Bennett

We received word this afternoon proponents of community-0wned broadband in North Carolina were under attack by the ironically-named Innovation Policy Blog from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a thinly-disguised, industry-funded think tank.

Charges and counter-charges are flying fast and furious. Well-travelled muni broadband consultant Craig Settles says the authors are in the pockets of Time-Warner Cable, and urges people around the country to lobby NC legislators to kill the bills:

The battle is now fully joined in NC. But it’s not just their fight, and it’s not a fight solely about broadband. This fight affects everyone who believes that communities deserve the freedom to choose their own best solutions to key problems involving economic development. Communities own the problems of this terrible economy.

Philip Dampier, the supporter of former New York Congressman Eric Massa who joined the broadband policy fight when Time Warner was experimenting with metered pricing, is even more shrill than Settles.

I suppose being called “shrill” is a little better than “mean and nasty,” even if perennial industry defender and comment troll Richard “I Don’t Work for a K Street Lobbyist, But I Do” Bennett doesn’t bother to spell my name correctly.

Bennett’s read of North Carolina’s H.129 is that it’s a minor little bill that does no harm.

I don’t see what our perpetual network operator-haters are so worked up about, although I can certainly see that the network equipment vendors want more outlets for their gear; more power to them. The bills actually don’t place any restrictions at all on unserved communities (where 90% or more can’t get broadband) who want to build themselves a first-class, triple-play enabled, broadband network or anything else better than dial-up. If there weren’t such an exemption, I’d be just as riled as the people I’ve quoted.

Supporting innovation from the right kind of companies.

I suspect Bennett may have trouble seeing the facts on the issue because they are obscured by the $20,000 stipend he picked up from Time Warner Cable.  That is in addition to his regular salary provided by players with a dog in the fight.

Unfortunately for those who accidentally stumble their way into the warped world of “innovation” some of our biggest telecommunications companies have in store for us, Bennett forgets to disclose who pays him.

Our argument (the one that comes without industry money-strings attached) is explored in great detail here.

For the benefit of those who don’t want to dirty themselves wading through the ITIF’s blog, here is our response in full:

Richard and I have discussed several issues impacting the broadband community over the past two years.  He always takes the side of the industry that pays him well to serve as their mouthpiece, and I represent actual consumers and do not take a penny of industry money.

The ironically named “Innovation” blog attacks the very innovation that community broadband brings to hard-pressed communities in North Carolina who want to reinvent themselves from their tobacco and cotton-past.  The reason these networks exist is because existing companies refused to provide the service needed to accomplish this task.  Richard has no idea what these communities and ordinary North Carolina consumers are going through because his article exists merely as a “drive-by” hit piece that mischaracterizes the bill, the people that oppose it, and leaves his readers thinking he doesn’t have direct ties to a company that helped write the bill.

Gone undisclosed: Bennett accepted a $20K stipend from Time Warner Cable and does work on behalf of a K Street lobbyist.  That’s “dollar a holler” reporting.

Folks, follow the money.  If a Big Telecom company is involved, Richard reflexively adopts their position, often to the detriment of consumers.  He is also factually wrong.

1) Wilson did not “buy” their fiber to the home network, they built it.
2) Davidson and Mooresville bought a bankrupt Adelphia system that needed major upgrades.  Time Warner would have done precisely the same thing the community did, only they would pay for it with rate hikes across the state (except in Wilson which has avoided rate increases from Time Warner precisely because GreenLight is running there).
3) Salisbury has had a waiting list for signups.  Not bad for a “failure.”  EPB just finished their award-winning network in Chattanooga ahead of schedule.

The public-private partnership idea has no opposition, except among providers who won’t hear of anything they don’t own, operate, and control outright.  It is telling ongoing negotiations over Ms. Avila’s Time Warner-written bill have broken down because she still objects to language that would keep those networks in business to create those kinds of success stories.

All of the pipe dreams in this piece come from the author.  I’m not an industry consultant.  I just know a much better deal when I see one.  GreenLight, EPB, and Fibrant all deliver better service than the cable company or phone company and the money paid to them remains in those communities.  They also deliver unlimited service, an issue that now becomes more important than ever with AT&T’s attempt to launch its Internet Overcharging scheme.

The key question Bennett never asks is exactly how H.129 will improve broadband in the state, whose broadband rankings are unworthy of its potential.  Answer: it won’t.  It simply delivers protection for incumbent providers who will continue to not deliver the kind of service people want and will continue to ignore rural areas they have always ignored.  When a “small government” conservative like Marilyn Avila writes micro-management requirements for these networks right down to banning them from promoting themselves and arguing over service area boundaries (conditions Time Warner is exempted from), it tells you how far certain legislators will go on behalf of large telecom companies.

As for voter approval, it already exists in the form of elections.  I haven’t seen any “throw the bums out” movement in Tennessee or North Carolina over this issue.  In fact, the only ones out of office are the last two legislators that proposed these anti-community broadband bills.  Ty Harrell resigned in disgrace and David Hoyle left office admitting, on camera, Time Warner Cable wrote the bill he introduced.

Nice try, Richard.  Maybe if Time Warner gave you $40k, you would have spent more time coming up with legitimate arguments instead of just attacking the “music men” who can name your tune after the first predictable note.

Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!

[Update 3:42pm — We just received a carbon copy of an e-mail Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) sent out after Bennett’s piece was published (coordinated effort, anyone?).  Amusingly, she forgot to hide the carbon copy list.  Among the recipients — two lobbyists from Time Warner Cable, the state’s top cable association lobbyist, and CenturyLink.  The most hilarious part of all — her claims Bennett’s piece represented an “independent explanation” to correct the “false record” on her anti-consumer bill.  Every resident in North Carolina should be on the phones and e-mail today telling the Finance Committee to oppose H.129, and also let them know Ms. Avila’s office is sending out distorted articles written by a K Street lobbyist who accepted a $20k stipend from Time Warner Cable, the company that most strongly supports this bill.  How “independent” is that?]

AT&T's revenue is on the rise, especially from its broadband and wireless service divisions.

AT&T’s announcement that it is will impose usage limits on its DSL and U-verse (wireline) customers this May is just another case of overcharging consumers for Internet access.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing AT&T’s financial reports looking for justification for imposing usage controls on the company’s customers.  Most providers who enact these kinds of pricing schemes claim they are about controlling heavy users, reducing congestion, and covering the costs to provide the service.

But after reviewing some of AT&T’s financial reports, the only explanation apparent for these limits is a quest for additional revenue and profits from subscribers.

AT&T continues to earn billions every quarter — $7 billion in the last three months alone — from its data products division, the vast majority of which comes from selling IP — Internet access — services to customers.  At the same time, the company continues to cut operations and support expenses, reducing its operating costs, and increasingly relies on its wireless and wireline divisions for the majority of the company’s revenue.

There is no evidence AT&T broadband usage costs are significantly impacting the company’s revenue in any way.  In fact, its U-verse platform, which can deliver higher speed, premium broadband service (at a correspondingly higher price) is actually delivering higher revenue from the “heavy users” the company is now complaining about.

In short, AT&T wants to reap the financial rewards of selling more costly, higher speed broadband service, but wants to limit customers’ use of those services.

We reviewed both the quarterly and annual results for AT&T’s wireline division and discovered what we routinely find true among every provider that wants to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme: the company wants to raise prices on broadband customers even as it enjoys ongoing cost reductions to manage broadband traffic and reduces the amount of investment made to manage it.

AT&T's own facts and figures tell the story of a company that has no need to slap usage limits on its broadband customers.

Some interesting facts from AT&T:

• AT&T earns $5 billion (annualized revenue stream) from its U-verse platform;
• AT&T saw 30 percent revenue growth from residential broadband alone;
• 45 percent of AT&T’s revenue in wireline services comes from broadband/IP services;
• In 2011, AT&T says it has a “focus on growth” — of revenue and profit, that is.  The company seeks increases in its “operating margins,” plans capital expenditures that will be focused on a “slight increase in wireless spending,” and ongoing cost-cutting where possible.

AT&T plans to continue to invest in U-verse expansion, critical for a company that is rapidly losing revenue from departing landline customers. In the 2010 Annual Report, AT&T noted the vast majority of cash used in investing activities went towards construction costs related to improved wireless network capacity, which is dramatically different than wired broadband service, and U-verse.  This does not cover ongoing expenses from providing the service.

It’s an important strategy for AT&T, which needs to replace revenue from lost landline customers:

We continue to lose access lines due to competitors (e.g., wireless, cable and VoIP providers) who can provide comparable services at lower prices because they are not subject to traditional telephone industry regulation (or the extent of regulation is in dispute), utilize different technologies, or promote a different business model (such as advertising based) and consequently have lower cost structures.

In response to these competitive pressures, for several years we have utilized a bundling strategy that rewards customers who consolidate their services (e.g., local and long-distance telephone, high-speed Internet, wireless and video) with us. We continue to focus on bundling wireline and wireless services, including combined packages of minutes and video service through our U-verse service and our relationships with satellite television providers. We will continue to develop innovative products that capitalize on our expanding fiber network.

Unfortunately, the benefits U-verse provides broadband users will be tempered by usage limits on it.

Considering AT&T’s U-verse pipeline is one giant broadband connection, the disturbing fact the company will not implement these overcharging schemes on its voice or video services cannot be ignored.  Only the broadband service, on which customers could entirely bypass AT&T’s TV and phone products for a competitor, is impacted.  The risk of that happening with the company’s usage cap is now diminished.

As Stop the Cap! has warned for nearly three years — this is the ultimate end run around Net Neutrality. Instead of actively blocking or throttling competing services, AT&T simply uses a usage limit to discourage customers from using the competitor, relying on unlimited AT&T TV and phone services instead.

AT&T's annual report illustrates the ongoing wireline losses attributable to departing landline customers.

But things are much brighter in the broadband division. Notice the increasing revenue.

U-verse represents a successful example of benefits earned when companies invest in their networks to provide improved service to customers.

But what happens when companies gradually reduce their expenses and investments in those networks? They try and make up the difference with an Internet Overcharging scheme that places limits on service to keep costs down and profits up.

Community broadband networks deliver the best value and speed for North Carolina consumers and businesses

Word has reached Stop the Cap! that hundreds of e-mails and phone calls are pouring into Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) office protesting her hard work on behalf of the state’s largest cable company.  We are being called “mean and nasty” by those supporting Avila’s anti-consumer bill, H.129.

Our answer to that: we are not “mean” or “nasty.”  We are fed up c0nsumers (and voters) who have serious concerns about certain state legislators who introduce bills custom-written by cable lobbyists to enact their business agenda into law.

These anti-community broadband bills have come year after year in North Carolina, despite the fact the state has an “also-ran” reputation as a broadband backwater, with tremendous room for improvement in broadband speed, price, availability, and choice of providers. The bills have also been nothing but trouble for those that have introduced them, alienating constituents and bringing them bad press:

Ty Harrell resigned his office in disgrace over financial irregularities, but he was already in hot water when he introduced his bill. We were stunned when his office staff literally handed the phone to a cable industry lobbyist sitting there to answer questions.  We held him accountable.

David Hoyle did not leave office at his finest moment either, openly admitting on television Time Warner Cable wrote the bill he introduced.

This year, it’s Ms. Avila, who repeatedly promised to hold existing community-owned networks harmless by exempting them from the draconian, project-killing legislation she has proposed.  But after closed door meetings, we learned those promises were hollow.  The words of her bill may have changed, but the results are exactly the same — she is micromanaging community networks into insolvency (while exempting the companies that wrote the bill she introduced).

The unanswered, critical question every legislator needs to ask is: How does H.129 improve North Carolina’s dismal broadband ranking and deliver improved service?

The former Rep. Harrell

The answer is, it does nothing.  Not only does it ignore the chasm of low quality service prevalent west of Charlotte and north of Winston-Salem, it specifically erects roadblocks to keep any community from trying to resolve a situation they’ve dealt with for years and years.  Ask any rural community’s leader if they’ve heard from constituents upset by the unavailability or quality of broadband in their area and you will get an earful.  The truth is, had the cable and telephone companies in the state had a real interest in providing 21st century service to these communities, they would have already done it.  With H.129, they can rest easy knowing nobody else will try.

This is not an auspicious position for Ms. Avila to take.  She ran for office upset with backroom deals, insider political maneuvering, and closed government.  Reviewing her campaign platform, the one thing she emphasized time and again was her promise to bring “open government” to the people in her district, just north of the state capital.

Where is the open government on H.129?  Nowhere to be found.

Stop the Cap! would have loved to include the complete video record of the first meeting to modify her bill to protect incumbent providers.  Only there is no video record.  The meeting was held behind closed doors, and it took a source to reveal details about how the cable and phone companies ran it as their own.  It’s the epitome of the kind of back-room deals Ms. Avila railed against in her campaign.

Considering the results, we can understand why the meeting was secret.  The cable lobby understands full well the power of sunshine’s disinfecting power.  Shining a bright light on the cozy connection between legislators and the companies whose interests they brazenly represent tells a story they do not want the voting public to hear.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  We’ve learned Ms. Avila plans to bring H.129 to a vote in the Finance Committee as early as this Thursday, with no public discussion allowed.  Voters can be spectators of their own broadband demise, but they will not be allowed to say a word about it.  Meanwhile, certain members of the legislature have had plenty of time to meet repeatedly with cable and phone company lobbyists.

As we’ve seen time and time again, that lobbying campaign of disinformation tries to muddy the implications of bills such as these.

You cannot hear if you are not open to listening.

Legislators who may not understand what H.129 is really all about need to hear from the public and communities to understand precisely what they are voting for and what impact this legislation will have.  The ripple effects go far beyond just keeping Time Warner and CenturyLink free from pesky competition.

Neither company is truly harmed by community broadband networks.  In fact, both of them have thumbed their noses and shrugged their shoulders even in the presence of much larger competitive threats in their urban markets — Time Warner for the phone company and AT&T’s U-verse, which is available in limited areas.

The best thing Ms. Avila could do is withdraw her legislation because it simply is not in the best interests of North Carolina.  Barring that, she should do what she promised and specifically exempt ALL existing community networks in the state from the provisions of her bill.  At this point, that delivers a win to bondholders who will see their investment pay off, communities can continue to provide service to interested customers, and everyone else will continue to enjoy the benefits of lower rates these networks bring every telecommunications customer.

That’s common sense to everyone except the cable and phone companies that will stop at nothing to bury community-owned providers.

Where does your legislator stand?  If you have not made your feelings known to the members of the Finance Committee, time is running out.  Call and e-mail them and let them know you expect them to vote NO on H.129 when it reaches their committee this week.  We’re going to do our best to watch what may turn out to be another “voice vote” that prevents voters from knowing how individual members voted.  This time, we’ll be paying close attention to the lips and movements of individual committee members and take our own vote so we know who to thank and who needs to held accountable.

Finance Committee Members

(click each name for contact information)

Although more than 30 million Americans have experienced getting bill shocked with a cell phone bill loaded with overlimit fees and penalties, a wireless industry group says 19 out of 20 of these customers are economically better off getting those high bills, and any plan to notify customers in advance when their usage limits are reached would “harm innovation, limit consumer choice, and impair the potential for competitive differentiation.”

These incredible conclusions come in a filing from the Wireless Communications Association International, an industry group funded by AT&T, Sprint, Clearwire, and Time Warner Cable.

The WCAI just released a new white paper claiming Americans facing Internet Overcharging from usage-capped wireless data plans are actually saving money when carriers impose overlimit fees.  Their reasoning for this new math?  You might overpay for a usage plan that delivers a higher usage allowance than you need.

"And to think they actually believed us when we said Internet Overcharging saved people money!"

The wireless industry is heavily lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to stop the agency from imposing new rules to deal with the bill shock problem.  The FCC favors an advance warning system, which would force providers to notify customers by e-mail or text message when they near their usage allowance.  Letting customers know when they are about to pay enormous penalty usage rates before they are reflected on a future bill could save Americans millions annually.

The WCAI-funded study says consumers don’t need the agency’s help, going as far as to claim the majority of Americans are already well aware they are exceeding their plan limits, and are better off paying short-term penalties.

“The FCC is weighing new regulations that it says will eliminate so-called ‘bill shock,’ but this analysis makes plain that consumers don’t need regulators’ help,” WCAI President Fred Campbell said. “If you give them the right information, they know how to pick the best deal.”

But critics charge providers fighting this provision want to hide the most basic information of all — when consumers are on the verge of running up huge bills.

“The FCC’s effort on bill shock is long overdue in a wireless environment where today’s heavy user is tomorrow’s average user, and where the wireless Web is more and more important to commerce and to society,” Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley said. “It is vital that consumers are empowered with the information and the tools needed to make decisions about their own wireless usage so they can avoid outrageous charges.”

The WCAI white paper suggests that if providers are forced to issue advance warnings, companies may have to raise rates to compensate.  The paper’s author suggests consumers would find that worse than just paying the bills with overlimit fees:

The Nielsen Study indicates that many consumers incurring overages do so willfully and repeatedly. Their behavior suggests it is unlikely that usage notifications or usage controls would change their behavior because they are either indifferent to the overage charges or have determined that the occasional overage charge is more economical for them than choosing a more expensive plan. Notwithstanding that these overage-incurring consumers may not want or need additional notifications or controls, the adoption of the FCC‘s regulatory proposals would impose on all consumers the financial burden of ―protecting this one small group.

The WCAI dismisses the huge number of complaints that arrive at the FCC each year over this issue as simply “opinions” from consumers, not nearly as credible as their own analysis of actual customer bills.

The paper even argues with the definition of ” bill shock,” suggesting that the nearly 7 percent of wireless customers who blow past their voice allowances only face an average penalty of around $18.  That is “surprising or inconvenient; but it is unlikely to be shocking.”

Bill Shock

The WCAI study admits the dollar amounts for data-usage bill shock can be considerably higher, sometimes $100 or more.  The charges occur more frequently, too — impacting nearly 18 percent of customers.  But the group dismisses it as a rare occurrence anyway and that carriers will issue credits for astronomical surprise bills.  Besides, the paper concludes, when it was written most consumers were enrolled in increasingly-rare “unlimited use” plans.  Since the raw data was collected largely before AT&T abandoned its flat rate data pricing in 2010, statistics regarding bill shock for AT&T’s new limited use plans were not available.  The white paper inaccurately dismisses that major rate change, claiming it “had no impact on the data analyzed.”  That leaves readers believing the rate changes made no difference.

But the group’s logic completely derails when it concludes there are “consumer benefits to overages.”  Namely, providers “simplified” rate plans to reduce choice which was causing “customer confusion.”  The paper concludes “there is substantial evidence that consumers make deliberate choices to incur overages rather than upgrading to a more expensive monthly rate plan, and that they overwhelmingly benefit from such choices.”

The white paper ignores several important factors:

1. The diminishing number of unlimited access plans which give consumers a way to avoid overlimit fees, especially for data;
2. Carriers themselves arbitrarily set the arbitrary rules for the playing field – calling plan allowances, data allowances, limits, overlimit fees and penalties, and roaming rates;
3. The study ignores the record number of consumers complaining about surprising bills and the true economic impact providing simple text message or e-mailed notifications would have, and doesn’t give any reason why a consumer can’t simply shut off services once limits are reached, to prevent excess charges.

The white paper notes that 736,000 Americans annually are getting surprisingly high bills.  Assuming they are an average of $20 higher than anticipated, that represents nearly $15 million dollars in extra revenue for carriers — ample reason to hire dollar-a-holler groups to produce nonsensical reports that conclude a system to notify consumers they are about to be one of those 736,000 customers is actually bad for them and their wallets.

The FCC’s Consumer Task Force recommends these strategies to avoid bill shock:

•    Understand your calling pattern for making voice calls, and ask your carrier for a plan that would be best for your kind of use.
•    If you are an infrequent phone user, consider a pre-paid plan. Because you “pre-pay” for all your minutes, these plans make it impossible to go over your set limit.
•    Understand what your roaming charges are and where you will incur them.
•    Understand your options for data and text plans.
•    If you are going to use your mobile phone outside the U.S. for voice, email, and other services, make certain to find out beforehand what charges may apply. (Visit Wireless World Travel for more information about using a wireless phone in other countries.)
•    Ask how your carrier can help you avoid bill shock – with phone or text alerts, by letting you monitor your account online, or by giving you other information.
•    If you have tried to resolve a billing issue with your carrier and can not reach an acceptable resolution, complain to the FCC. You can call our Consumer Center, toll-free, at 1-888-CALL FCC (1-888-225-5322), or file a complaint here.

To learn more, read the FCC’s White Paper on Bill Shock.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FCC Bill Shock.flv[/flv]

The Federal Communications Commission discusses the problem of “bill shock.”  (1 minute)

Frontier attempts to dig themselves out.

The Oregonian has been covering the plight of Frontier customers in the Pacific Northwest who signed up for Verizon’s fiber to the home service — FiOS — and are now facing down the new owners who want to raise the price by $30 a month.

Frontier has done itself no favors in the media with an ongoing series of reports of service problems, rate increases, and now the latest signs it wants out of the television delivery business altogether.

In a letter dated March 4th, Steven Crosby — senior vice president of government and regulatory affairs, told the city administrator in Dundee, Ore., Frontier FiOS TV has been a flop.

Since Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc., acquired Verizon’s operations on July 1, 2010, it has built on Verizon’s prior actions and continued to offer a robust and aggressively priced video product to attract Dundee subscribers.  Despite these efforts, however, customer growth has been disappointing and stagnant and Frontier has not achieved a commercially reasonable level of subscriber penetration.

Frontier also admits it has been under-pricing its video service to stay competitive and attract new customers, but those days are over.  The company earlier announced its intention to raise rates by $30 a month for its standard cable TV service, making it more costly than its nearest competitor, Comcast.

Frontier recognizes the impact its enormous rate increase will have on its subscriber base, soberly noting it is likely to “further depress subscriber penetration.”

With this in mind, Frontier is exercising its right under the franchise agreement it has in Dundee to provide notice it intends to terminate its video service at a future date, after providing subscribers with 90 days advance notification.

Similar letters went to city administrators in Newberg, McMinnville, and Wilsonville.  City officials had no reservations about interpreting the meaning of the letters and plans to implement a $500 installation fee for future FiOS TV installations.

“Looking at it, you expect there will be no new customers,” Dan Danicic, Newberg’s city manager told The Oregonian. “Getting this opt-out notice is not a huge surprise to me, but we are disappointed.”

Frontier's rate increases are driving many consumers back to Comcast for their television service.

Sources tell Stop the Cap! there was considerable debate inside Frontier’s offices last week on how to implement directives from executives to shut down FiOS installations as quickly as possible.  Initial efforts to quietly raise the installation price — without giving subscribers’ advance notice — were on track until Frontier’s legal department quashed the plan.  Concerns were also raised inside the customer support units responsible for taking orders and handling customer billing inquiries over how to deal with the inevitable subscriber backlash when the first bills arrived in the mail.

“Frontier hates dealing with FiOS and they can’t wait to be rid of it — they claim that the product is at least 10 years away from really returning any investment from its original deployment,” a well-placed source told Stop the Cap! late last week.

Frontier FiOS is an anomaly for the rural phone company, which delivers the vast majority of its broadband customers DSL service over copper wire phone lines, usually at speeds approaching 3Mbps.  Frontier FiOS “came along with the deal,” one Indiana Frontier official told local media there in response to rate hikes there.

Still, media reports that the company plans to ditch its TV customers created a small panic inside Frontier by the weekend.

“Getting customers switched over to satellite TV service in an orderly manner was the original plan, but reports the company was abandoning the service altogether risks we’ll lose our customers to Comcast, and many will take their phone lines to the cable company, too,” a second source informed Stop the Cap! this morning.  “We were told ‘orderly transition’ over and over again, so reassuring customers is today’s top priority.”

Dundee, Oregon

Evidence of this campaign was not difficult to find over the weekend, as The Oregonian amended its original story claiming Frontier does not have immediate plans to exit the video business.

Crosby told the newspaper: “Our actual implementation decisions will be business driven. At this time, there is no change in our FiOS video offerings or in our FiOS video service delivery to our customers. And this filing does not affect our FiOS high speed service.”

Stephanie Schifano, identifying herself as an employee of Frontier Communications, attempted to spin the letters sent to several Oregon communities as a simple matter of business and not a foreshadowed abandonment of television service.

“Frontier is exercising our right under the franchise agreements to terminate the franchises. The right to terminate soon expires, and if Frontier didn’t give notice now we may have been required to provide this service, with these franchises, for another 12 years. This notice offers Frontier the flexibility to continue to analyze the FiOS Video/TV business and continue to service our customers,” Schifano wrote.

But both of our sources well-familiar with Frontier FiOS say the company’s actions speak louder than its words.

“When you increase the installation fee to $500 and raise your prices nearly $30 higher than Comcast, you would be crazy not to interpret the message Frontier is trying to send — go get your satellite dish from us and get off FiOS,” our second source told us.

Telecompetitor read into some of the company’s comments about utilizing the acquired fiber network in a new way, perhaps for over-the-top Internet video content.

“That’s wishful thinking,” our second source says.  “Frontier’s only online video efforts surround its rebranded Hulu service, relabeled myfitv.”

Frontier's online video platform serves up mostly repurposed Hulu content.

“The company has no plans I am aware of for a grand video strategy — FiOS covers far too small a service area and there is no way Frontier will spend more money to increase that fiber footprint,” our source adds. “Frontier wants to meet its general obligations made as part of its deal with state regulators when it bought Verizon FiOS with the landline deal, and little else.”

Frontier will continue to offer FiOS to broadband customers for the time being, regardless of what it does with its video package.

“If it’s already there and not costing a lot of money to maintain for broadband, why not?” our source says.

One direct sales contractor for competitor Comcast suspects that train may have already left the station.

Calling Frontier’s customer service operation “a circus,” the salesman says Comcast is benefiting from Frontier’s ball-dropping.

“Many Frontier customers are unhappy with the customer service side while stating they do enjoy their phone, Internet, and video services provided by the FiOS network, but lose the business on the practically non-existing customer service side.”

The contractor says he hears stories from Frontier customers all day who are fed up with the frustration of extended hold times, inaccurate or missing bills, online account access problems, excessive call transfers to deal with service issues and high fees.

For regulators, the aggravation is much the same.

After being promised by CEO Maggie Wilderotter that Frontier would be an aggressive competitor in a barely competitive marketplace, Frontier has raised rates by 46 percent, irritated their customers with customer service problems and outages, and now has served notice it intends to flee the TV business at an undetermined point in the future.