Verizon Communications has gone to court to limit picketing and protest activity among striking union workers who have been accused of taking their cause too far.

The company filed a lawsuit Wednesday in New York and won a court order Monday in Pennsylvania, and another in Delaware on Wednesday.  The company is waiting for rulings in New Jersey and Massachusetts that would force Verizon strikers to limit the number of picketers at any given location and stop blocking access to company buildings.

Relations between the company and striking workers have deteriorated significantly as the first week of the strike wears on.

Near Buffalo, two strikers were hit by a replacement worker’s vehicle.  A BB gun was fired at a worker still on the job in the Bronx.  Several incidents of pushing and shoving by both sides have also been documented.  But among the most serious incidents are acts of sabotage that have cut off landline and cell service, mostly in upstate New York.

Service was restored late yesterday to residents in Oneida County, who lost both home and cell phone service after fiber cables were cut.  Verizon has rushed out press releases decrying what they call “sabotage” and indirectly implying Verizon strikers are responsible.  The New York State Police continues criminal investigations in several upstate communities were vandalism has occurred.

Austin (Courtesy: Boston Herald; Photo by M. Stone)

Verizon strikers have also been following around replacement workers assigned to do home installations and repair work, and this has occasionally led to picketers arriving outside of customer homes where repair work is underway.

The Boston Herald reports one Quincy, Mass. mom found a circus outside her home yesterday when Verizon showed up to fix her phone line:

A Quincy mom has disconnected her support for striking Verizon workers yesterday after a group of mouthy picketers surrounded non-union repairmen and turned a phone-line fix at her home into what she is calling a “ridiculous” protest scene.

“I looked in the street and there are picketers, 10 of them or more, doing a circle around the Verizon truck,” said Karen Austin, 64, a mother of five who lives on Forest Avenue.

“Every time (the repairmen) would walk up to my house they would follow them. I couldn’t believe my eyes. This is ridiculous. Why are they picketing my house?”

“I’m not on a main street … I’m not a business. I’m a person who needed a line fixed,” she said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHDH Boston Verizon Sabotage in Mass 8-8-11.mp4[/flv]

Verizon alleges vandalism may be responsible for a significant service outage in Tewksbury, Mass., but union officials suggest Verizon’s claims are “straight out of the Verizon strike playbook.”  WHDH in Boston reports.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC NY Verizon goes to court over workers strike in East 8-10-11.mp4[/flv]

WABC in New York watched as Verizon strikers booed anyone approaching an entrance to Verizon’s headquarters.  Company officials are seeking court orders to restrain picketing activities in five states.  (3 minutes)

Verizon employees rally in New York. (Photo: Gary Schoichet)

More than 45,000 Verizon landline workers are on strike this morning after union workers overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract from Verizon Communications that could result in as much as $20,000 in reduced benefits per employee, per year.

Workers employed by Verizon East, which serves the company’s northeastern and mid-Atlantic regions from Massachusetts to Virginia, left their jobs as their contract with the company expired over the weekend.  Two unions — the Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, are pitting the dispute as part of a corporate war on the middle class.

Verizon has been demanding serious concessions from union workers in negotiations for a new contract agreement.  But employees are expressing serious concern over draconian salary and benefit concessions that could drastically reduce their pay and benefits package.  According to William Huber, president of IBEW Local 827:

• Verizon is seeking to tie pay increases to company-defined performance reviews;
• Employees would pay significant sums towards health care premiums;
• Pensions would be frozen at the end of 2011;
• Sickness and death benefits would be eliminated;
• Disability benefits would be slashed from 52 to 26 weeks and authorized “sick time” curtailed.

Verizon officials claim the benefit and pay concessions are part of the reality of today’s landline telephone business, which has been in decline for several years.

“We need to reach a contract that addresses economic realities,” said Lee Gierczynski, a Verizon spokesman. “The wireline business is constantly in decline. In order for Verizon to compete, Verizon and the unions need to make some difficult decisions.”

That contention is seriously disputed by the two unions and employees.  The CWA called Verizon one of the most profitable companies in the U.S., noting the company earned $19.5 billion in profits in the last four years and paid over $258 million in compensation to just five top executives.

“So tell me, where is their loss?” said Dino Cantillo, a facilities technician and 17-year employee. Cantillo told the Star-Ledger that Verizon’s CEO, Ivan Seidenberg, earned more than $18 million in total compensation in 2010 – roughly $49,000 every day.

“It takes these guys a year to make that,” said Cantillo, pointing at the two dozen or so protesters who picketed in Howell, N.J.

“They are trying to get rid of the working class,” said Bill Gebhart, a lineman who has worked for Verizon for 15 years. “They are totally annihilating it.”

The unions are especially upset Verizon has been aggressively trying to contract work out of the region, hiring workers offshore in Mexico, the Philippines, and other countries to perform tasks formerly done by regional employees.  The unions also point to significant corporate welfare Verizon received recently — a $1.3 billion federal tax rebate paid for by taxpayers.

“These negotiations are all about good jobs,” said CWA District 1 Vice President Chris Shelton. “Companies like Verizon should be investing in rebuilding the American economy, not contributing to the destruction of good, middle-class jobs.”

Verizon appears to be in no hurry to negotiate, cancelling several bargaining sessions last weekend.

During the last strike by Verizon employees in 2000, requests for repair service, installation, and other construction work languished for weeks, so it is very likely consumers with phone or Internet service problems or new order requests will face growing delays the longer the strike lasts.  Union officials plan to move against company plans to reassign managers and workers from other regions with strike protests and what one union official said would be a “blizzard of paperwork.”

Union workers also suggest the quality of repairs and installations done by those pressed into service with little experience may be below standard.

The CWA recommended that union workers and supporters retaliate against Verizon by canceling their phone, Internet, and cell phone service.  That could be an expensive proposition, particularly for wireless customers who would certainly face the prospect of early termination fees.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Strike 8-8-11.flv[/flv]

Visible strike actions by Verizon workers have served as catnip for local reporters, who are extensively covering the strike up and down the eastern seaboard.  Stop the Cap! has assembled coverage from stations all across the region. (28 minutes)

Buffalo’s communications labor unions are behind an organized effort to push Verizon Communications to expand its fiber-to-the-home service to the city of Buffalo, despite the fact the telecom company has a moratorium on service expansion beyond its existing commitments.

Buffalo AFL-CIO Central Labor Council President Michael Hoffert and CWA (Communications Workers of America) Local 1122 President James Wagner teamed up with the city’s elected officials and community advocates to pressure the phone company to expand service beyond several suburbs that currently get the service.

A professionally designed website, DontBypassBuffalo.com, is the home of the campaign, collecting signatures from interested residents and sharing late-breaking developments.

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service.

“Verizon’s FiOS service is a cutting-edge technology that brings ultra-fast internet and superior video programming over fiber optic cables that run directly into customers’ homes,” reads a statement from the coalition. “While Verizon is deploying FiOS throughout many of the suburbs of Buffalo, they are not building FiOS in the City of Buffalo.  The residents of Amherst, Tonawanda, Kenmore, Orchard Park, Hamburg, West Seneca and Lackawanna, where Verizon has built FiOS, are, taken as a whole, more affluent and less diverse than Buffalo residents.  The deployment of broadband technologies is a key to economic redevelopment in the City, especially since health care and higher education, both very dependent on cutting edge technologies, are leading employers in our area.  If Verizon continues to bypass Buffalo, residential consumers, children, and area businesses won’t be able to thrive in the 21st century economy.”

The union shares an interest in bringing the advanced service to more residents across Erie County as it collectively represents some of the Verizon employees who will service the fiber network.  Three western New York chapters of the CWA – Locals 1122, 1115 and 1177 – represent nearly 750 Verizon Workers across Erie, Genesee and Niagara counties, as well as across the Southern Tier, including field technicians, central office technicians and clerical staff.

Curry (WIVB-TV)

Verizon stalled new rollouts of its fiber optic network more than a year ago, and has consistently said it would only expand service in areas where it already has signed agreements with local communities.  In many regions, Verizon has completed agreements with towns and villages before reaching accommodations with larger urban areas.  Buffalo is not alone in protesting for improved broadband service.  Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Boston have also complained about being bypassed.

Last week, Coalition Director Janique Curry stepped up the pressure on the phone company at a press conference in front of Verizon’s Elmwood Avenue headquarters.

“Verizon’s lack of commitment to the minority population in the city of Buffalo is unacceptable,” Curry said.  “This community deserves an equal opportunity as our neighbors in the suburbs experience.”

Verizon’s FiOS network in New York State currently serves parts of metropolitan New York City and suburban areas around Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/DontBypassBuffalo Apr-May 2011.flv[/flv]

Here are three reports on the protests: WIVB-TV and WKBW-TV’s coverage of the protest in April, and WIVB’s most recent story covering last week’s return to Verizon headquarters to apply additional pressure on the company.  (3 minutes)

It's "Return of the Astroturf Groups"

It did not take more than a few hours for the first non-profit and “minority advocacy” groups to hurry out press releases applauding the announced merger intentions of AT&T and T-Mobile.

Winning approval of the merger in Washington will take a full court press by lobbyists and organizations that claim to represent “the public interest,” even if the merger will likely raise prices for the constituents they ostensibly represent.  Too often, these groups also fail to openly disclose they have board members that work for the telecommunications industry or welcome large financial contributions made by one or both companies.  That makes it difficult for the average consumer to discern whether matters of arcane telecommunications policy are truly of interest to these organizations or whether they are simply returning a favor to the companies that write them checks.

The Communications Workers of America, the union representing many AT&T employees, has been applauding the announced merger on their website, “Speed Matters.”  It’s hard to blame the union for supporting the merger — it opens the door to union membership for T-Mobile employees.  The union does a good job representing their workers, and their interests often are shared by consumers.  For instance, the CWA has smartly opposed Verizon landline sell-0ffs to third party companies, which have tended to bring bad results for ratepayers.  But their website does trumpet some sketchy organizations not well known outside of the dollar-a-holler advocacy industry.

Take “The Hispanic Institute” (THI).  This obscure “group” chose a name for itself suspiciously similar to the much larger and more prominent National Hispanic Institute.  That’s where the similarity ends, however.

The Hispanic Institute believes the AT&T and T-Mobile merger will bring harmony and joy to the Latino community clamoring for mobile broadband:

“The proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile will move us closer to universal mobile broadband deployment. When we consider how essential mobile technology is to empowering communities, we conclude that this proposal is good for Hispanic America. It provides an opportunity to amplify the growth in mobile broadband adoption by both English and Spanish speaking Americans.”

AT&T regularly contributes substantially to Urban League programs.

In fact, the only thing most Latinos will find after the merger is higher prices for reduced levels of service.  T-Mobile’s aggressive pricing and innovative (and sometimes disruptive) packages are well-known in the industry, and they are a frequent choice of budget-minded consumers, including many members of the Latino community.  It does little good to expand mobile broadband service that many cannot afford.  Reduced competition always leads to higher prices, a fact of life missed by THI.

Perhaps THI’s misguided support for the merger was an aberration.  But then again, maybe not.  The group also promotes a pharmaceutical industry-funded scare site designed to convince Americans that prescription drugs imported from Canada are dangerous and unsafe.  Calgary is apparently the new Calcutta, when you have a vested interest in stopping people from saving a fortune on their medication by buying it north of the border.

Perhaps that was also just “an error in judgment.”  But little doubt remains after you read their spirited defense of the bottom-feeding payday loan industry (even though they claim they are not.)

Friends of Big Pharma, Payday Loan Gougers, and A Bigger AT&T are no friends of mine… or yours.

The Urban League is a regular recipient of AT&T cash.  In return, the group is no stranger to advocating for the phone company’s political agenda.  One of their chapters belongs to the ultimate in Astroturf groups — Broadband for America.  How many organizations cautiously optimistic about a telecom industry merger would rush out a press release about it?  They did:

“The pending merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA holds potential opportunity for an expanded, diverse workforce … We plan to carefully observe the upcoming regulatory process and look forward to a transition that is guided by AT&T’s commitment to diversity and equal opportunity. We have every reason to be optimistic,” said Marc Morial, president and CEO.

Speed Matters somehow forgot to mention AT&T is a major member of the Alliance they quote in support of the merger.

Of course he does.

Then there is the ultimate in echo chamber advocacy courtesy of the Alliance for Digital Equality:

“The merger of T-Mobile USA and AT&T will enable rapid broadband coverage for most of the nation — including many lower-income and rural communities that have been largely underserved — through an expanded 4G LTE deployment to 95% of the U.S. population within six years. This is a huge step forward in making President Obama’s vision of reaching 98% of Americans a reality.

“What’s more, wireless broadband has shown tremendous promise in bringing our communities of color into the digital age — something that an increasing number of studies and reports have shown we have got to improve upon if we are going to bridge the digital divide that exists in this country. This merger puts the right technologies into the communities that need it, at the right time… and at the right price.” — Julius Hollis, Chief Executive Officer

Missing from these glowing words is an admission that AT&T is a major member of the Alliance.

It’s the coalition of the willing to sell out consumers.

With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)