Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal today published an article reviewing the landscape of flat rate broadband service and how some Internet providers want to change it.

The article quotes me on the issue of Internet Overcharging becoming a political football in the Net Neutrality debate.

“This could come down to carriers saying, ‘If you don’t allow us to manage our networks the way we see fit, then we will just have to cap everything,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, a consumer advocate focusing on technology issues in Rochester, N.Y. “They’ll make it an either/or thing: give them more control over their network or expect metered broadband.”

Mr. Dampier was among those who forced Time Warner Cable to shelve a metered Internet pilot program in several cities last year. The company, which had argued the plan would be a fairer way to charge for access, acknowledged it was a “debacle.” It won’t say if it plans to revive the trials.

Unfortunately, the article never bothers to mention Stop the Cap!, the website dedicated to fighting these overcharging schemes.

AT&T weighs in on their experiment to overcharge consumers in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada, and analysts think Net Neutrality arguments may give providers an excuse to expand those experiments, launch price increases and blame it on Net Neutrality policies:

“Some type of usage-based model, for those customers who have abnormally high usage patterns, seems inevitable,” an AT&T spokesman says. AT&T declined to provide more details on its trials.

“Unquestionably, the carriers erred in their initial selling of broadband with a flat rate,” says Elroy Jopling, research director of Gartner Inc. “They assumed no one would use it as much as they do now, but then along came high-definition movies. They’re now trying to get around that mistake.”

Network neutrality deals primarily with ensuring that Internet providers don’t favor any online traffic over any other. Still, Mr. Jopling and other analysts argue, the net neutrality debate might provide the carriers with an opening to argue for changing that pricing.

“With network neutrality enforced, the only other option for carriers is to charge by the byte or to raise the flat-rate pricing,” says Johna Till Johnson, president of Nemertes Research. “Right now they’re just deciding which one to do. Just be prepared to pay more.”

It's "Rep. Eric Massa," Not 'Joe Messa'

The article has several flaws.

• It mis-identifies Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York) as “Rep. Joe Messa.”  Rep. Massa introduced legislation to ban Internet Overcharging when companies cannot produce actual evidence to justify it, particularly in the limited competitive marketplace for broadband in the United States.
• The article fails to mention the usage limits proposed by smaller broadband providers, including Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage definition in their Acceptable Use Policy.  This is a very important fact to consider when the article quotes Professor Andrew Odlyzko, an independent authority on broadband usage, as stating the average broadband consumer uses triple that amount (15 gigabytes per month).
• The quotation about the number of e-mails or web page views available under plan allowances that routinely appear in such articles ignores the increasing use of higher bandwidth applications like online video.  Telling a consumer they can send 75 million e-mails is irrelevant information because no consumer would ever need to worry about usage limits if they only used their account for web page browsing and e-mail usage.  They very much do have to be concerned if they use their service to watch online video from Hulu or Netflix, or use one of the online backup services.
• The article makes no mention of publicly available financial reports from broadband providers like Time Warner Cable that prove that at the same time their profits on broadband service are increasing, the company’s costs to provide the service continue to decline, along with the dollar amounts they spend to maintain and expand that network to meet demand.  Providing readers with insight into the true financial picture of a broadband provider, instead of simply quoting the public relations line of the day would seem particularly appropriate for The Wall Street Journal.
• The article doesn’t make mention that the same providers arguing increased Internet traffic is creating a problem for them are also working to launch an online video distribution platform that will rival Hulu in size and scope.  TV Everywhere will consume an enormous amount of the broadband network they claim can’t handle today’s traffic without Internet Overcharging schemes being thrown on customers.  Of course, such usage limits are very convenient for companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T, which are now in the business of selling pay television programming to consumers.  Should a consumer choose to watch all of their television online instead of paying for a cable package, a usage allowance will help put a stop to that very quickly, as will planned restrictions that only provide online video to “authenticated” existing pay television subscribers.

One thing remains certain – providers are still itching to overcharge you for your broadband service.  Consumers and the public interest groups that want to represent them must stand unified in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes and for Net Neutrality protection, and never accept sacrificing one for the other.

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)

Verizon’s ongoing effort to shed itself of legacy phone operations in smaller communities and states has triggered a wave of worker retirements, contributing to worker shortages in some regions.  In West Virginia in particular, Verizon’s plan to exit the entire state, leaving service in the hands of Frontier Communications, has many employees deciding the time to get out is now.  In August, Verizon was forced to bring in outside contractors to deal with repair work created by a storm-filled summer.  The decision met with strong opposition from the local Communications Workers of America Local 2001 union, which represents the remaining Verizon employees.

Verizon itself has been cost-cutting, and shed 7% of the workforce providing upkeep for the traditional phone network in just the past two years.  Many other employees are taking early retirement offers, or simply deciding to retire with their Verizon pension intact.

After the CWA Local 2001 unit ran an informational picket, the outside contractors were gone by September 19th.  The CWA has been negotiating with Verizon to create a Working Retiree program to provide staff support during difficult periods like those created from storm damage.

The CWA continues its strong opposition to Verizon exiting several states, selling its network to Frontier Communications.  The union believes the transaction will saddle those communities with a lower quality telecommunications future from a provider mired in the debt required to finance the transaction.

[flv width=”320″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston CWA Protests Verizon Contractors 8-31-09.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston, West Virginia covered the CWA informational picketing in late August. [1 minute]

Phillip "I Also Told You So" Dampier

This past spring Stop the Cap! started relentlessly documenting the tragic phone and broadband service that came as a result of a lousy phone deal for New Englanders.  Verizon, busily wiring its larger service areas for FiOS fiber to the home service, wanted out of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  In a uniquely wonderful deal (for them), they not only managed a clean break from too much regulatory red tape, but also sold off the entire operation down to the last cable, phone jack, and building absolutely tax-free to FairPoint Communications, a tiny independent phone company headquartered in North Carolina.

Since the sale, it has been one catastrophe after another:  broken phone and broadband service up to weeks at a time, incorrect billing amounting to hundreds of dollars and collection calls pestering customers for money they don’t owe, investigation after investigation, broken promise after broken promise.  Since we broke from the story back in June to cover some of the nonsense and ripoffs going on in Canada, things have not gotten that much better.  In fact, the company’s stock has since lost 95% of its value, is defending against accusations it manipulated a “test run” of a conversion program to guarantee success (right under the noses of independent observers), a major management shakeup, and now the very real chance the entire mess is headed to Bankruptcy Court.

One member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who loudly and, it turns out, very accurately predicted the results of this ill-conceived venture, said FairPoint is now swirling in the bowl, flushing itself, and three states’ telecommunications needs, right down the toilet.

So at the same time Frontier Communications is trying to pick up what Verizon is throwing away this year, it’s very illustrative to continue this story, to educate our readers about what happens when consumers’ needs are totally ignored.  Just as much to blame are the state regulators who are now ironically among the loudest complainers.  As we’ve shown documenting this entire story, they’ve changed their tune dramatically.  Back in 2007, they couldn’t say enough wonderful things about how confident they were in FairPoint, and were certain everything would work out just fine.

It did for them because they are still there, conducting the investigation about how this whole mess got started.

The Nashua Telegraph has followed this sorry story since day one:

Unable to make its massive debt payments, FairPoint will have to file for bankruptcy by month’s end unless it can strike a deal with creditors.

The company is losing land-line customers – and thus, revenue – faster than anticipated. And the celebrated launch of a TV service to compete with cable – a move FairPoint said would bring in the extra income to compensate for the decline in land-line customers – has been put on hold.

“There’s no satisfaction in saying I told you so,” said Rand Wilson, communications coordinator for the two unions that represent most FairPoint workers, which organized a major public campaign in an effort to stop the sale.

“We have to try to provide the best possible service under the circumstances and work with regulators and states to find a way to create a viable company.”

So far, that means trying to fix FairPoint from within, or hope the rumors of a buyout by Windstream, another owner of formerly independent phone companies, turns out to be real. But like FairPoint and Frontier, Windstream itself has a business model running phone service in the areas the big boys don’t want. How much of an improvement that company would provide remains an open question.  Regardless, unless FairPoint works the kind of magic it has never performed for its New England customers, it’s probably only a matter of weeks before bankruptcy:

P.J. Louis, a telecom industry expert and author of 11 books on the various topics within the industry, recently wrote that he thinks it’s a realistic option for the company.

“The more and more I think about it, the more I am convinced that FairPoint needs to file,” Louis wrote in an analysis on the Gerson Lehman Group Web site. “Every horror story you hear just scares the heck out of me. Frankly, I am questioning management’s ability to see the company through this rough time.”

Rochester, NY - New York's second largest economy on the shores of a broadband backwater

Broadband Reports this morning received word from an “insider” that Time Warner Cable is laying the groundwork to introduce “wideband” broadband service up to 50Mbps throughout New York State’s Verizon FiOS-wired communities.  According to the report, Time Warner Cable plans to launch faster DOCSIS 3.0 service in Buffalo in mid-November, Syracuse in December, and Albany in January.  The company introduced “wideband” service in metropolitan New York City a few weeks ago.

Omitted from the upgrade list is New York’s second largest economy and high tech capital of upstate New York — Rochester.  The city was in the news in April when Time Warner designated Rochester as one of the “test cities” for an Internet Overcharging experiment.  The plan was shelved when customers organized a mass revolt against the plan and two federal legislators intervened.

From a logical standpoint, it wouldn’t seem to make sense for a broadband provider to omit a region with more than one million residents, many who have been highly educated and work for the community’s largest employers – the University of Rochester/Strong Health, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, ViaHealth/Rochester General Hospital, Rochester Institute of Technology, Paychex, and ITT.

But from the all-important business standpoint, Time Warner Cable enjoys extraordinarily limited competition in the area, and the gap only widens in the coming future.  The area’s telephone provider, Frontier Communications, is known mostly for providing service in rural communities, and has so far offered lackluster plans for a 21st century broadband platform, preferring to rely on now-aging DSL technology while Verizon wires most comparably-sized cities in the rest of the state for advanced fiber-to-the-home FiOS service.

While Frontier can live comfortably in rural communities where cable television is not an option, customers who live and work in their largest service area continue to find disadvantages from a company business plan that these days seems more focused on mergers and acquisitions, and is content with language that defines an appropriate amount of monthly broadband usage at a ridiculously small 5 gigabytes per month.

Against a competitor like that, why would Time Warner Cable bother?