Despite concerns from consumer groups that a deal to exchange wireless spectrum in return for collaborative marketing between two competitors will lead to higher prices for consumers, the Federal Communications Commission seems prepared to approve it, according to a report from the Reuters news agency.

Two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the FCC has taken the lead on the “spectrum transfer” issue, which involves turning over prime wireless spectrum currently owned by large cable operators Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House Networks to Verizon Wireless. The combined licenses the cable industry holds are in the majority of major American cities, which critics charge Verizon will acquire to eliminate any potential competitive threat from a new nationwide wireless carrier.

Verizon’s recent moves to sell off its own “excess” spectrum to its current competitors has garnered favor inside the FCC, according to sources. Verizon Wireless recently agreed to transfer some of that spectrum to T-Mobile USA, which coincidentally was a fierce opponent of the deal between Verizon and cable operators. T-Mobile’s opposition has since muted.

Licenses owned by the cable industry would have been expansive enough to launch a new national wireless competitor. (Image: Phonescoop)

The deal between Verizon and the nation’s top cable companies is worth about $3.9 billion, but the Justice Department continues to signal concerns it would ultimately cost consumers more than that. According to Reuters, Verizon remains in “tougher talks” with lawyers inside the Justice Department who are concerned cooperative marketing between the phone and cable companies would result in decreased competition and higher prices.

One source told Reuters regulators were hoping Verizon’s now-stalled fiber to the home network FiOS would bring major competition to the cable industry, which until then had only faced moderate competition from satellite dish providers. In return, Comcast and other cable operators were expected to invade the wireless phone marketplace, adding needed competition.

Instead, both sides have retreated to their respective positions — Verizon focusing on its wireless service and Comcast and other cable companies abandoning interest in wireless phones and sticking to cable-based products.

The idea that both would begin to cross-market each other’s products is “a problem” according to the Justice source not authorized to speak publicly.

Additionally, concerns are being raised over a proposed “joint operating entity” between Verizon and cable operators that would focus on developing new technologies that could lock out those not in the consortium.

No decision is expected from the Justice Department until August, but Justice officials have signaled they have several options they can pursue:

1. Sue to stop the spectrum transfer;
2. Force the companies to modify their proposal to reduce potential collusion;
3. Approve the deal but monitor how cross-marketing agreements impact on consumer markets for wireless and cable products.

An 85-year-old woman with dementia and her ailing 90-year-old husband in Rockaway were left without telephone service for three weeks because Verizon could not contact them on their out-of-service phone line.

The couple’s daughter, Rita Burgess, made at least 13 calls to Verizon Communications trying to get the couple’s phone line back up and running, but to no avail. A Verizon spokesperson later told the New York Daily News the company couldn’t get the line repaired because they couldn’t call the couple… on the phone line that was out of service.

“You people put me through hell,” Burgess thought after Verizon finally reached out to get the phone line repaired.

By then it was too late. Burgess took matters into her own hands and switched the family to Time Warner Cable’s phone service.

The incident has turned into a cause célèbre for consumer advocates, who claim Verizon continues to neglect its landline network in favor of its limited fiber optic FiOS service. New York consumer groups want the state to more aggressively regulate Verizon’s landline network to make certain extended outages like this cannot happen.

Burgess, who lives on Long Island, found herself cut off from her parents at a time when her father was hospitalized. Both father and daughter were unable to reach Mrs. Burgess, who requires regular attention because of dementia.

Bob Master, legislative and political director for the Communications Workers of America, told the Daily News the couple’s ordeal is not unique.

“They’re diverting resources from basic phone services,” Master said of Verizon. “That’s the business model, to divert resources to the most lucrative areas.”

Verizon counters the union is in dispute with the phone company over stalled contract negotiations and points to a 2012 first quarter report from the state Public Service Commission showing Verizon is meeting standards for reliability and repair times.

But Verizon has also lost half of its landline customers in New York State, which could also account for a declining number of complaints.

The Burgess family has decided to stick with Time Warner Cable for phone service.

Genachowski

On Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said that he generally supports data caps and tiered broadband pricing plans. The chairman’s comments came during an interview at the Cable Show with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, now the top lobbyist with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

Genachowski has remained consistent in his cautious support for “industry innovation” that includes usage-based pricing, with a caveat providers should not exploit that at the expense of consumers.  But consumer groups like Free Press already believe usage caps, particularly on wired broadband services, are already bad for consumers, exploit a marketplace duopoly, and are worthy of investigation by the agency.

“All the evidence shows that caps on wired broadband platforms like cable make no sense. They don’t affect network congestion, even in the rare instances where congestion actually exists on these systems,” says Free Press policy director Matt Wood. “Cable companies use them to penalize their subscribers and discourage them from using innovative services that compete with cable TV.”

Free Press reminded Genachowski of Comcast’s recent actions which exempted its own video content from usage caps, while leaving them in place for competitors.

“Comcast’s recent actions show both the harms of these caps and the lack of any legitimate reason for them,” noted Wood. “[Now] Comcast changed course and suspended caps temporarily in all but a few markets — but promised to start overcharging any users there who exceeded these arbitrary limits.”

“The FCC has turned a blind eye to this competition problem. If it wants to see experimentation in pricing that actually benefits consumers, we need a competition policy that creates more experimenters.”

Cuomo

New York’s telecommunications providers are up in arms over Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to yank permanent deregulation for the “digital phone” industry (otherwise known as “Voice Over IP/VoIP”) from his budget, even though the phone service is already deregulated in New York.

Now Verizon Communications and Time Warner Cable are claiming that without the deregulation they already enjoy, innovation, investment, and competition will be stifled.

“Verizon is very disappointed that New York’s lawmakers, who want the public to believe that New York is open for business, will not be acting on this important measure to modernize the state’s outdated telecommunications laws in this year’s budget,” Verizon spokesman John Bonomo told the Albany Times-Union.

“It’s about new technologies, it’s about new services,” echoed Rory Whelan, regional vice president of government relations for Time Warner Cable. “We want New York to be at the forefront of where we roll out our new products and services.”

That notion has left consumer groups and telecommunications unions scratching their heads.

“They are saying that this is going to open the flood gates to more investment,” said Bob Master, political director for one chapter of the Communications Workers of America, which represents Verizon workers. “It’s ridiculous.”

Master says Verizon has been abandoning and ignoring their landline network for years, preferring to invest in Verizon Wireless and its limited FiOS fiber-to-the-home service which is available in only selected areas of the state.

New York’s Public Service Commission has largely not regulated competing phone service since Time Warner Cable first introduced the service as an experiment in Rochester.  As part of then-Rochester Telephone Corporation’s (now Frontier Communications) “Open Market” Plan, competing telephone companies could offer landline service in the company’s service area, so long as Rochester Telephone received the same deregulation benefits.  Only the cable company showed serious interest in providing home phone service, which it first delivered using traditional digital phone switches phone companies like Verizon and Rochester Telephone use.  Time Warner later abandoned that service for a VoIP alternative it branded as “digital phone.”

Time Warner’s “digital phone,” as well as Verizon’s own VoIP service sold with FiOS, have co-existed regulation-free.  Consumer advocates suspect the push to deregulate could eventually benefit Verizon more than cable operators, because it gives the phone company the right to question why any of its telephone services are regulated.  Verizon’s FiOS fiber-based phone lines do not operate on the same network its still-regulated landlines do.  Verizon, along with all traditional phone companies in New York, are subject to “universal service” guidelines which assure even the most rural New Yorkers have access to reliable telephone service.

But Verizon, like most traditional phone companies, sees substantial investment in “modernizing” legacy copper-based networks as an anachronism, especially as they continue to lose customers switching to cheaper cable providers or wireless phones.  The company recently declared its fiber optic replacement network, FiOS, at the end of its expansion phase.  That leaves the majority of New Yorkers with a copper-based telephone network companies only invest enough in to keep functioning.

Diaz

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., joined many New York Assembly Democrats in strong opposition to the bill, which Diaz thinks undercuts New York consumers:

If this proposal were to become law, all consumers would lose out. For starters, customers would not be able to bring service complaints to the Public Service Commission, as they currently can with traditional service. Additionally, there would be no way for the state to set standards for quality or for service in underserved regions — meaning that customers could get stuck with exorbitantly high rates or be unable to obtain service at all in some areas of the state.

Verizon FiOS, one of the main options for VoIP coverage, has now been installed in many regions of the state, including most of downstate. However, Verizon has chosen not offer the service in upstate cities like Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Utica. The result is both a virtual monopoly for the cable companies in those areas and another blow to lower-income working families who live in cities. That’s precisely why the state should be able to guarantee common sense regulations for VoIP service.

The problems with deregulating VoIP service are multifold. While traditional phone companies pay into a fund that supports “lifeline” phone access for elderly and disadvantaged New Yorkers, VoIP providers would not have to. We do not have to guess at how things would look if the state gives up its right to regulate internet phone service — we can just look at the states where traditional land line service has been deregulated. According to a recent survey of 20 states that have seen land line deregulation, 17 of those states have seen rate increases. We simply cannot afford that, particularly when our fragile national recovery is just beginning to take hold.

Verizon appears undeterred by the governor’s decision to pull the deregulation measure from consideration in his budget measure.  Bills to deregulate continue to float through the Republican-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled Assembly, but New York’s legislature is notoriously indecisive and slow to act.  Time Warner’s Whelan believes the best chances for the deregulatory measure will be in the GOP-controlled Senate where a similar bill passed last year.  Verizon says it will continue to push for the bill in both chambers.

“We intend to continue pushing for this important measure, and for other measures that will benefit the state’s consumers and businesses to keep up with technological change and help the state thrive and succeed,” Bonomo said.

Sen. Paul Hornback (R-AT&T)

A Kentucky state senate panel on Tuesday approved a bill admittedly-authored by AT&T that could allow the company to abandon providing basic telephone service in areas deemed not sufficiently profitable.

Senate Bill 12 is just the latest effort by AT&T to end “Universal Service,” the basic principal that all Americans should have equal access to basic landline telephone service.

The proposed legislation would allow the three largest phone companies in Kentucky — AT&T, Windstream, and Cincinnati Bell to abandon customers who, in one possible scenario, do not agree to a more deluxe feature package that includes long distance calling, wireless service, and/or broadband.

“This bill represents a grave threat to continued, stand-alone, basic telephone service for many Kentuckians who don’t have the luxury of access to Twitter and all the things that we in urban areas tend to take for granted,” Tom FitzGerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

AT&T says allowing it the right to terminate rural landline service would “spur innovation and create jobs.” It would also strip Kentucky of its power to investigate and force resolutions of consumer complaints.

The optics of the bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Paul Hornback (R-Shelbyville/AT&T), sitting next to the two AT&T executives who authored the bill as he testified before the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Tourism and Labor was not lost on the bill’s opponents.

“It’s obvious who he is really working for,” said our regular Kentucky reader Paul in Louisville.

Daniel, the Stop the Cap! reader who first shared the story with us, is not happy either.

“This infuriates me,” he writes. “If AT&T gets their way, they will have less reason to invest in areas that are underserved or not served at all, and allow them to further push people to their horrific cell service.”

Daniel barely gets DSL from AT&T — 3Mbps if he’s lucky, and most of his neighbors cannot get any broadband from the company because they don’t officially service the area with broadband.  Daniel suspects once AT&T is deregulated further, they will have even fewer reasons to focus on less-populated regions of the state.

Hornback: "Nobody knows better than AT&T what the company needs the legislature to do for it."

“AT&T is my only reliable option – and if I can’t keep their Internet service then I will lose my job,” he says.

In 2006, AT&T helped push through a deregulation measure that stripped the Kentucky Public Service Commission of its ability to oversee prices for telecommunications services in the state. Customers of both AT&T and Cincinnati Bell soon saw price increases after the legislation passed with arguably no improvement in service.

Hornback argues S.12 will help “modernize telecommunications in the state of Kentucky,” without explaining exactly how abandoning customers enhances their level of service.

AT&T says they will not completely exit rural Kentucky if given the power to disconnect its landline network.  It can sell rural customers AT&T cell phone service instead. Critics say that comes at a substantially higher price and offers only limited broadband.

Hornback defended that, suggesting the company is wasting money and resources keeping its current antiquated landline facilities when it might be better spending that money on wireless services.

But customers would face charges starting at nearly $40 a month after taxes and fees for a basic AT&T wireless plan with as few as 200 calling minutes a month.

Hornback got around initial opposition to an earlier measure he introduced — SB 135, by reintroducing essentially the same measure inside another unrelated bill.  Hornback said that was an effort to give the legislation “a fresh start” in light of heated criticism from consumer groups, the AARP, and even Kentucky businesses.

The committee voted 9-1 for Hornback/AT&T’s measure and sent the bill forward to the Senate floor.  The single “no” vote came from Sen. Denise Harper Angel (D-Louisville).

Phone companies in Kentucky

AT&T’s clout in the state capital is unparalleled according to the newspaper:

It employs 31 legislative lobbyists, including a former PSC vice chairwoman and past chairs of the state Democratic and Republican parties, spending about $80,000 last year on legislative lobbying. Its political action committee has given at least $91,000 in state political donations since 2007.

Remarkably, Hornback defended AT&T’s authorship of his bill that would directly benefit the company’s interests.

Nobody knows better than AT&T what the company needs the legislature to do for it, Hornback said.