Irony: Chesonis' 2007 book has this description on Amazon.com -- "When you put people first, you win. When you operate by the highest principles, you'll see the results in the bottom line. When you put a caring heart into how you operate, in your organization and your community, you build the only true foundation of long-term success."

Eight acres of rubble and a big hole in the ground.

That’s what residents of Rochester, N.Y., are calling the former site of Midtown Plaza, America’s first indoor shopping mall, torn down to make room for the new headquarters of PAETEC Corporation — headquarters that may never be built.

Now the city of Rochester has declared war on the proposed acquisition of PAETEC by Little Rock, Ark.,-based Windstream, suggesting the combined company may renege on its commitment to construct new headquarters in downtown Rochester after New York State and Rochester city taxpayers spent $60 million on an economic development package for the company.

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, the mayor’s office declared its official opposition to the merger proposal, citing the economic impact of wasted tax dollars and the deal’s impact on local jobs:

The Commission will note from the body of this correspondence that the City may be negatively affected if the transfer of PAETEC to Windstream takes place. The federal, state and local governments have worked to develop the site for the purpose of establishing a PAETEC headquarters in Downtown Rochester; tailoring a development package and investing millions to make this location shovel ready for development. New York State provided the Project’s most significant monetary investment, proceeding with the understanding that the Project would retain and grow employment in the Rochester region. It is in the public interest to examine, not just the financial and planning impact that this will have on the City, but to also study the effect this will have on employment, the communities surrounding the City and the lives of the individuals who may be affected.

[…] In anticipation of the PAETEC Project, New York State and the City invested $60 million to demolish the former improvements on the Midtown Site and create a shovel ready building site. To insure the success of the PAETEC Project, the City produced a development package (“Development Package”) which expedited and customized the demolition of the existing buildings at the Midtown Site to accommodate PAETEC’s construction schedule and provide a foundation for PAETEC’s corporate headquarters.

[…] The Development Package was intended to benefit a New York State employer and help that employer retain its current employees and hire additional employees to grow its business. Despite all the efforts of the City to facilitate and provide the positive economic environment for the PAETEC Project, Windstream has indicated that it intends to reduce PAETEC’s current 850-employee Monroe County workforce.

The two companies filed a joint response with the Commission essentially telling the city to stay out of the merger deal, and their concerns about PAETEC’s headquarters and how many jobs will ultimately be lost are not within the Commission’s power to review anyway.

PAETEC CEO Arunas Chesonis, who earlier put the highest praise for his company’s success on the employees who helped build it into what it is today, told a group of fellow business leaders a different story than he told readers of his 2007 book.

“For people who feel let down, we in Rochester should want to be let down like this 50 times a year,” Chesonis said. “Rochester will be a major operating center for the company. So along those lines, we have to figure out how many jobs will be in Rochester. We should be talking about the people that are going to lose their jobs. What are those people going to do next?”

Presumably collect unemployment, critics charge.  Among them is former Mayor William Johnson, who has criticized the city for bending over backwards for the ever-evolving plans for new PAETEC headquarters, which have been downsized repeatedly since they were originally announced.  Johnson thinks Windstream may have effectively put a knife in the back of taxpayers and the mayor’s office, and could ultimately exit the city of Rochester leaving countless local employees out of work.

Windstream seems resolute in its plans to cut what it calls “duplicative staffing positions.”  It reminded the FCC the agency “has routinely approved transactions in which—as will be the case in this transaction—increased efficiencies and economies of scale and scope are expected.”

That is code language for PAETEC employees: Update your resume.  You may need it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHEC WHAM Rochester PAETEC Windstream 10-11.flv[/flv]

Finger-pointing over a messy, uncompleted downtown construction project. PAETEC may be planning to renege on a $60 million taxpayer-financed economic development package after it announced plans to merge with Windstream.  Reports from WHEC and WHAM-TV.  (6 minutes)

The primary backers of the ABC Plan

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is scheduled to deliver a major announcement on reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) — a federal program designed to subsidize the costs of delivering telecommunications services to rural America.

The reform, long overdue, would transition a significant percentage of USF fees every telephone customer pays towards broadband deployment — a noble endeavor.  For years, Americans have paid more than $5 billion annually to phone companies large and small to maintain rural landline service.  Small co-op phone companies depend on the income to deliver affordable service in places like rural Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska.  But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also collect a significant share (around $800 million annually) to reduce their costs of service in the rural communities they serve.

That’s particularly ironic for AT&T, which time and time again has sought the right to abandon universal rural landline service altogether.

Genachowski’s idea would divert USF funding towards broadband construction projects.  The argument goes that even low speed DSL requires a well-maintained landline network, so phone companies that want to deploy rural broadband will have to spend the money on necessary upgrades to provide just enough service to earn their USF subsidies.  The lower the speed, the lower the cost to upgrade networks and provide the service.  Some may choose wireless technology instead.  Since the telephone companies have fought long and hard to define “broadband” as anything approaching 3-4Mbps, that will likely be the kind of speed rural Americans will receive.

At first glance, USF reform seems like a good idea, but as with everything at the FCC these days, the devil is always in the details.

Dampier: Another day, another self-serving plan from the phone companies that will cost you more.

While headline skimmers are likely to walk away with the idea that the FCC is doing something good for rural broadband, in fact, the Commission may simply end up rubber stamping an industry-written and supported plan that will substantially raise phone bills and divert your money into projects and services the industry was planning to sell you anyway.

Stop the Cap! wrote about the ABC Plan a few weeks ago when we discovered almost all of the support for the phone-company-written proposal comes from the phone companies who back it, as well as various third party organizations that receive substantial financial support from those companies.  It’s a dollar-a-holler astroturf movement in the making, and if the ABC Plan is enacted, you will pay for it.

[Read Universal Service Reform Proposal from Big Telcos Would Rocket Phone Bills Higher and Astroturf and Industry-Backed, Dollar-a-Holler Friends Support Telco’s USF Reform Plan.]

Here is what you probably won’t hear at today’s event.

At the core of the ABC Plan is a proposal to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas.  You win a gold star if you correctly guessed this proposal originated with AT&T and Verizon, who together will save literally billions in call connection costs under their plan.

With a proposal like this, you would assume most rural phone companies are howling in protest.  It turns out some are, especially some of the smallest, family-run and co-op based providers.  But a bunch of phone companies that consider rural America their target area — Frontier, CenturyLink, FairPoint and Windstream, are all on board with AT&T and Verizon.  Why?

Because these phone companies have a way to cover that lost revenue — by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.  In the first year of implementation, your rates could increase up to $4.50 per line (and that fee also extends to cell phones).  Critics have been widely publicizing the increased phone bills guaranteed under the ABC Plan.  In response, advocates for the industry are rushing out the results of a new study released yesterday from the Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford that claims the exact opposite.  Dr. Ford claims each customer could pay approximately $14 less per year in access charges if the industry’s ABC Plan is fully implemented.

Genachowski

Who is right?  State regulators suggest rate increases, not decreases, will result.  The “Phoenix Center,” unsurprisingly, has not disclosed who paid for the study, but there is a long record of a close working relationship between that research group and both AT&T and Verizon.

But it gets even worse.

This shell game allows your local phone company to raise rates and blame it on the government, despite the fact those companies will directly benefit from that revenue in many cases.  It’s a real win-win for AT&T and Verizon, who watch their costs plummet while also sticking you with a higher phone bill.

The USF program was designed to provide for the neediest rural phone companies, but under the new industry-written rules being considered by the FCC, just about everyone can get a piece, as long as “everyone” is defined as “the phone company.”  There is a reason this plan does not win the hearts and minds of the cable industry, independent Wireless ISPs, municipalities, or other competing upstarts.  As written, the USF reform plan guarantees virtually all of the financial support stays in the Bell family.  Under the arcane rules of participation, only telephone companies are a natural fit to receive USF money.

Genachowski will likely suggest this plan will provide for rural broadband in areas where it is unavailable today.  He just won’t say what kind of broadband rural America will get.  He can’t, because the industry wrote their own rules in their plan to keep accountability and oversight as far away as possible.

For example, let’s assume you are a frustrated customer of Frontier Communications in West Virginia who lives three blocks away from the nearest neighbor who pays $50 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband.  You can’t buy the service at any price because Frontier doesn’t offer it.  You have called them a dozen times and they keep promising it’s on the way, but they cannot say when.  You may have even seen them running new cable in the neighborhood.

Frontier has made it clear they intend to wire a significantly greater percentage of the Mountain State than Verizon ever did when it ran things.  Let’s take them at their word for this example.

The telephone companies have helpfully written their own rules for the FCC to adopt.

Frontier’s decision to provide broadband service in West Virginia does not come out of the goodness of their heart.  At a time when landline customers are increasingly disconnecting service, Frontier’s long-term business plan is to keep customers connected by selling packages of phone, broadband, and satellite TV in rural markets.  Investment in DSL broadband deployment has been underway with or without the assistance of the Universal Service Fund because it makes financial sense.  Our customer in West Virginia might disconnect his landline and use a cell phone instead, costing Frontier any potential broadband, TV and telephone service revenue.

Under the ABC Plan, Frontier can be subsidized by ratepayers nationwide to deliver the service they were planning to provide anyway.  And what kind of service?  The same 3Mbps DSL the neighbors have.

If your county government, a cable operator, or wireless competitor decided they could deliver 10-20Mbps broadband for the same $50 a month, could they receive the USF subsidy to build a better network instead?  Under the phone company plan, the answer would be almost certainly no.

Simon Fitch, the consumer advocate of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, which advises the FCC on universal service matters, says the ABC Plan is a consumer disaster.

“Although a stated goal of the FCC’s reform effort is to refocus universal-service funding to support broadband, the industry’s ABC plan requires no real commitment to make broadband available to unserved and underserved communities,” Fitch writes. “Companies would receive funds to provide broadband with upload and download speeds that are already obsolete. States would be given no real enforcement power.”

Fitch is certain companies like AT&T and Verizon will receive enormous ratepayer-financed subsidies they don’t actually need to provide service.

Back to AT&T.

In several states, AT&T is seeking the right to terminate its universal service obligation altogether, which would allow the same company fiercely backing the ABC Plan to entirely walk away from its landline network.  Why?  Because AT&T sees its future profits in wireless.  Under the ABC Plan, AT&T could build rural cell towers with your money to provide “replacement service” over a wireless network with or without great coverage, and with a 2GB usage cap.

At the press conference, Genachowski could still declare victory because rural America would, in fact, get broadband.  Somehow, the parts about who is actually paying for it, the fact it comes with no speed, coverage, or quality guarantees, and starts with a 2GB usage cap on the wireless side will all be left out.

Fortunately, not everyone is as enamored with the ABC Plan as the groups cashing checks written by AT&T.

In addition to state regulators, Consumers Union, the AARP, Free Press, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates are all opposed to the plan, which delivers all of the benefits to giant phone companies while sticking you with the bill.

There is a better way.  State regulators and consumer groups have their own plans which accomplish the same noble goal of delivering subsidies to broadband providers of all kinds without increasing your telephone bill.  It’s up to the FCC to demonstrate it’s not simply a rubber stamp for the schemes being pushed by AT&T and Verizon.

While most rural telephone companies are selling customers 1-3Mbps copper-delivered DSL service, Alcatel Lucent has announced the commercial availability of VDSL 2 Vectoring, a new way of delivering up to 100Mbps over the copper wire telephone network most rural North Americans still depend on for telecommunications service.

VDSL2 combines a fiber-copper hybrid network similar to Bell’s Fibe or AT&T’s U-verse, with interference-cancelling technology called “vectoring” to deliver speeds much closer to the 100Mbps theoretical limit of current DSL technology.

“Alcatel-Lucent’s plan to make VDSL2 vectoring commercially available is very timely,” said Rob Gallagher, Principal Analyst, Head of Broadband & TV Research, Informa.  “VDSL2 Vectoring promises to bring speeds of 100Mbps and beyond to advanced copper/fiber hybrid networks and make super fast broadband speeds available to many more people, much faster than many in the industry had thought possible.”

A new way to boost copper speeds even faster.

Different flavors of DSL are currently in use around North America and beyond.  The most basic form, ADSL, also happens to be the most commonplace among phone companies offering basic broadband service.  For customers up to 12,000 feet away from a phone company central office, DSL delivers speeds usually at 1Mbps or faster.  Customers enjoying the fastest speeds must live much closer to the phone company facilities.  The further away you live, the slower your broadband speed.  In rural areas, consumers can live further away than the maximum distance of the central office, which means no DSL service for those subscribers.

A combination of signal loss and interference, called “crosstalk,” from adjacent copper wire pairs are both the enemies of DSL broadband, because they can drastically reduce speeds.

Telephone companies can address this problem by building new satellite central offices located halfway between customers and their primary facilities.  These offices, usually connected by fiber, can successfully reduce the amount of copper wire between the customer and the company, boosting speeds.  Many phone companies also deploy DSL extensions called D-SLAMs, which can be attached to a phone pole or enclosed in a metal box by the roadside.  A fiber cable connects the D-SLAM back to the phone company, while existing copper phone wires go back to individual subscribers.

More modern forms of DSL: ADSL2, ADSL2+, and VDSL, share some of those concepts.  The key is cutting as much copper wire out of the network as possible, replacing it with fiber optic cable which does not suffer signal loss or interference in the same way.

Many European and Pacific broadband networks rely on ADSL2/2+, which can usually deliver reliable speeds in the 20Mbps range.  VDSL networks offer even more bandwidth, and are the basis of U-verse and Fibe, which split up broadband, phone service, and television on the same cable.  When customers demand even faster speeds, phone companies can “bond” several individual DSL connections together to deliver faster speeds.  Some traditional ADSL providers do that today for their customers, especially in areas where low speeds prevail.

An argument the phone company will love.

Alcatel Lucent says VDSL2 with Vectoring is the next best thing to fiber to the home, because it is cheaper to deploy with fewer headaches from local authorities when streets and yards are dug up for fiber cable replacements.  It also meets the growing speed needs of average consumers.  Alcatel Lucent predicts the minimum speed North Americans will need to support the next generation of online video is 50Mbps, more than 10 times the speed phone companies like Verizon, AT&T, Frontier, and CenturyLink provide over their traditional DSL networks, especially in rural and suburban areas.

Vectoring can deliver results for phone companies with aging copper wire infrastructure, more prone to crosstalk and other signal anomalies.  Alcatel Lucent compares vectoring with noise-cancellation headphones.  By sampling the current noise conditions on copper cable networks, vectoring can suppress the impact of the interference, boosting speeds and delivering more reliable results.

With technologies like VDSL2 with Vectoring promising speeds far faster than what rural North Americans currently enjoy, the Federal Communications Commission may want to re-evaluate its national minimum speed standard for broadband — 3-4Mbps — found in its National Broadband Plan.  Alcatel Lucent promises they can do much better.

[flv width=”640″ height=”324″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Alcatel Lucent VDSL2.flv[/flv]

Alcatel Lucent produced this video to promote its new VDSL2 with Vectoring technology.  The video targets cost-conscious phone companies who are being pressured to deliver faster service, but don’t want to spend the money on a fiber to the home network.  (6 minutes)

Verizon Communications was supposed to have a “neutral” position regarding the takeover bid by AT&T to absorb T-Mobile, but Lowell McAdam, CEO could sit on his hands no longer, and told the Wall Street Journal “the match had to occur” and cautioned if the government blocks the merger, it needs to cough up more spectrum for wireless companies like his, and fast.

McAdam made those comments earlier today at an investor conference on the afternoon of the first court hearing on the Department of Justice lawsuit to derail the $39 billion deal.

My Breakfast With Julius

McAdam has the luxury of getting his point across directly with Washington’s movers and shakers.  While consumers continue to clamor in overwhelming numbers against the idea of T-Mobile being absorbed into a super-sized AT&T, McAdam enjoyed breakfast with Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski.

Consumers don't have the luxury of breakfast with the chairman of the FCC

“I have taken the position that the AT&T merger with T-Mobile was kind of like gravity,” Mr. McAdam said. “It had to occur, because you had a company with a T-Mobile that had the spectrum but didn’t have the capital to build it out. AT&T needed the spectrum, they didn’t have it in order to take care of their customers, and so that match had to occur.”

“So in my discussions with the FCC and folks on the Hill, if we want to stop or if the government wants to stop a merger like that, they need to then step up and say, this is how we are going to get spectrum in the hands of people,” he said.

Mr. McAdam said that can be done through secondary auctions, incentive options or freeing up additional spectrum. He said the wireless industry needs more spectrum, and the FCC will be “very focused on delivering that.”

McAdam didn’t say T-Mobile could have always sold its unwanted spectrum to AT&T instead of entering into a $39 billion dollar merger deal that will further reduce wireless consumers’ choice in carriers.

Unfortunately, consumers bringing delicious breakfast pastries and a point of view about wireless consolidation are unlikely to find themselves sharing a cup of joe with the head of the FCC.  They can’t even be trusted with the FCC Chairman’s direct phone number, which executives at AT&T and Verizon both have.

No Second Cup of Coffee for Jittery Investors

Investors may not want a cup of coffee themselves, considering the jittery reception some have had to news Verizon would forgo a recurring dividend and spend money at wireless spectrum auctions instead.

“When it makes sense, we’ll have a dividend,” he said. “When there’s a better first use for those dollars, we’ll do that with it, and the dividend will either be on a hiatus or less.”