Take the money and run

The Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Frontier’s takeover of 4.8 million Verizon landline customers in 14 states comes a year after the company announced the deal.  Frontier joins three other independent phone companies — FairPoint Communications, Windstream Communications, and CenturyLink zealously trying to grow their companies with additional mergers and acquisitions to avoid being swallowed up themselves.

What is common among all four companies is they rely heavily on dividend payouts to keep their stock price as high as possible.  That was a formula for disaster for FairPoint, the first of the four to end up in bankruptcy after a similar deal with Verizon in northern New England caused the company to falter.  Service and billing deteriorated, customers fled, and promises for better broadband were broken.  Now Frontier is following in FairPoint’s footsteps with more than 4.8 million new customers Frontier hopes they can swallow.

The FCC’s statement approving the merger reads like a press release for all involved, and delighted FCC Chairman Genachowski, who called these meager requirements “robust”:

Coming one week after the final state approval for the transaction, the FCC’s Order holds the applicants, Verizon and Frontier, to enforceable voluntary commitments, including:

• Extend faster broadband to more Americans: Frontier will significantly increase broadband deployment for the lines involved in this transaction, only 62 percent of which are broadband-capable today. Specifically, Frontier will deploy broadband with actual speeds of at least 3 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of transferred lines by the end of 2013, and actual speeds of at least 4 Mbps downstream to at least 85 percent of the transferred lines by the end of 2015, with all new broadband deployment offering actual speeds of at least 1 Mbps upstream.

Frontier's Fast One: 3 Mbps DSL Service with a 5GB Monthly Usage Allowance

Frontier’s broadband commitment gives the company a full five years to meet the bare minimum speed considered to constitute broadband in the National Broadband Plan.  One hopes Frontier doesn’t break into a sweat offering a piddly 3 Mbps service to homes using yesterday’s DSL service until then.  While Verizon’s rural castoffs get stuck eventually with 4 Mbps DSL, many of the company’s remaining customers are enjoying 50Mbps service over an all fiber network.  The FCC is accepting an urban-rural divide for broadband which will benefit the phone companies while leaving rural customers in the dirt.

Deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and other anchor institutions: Frontier will launch an anchor institution initiative to deploy fiber to libraries, hospitals, and government buildings, particularly in unserved and underserved communities.

Fiber for these locations sure, but no fiber for you or I.  Frontier, like most other telecom companies, loves to promote the benefits of fiber without actually deploying it to homes.

Promote competition: Frontier and Verizon have made a series of commitments to protect wholesale customers, including honoring all obligations under Verizon’s current wholesale arrangements that are in effect at closing.

Since wholesale customers often depend on the same network other customers do, if a company doesn’t deliver robust broadband into a state like West Virginia, there isn’t a robust service to sell to those wholesalers.

Improve data quality and collection: Frontier will make available to the Commission data on its broadband deployment progress at an unprecedented level of detail to enable effective monitoring of Frontier’s compliance with its commitments.

The Commission concluded that the commitments that applicants have offered, coupled with monitoring and enforcement by the Commission, will minimize the risks of harm and ensure that this transaction is in the public interest.

Phillip "Living on the Frontier" Dampier

Considering how weakly the FCC is committing itself to protecting rural customers from being dumped into the broadband backwater Frontier has on offer (complete with the 5GB monthly usage allowance), does collecting statistics help when things go sour?  Regulators collected statistics in New England when FairPoint failed, but that didn’t get service levels back until Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont threatened to toss FairPoint out.  Now the company is in bankruptcy and regulators are negotiating which of the promises FairPoint made can be let go ‘for the sake of the company.’

That’s why it’s so ironic to read editorials that proclaim the FCC is on some sort of power grab when they seek to restore what meager authority they exercised over broadband before a DC Court effectively excluded broadband oversight from their portfolio.

It will be a good day when federal agencies like the FCC start worrying first and foremost about consumers instead of how to make a parade of overpriced mergers and acquisitions succeed for the companies involved.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WANE Ft Wayne Verizon hanging up on local landlines 5-24-10.flv[/flv]

WANE-TV in Fort Wayne warns viewers their landline company is about to change asVerizon vacates the area by July 1st.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Verizon Dont Take the Money and Run in WV.flv[/flv]

Too late.  The Communications Workers of America ran this ad spot asking the West Virginia governor to intervene and stop the sale.  (1 minute)

We’ve heavily covered the proposed sale of Verizon landline service to Frontier Communications since the deal was announced last spring.  This should not come as a big surprise, considering Frontier Communications’ decision to insert a 5GB monthly usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy in the summer of 2008 was what instigated the launch of Stop the Cap! in the first place.  Frontier’s decision was boneheaded at best in a city like Rochester with a very aggressive cable competitor only too willing to bash Frontier for implementing it if they thought it would win more customers.

But of course Frontier Communications’ Rochester operation is an anomaly for ‘rural America’s phone company.’  For the majority of rural customers, it’s far easier to slap customers around with a usage cap and 1-3Mbps DSL service when those customers have few, if any practical alternatives.  Unfortunately, there is real money to be made from their business plan serving frequently non-competitive communities with incrementally-upgraded “just enough” broadband service with unfriendly terms and conditions attached.

In several of the 14 states impacted by the proposed sale, the relatively small number of customers involved made it easy for regulators to quickly approve the proposal with few conditions attached. The deal flew under the radar and got scant press in most of these states.  Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia are another matter.  Regulators are taking a closer look at the deal in all three states where most of the controversy is taking place.  The deal is most contentious in West Virginia, where Verizon’s exit threatens to turn most of the state’s landline business over to Frontier Communications.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing the public comments left on more than a dozen news sites, forums, and printed letters to the editor regarding the deal.  We’ve seen comments obviously coming from Frontier employees, union members, politicians, business leaders, and competitors.  But the vast majority come from ordinary consumers who have concerns about what the deal will do to their telephone and broadband service.  Most of the comments from consumers that embrace the sale don’t do so because they are fans of Frontier.  They simply loathe Verizon and want an alternative.  Boiled down, the consensus among those in favor of Frontier taking over is “let them try… they can’t do any worse than Verizon.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston PSC Phone Hearing 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covers West Virginia’s Public Service Commission hearings reviewing the proposed deal.  Frontier employees arrived in Charleston to lobby for the sale. (1 minute)

Desperate for Broadband

There are a lot of West Virginians who still have no broadband options.  Frontier claims Verizon provides only 60 percent of their customers with a broadband option — DSL service that tops out at 7Mpbs, if you live in an urban area.  Those that don’t have often waited years for Verizon to extend DSL service into their communities or neighborhoods.  It’s a problem common in mountainous, often rural states like West Virginia where infrastructure costs can be prohibitive.  Customers believe that Frontier Communications will tolerate a lower return on their investment providing DSL service to those customers Verizon ignored.

Promising to expand broadband service in rural, unserved areas is a common sales point for all of the prior Verizon sell-offs.  Hawaiian Telcom promised improved broadband service and speed.  Fairpoint promised to expand DSL availability to 75 percent of all access lines within 18 months of the sale, 85 percent within two years and 95 percent within five years.  Frontier Communications promises to expand broadband service as well, claiming they already provide 92 percent of their existing West Virginia customers with the option.  Of course, Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint both reneged on their commitments before going bankrupt.  Frontier Communications hasn’t yet been held to any specific commitment or timeline in West Virginia as part of their proposed takeover of service.

Consumer Reports rated TV, phone, and Internet providers, including Verizon and Frontier, in its February 2010 issue

To those suffering with dial-up or satellite fraudband, -any- broadband option seems like a miracle, even if it turns out to be 1-3Mbps DSL service with a 5GB allowance.  But as those kinds of anemic speeds arrive, cutting edge multimedia-rich broadband applications will become increasingly mainstream and leave these customers behind, again.  With a 5GB usage limit, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because customers will never be able to take advantage of services that will rapidly blow through those limits.  Make no mistake, a user’s broadband experience at 1.5Mbps with a 5GB allowance is going to be considerably different than a customer enjoying online multimedia from a cable provider or the next generation broadband service from Verizon FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse.  Think e-mail and basic web browsing, and that’s about all.

What kind of broadband experience does Frontier Communications bring?  This month, Consumer Reports rated Frontier dead last among DSL providers that own and operate their own broadband networks (subscription required).  The magazine rated 27 regional fiber, cable, and satellite providers and Frontier’s DSL ended up #19 on the list, the lowest rating of any DSL provider selling service on its own network.  Only Earthlink, which usually buys access on other providers’ networks came in lower among DSL providers.  Verizon actually scored higher than Frontier.

Frontier’s DSL service merited a 67 out of 100 score, rating only fair on value, speed, reliability, and customer support, based on 56,080 Consumer Reports subscribers who have a home Internet account.

Frontier’s phone service rated even lower, second to last in the survey.  Frontier was rated fair on value, reliability and call quality.  Only Mediacom did worse.  Verizon scored much better on reliability.  The magazine’s survey of phone companies was based on 37,484 respondents with phone service and was completed in the spring of 2009.

The consumer magazine did not recommend DSL for broadband access, suggesting consumers would do better with fiber optic broadband first, and cable modem service second.

Union Bashing – The enemy of my enemy is my friend

A significant minority of comments were focused entirely on union bashing, completely ignoring the specifics of the Frontier-Verizon sale.  All these people knew was that if the Communications Workers of America or other union was involved, they were the “real problem,” accusing union bosses of opposing the deal until they were paid off.

Nonsense.

Reality trumps anti-union talking points.  Consumers can review for themselves who correctly predicted the outcome of the last two deals of the recent past.  They were the CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who accurately identified the service problems, the network transition problems, the debt load that prevented service expansion and upgrades, and the eventual bankruptcies experienced at Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint Communications.  It turns out that asking front line employees who work in the office and out in the field maintaining the network are well positioned to give an honest assessment of these transactions that others seek to candy coat to get the deal done.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Charleston Frontier Defends Deal 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV in Charleston delivered this decidedly pro-Frontier news report on the company’s efforts to counter opposition to the proposed sale. (3 minutes)

The Opposition

A large number of comments from those who oppose the deal believe they will actually be far worse off with Frontier.  Most relate the experiences of themselves or their friends and family who live in Frontier service areas, and they’re unhappy with Frontier’s poor customer service, reliability, and slow speed DSL.  Many were also unhappy with Frontier’s automatically-renewing contracts committing customers to stay with the company or face a steep early cancellation penalty.  Many more lament the lack of a future with Verizon fiber optics.

David Swanson, who blogs from his home in Golden Valley, Arizona just dumped Frontier for his local cable provider – Golden Valley Cable & Communications.  He says he was overpaying for Frontier’s DSL and phone package.  Together, after fees and taxes, $90 a month went to Frontier and $73 a month went to DirecTV for television service.  With his new cable bundle, he pays $100 a month for everything.  He uses Boost mobile for his phone, and has no need for a landline.

Reviews on DSL Reports aren’t exactly positive about Frontier either.

One Rochester customer isn’t happy with the “spotty service” he’s experienced on Frontier’s aging copper wire infrastructure, noting they don’t seem to be in any hurry to upgrade facilities in western New York.  He’s stuck with unreliable DSL service far slower than what Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service can provide. Another customer in Lowville, New York admits he has to live with Frontier’s slow speed DSL because there is no other provider available.  In Kingman, Arizona one customer rated the company’s DSL service “slightly better than nothing.”

Even customers who had had good things to say about Frontier in forums often acknowledge their service simply isn’t a good value when considering the high cost charged for the slow speed received.

What Can Be Done?

At this point, it is critical impacted customers contact their state utility commission and state representatives and tell them this deal does not work for you.  It is true Verizon wants out of these service areas, and should they win the right to withdraw someone will have to assume control of landline operations in these communities.  But the terms and conditions for the company seeking to provide service should favor customers and not the Wall Street dealmakers.  Strict financial pre-conditions should be in place to guarantee the buyer is up to the task of providing service and upgrades.  Historically, it’s been far too easy to simply renege on the deal with a quick trip to Bankruptcy Court to shed the debt these deals pile on, and be rid of the service commitments that were part of the approval process.

A company that believes they’ll earn plenty from this deal should be spending plenty to provide quality broadband service starting at 10Mbps, not the 1-3Mbps service Frontier provides most of its rural service areas.  What chance do communities in West Virginia have to stay competitive in a digital economy that requires faster broadband access without the ridiculously low usage limits Frontier includes in their customer agreements?  In fact, usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes should be explicitly banned as part of any sales agreement.

Holding Verizon responsible for the outcome of deals that benefit them and their shareholders while sticking customers with a bankrupt provider must be considered.  An important component of past Verizon’s landline-dumping-deals involves the Reverse Morris Trust — delivering a tax-free transaction for Verizon and piles of debt for the buyer. That puts all the risk on ratepayers, lower level employees who are among the first to go when cost-cutting begins, and head-scratching regulators wondering where it all went wrong.  The only ones not doing any hand-wringing are Verizon’s accountants and the executive management of both companies who conjure up such deals.  That’s because they are rarely held accountable, and often win retention bonuses even while a company is mired in bankruptcy.

Regulators should insist Verizon play a fundamental role in insuring that customers are protected even after the deal closes, honoring commitments and financing operations should the buyer fail soon after the sale is complete.  Under these conditions, customers are protected and Verizon might think twice about structuring a deal that loads the buyer down in insurmountable debt.

“This deal is driven by greed — and we can learn from Northern New England’s and Hawaii’s experience to make sure it does not come to pass here or in the other 13 states,” said CWA’s District Two Vice-President Ron Collins, who has been leading the campaign in West Virginia.

Some of the crowd at Sunday's rally in Charleston

Verizon employees affiliated with the Communications Workers of America turned out in force Sunday to protest the proposed sale of Verizon’s West Virginia operations to Frontier Communications of Connecticut.

Hundreds of workers and union members rallied at the West Virginia Culture Center in Charleston, the state capital, to protest the deal.

The CWA is concerned the transaction will enrich a handful of corporate executives and Wall Street bankers while saddling the state with sub-standard phone and Internet service for years to come.  Frontier Communications will assume enormous debt to make the deal happen with Verizon, and set itself down the same path that ended in bankruptcy for two similar deals in the recent past involving FairPoint Communications and Hawaiian Telcom.

Union members are, of course, concerned about their future employment prospects at a Frontier-owned operation, but insist they are also concerned with the citizens of West Virginia.

“I work in the community and live in the community. I want to be able to go out to the stores with nobody yelling at me for not being able to provide service for them,” said Jim Radcliff, a Verizon employee.

(from left to right) CWA Pres. Larry Cohen, Local 2003 Pres. Anekia Greiner, and CWA District 2 VP Ron Collins

West Virginia’s governor Joe Manchin made an appearance at the rally, saying he has concerns about the proposed sale, and joined labor and community leaders to say he would do everything in his power to make the proposed deal work for working families in the state, not just Wall Street bankers.

Other rally speakers included Sen. Jack Yost, Del. Mike Caputo, state AFL-CIO President Kenny Perdue, and representatives from the firefighters, nurses and senior citizens.

Firefighters and other public safety officials are concerned about potential disruptions of 911 service, which were an ongoing problem after FairPoint Communications took control of Verizon lines in northern New England.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA 911 Service At Risk Ad.flv[/flv]

The Communications Workers of America is concerned the sale of Verizon’s phone lines to Frontier Communications could cause disruptions in 911 service, as happened with FairPoint Communications in northern New England.  The CWA is running this ad in West Virginia.

“We need to bring high speed broadband to West Virginia and communities across the country, to foster economic growth,” CWA President Larry Cohen said.  “Instead, Verizon is using an obscure tax loophole to do a tax free deal that will leave West Virginia without a platform for achieving the speeds that are necessary for economic development.  This deal is only good for Wall Street, not Main Street.”

Cohen was speaking about Verizon’s use of the Reverse Morris Trust provision in corporate tax law, which Stop the Cap! explored last fall in detail.  This transaction could cost taxpayers as much as $600 million in lost tax revenue.

Audio Clip: Communications Workers of America Frontier-Verizon Radio Ad (30 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston Union Opposes Sale of Verizon Landlines 1-10-10.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covered the weekend rally by CWA opposing the sale of Verizon’s landlines to Frontier Communications. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Rally Excerpts 1-10-10.flv[/flv]

Here are some excerpts from Sunday’s rally including speakers protesting the proposed sale and praising union involvement in consumer protection. (courtesy: LairdWilliam) (10 minutes)

Keyser, West Virginia

Frontier Communications’ West Virginia roadshow continued this week as company officials continue to sell the company’s plan to take over telephone service from Verizon across much of the state.  But have they stretched the truth to sell state officials on the deal?

Paul Espinosa, general manager of Frontier, told a West Virginia newspaper the company “prides ourselves in taking good care of our customers,” claiming 95 percent of their current residential customers have broadband Internet.

“In some areas it’s DSL. In other markets we do offer fiber,” he told the Mineral Daily News-Tribune in Keyser.

Keyser, a community of just over 5,000, considers broadband high on its list of concerns.  They want it, but they also want to know it is the kind of broadband that will keep Mineral County competitive, particularly for small businesses that depend on it to reach customers.  The county created a Communications Infrastructure Council (CIC) to review broadband communications options considered vital to the community’s economic development.

Rick Welch, who serves on the CIC,  said the economic future of Mineral County depends upon high speed or fiber-optic Internet and not DSL, or Internet service which utilizes existing telephone lines.

Verizon West Virginia has bypassed the state for FiOS development, which provides a fiber-optic connection to the home, claiming the infrastructure costs are too high at today’s prices to satisfy Return On Investment requirements.  Frontier has never had an ambitious broadband agenda centered on fiber optics.

Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps DSL service in most of the smaller communities they serve.  Frontier’s claim that they are currently providing customers in “other markets” with fiber broadband brings these questions:

• Exactly where?
• Under what terms?
• Is this true fiber-to-the-home service, or simply fiber connected central offices?
• Are advanced levels of service are provided to these fiber customers, or are the plans, terms, and speeds identical to traditional DSL plans?

If the deal goes through, Frontier would assume ownership of pre-existing Verizon FiOS deployments, but those were proposed and planned by Verizon, not Frontier.

“DSL will not bring anything to Mineral County as far as economic development is concerned,” he said, noting that high technology businesses require far faster speeds than DSL traditionally provides.

A Verizon representative tasked with trying to sell the deal that gets the company out of the West Virginia’s phone business said that something is better than nothing.

“To hear you say that DSL is not the future is troubling,” Verizon’s John Golden said. “If you are without broadband, DSL would be the future.”

The Mineral County Commission was unimpressed with Golden’s statement.  Commission president Wayne Spiggle told the News-Tribune a lot of businesses and those who work from home would not consider coming to Mineral County when they discovered only low speed DSL service available, commonplace more than a decade ago in other areas. Spiggle said real broadband service was essential to attract the kind of businesses Mineral County needs to succeed.

“Our mission and responsibility to Mineral County is to create an entrepreneurial garden, and high-speed broadband is essential to that,” he said.

The Communications Workers of America are also been fighting to warn state and local officials about the gamble West Virginia will take with Frontier Communications.  Considering the last three deals resulted in bankruptcy for all three, it’s a risk the CWA doesn’t think is worth taking.

“Frontier will wind up taking on at least $3.4 billion in debt from Verizon,” said John Johnston, speaking on behalf of the CWA. “Frontier has said they’ll expand broadband, but will they? With $3.4 billion in debt, that’s a lot of money,” he said.

Chuck Fouts, who serves as local CWA president said bankruptcy brings job losses.  “If you go bankrupt, the first thing that goes is people,” he said.

The union says the state should join their efforts to force Verizon to “do what they said they were going to do” and provide a plan to upgrade the state’s telecommunications system to fiber optics.

As it stands, Verizon sees higher returns from cherry-picking more urban areas for its FiOS service, and isn’t willing to provide the kind of universal service throughout its service areas that phone companies have traditionally provided for decades.

“How can Frontier provide the fiber they claim to offer in “other markets” when Verizon’s deeper pockets have thus far been turned out empty for residents in West Virginia?” asks Stop the Cap! reader Hyatt.

Investment firm D.A. Davidson downgraded Frontier’s stock last week, reporting they felt the deal would be bad for Frontier shareholders.

Moving the stock rating back to “underperform,” the firm was skeptical Frontier would be able to pull off the cost-savings it promised as part of the deal.  They also anticipated Frontier will have to finance as much as $3.3 billion of the debt (at 8-9%) it will take on as part of the transaction.  Perhaps more revealing is their prediction that Verizon shareholders who receive distributed shares of Frontier stock will likely dump them as fast as possible, remembering earlier Verizon deals that quickly led to falling stock prices and eventual bankruptcy.  D.A. Davidson warned potential Frontier investors to “at least move to the sidelines” during the anticipated grand sell-off, moving back into the stock only when it bottoms-out.

Byron L. Harris heads the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission

Strong opposition to the proposed spinoff of Verizon service in West Virginia to Frontier Communications erupted Monday as the state Public Service Commission (PUC) published a flurry of written testimony filed with the state agency.

Some of the strongest criticism of the deal came from the state’s Consumer Advocate (CAD), an independent division of the PSC that represents residential utility customers.  Division director Byron Harris testified the deal carried “too many risks” for the state, and suggested Frontier failed to do its homework before considering the implications of the deal for nearly the entire state’s telephone system.  Harris added residents faced higher phone bills, early termination fees, little improvement in service, and was highly skeptical of Frontier’s promises to expand broadband service in the state, suggesting the company will not be in a financial position to offer acceptable “plain old telephone service,” much less broadband.

Harris testimony called on the Commission to reject the deal:

The proposed transaction poses too many risks for retail telephone customers in West Virginia from both a financial and an operational standpoint. The proposed transaction also poses too many risks for Verizon-WV’s wholesale customers and, ultimately, the tens of thousands of West Virginians served by these entities.

In his testimony on behalf of the CAD, Mr. Roycroft [one of two expert consultants hired to analyze the proposed sale] explains the operational difficulties that Frontier will face in assimilating the Spinco properties and operating systems. As Mr. Roycroft makes clear, the operational difficulties associated with a transaction as large as the one proposed are exacerbated by the fact that the proposed transaction – from an operational standpoint – actually involves two mergers in one:

1. The acquisition of the legacy Bell Atlantic network and OSS in West Virginia, and
2. The acquisition of the old GTE network and systems in 13 other states.

Mr. Roycroft details the multitude of risks that the proposed transaction presents for retail and wholesale telephone customers in West Virginia. Not only do customers face service and service quality risks, but they also face the risk of higher rates and/or other adverse terms and conditions of service such as early termination fees.

Mr. Hill points out, in his testimony, the many unrealistically optimistic financial projections Frontier makes in support of the proposed transaction. As Mr. Hill points out, Frontier’s projections rely too much on financial information that has been provided by the seller, Verizon, without independently verifying Verizon’s numbers. Frontier’s projections similarly rely on a number of assumptions about reducing access line loss, cutting operating expenses and capital expenditures, and realizing merger savings that would require Frontier to substantially reverse recent trends.

The fallout from the proposed merger not going well obviously affects retail and wholesale customers currently served by Verizon-WV and Frontier-WV as well. As discussed below, and in Mr. Roycroft’s testimony, Verizon-WV’s customers already have experienced sharp declines in their service quality, which is the predictable result of years of falling investment in the company’s telephone plant and workforce in West Virginia, as Verizon has focused its attention on other markets in other states and other service offerings, such as wireless service and video/Internet/telephone service provided via its FiOS offering (which is not offered in West Virginia).

The financial and operational risks associated with the proposed transaction jeopardize the combined company’s ability to maintain even current service quality in Verizon-WV’s service territory, let alone follow through on Verizon-WV’s obligation to improve that service quality going forward under the Plan.

Although the CAD obviously is (and has for some time been) concerned with the poor service quality currently provided to customers by Verizon-WV, the CAD believes that service is likely to get even worse under Frontier’s ownership. The proposed transaction will result in a post-closing Frontier that will not have the financial resources to be able to improve service quality for “plain old telephone service” – as voice-grade traditional telephone service is often called – in Verizon-WV’s service territory, much less to deploy broadband to the extent suggested in Frontier’s direct testimony.

Harris likened the deal to Frontier buying a used car from Verizon without knowing what’s under the hood.

“Frontier has essentially agreed to purchase a used car without first having the car examined by a mechanic. Without a thorough investigation of Verizon-WV’s plant, Frontier has no way of knowing whether its buying a pre-owned car that has had regular oil changes and proper tune-ups, or whether it is buying a clunker with a new paint job and a blown transmission. If Verizon-WV’s network has not been properly maintained (as the evidence seems to suggest), just like a car that hasn’t been properly maintained, getting it back to serviceable condition will be a very expensive proposition,” Harris testified.

Harris gave five specific reasons why the deal was bad for West Virginia:

First, Frontier has not done any in-depth analysis of the quality of the Spinco facilities that it is acquiring. This lack of analysis is disturbing on its face, as it would seem to be a fundamental area of inquiry for any prospective buyer. But the importance of this lack of meaningful review is magnified in West Virginia by the fact that Frontier knows, or reasonably should know, that Verizon-WV’s outside plant facilities in West Virginia are not in good shape. The Commission is well aware of the significant decline in service that Verizon- WV’s customers have experienced over the last several years. This decline is documented in the public record (in both the informal complaint records maintained by the Commission’s Staff, and in the record in proceedings related to Verizon-WV’s service quality docketed in the last few years). That record should have triggered a much more searching analysis by Frontier. This lack of analysis also impacts the overly optimistic assumptions that Frontier has used in its financial analysis of the transaction.

Second, Frontier’s overly optimistic financial projections increase the risk that the post-merger company will not be able to remedy Verizon-WV’s current poor service quality or to provide its promised broadband deployment. Verizon is obviously a larger and more financially sound company than Frontier. For a company such as Frontier which historically pays out greater dividends than its net income, the risk that the optimistic financial projections will not transpire is magnified.

Third, as of October 14, 2009, Frontier still had not determined how it will handle the additional call center volumes that will occur when the company acquires access lines in West Virginia.  Obviously, the proposed transaction would adversely affect the public if it is approved without a concrete plan to handle service calls from current Verizon-WV customers.

Fourth, similarly, no concrete plan has been put forth by Verizon for serving customers in West Virginia who are currently served out of central offices in Maryland. Again, the proposed transaction would adversely affect the public if it is approved without a concrete plan to serve Verizon-WV customers who are currently served from central offices in Maryland.

Fifth, current Verizon-WV retail customers face the prospect of increased rates and/or early termination fees as a result of having their current package or bundle service migrated to a similar package or bundle offered by Frontier. In discovery, Frontier has to date refused to identify the packages that will be offered to replace current Verizon-WV packages or to state at what price the packages will be offered to such customers. Verizon- WV customers with bundles that include Verizon broadband service also appear to likely face significant early termination fees of at least $120 if they elect not to transition or migrate to Frontier’s service after closing. This likelihood appears even greater when the companies’ obtuse response on this subject is considered. When the CAD asked whether Verizon-WV customers who elected not to remain with Frontier post-closing, would be charged any early termination fees, the companies merely stated that they will “honor the terms of their contracts with customers.” Obviously, “honoring” the terms of a contract that includes an early termination fee could very well mean enforcing that provision of the service agreement.

Hundreds of New York state residents were unfairly charged early termination fees that eventually brought Frontier to the attention of the New York Attorney General’s office, which obtained relief in the form of full refunds for affected New York residents.

Ironically, even though Verizon may seek to exit West Virginia’s landline telephone business, the company will continue to exist as a competitive player in the state — through Verizon Wireless, its mobile telephone division.  Verizon Wireless sent letters to customers urging them to terminate their home phone lines.  That will spell additional competition for Frontier Communications, as Stephen Hill testified, on behalf of the Consumer Advocate Division:

“Simplify your life and your budget by cutting the cord on your home phone today.”  It is reasonable to believe that such a letter coming from the company that had been a customer’s land-line phone service provider urging them to end that type of service and return to their former provider’s wireless service, would have an impact on Frontier’s ability to maintain that customer. The presentations to Frontier’s board of directors regarding the merger do not discuss potential competition from Verizon.

Perhaps the more troubling aspect of Verizon as a formidable competitor, however, is that, under the current post-merger plan, Verizon will continue to operate the billing and back-office functions of most of the local exchange operations sold to Frontier. Under such circumstances, Verizon becomes both a business partner and a competitor of Frontier-a situation that would put Verizon in an even greater competitive position than it would be otherwise (Le., if it weren’t also leasing operating systems to Frontier). Therefore, it is quite possible that, due to competition-in which Verizon is likely to play an important role-the reduction in the rate of revenue decline forecast for the future may not be realized. Instead, the rate of access line loss may accelerate from historical conditions, making the fbture financial picture for a combined Frontier/Spinco more tenuous than now forecast.

Strong opposition also came from other providers, some of whom who may be affected by the sale through wholesale agreements currently in place with Verizon, as well as from the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Susan Baldwin, who served as Director of Telecommunications for the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Utilities, submitted testimony on behalf of CWA.  In her testimony she stated, “If the transaction goes awry, consumers will bear the consequences….Even if the transaction does not go awry, it will adversely affect consumers because Frontier’s financial constraints will prevent it from investing in the WV telecommunications infrastructure.” Baldwin strongly urged rejection of the proposed deal.

David Armentrout, on behalf of FiberNet stated, “Frontier lacks the requisite resources, experience, and incentive to comply with wholesale obligations it will take on …in West Virginia.”

Some companies waived their right to file direct testimony but asserted their right, along with the parties who did file today, to file rebuttal testimony in December.

Coming up… The truth about Frontier’s DSL products, network capacity, and why their 5GB Acceptable Use Limit is part of official testimony calling on the Public Service Commission of West Virginia to just say no to Frontier Communications.