possible cost of public safety bothered the 134 legislators who signed a petition sent to the PSC.

“When outside plant is inadequately maintained, consumers’ safety is jeopardized because their dial tones may not function when they need to reach emergency services,” the petition explained.

Brookhaven town supervisor Edward P. Romaine held his own news conference at the Davis Park Ferry Terminal in Patchogue last week. He worried that Verizon was attempting to get its foot in the door with Voice Link, and will use any approval to quickly expand it as a “sole service option” elsewhere.

“Our concern isn’t only for Fire Island,” Romaine said. “Our concern is while they’re impacting a few communities in Fire Island, this . . . will spread to all of Fire Island and possibly to the main island.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS This Morning No more landlines Verizon wont fix storm damaged wires 7-19-13.flv[/flv]

CBS’ This Morning covered Verizon’s plans to drop landline service in Mantoloking, N.J., on an off shore barrier island. Residents really don’t want Voice Link as the replacement, but at least they have an alternative. Unlike on Fire Island, Mantoloking is served by a cable company – Comcast. (3 minutes)