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.

Senator Amy Klobuchar

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) is expected to introduce legislation this week to protect consumers from excessive early termination fees for ending their cell phone contracts early.

The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act comes a few weeks after Verizon Wireless doubled their cancellation fees November 15 from $175 to $350 for “advanced” mobile phones.

Klobuchar sent a letter to Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell C. McAdam, criticizing the company’s decision to increase its Early Termination Fees (ETFs) for new smart phone customers.  Klobuchar also sent a letter to Federal Communications Chairman (FCC) Julius Genachowski, urging a review of the Verizon Wireless decision to raise these fees.

“These fees are anti-consumer and anti-competitive and they bear little to no relationship to the cost of the handset device,” said Klobuchar, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Klobuchar’s bill is anticipated to specifically target Verizon Wireless over its decision to double fees for consumers.  Although the specific details of how the legislation will control fees is still being worked out, Klobuchar’s bill is expected to force providers to incrementally reduce fees for every month of service a customer completes and possibly set a ceiling on the fee charged depending on the retail price of the phone.

Klobuchar introduced a similar bill during the last session of Congress and many cell phone providers responded by pro-rating cancellation fees for departing customers, typically 1/24th of the fee waived for each month a customer stayed with the provider during a two-year contract.  But Verizon Wireless’ decision to double their fee, which could set a new trend in the industry, directly increases prices for consumers, according to Klobuchar.

“Under the company’s new plan, the penalty for leaving the contact halfway through a two-year contract would be $230 – still higher than the $175 ETF Verizon Wireless previously charged for these phones,” Klobuchar wrote to McAdam.

Verizon Wireless is the nation’s largest cell phone service provider.  Verizon customers purchasing an Advanced Device (smart phone) with a one or two year service agreement will be subject to an ETF of up to $350 if they disconnect service prior to the minimum term.  The $350 ETF will decrease $10 for each month of service completed.

The cell phone industry has defended cancellation fees as necessary because providers subsidize the cost of the cell phones sold to consumers.  Customers can purchase phones at the retail price and not be committed to any contract or termination fees.  Some advanced handsets can cost well over $500 if purchased without a contract.

Copies of correspondence to McAdam and Genachowski appear below.

… Continue Reading

One day before the Federal Communications Commission in Washington announced draft guidelines to establish an American Net Neutrality policy, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced its own guidelines to govern what Canadian broadband providers can and cannot do with the Internet traffic they deliver to millions of Canadian consumers.  While Bell (Canada), the nation’s largest telecommunications company praised the CRTC for its provider-friendly ruling, consumer groups varied their responses from “a step in the right direction” to “weak” to “here comes more gouging.”

The CRTC Net Neutrality policy for Canada essentially permits providers to continue to throttle broadband speeds for both retail and wholesale customers, and block traffic altogether should the CRTC grant permission in “exceptional cases,” as long as the provider discloses the practice to consumers up front, and warns them in advance of any policy changes that further slow their connections.

Laurel Russworm, who runs Stop Usage Based Billing, was not pleased.

“The CRTC decision doesn’t have a silver lining I can find; in fact they essentially said that usage based billing and caps are good tools to use to fight congestion. All Bell Canada has to do is warn us first, then they can gouge as they please. They’ve deferred making a decision on usage based billing until after the court challenges are dismissed, but I’m not holding my breath,” Russworm wrote.

On Wednesday the CRTC decided that Internet providers in Canada need measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times to deal with what providers claim to be a congestion problem.  At hearings held this past summer, several CRTC commissioners were receptive to the claims providers made that Canadian broadband does not have the capacity their American neighbors have.  Providers like Bell and Rogers claim that peer to peer traffic and increasing consumption of high bandwidth services have created capacity shortages on their networks, requiring traffic management which artificially slows certain traffic on their networks at “peak times.”  Canadian broadband providers almost universally also impose Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers, limiting customer use and charging them overlimit penalties for exceeding usage allowances.

The commission accepted the providers’ claims and gave the green light to those practices, but said before a provider literally blocks access to online services, or throttles time sensitive traffic on services like Voice Over IP telephone or two-way video conferencing to the point it becomes “degraded,” it needs to get Commission permission first.

Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada’s senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs, told The Globe and Mail the ruling gives carriers the right to run their businesses the way they see fit. “We’re the experts, and we get the flexibility to determine how to manage our networks to give the user the best experience,” he said.

Bell already “throttles” its Internet service by slowing peer-to-peer downloading between 4:30 p.m. and 1 a.m. to make sure the network is not overloaded by a relatively small number of people transferring large video and music files.

Independent Internet providers are among the biggest proponents of Net Neutrality, and a ban on Internet Overcharging schemes known in Canada as “usage based billing.”  Many Canadian broadband providers obtain connectivity through wholesale accounts purchased from Bell.  The Canadian phone giant imposed both speed throttles and usage based billing on their wholesale customers.  Those costs, and the speed bumps that go with them, are now increasingly passed on to consumers.  Independent providers fear being put out of business.

For many of them, Wednesday’s decision might as well never have happened.

“This has really not changed anything,” Tom Copeland, chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, told PC World.

Copeland said the “biggest, most glaring omission” from the ruling is the lack of restraints on the time of day or how long suppliers like phone or cable companies can manipulate traffic. “So we could continue to see traffic management every day of the year,” he said.

“We’re still not addressing the cause of the problem,” he added: “Either weak points in the network, or abuse by users.” Most casual users of peer-to-peer applications — the biggest offending programs in the eyes of providers – aren’t the problem, he said.

“We just went backwards at warp speed,” lamented John Lawford, counsel for a coalition of consumer groups that fought for an end to throttling of Internet traffic of consumers, “ while we watch the U.S. rocket ahead.”

“The CRTC has said in this decision that ISPs own your content and own your Internet connection” said Lawford, “You just got owned.”

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre represented the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Canada Without Poverty and Option consommateurs during the hearings on Net Neutrality.  PIAC argued that the Telecommunications Act required ISPs not to interfere with customers’ Internet traffic unless such traffic was clearly harming other users of the network and not otherwise.  “ISPs should act as common carriers and just carry traffic, not as broadcasters deciding what you watch” continued Lawford, “but now they can decide what gets through – and how much they get to charge you for the privilege.”  Lawford also noted the CRTC’s requirement for the ISPs to disclose their “Internet traffic management practices” will not actually stop any of the practices.

The CRTC has repeatedly taken broadband industry-friendly positions in direct opposition to Canadian consumer interests, helping to set the stage for Canada’s rapid decline in broadband leadership.  The country’s standing in broadband rankings has taken a stunning fall from its earlier top-shelf position.  Regulatory policies that permit abusive, anti-competitive practices and reward providers for rationing broadband instead of investing in expanding it are at the heart of the problem.

Since the CRTC has taken positions more worthy of a industry trade group than an independent regulator, an increasing number of Canadians are demanding the CRTC lead or get out of the way.  A large group of Canadian voters upset about any issue is sure to attract politicians, and the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) has arrived.

Charlie Angus (NDP)

Charlie Angus, New Democrat Digital Affairs Critic and MP for Timmins-James Bay, who already is on record opposing Internet Overcharging schemes, says the CRTC dropped the ball on Net Neutrality.

“Yesterday’s CRTC decision on Internet traffic-management practices is a blow to the future of digital innovation in Canada,” Angus said in a statement.

“This interference [from traffic management] will be bad news for small third-party competitors and leaves consumers subject to digital snooping and interference from cable giants,” he added.

“Basically the CRTC has left the wolves in charge of the henhouse. ISP giants have been given the green light to shape traffic on the internet in favor of their corporate interests,” he said. “This decision is a huge blow to the future competitiveness of the Internet.”

Angus says that the premise of today’s decision – that notification from the ISP will allow customers to make an informed decision on where to buy Internet service – misses the harsh reality that the market for Internet service in Canada is not nearly competitive enough to work.

“Canada has fallen to the back of the pack in Internet service provision and pricing after leading the way for years. This is the direct result of a small band of ISP giants blocking out competition,” Angus said. “This decision clears the way for ISPs to squeeze out third-party players who are attempting to provide better price and service options.”

South of the border, the FCC has taken clear steps toward the establishment of Internet neutrality on U.S. networks.

Angus said that principle of Net Neutrality should be at the center of Internet policy in Canada, and that the CRTC has missed a golden opportunity with yesterday’s decision.

“The principle of Net Neutrality must be a cornerstone of the innovation agenda. The CRTC has once again acted as the rubber stamp for large ISP and cable players to dominate the market and decide which traffic goes in the fast lane and which traffic gets stuck in the slow lane. This decision continues a long and dismal tradition of Canada’s communication policy decisions chipping away at the public interest to the benefit of a few corporate giants.”

Dissolve the CRTC, a group collecting signatures to petition for the closure of the Commission, also made several comments about the CRTC decision.

Among their conclusions:

• The new policy leaves the door open to providers deciding their economic interests are better served from traffic management practices like throttles and usage limits than network investments.  Short term limits may serve the interests of stockholders, but could discourage long term investments needed to create new 21st century broadband platforms;
• The Commission’s encouragement that providers make additional investments in their networks is likely to fall on deaf ears.  It was Bell’s lack of investment in their broadband network which led to the traffic management practices, and the recent hearings about them, in the first place.  Without mandates, there is no real pressure on Bell to change their investment strategy.
• The Commission’s policy to regulate this issue through a user complaint process that calls out bad actors has no historical precedent of working.  The CRTC has a long history of ignoring public involvement in telecommunications proceedings, and does not like to involve themselves with individual customer complaints.  Campaigns to flood the CRTC with complaints on specific issues using their language may be the only way to get them to investigate.  Additionally, complaints that call out the disparity in network management policies between wholesale and retail accounts may only lead to additional restrictions on both types of accounts, making a bad situation even worse.

Canadians must contact their elected officials and demand federal legislation to enact true consumer protection and broadband reform policies to restore Canada to a position of leadership in broadband.  The CRTC is ineffective and must not be the final arbiter on these important issues.

The FCC today voted unanimously to begin writing a formal Net Neutrality policy to govern broadband services across the United States.  Three Democratic commissioners voted yes and applauded the concept of Net Neutrality.  The two Republican commissioners also voted to move the process forward, but signaled they would likely oppose the final draft of the rules.

Support for Net Neutrality, which would prohibit providers from slowing down, blocking, or charging higher pricing for favored access to web content, was spearheaded by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Genachowski said the rules were needed to protect consumers from abusive behavior by telecommunications companies that might seek to block or restrict access to broadband content, including telephone and video services.

“Internet users should always have the final say about their online service, whether it’s the software, applications or services they choose, or the networks and hardware they use to the connect to the Internet,” Genachowski said.

Other Democratic commissioners agreed with Genachowski.  Commissioner Michael Copps stated it was important to hear from everyone about the proposed rules.

“We need to recognize that the gatekeepers of today may not be the gatekeepers of tomorrow,” Copps said.

John McCain

Many Republicans were unconvinced of the need to establish Net Neutrality as formal policy.

“I do not share the majority’s view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it,” Republican commissioner Robert McDowell said.

“These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace,” Sen. John McCain wrote in an opinion piece published by The Washington Times.

McCain compared Net Neutrality with the federal bailout of Wall Street and the American auto industry.

Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;
4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;
5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and
6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.

The draft rules make clear that providers would also be permitted to address harmful traffic and traffic unwanted by users, such as spam, and prevent both the transfer of unlawful content, such as child pornography, and the unlawful transfer of content, such as a transfer that would infringe copyright.

Today’s vote marks only a beginning of the process to begin writing the formal policy of Net Neutrality governing Internet use in the United States.  As with the ponderous debate on health care reform, what ends up defining “Net Neutrality” will be open to interpretation, and a barrage of lobbyists and arm twisting from politicians will be part of what comes next.

On the eve of the historic vote, Verizon Communications seemed to join Google in affirming some of the basic principles of Net Neutrality.

However, the devil is in the details, as is always the case in telecommunications policy.

Verizon supports its own interpretation of Net Neutrality, which is wrapped in a concept they call “innovation without permission,” which is code language for a deregulatory open free-market environment.  It broadly accepts the concept that telecommunications companies should not interfere with legal content, but the company doesn’t want a whole barrage of new regulations to specifically define what would constitute “interference.”  Verizon believes onerous rules would stifle investment, and that existing rules already in place at the FCC are sufficient protection.

Things get downright dicey when Verizon spells out its “network management” principles, warning the FCC overly specific rules in this area could have unintended consequences.

Broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, “malware” and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future–so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers’ preferences, and don’t unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television.

It is in this area where very specific rules are appropriate to write, because what one company defines as appropriate “network management,” could be discriminatory against selected content those providers seek to “manage.”

No broadband user has ever objected to network management that controls spam, “malware,” denial of service attacks, and other like-minded traffic.  In fact, most consumers wish more could be done to control these things.  Nothing in the current framework of telecommunications regulations or in those proposed have ever sought to impede this type of management.

No consumer minds having access to additional content, such as IP television.  But consumers do object when such content is used as an excuse to ram through Internet Overcharging schemes limiting broadband usage or imposing higher fees for using the types of services companies like Verizon now advocate.  “The broadband sky is falling” rhetoric about “exafloods,” overloaded “Internet brownouts,” and other such scaremongering nonsense often comes from the same providers that now want to provide IP television.  What they provide with their left hand, they want to limit with their right.

It’s anti-competitive, because the same companies with an interest in selling these pay television services (FiOS, cable television, fiber-telephone U-verse, etc.) also provide the broadband service that companies like Netflix and Hulu use to indirectly challenge their video business models.

Another concern is “traffic congestion” management, which all too often has meant speed throttles selectively imposed on “offending” applications, particularly peer to peer traffic.  There is good traffic management, such as routing equipment that provides even delivery of services like streaming video and Voice Over IP telephone calls, which rapidly deteriorate on loaded down networks, and then there is bad traffic management which selectively slows down the speed of whatever the provider deems to be of “lower priority.”  Allowing the customer to make the decision about which traffic gets priority is one thing.  Allowing a provider to do it without the consent of the customer is quite another.

Too often, the “unintended consequences” Verizon and Google speak about in the joint statement go to the provider’s favor, not to the consumer.  Overly broad, non-specific language opens loopholes through which providers will eagerly leap through.

Verizon also advocates transparency — “All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings.”

Disclosure alone doesn’t suffice for consumers, particularly if there are few competitive places to take your business if you disagree with company policies.  Those rules should include realistic speed information (marketing stating “up to 10Mbps” that in reality only delivers 3Mbps would be one example).  It should not simply be an escape clause for providers to abuse their customers with throttled, slow service, and give them the excuse that “we disclosed it.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Federal Communications Commission Open Meeting

October 22, 2009

112 minutes

(Warning: Loud audio)

This newspaper ad is running across West Virginia opposing the sale of the state's phone business to Frontier Communications

Opposition to the sale of Verizon’s landline business to Frontier Communications in 13 states continues to increase, particularly in Ohio and West Virginia, where several employee unions have argued the deal represents a win for Wall Street and company executives, but a raw deal for millions of consumers.

The Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who also warned state regulators in New England about the consequences of approving the sale of Verizon’s operations in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to FairPoint Communications, continue to warn consumers and state officials that a similar deal between Verizon and Frontier Communications could spell major problems for telephone customers.  They call on state officials to reject the deal and force Verizon to invest some of their substantial profits earned in these communities into providing better service instead of dumping customers overboard.

The CWA says the sale would put $3.3 billion dollars into Verizon’s coffers — tax free — and leave Frontier buried in debt, which could impact both new and existing Frontier Communications customers, including hundreds of thousands of those in Rochester, New York, Frontier’s biggest service area.

“Verizon Communications has been divesting assets to smaller, less stable corporations in order to reap large, tax-free, profits,” CWA International Representative Elaine Harris said. “Verizon proposes to repeat that formula, and its disastrous effects, with the sale of all of its wireline operations here in West Virginia to Frontier.”

The CWA considers the transaction based primarily on corporate greed, not the best interests of phone customers.

“The only winner in all of these deals has been Verizon Communications and especially Verizon’s corporate executives,” Harris said. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg is the highest paid executive in the telecom industry, with $24.31 million dollars in annual compensation from Verizon.

“His salary could have funded the entire network of senior services in West Virginia last year and he still would have had $8 million in his pocket,” Harris said.

The deal will leave Frontier Corporation with a total of $8 billion dollars in debt. “The West Virginia consumers will experience the effects of converting more than 617,000 aging access lines to a smaller, debt-ridden company,” Harris said. “The public will be forced to pick up the pieces if Frontier follows Verizon’s other buyers and files for bankruptcy.”

“We’ve closely watched the failures of the companies that purchased Verizon’s assets and we don’t need a crystal ball to figure out what will happen if Verizon tries the same scheme in West Virginia. There’s absolutely no reason to gamble West Virginia’s telecommunication’s future just to increase Verizon’s bottom line,” Harris added.

The CWA is running radio ads across the state of West Virginia opposing the deal.

Audio Clip: Communications Workers of America Radio Ad (1 minute)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Verizon spokesman Harry Mitchell said Verizon wants to sell its access lines so the company can focus on its wireless and broadband business. Mitchell told The Charleston Gazette the union has opposed the deal from day one.

“They’re spending their members’ dues on advertising in an effort to cloud the issue,” he said.

Frontier Communications has protested accusations that their purchase of Verizon assets will result in the same kinds of colossal failures impacting other Verizon sell-offs.  Company officials claim Frontier already has a successful customer support operation in DeLand, Florida, and billing and operating systems in place.

In West Virginia, those existing operations serve 144,000 Frontier customers.  If the deal is approved, Frontier will take on the responsibility of serving 1.3 million landlines across the southeastern U.S. alone.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, integrally involved in fighting the FairPoint transaction in New England, says the Frontier deal is reminiscent of what happened with FairPoint:

Regulators in the 14 states where Verizon now proposes to sell its landlines to Frontier face an almost identical situation as New England regulators did last year. Frontier Communications is proposing to buy Verizon’s entire wire line operation in West Virginia – as well as Verizon’s scattered landlines across 13 other states – in a similarly structured deal.

In both cases, Verizon chose a much smaller company in order to take advantage of an obscure tax loophole. With the Frontier sale, Verizon will avoid paying any taxes on the $3.3 billion it will receive from Frontier. Frontier will have to cope with three times more employees, three times more access lines and a 75 percent increase in its debt from $4.5 to $8 billion.

Verizon has a very poor track record in these sales. Verizon sold its Hawaii operations to Hawaiian Telcom in 2005 and it filed for bankruptcy. Customers, service and employees have suffered as a result.

Frontier – just like FairPoint – is a making promises that it may not be able to meet. Like FairPoint, state regulators are being asked to approve a deal where a small company will attempt to simultaneously run a much larger operation, pay off billions of dollars more in debt, integrate Verizon’s computer systems and spend more money to expand broadband.

In the end Verizon will profit but consumers, workers and communities are put at real risk.

Expanding broadband access is an especially critical factor for all rural areas. But Frontier has failed to make any specific commitments, set any timeline or offer a plan for its broadband buildout.

Union leaders believe that states shouldn’t risk their telecommunications’ future just so Verizon can fatten its bottom line. Regulators shouldn’t approve this sale because the risks are too great. Instead, our legislators, regulators and the Governor should require Verizon to meet its service responsibilities. Verizon shouldn’t be allowed to walk away with $3.3 billion tax free, and leave the fate of its customers in the hands of a company with a lot less resources. If Frontier should falter, customers and the public would be required to pick up the pieces – not Verizon!

The track record for Verizon spinoffs has hardly been one of success.

FairPoint Communications, the company to which Verizon sold its Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont operations in 2008, is foundering as it tries to integrate operations and is choking on the debt it incurred to finance the transaction Since the deal was announced, FairPoint’s stock price has declined by about 95%, and the company has been forced to suspend dividend payments.

Hawaiian Telecom, the company to which Verizon sold its Hawaii operations in 2005, filed for bankruptcy. Verizon sold its 715,000 access lines in Hawaii. Since then, Hawaiian Telcom has experienced significant transition issues that resulted in major financial and customer service problems. In three years, the company lost 21% of its customers. In December 2008, Hawaiian Telcom filed for bankruptcy.

The yellow pages company that Verizon spun off also filed for bankruptcy. In November 2006, Verizon spun off its yellow pages directory business to Verizon shareholders, loading the new company, Idearc, with about $9.5 billion in debt and extracting a cool $9 billion in cash and debt reduction. Last year, interest payments alone on Idearc’s debt accounted for almost one-quarter of its total revenues! Representing something of a Verizon failing company “hat trick,” Idearc filed for bankruptcy in March 2009.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Huntington Frontier CWA Fight 10-14-09.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV Huntington, West Virginia reported on the growing opposition to the Frontier sale by employee groups on October 14th. (3 minutes)

In Washington State, IBEW Local 89, outside Seattle, says the sale could cripple one of America’s most tech-savvy regions.

“We’ve always been a leader in communications in this part of the country,” said Ray Egelhoff, business manager of IBEW Local 89. “If this happens, we’re afraid businesses won’t move in, and some may even move out.”

Egelhoff, along with more than 1,500 Verizon workers who may become Frontier employees, deluged officials with letters and e-mails expressing their concerns. More than 500 have gone out so far to senators, house members, governors and business leaders. The workers worry Frontier —at about the a third the size of Verizon—won’t be able to absorb the huge Verizon assets, won’t be able to keep customers happy and, eventually, will have to shed staff.

Robert Erickson, International Representative in the IBEW’s Telecommunications Department said, “The deal poses risks to consumers and employees. Frontier is making all kinds of promises about synergy and how they’ll expand broadband. FairPoint Communications made the same grand claims and now they can’t meet their commitments and fulfill the promises they made. It’s clear that Frontier will be in a similar situation and not have the resources to fulfill the commitments they are making.”

Consumer groups are also raising objections to the sale.

The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates urged the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing the proposed transaction, to reject the deal.

“The merger proposed by Frontier and Verizon is not in the public interest,” said David Springe, president of the consumer advocate group. “The failure of the companies to offer adequate consumer benefits or protections puts customers at risk of being served by a company without enough financial strength to make necessary improvements to local telephone facilities and widen the deployment of broadband access.”

Free Press, a nonpartisan group that works to reform the media, also raised concerns about the sale in a filing with the FCC. Free Press cited Verizon’s sale of lines in New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont to FairPoint, which subsequently acquired substantial debt, was unable to accommodate the increased service area, and is now on the edge of bankruptcy.

“This trend has the potential to leave rural areas with ill-equipped companies offering inadequate service at high prices,” says the Free Press report. “This is in direct contrast to the stated intent of Congress and the Obama Administration to foster universal broadband to all Americans.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston Verizon Sale Fight 10-14-09.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston, WV talked with the CWA and company officials about the sale of Verizon operations to Frontier Communications. (1 minute)