Several staff members working for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), the regulatory agency reviewing the proposed Frontier purchase of Verizon territories in Washington state, have reversed their opposition to the Frontier-Verizon deal because of concessions they believe will better serve consumers impacted by the deal.  But the provisions don’t come close to protecting consumer rights and do not sufficiently protect local telephone and broadband service.

The WUTC must be told that broadband expansion from a service provider that insists on a 5 gigabyte usage limit in its Acceptable Use Policy makes such expansion barely worth the effort.  The WUTC must insist on a permanent exemption from any usage limits for Washington state consumers, especially because many may find Frontier DSL to be their only broadband option for years to come.  To allow a company with such a paltry limit to be the monopoly provider of broadband puts Washington residents and small businesses at a serious economic disadvantage in the digital economy.

Would you choose to reside or locate your business in a community with one broadband provider offering a limit so low, your broadband usage will be limited to web page browsing and e-mail?

High Speed Internet Access Service

Customers may not resell High Speed Internet Access Service (“Service”) without a legal and written agency agreement with Frontier. Customers may not retransmit the Service or make the Service available to anyone outside the premises (i.e., wi-fi or other methods of networking). Customers may not use the Service to host any type of commercial server. Customers must comply with all Frontier network, bandwidth, data storage and usage limitations. Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier will be a part of the lives of almost 500,000 state residents, including those in Wenatchee and other parts of North Central Washington.  That covers a lot of rural residents with no hope of cable competition or other broadband options.  Verizon is the second-largest local telephone service provider in Washington, serving cities such as Redmond, Kirkland, Everett, Bothell, Woodinville, Kennewick, Pullman, Chelan, Richland, Naches, Westport, Lynden, Anacortes, Mount Vernon, Newport, Oakesdale, Republic and Camas-Washougal.  Currently, Verizon has approximately 1,300 employees in Washington, who would be transferred to Frontier once the deal is complete.

Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to assuring residents they can get the kind of broadband service they need in the 21st century, especially from a company that could easily find itself swamped in debt.  Let’s look at what Frontier has offered:

• Invest $40 million to expand high-speed Internet access in Washington.
• Submit quarterly financial reports to identify merger savings.
• Branding and transition costs to be paid by stockholders, not ratepayers.
• Increase financial incentives to prevent a decline in service quality.
• Adopt Verizon’s existing rates and contracts for at least three years.

Frontier would also be required to pay residential customers $35 for missed service repairs or installation appointments. That’s $10 more than Verizon now pays. Current Verizon customers would also have 90 days after the transition to choose another provider without incurring a $5 switching fee. Low-income customers who qualify through the Washington Telephone Assistance Program will also receive a one-time $75 credit if the company fails to offer appropriate discounts or deposit waivers.

Our take:

• Investing $40 million in low speed DSL service with a 5GB usage allowance saddles residents with yesterday’s technology with a usage allowance that rations the Internet.
• Customers don’t care about merger cost reductions because they’ll never enjoy those savings, but they’ll feel their impact if they include layoffs and reduction in investment.
• Consumers will be more concerned about what happens to their phone and broadband service when the “transition” results in service and billing problems.  Will stockholders pay inconvenienced customers?
• Vague promises of increased financial incentives for a company to do… its job, without declines in service quality, exposes just how unnecessary this deal is.  Why not offer incentives for Verizon to stay?
• Freezing rates for three years doesn’t prevent massive increases to make up the difference in year four and beyond.

The WUTC staff had it right the first time when it opposed the deal.  A healthy, financially secure Verizon is still a better deal than a smaller independent company saddled with debt.  Frontier seals the fate of Washington state residents from the benefits of fiber optics wired to the home, delivering high speed broadband for the future because Frontier doesn’t do fiber to the home on its own.  With a tiny usage allowance, just waiting for the company to decide to enforce it means you won’t be using your broadband account too much anyway.

The WUTC is accepting comments and you need to start calling and writing.  Make sure to tell the Commission it must secure a permanent exemption for Washington from any Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption/usage-based Internet billing and any usage limits Frontier defines in its Acceptable Use Policy.  Better yet, tell them Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to making you feel good about Verizon turning over your phone service to a company that is traveling the same road three other companies took all the way to bankruptcy.

Customers who would like to comment on the provisions can call toll-free: (888) 333-9882 or send e-mail to [email protected]. The deadline for comments is January 10th.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn

At least one FCC commissioner remains unconvinced that Verizon Wireless’ recent decision to double the fee consumers pay for service cancellation is justified.  Virtually every carrier offering discounts on handsets and other equipment tie those savings to a two year service contract, with a stinging early termination fee (ETF) if one decides to leave before the contract is up.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn released a public statement Wednesday questioning Verizon’s logic in their explanation that doubling the cancel fee from $175 to $350 helped defray costs ranging from network expansion and marketing to paying to keep the lights on in Verizon Wireless retail stores.  Clyburn called Verizon’s answers unsatisfying at best, alarming at worst.

“I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business. So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served,” Clyburn wrote in a public statement.

Verizon also continues to get heat over mysterious fees appearing on some Verizon Wireless customer bills.  As Stop the Cap! reported back in September, consumers with basic service plans occasionally find $1.99 “data charges” on their monthly bills, and several have obtained refunds from the carrier after pointing out they do not use data features on their phones.

The mystery was suggested solved when a purported, unnamed Verizon Wireless employee engaged in some whistleblowing at The New York Times:

“The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charge on the bill. Around the OK button on a typical flip phone are the up, down, left, right arrows. If you open the flip and accidentally press the up arrow key, you see that the phone starts to connect to the web. So you hit END right away. Well, too late. You will be charged $1.99 for that 0.02 kilobytes of data. NOT COOL. I’ve had phones for years, and I sometimes do that mistake to this day, as I’m sure you have. Legal, yes; ethical, NO.

“Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month! That’s over $300 million per month in data revenue off a simple mistake!

“Our marketing, billing, and technical departments are all aware of this. But they have failed to do anything about it—and why? Because if you get 87 million customers to pay $1.99, why stop this revenue? Customer Service might credit you if you call and complain, but this practice is just not right.

“Now, you can ask to have this feature blocked. But even then, if you one of those buttons by accident, your phone transmits data; you get a message that you cannot use the service because it’s blocked–BUT you just used 0.06 kilobytes of data to get that message, so you are now charged $1.99 again!

“They have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they’re actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40% of Verizon’s revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don’t even notice this $1.99 on the bill.”

Verizon's new termination fee appears random and capricious, some company critics charge.

Verizon Wireless denies it charges consumers for accidental web usage that lands on their mobile phone home page, which they claim is exempt from charges.  But Clyburn isn’t buying that explanation either.

“I am also alarmed by the fact that many consumers have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones thereby launching Verizon Wireless’s mobile Internet service. The company asserted in its response to the Bureau that it ‘does not charge users when the browser is launched,’ but recent press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise,” Clyburn writes.

“These issues cannot be ignored. Wireless communications are an essential part of our lives, linking us to our places of business, our communities, and our loved ones. The bottom line is that wireless companies can truly earn their desired long-term commitments from consumers by focusing primarily on developing innovative products, maintaining affordable prices, and providing excellent customer service. I look forward to exploring this issue in greater depth with my colleagues in the New Year,” she adds.

Verizon Wireless is also the only carrier that has not responded to a campaign by a Times columnist to let customers get rid of the airtime-wasting 15 seconds of voicemail instructions people wait through when trying to leave messages, something the wireless industry admits is there precisely to use up airtime and maximize revenue.

Clyburn joined the Commission this year, appointed by incoming President Barack Obama.  Her father James is the third-ranking Democrat in the House behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIVB Buffalo Best and Worst Cell Providers 12-7-09.flv[/flv]

WIVB-TV Buffalo reviewed Consumer Reports’ findings regarding the nation’s best and worst cell phone providers.  Despite Verizon’s controversial fees, it remains top-rated by the magazine’s readers. (12/7/09 – 2 minutes)

Comcast has agreed to settle a $16 million dollar class action lawsuit filed on behalf of broadband customers who experienced slowed speeds while using peer to peer applications.  The original lawsuit, Hart v. Comcast, accused the company of advertising broadband speeds that were unavailable to customers when using certain applications the company allegedly impaired from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008.  As part of the proposed settlement, Comcast denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to modify its “network management” policies and feels further litigation over the matter would not be in the company’s best interests.

Customers are eligible for a settlement up to $16:

If you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use:

• The Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; and/or
• Lotus Notes to send e-mail any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.

Starting January 5, 2010 affected customers can file a claim online or by mail for their share of the settlement.  Additional information is available on the settlement website P2PCongestionSettlement.com.

BitTorrent's peer to peer protocol was impacted by Comcast's speed throttle

The Comcast throttling incident helped make the case for Net Neutrality proponents that broadband providers would, in certain instances, be willing to impede traffic it deemed undesirable or burdensome.  Peer to peer traffic has been blamed by several providers for creating congestion problems on their broadband networks, particularly those that share a limited amount of bandwidth among hundreds of customers.  Unlike typical file transfers, which originate in one location and deliver content to consumers, peer-to-peer relies on groups of people sharing individual pieces of files with one another until everyone obtains the complete file.  Because many peer to peer networks consider it good etiquette to share as much as one receives, upstream bandwidth is consumed at a much higher than average rate.

For consumers who leave file sharing applications running 24/7, the amount of traffic can build to considerable levels.  Many providers consider such traffic a nuisance that clogs their networks, and some have sought to artificially reduce the speed of such traffic.

One way or another consumers will pay more for their Mediacom cable service in 2010.  The undecided question is will Sinclair-owned television stations get a chunk of your wallet or will Mediacom keep it all for themselves.

Weary Mediacom customers have been through this battle before.  For the second time in three years, residents of Des Moines, Iowa face the prospect of losing access to their local Fox station, owned by Sinclair.

The ads are up and running.

[flv width=”360″ height=”287″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Mediacom WEAR Ad.flv[/flv]

Mediacom is running this spot, customized for each city impacted by the dispute, comparing Sinclair’s demands as another “bailout.”  This one is running in the Pensacola-Mobile market, where station WEAR is threatened with removal from Mediacom’s lineup.

Sinclair is demanding another price increase from the cable operator and Mediacom has a history of playing hardball and refusing to pay.  If the two sides don’t reach agreement by December 31st, 22 Sinclair-owned stations in communities served by Mediacom will be taken off the cable lineup.

Viewers aren’t happy, especially because they do not get a reduced bill from the cable company for the reduced channel lineup that results.

Both sides are waging campaigns to try and get viewers into the fight.  But in the end, it’s a battle of two corporate titans fighting over their portion of your money.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCCI Des Moines Mediacom Sinclair Exchange Strong Words 1-23-07.flv[/flv]

Back in January, 2007 Mediacom customers spent five weeks without Sinclair-owned television stations on their cable dial.  A nasty exchange between Sinclair and Mediacom was documented in this report aired by KCCI-TV Des Moines back on January 23, 2007.   (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCCI Des Moines Mediacom Loses Customers 5-4-07.flv[/flv]

The fallout from the 2007 dispute could be measured by disgusted customers who fled Mediacom for other providers, as KCCI found on May 4, 2007. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHO Des Moines Sinclair vs Mediacom 12-15-09.flv[/flv]

WHO-TV Des Moines covers today’s dispute impacting Mediacom and the city’s Fox affiliate. (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDSM Des Moines Mediacom vs Sinclair 12-17-09.flv[/flv]

KDSM-TV Des Moines is the Sinclair-owned Fox affiliate.  The station covers its own dilemma, warning viewers they might lose the station for the second time in three years.  (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KFXA Cedar Rapids Mediacom Sinclair Dispute in Iowa 12-17-09.flv[/flv]

In Cedar Rapids, Sinclair’s KFXA-TV covers the dispute with a decidedly pro-Sinclair point of view. (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEAR Pensacola Sinclair Mediacom Dispute 12-16-09.flv[/flv]

WEAR-TV in Pensacola, Florida spends a great deal less “news time” covering the dispute. WEAR is the Sinclair-owned ABC affiliate for the Florida Panhandle. (30 seconds)

Kyle McSlarrow

Once again, the telecommunications industry is threatening to run to the courts if it faces Net Neutrality regulation, claiming their corporate freedom of speech would be violated by protecting the rights of consumers to access the content of their choice on their terms.

Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s big cable operator trade association, delivered the warning at yesterday’s appearance at the Media Institute in Washington, DC.

In a speech clearly designed to put regulators on notice, McSlarrow dismissed Net Neutrality as a solution in search of a problem and a concept big cable would likely challenge in the courts.

“When all the dire warnings of the net neutrality proponents are stripped away, there really are no signs of actual harm.  Yes, there have been a couple of isolated incidents that keep being held up as examples of what needs to be prevented, but nothing that suggests any threat to the openness of the Internet,” McSlarrow said. “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”

McSlarrow told the audience that the cable industry would be among the victims of Net Neutrality, claiming their rights to transact business on their networks could be trampled by an overzealous Federal Communications Commission.

Almost every net neutrality proposal would seek to control how an ISP affects the delivery of Internet content or applications as it reaches its customers.   This is particularly odd for two reasons:  First, there is plenty of case law about instances of speech compelled by the government – “forced speech” — that suggests such rules should be scrutinized closely. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is an almost completely unnecessary risk.  All ISPs have stated repeatedly that they will not block their customers from accessing any lawful content or application on the Internet.  Competitive pressures alone ensure this result:  we are in the business of maximizing our customers’ choices and experiences on the Internet.  The counter examples used to debate this point are so few and so distinguishable as to make the point for me.

Beyond the forced speech First Amendment implications, however, net neutrality rules also could infringe First Amendment rights because they could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service.  While the FCC’s NPRM acknowledges the need to carve out “managed” or “specialized” services from the scope of any new rules, it also expresses concerns that “the growth of managed or specialized services might supplant or otherwise negatively affect the open Internet.”   Meaning what?  Well, the strong implication is some kind of guaranteed amount of bandwidth capacity for services the government deems important.

McSlarrow is focused front and center on the rights of providers, not consumers, when he speaks about the First Amendment.  His constituents are Time Warner Cable, Cox, Comcast, Charter, and the other NCTA members, namely big cable companies.  In his view, any regulation or interference in how providers decide to deliver service is a potential violation of their constitutionally protected rights.  That’s a side effect of the nation’s courts recognizing that corporations have rights, too.

McSlarrow predicts a laundry list of  ‘doom and gloom’ scenarios that would befall providers if Net Neutrality was enacted:

• Net Neutrality could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service;
• Net Neutrality would prohibit ISPs and applications providers from contracting for any enhanced or prioritized delivery of that application or content to the ISPs’ customers.  Under the proposal, ISPs wouldn’t even be permitted to offer such prioritization or quality-of-service enhancements at nondiscriminatory prices, terms and conditions to anyone who wanted it.
• Net Neutrality may mean that they [content providers] can’t provide material in the enhanced form that they want.
• Net Neutrality could tell a new entrant or an existing content provider that it cannot enter into arrangements with an ISP for unique prioritization or quality of service enhancements that might enable it to enter the marketplace and have its voice heard along with those of established competitors.

McSlarrow doesn’t offer a shred of evidence to prove his more alarmist predictions, even as he demands it from those who support Net Neutrality.  The kind of unregulated, non-neutral net McSlarrow advocates already exists in places like Canada.  What you see there is what you’ll get here  — threats of usage caps unless speed throttles are permitted, arbitrary “network management” that reduces speeds for some services while “enhancing” or “exempting” certain other services (usually those partnered with the provider), and in the end usage caps -and- throttles -and- price increases.  In Canada, the story extends beyond the retail broadband market.  Wholesale broadband sold to independent ISPs comes nicely throttled and overpriced as well.

McSlarrow maintains a see no evil, hear no evil approach to his provider friends who pay his salary.  Comcast’s quiet throttling of peer to peer applicati0ns that blew up into a major scandal when the truth came out was evidently one of the “isolated incidents” he speaks about.  That’s only the nation’s largest cable operator — no reason to get bent out of shape about that.

Let’s break down McSlarrow’s concerns and read between the lines:

• Nothing about Net Neutrality impacts on a cable system’s ability to deliver its multichannel video programming.  What McSlarrow is hinting at is that cable may end up using some of the same technology that moves online video to your computer to transport television programming to your TV set.  AT&T does that today with its U-verse system.  It’s basically a fat broadband pipe over which television, telephone, and broadband service travels together over a single pair of wires.  There is no demand that broadband must usurp your cable television package.
• McSlarrow is trying to be clever when he describes “new services” that he defines as separate and distinct from Internet access service.  That usually includes “digital phone” products which providers already exempt from usage limits imposed on competitors like Vonage.  If “network management” throttles Vonage while exempting the cable system’s own phone product, is that fair?  What about the forthcoming TV Everywhere?  Could a provider throttle the speed of Hulu while exempting its own online television service?  What happens if a provider’s own service is exempted from these throttles and can deliver a higher quality picture because of that exemption?
• “Bandwidth is not infinite.”  That’s something I’ve heard providers argue for more than a year complaining about their congested networks and why they need to impose controls to “manage them.” McSlarrow wants providers to be able to “manage” those networks by selling enhanced speeds for applications that partner with the provider.  Unfortunately, because cable broadband is a shared resource, those premium enhanced speeds will consume a larger share of that resource, naturally slowing down everyone else who didn’t agree to pay. Providers will say they are not ‘intentionally’ slowing down the free lane, but that’s a distinction without a difference to the consumer who will find many of their websites slower to access.
• Today’s model asks consumers to make the ultimate choice. If they want a faster online experience, they can purchase a faster tier of service. Now providers want to change that by establishing a nice protection racket — pay us for “enhanced speeds” or your content may not reach your customers at a tolerable rate of speed.
• It’s ironic McSlarrow is suddenly crying about how unfair it is content providers can’t purchase these “enhanced services.”  That’s a change of tune from an industry that used to accuse the large number of content providers who support Net Neutrality as freeloaders trying to use “their pipes for free.”

Customer demand for higher speeds and more reliable service should be all the impetus the cable industry needs to deliver quality service, particularly considering consumers pay a lot of money for the service and remain loyal to it.

McSlarrow’s final argument is a testament to the arrogance of the cable industry on the issues that concern subscribers.  A-la-carte channel choice, equipment options and expenses, usage limits, rate increases, and service standards are all issues this industry has fought with regulators about.  What customers want is secondary, and can remain that way as long as consumer choice is kept limited.  McSlarrow’s valiant defense of the rights and freedoms of the cable industry to offer extra freedom of speech through enhanced speed-privileges to content partners is more important to him and his provider friends than the rights of customers to not have their service artificially degraded to make room for even bigger cable profits.