The Great Wall of Pay

Newspaper, broadcasting, and cable magnates have had enough of online web visitors accessing all of their content for free.  Free is naughty.  Free must be stopped.  Free threatens to devalue everything.

For the last few years, content producers have been looking for ways to recoup investments in online publishing.  Newspapers publish articles online and fear that causes people to stop paying for the printed edition.  Studios and networks make their shows available on Hulu, and people find on-demand viewing more convenient than watching ad-packed live television.  Cable magnates worry about people dropping cable subscriptions and watching all of their video online.

Broadcasting & Cable generated a firestorm late last week when it quoted one of Hulu’s partners — News Corporation’s Deputy Chairman Chase Carey telling the B&C OnScreen Summit “it’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online.”

“I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value,” Carey said. “Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.”

CNN picked up the story in one of their news blogs, and promptly generated more than 700 responses, most hostile to paying for anything on Hulu, and that included the blog’s author:

“I certainly won’t be pulling out my credit card if the service puts up a subscription pay wall. And I doubt many other customers will be happy to start paying money for a service they previously received for free.”

Most comments indicated they’ll go back watching online TV shows and movies the old fashion way – downloading them from peer to peer torrent networks or newsgroups.

“The Internet abhors a content vacuum, especially one created artificially by a subscription wall,” Stop the Cap! reader Jake writes.  “Just like what happened with digital rights management schemes and viewing rights blockades, enterprising net users will always find a way around them and distribute the content a few don’t want us to have.”

The quest for control is increasingly becoming more contentious among super-sized corporate entities that create and distribute content.  Comcast seeks ownership of NBC-Universal, a content creator and partner in Hulu, which currently gives away content for free Comcast charges customers to watch.  A newly constructed Great Wall of Pay could help stop these business model challenges.

When online content was successfully monetized by advertising, few cared about handing it out for free.  In fact, providers like AOL abandoned many of its ‘subscriber-only’ walls to “go free” and attract a larger audience, and corresponding increased ad revenue.  In a post-bailout recession era, ad dollars have become scarce and no longer pay all of the bills Hulu’s owners want paid.  Advertising industry consultants say Hulu cannot simply increase the number of advertisements to make up the difference.  Even though Hulu users confront far less advertising than traditional broadcast television, research has shown online TV watchers resent a lot of the advertising they see now.  Many Hulu viewers actively develop a form of ad blindness based, in part, on the resentment those ads bring to the experience.  Hulu occasionally offers viewers one extended ad at the start of a show, instead of having them seeded throughout the program.  Many take Hulu up on the offer and use that 90 seconds to grab a snack.

Interestingly, the shorter a web ad, the more viewers retain information contained within it.  Some web ads run only 10 seconds, and are sold to clients with this in mind, and at a budget price to boot.

For web-ad haters, the worst of all worlds would be a Hulu that retains its limited commercial interruptions -and- charges a subscription fee.  For many, that would be the equivalent of “basic cable on the web.”  Many will drop Hulu “like a rock” should this happen.

A day after the hue and cry was raised by the Broadcasting & Cable article, skeptics said it was unlikely Hulu would entirely abandon free programming.  It may provide a premium pay service offering extra episodes, or perhaps remove commercials entirely for premium customers, a proposition at least some were willing to entertain, depending on the price.

“I would consider paying a very small (less than $3.00) monthly fee to watch Hulu if, and only if, they removed the commercials. Otherwise there are other alternatives,” one commenter wrote on CNN’s blog.

Newspapers are also feeling the bite, even more than online video sites.  The printed “dead tree format” of the daily paper has become anathema to the under-30 crowd, despite valiant efforts by some publishers to appeal to younger audiences with feature stories and even free weeklies that mix light news with entertainment features.  The only answer has been to take the paper online.  For years, concepts like online subscriptions, micropayments (paying a few cents per story), free access only for print subscribers, and charging per story for access to week-old and beyond news archives have been considered, tried, abandoned or ignored when web visitors flee or simply skip the pay content.  The daily local newspaper is not what it used to be, and when the “pay here” box pops up, many web visitors simply take their news reading business elsewhere, thanks to the near-universal access to wire service reports and competing media covering stories of interest for free.

Newsday, the Long Island newspaper owned by Cablevision, abandoned its “freeloading” audience yesterday with a new Great Wall of Pay charging a steep $5 a week for those who do not subscribe to either the newspaper or have a broadband account with Cablevision.

The newspaper’s Wednesday edition teased non-subscribers with stories that suddenly drifted off into ellipsis… with an invitation to open your wallet to read more.

Sports media blogger Neil Best, who writes for Newsday, seemed resigned to the fact he was losing a lot of his audience in his farewell-to-free column published Tuesday:

The inevitable decline in my national visibility (and page views) mostly is an ego thing. More to the point, Long Island advertisers understandably have little interest in readers in Dubuque.

For those readers who won’t be coming along for the ride – especially those outside Cablevision territory who in many ways are innocent bystanders in all this – thank you for your readership, input and support.

You will be missed.

Best realistically assessed the number of web visitors he’d see post-Wall, particularly from outside of the immediate area.  Best and his readership seemed to collectively sense this project was destined to fail, another bad experiment from aloof and out of touch management to the realities of the web world.  One commenter lamented the real victim would probably be Best himself:

What’s most frustrating of all, though, is that everyone knows this venture will fail. It’s never succeeded before and there’s truly no reason it will now. Pay for blogs? Are you kidding me? Even the pay-for-columns model is a one-in-a-million risk. But blogs? We all know this is not just you and I missing Neil, it’s Newsday destroying a commodity that could have helped it promote its other products. So Newsday loses– this has no chance– none– to succeed. And Neil loses –immediately– the majority of his followers. He will suffer the most immediate and quantifiable of harms. His readers, his fans, the people who support him and have helped him grow. Now his bosses shut us out and help him dwindle. And we lose. We lose our beloved journalists– we lose their thoughts and every day muses– things that dont even belong in a newspaper.

The use of the word “commodity” would no doubt cause much consternation among Newsday’s management and Wall Street types.  It is the “commoditization” of the news business, with endless debt-laden mergers and acquisitions and the cost-cutting that followed, that trained readers to realize that with the decrease in unique, local content in many newspapers, and their increasing reliance on partnerships with broadcast news operations, wire services, and syndicated feature content, why pay when you can get nearly the same (if not the same) content for free on the next website in the Google results list?

The big believers in the Great Wall of Pay fear what happened to newspapers could happen to their cable, broadcasting, or video rental operations.  The commoditization “crisis” is largely self-made: cable and phone companies with their “dumb pipes,” the cost-cutting local broadcaster that dispensed with nightly news, or the alienating video rental chain store made obsolete by Netflix or the Redbox ‘Tardis’ positioned in the entrance to your local supermarket.  When companies extract maximum revenue through minimal devotion to quality, uniqueness, and integrity, and either overcharge or irritate customers, why be surprised when consumers rebel when being asked to pay or pay more?

One of the rare success stories in pay content has come from Consumer Reports, which charges an annual fee for access to its online reviews.  Consumers notice the dramatic difference between a publication that accepts no advertising and keeps its integrity because of it, and other news sites contemplating pay schemes that are so cluttered with online advertising, autoplaying loud video ads, pop-ups and unders, they can barely find the content they are now being asked to pay for.

Consumers can and will pay for quality content, but many will not be forced into doing so with a corporate blockade on content from “walled gardens” and other “pay me to watch this, right after this ad” schemes.  Online, there is more than one way around the Great Wall of Pay.

Shaw Communications, western Canada’s largest cable company, has expanded its High-Speed Nitro DOCSIS 3 broadband service in British Columbia and Alberta.  Offering speeds of 100Mbps downstream and 5Mbps upstream, Shaw charges customers $149 per month for the new plan, assuming you also subscribe to other Shaw services.  The three latest cities to obtain upgraded service join Victoria in British Columbia, Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, where upgrades were unveiled earlier this year.

“The expansion of High-Speed Nitro into the cities of Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver demonstrates Shaw’s commitment to continually enhancing our Internet services to meet our customers’ changing needs,” said Peter Bissonnette, President, Shaw Communications Inc.

Paying $150 a month doesn’t buy you unlimited broadband, however.  Despite the premium price, Shaw insists on slapping a usage allowance of 400 gigabytes per month.  While at first glance that limit seems generous, particularly compared with Comcast’s 250GB limit, paying $150 a month for Internet access apparently is not enough to spare their most generous customers from a pesky Internet Overcharging scheme.

Jeff from Calgary, a Stop the Cap! reader writes, “exactly how much profit does Shaw need to earn from customers before they turn the damn meter off?”

“It’s bad enough with a 100GB limit on their so-called High-Speed Extreme plan, which gives my family up to 15Mbps service for $45 a month.  If I am going to pay them $100 more a month for service, there shouldn’t even be a limit,” he adds.

The High-Speed Extreme plan seems to be the pricing “sweet spot” for Shaw, because the next step up in Calgary is High-Speed Warp, which brings 25Mbps service for the warped high price of $96 a month.  For nearly twice the price, Shaw only throws another 50GB towards customers’ usage allowances, limiting service to 150GB per month.

Phillip Dampier resides in Frontier's largest service area: Rochester, New York

Consumers across 13 states impacted by the proposed Verizon sale to Frontier Communications, as well as existing Frontier customers, should tell regulators to reject the deal.

Those of us living and working in Rochester, New York are extremely familiar with Frontier Communications.  For more than 100 years, Rochester Telephone Corporation provided excellent, independent telephone service to Rochester and a significant part of the Genesee Valley.  The company had a reputation for excellent reliability and charged rates considerably lower than New York Telephone, a Bell subsidiary, in other upstate cities like Buffalo and Syracuse.  In 1995, Rochester Telephone was renamed Frontier Communications, because the company wanted to position itself as something more than just a phone company.

Frontier was acquired in 2001 by Citizens Communications of Stamford, Connecticut, who has provided service ever since.  Ironically, that company thought Frontier was a better name than the one they had used for decades, and Citizens renamed themselves Frontier Communications in 2008.

Today, Frontier Communications serves just under three million customers, primarily in suburban and rural communities in 24 states.

Since Citizens acquired Frontier, and its largest operating service area in metropolitan Rochester, the company has made some changes to the local telephone network.  Fiber optic connections are now common between their central offices and smaller “satellite” central offices.  A local wi-fi network was installed in association with Monroe County, in part as a political maneuver to stop municipally owned and operated affordable wi-fi networks from getting off the ground.  As a concession to the county, a much smaller “free” wi-fi network was also included. (See below the jump for video news coverage of Frontier’s promises vs. reality)

The company’s broadband service relies on ADSL technology delivered by traditional copper telephone wiring, providing service in Rochester at speeds up to a theoretical 10Mbps.  Actual speeds vary tremendously depending on the distance between your home or business and the telephone company central office serving it.  In most smaller communities, speeds are far lower.  In Cowen, West Virginia, Frontier markets broadband service at just 3Mbps, a typical speed for Frontier’s smaller service areas.

Unfortunately, Frontier has shown no initiative to move beyond offering traditional DSL service to its customers, including those in western New York.  Across other New York State cities, Verizon is taking a far different approach.  In larger communities, it is aggressively installing fiber optic wiring to both homes and businesses.  Verizon FiOS positions the company to effectively compete against their traditionally closest competitor – cable television.  For several years, cable operators have offered a better deal for its “digital phone” service, which works with existing home phones but delivered over cable TV lines, often charging less than a traditional phone line, and cable throws in free long distance on many of its plans.

The ubiquitous cell phone has not helped.  Many younger Americans can’t understand why they would want to bother getting a traditional phone line, when the mobile phone in their pocket works just fine, and they can take it with them wherever they go. The result has been a steady erosion of traditional “wireline” phone lines, and a corresponding decline in the revenue earned from the service in many areas.

The Communications Workers of America contract Verizon promises with reality for consumers impacted by earlier deals. (click to enlarge)

In September Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg told a Goldman Sachs investor conference that the wired phone line business was effectively dead.  Seidenberg recognized that trying to guess when the company would stop losing “landline” customers was like guessing when a dog will stop chasing a bus.  In other words, the future of Ma Bell is not delivering phone service — it’s deploying advanced networks that are capable of providing customers with video, broadband, and phone service across one wire, preferably a fiber optic one.  Those that can manage the transition will succeed, those who cannot or won’t will face a steady decline to obsolescence.

There is only one major problem — it costs a lot of money to rewire entire communities, much less states, with fiber optic wiring.  It’s like building a phone network from scratch.  A company contemplating such a challenging undertaking starts by asking how much it is going to cost and when will it profit from its investment.  Many on Wall Street don’t like either question because of the up front cost, and are even less happy with the prospect of taking the long view waiting for those costs to be recouped from customers.

To date, Verizon is the most aggressive major phone company in the nation building a pure fiber optic system in its larger service areas.  AT&T, which provides phone service in many states, has taken a more cautious approach using a hybrid fiber-copper wire design they market as U-verse.  A handful of independent phone companies and municipally owned providers have undertaken to wire fiber optics to the home as well, so they can sell video, telephone and broadband service to their customers.

A major challenge confronts phone companies servicing more distant suburban and rural phone customers, often living far apart from one another in sparsely populated regions.  It costs more to service these customers, and the potential revenue gained is often not as great as what can be earned from their urban cousins.  Verizon doesn’t see many rural customers as part of their future business plans and have begun to systematically sell some areas off to other phone companies, usually in tax-free transactions.  One company that sees an ambitious future in serving rural America is Frontier Communications.  For them, finding a niche among the big boys gives them safety and security, particularly in areas that don’t have a cable competitor (or any competitor at all).

Frontier’s acquisition strategy is to sell regulators and the public on the idea that allowing Frontier in guarantees a much better chance for broadband service to reach the communities Verizon skipped over.  Their argument for success in a business seeing steady declines in customers is that broadband service will stem the tide, and help them remain profitable.  More than doubling their size with the acquisition of Verizon’s latest castoffs means more opportunity to market broadband service to those underserved communities.  Frontier argues it can be a more nimble player than Verizon because it has marketing and service experience in rural communities previously ignored by Verizon.

Frontier’s ability to provide broadband service is not the most important question.  More important is how Frontier will define broadband and at what speed. Also critically important is how Frontier will be prepared to deliver the next generation broadband platform that other communities will see with speeds up to 100Mbps, often on fiber optic networks.

Frontier’s reliance on ADSL technology, which worked fine for 1990s Internet connectivity, is increasingly falling behind in the speed race, and for much of the next generation of online content, speed will matter very much.

Unfortunately, the track record for the success of these spinoffs has been universally lousy for consumers and for many employees who live and work in the impacted communities.  Promises made quickly become promises delayed, and later broken as companies like Hawaii Telecom and FairPoint tried to integrate former Verizon operations into their own.  Service outages, billing errors, confusion, and finally a mass exodus by customers looking for better alternatives has been the repeated result.  The faster customers depart, combined with the enormous debt these transactions create for the buyer, the faster the journey ends in Bankruptcy Court.  There is nothing about the Frontier deal proposal that suggests their experience will be any different.

Shouldn’t Three Strikes Mean You Are Out?

Consumers should tell state regulators they should pay careful attention to the failures Verizon has left in its wake from previous deals:

• FairPoint Communications, which assumed control of phone service in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont just last year declared bankruptcy this morning, even now still plaguing customers with billing and service problems.  The company choked on the debt it incurred from financing the deal.  Before this morning’s bankruptcy, their stock price had lost 95% of its value, and customers were leaving in droves, only accelerating the company’s demise.  FairPoint thought it could integrate Verizon’s byzantine billing system into its own.  Thinking and doing turned out to be two entirely different things.  Frontier has experience integrating other small independent phone companies into its billing system, but now faces the same prospect of dealing with Verizon’s own way of doing everything, and for twice the number of customers Frontier serves today.
• Hawaii Telecom and its 715,000 customers were dumped by Verizon in 2005.  Once again, transition issues plagued the post-sale experience for those customers, and almost a quarter fled the company over three years.  Last December, Hawaii Telecom declared bankruptcy.
• Verizon’s yellow pages unit was also thrown overboard by the company to Idearc in November 2006.  Saddled with $9.5 billion in debt and interest payments representing almost one quarter of the entire company’s revenues, Idearc finally had enough in March 2009 when it also declared bankruptcy.

The deal between Verizon and Frontier could easily follow the same path, as Frontier gets loaded down with massive debt financing the purchase, and has to immediately provide better service than Verizon did, or face a stampede of customers heading for the exit.  The impact of a debt-laden Frontier could be felt by more than just the newcomers.  Existing Frontier customers could also be impacted as the company turns its attention to a potentially lengthy integration process.

The Promise of Anemic Broadband, The Fiber Myth & The 5GB Acceptable Use Policy

Time Warner Cable competes effectively against Frontier DSL in the phone company's largest service area

Frontier’s plan to bring broadband to a larger number of customers is a noble gesture, particularly for households that currently do not receive any broadband service.  Unfortunately, a short term gain of what will likely be 1-3Mbps DSL service will leave these communities behind in the next few years as broadband speeds accelerate far faster than what Frontier is prepared to provide.

Some press accounts in West Virginia have left residents with the impression fiber optic service will reach their individual homes should Frontier be successful in purchasing Verizon’s assets.  There is no evidence to suggest this is true.

In earlier deals, these kinds of rumors started when companies advocating the sale staged press-friendly events announcing a fiber connection between hospitals, schools, or community centers, allowing the media to give the impression there would be fiber upgrades for all… if the deal gets approved.  In the case of Frontier, they have suggested they will continue work on Verizon’s FiOS system in the communities where construction was already underway.  That’s an important distinction for the millions of customers who don’t live in those communities.  Verizon’s FiOS network that is part of this transaction serves less than 70,000 residents.

Residents should consider what possibility their community has of obtaining this type of advanced service when Frontier refuses to provide anything comparable in their largest service area – Rochester, New York.

If they are not doing it in Rochester, do you really believe they will do it in your community?

The company certainly has a competitive need to provide such service in our city where Time Warner Cable has accelerated speeds beyond what Frontier is capable of providing.  Indeed, Time Warner Cable officials tout their largest number of new Road Runner broadband sign-ups comes from departing DSL customers who are fed up with the anemic, inconsistent speeds offered by this aging technology.

In the town of Brighton, I gave Frontier DSL service a try this past spring.  The company promises up to 10Mbps of service to my area, which is less than 1/2 mile from the city of Rochester, and literally just a few blocks from the town’s business center.  After installation, the company was only able to provide me with service at 3.1Mbps, just less than one-third of the speed marketed to local residents.  Even more surprising was the fact they charged a higher price for that service (including taxes, fees, and modem rental charge) than their competitor, Time Warner Cable.

This website was founded after Frontier inserted language into its Acceptable Use Policy defining “reasonable” broadband usage at just five gigabytes per month.  That’s right, the same limit your mobile phone provider applies to their wireless broadband service.  Viewing one HD movie over Frontier’s DSL service would put you perilously close to unreasonable use.

Are consumers willing to give up unlimited Verizon DSL service for a company that refuses to drop a 5GB acceptable usage definition from their terms and conditions?

America is on the threshold of 50-100Mbps broadband service, with some communities already enjoying those speeds.  If your community isn’t served by a competing provider, do you want to limit your future to yesterday’s DSL technology, and then told it is inappropriate for you to actually use it beyond five gigabytes per month?

The Billing and Customer Service Nightmare

The days of local customer service are over with Frontier.  Back during the days of Rochester Telephone, there were several occasions when a local customer service representative would recognize me by name.  Those days are long gone.  Now, a good deal of Frontier’s customer service is handled by a call center in DeLand, Florida.  While the representatives mean well, experiences with them suggest many are not well equipped to understand and consistently market Frontier’s products to existing customers.  Pile on more than double the number of new customers, and the problems are likely to become much worse.

Frontier has personally plagued me with billing errors this past year, gave inconsistent and inaccurate answers to pricing and service inquiries, and created major runaround hassles to correct them.  From the DSL self-install kit that never arrived (requiring me to visit a local office to pick one up myself), to the impenetrable and inaccurate bills that resulted, the company could not correct the problems without consulting someone with supervisor status.  I canceled service within the month.

Customers signing up for service have been pressured into “peace of mind” agreements that lock customers into long term contracts that automatically renew unless the customer actively cancels them (and is certain the request to cancel was processed correctly.)  Frontier has been fined twice by the New York State Attorney General for “misleading advertising and marketing tactics,” once in 2006 and again just a few weeks ago.  Some customers are now waiting for substantial refunds ranging from $50-400 dollars for “early termination fees” charged when they tried to cancel service.

Are you comfortable knowing some customers have been inappropriately placed on a one to three year contract without their full informed consent, and billed hundreds of dollars when they tried to cancel?

The Art of the Deal

By no means will a Verizon-Frontier transaction be the last.  As the industry continues to consolidate around a dwindling number of wired phone line customers, it’s a safe bet there will be more phone customers thrown away by the bigger players.  Nothing guarantees Frontier itself will be freestanding when the consolidation wave ends.  While these deals may make sense for some shareholders and company executives, they often don’t for local experienced employees who know the network and how to provide quality service.  They never have for consumers who will always have to foot the bill to pay off these transactions and have to live with the company trying to integrate Verizon’s bureaucracy with their own.

What is the ultimate price to pay?  For employees — their jobs, and as FairPoint employees are discovering today, those workers are being asked to pay the price for management mistakes.  In West Virginia, some of the most experienced Verizon employees are getting out with their pensions intact, not willing to take a chance on Frontier.  For customers living with FairPoint, horror stories of weeks without service, $400 phone bills for service long since canceled, company technicians that cannot find the customer even when they are located right next door to the phone company, and broken promise after broken promise continue.

Some consumer groups and local workers correctly predicted, in each instance, the horrific outcome of these kinds of deals.  Their uncanny knack to correctly predict disaster contrasts with company marketing, lobbying, and astroturf efforts that promise the sky and tell each successive news reporter covering the latest atrocity that “things are getting better” and “will be fixed soon.”  Unfortunately for too many customers, the fix has to come from a judge in Bankruptcy Court.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who repeatedly warned about the perils of FairPoint, now warns state regulators about Frontier, and direct attention to the numbers:

If the transaction is approved, Frontier management will have to deal with a 300% increase in access lines (from 2.2 million access lines now to 7 million after the sale) and a 200% increase in employees (from 5,700 employees now to 16,700 after the sale).

Frontier’s debt will increase from $4.55 billion to $8 billion—an increase of over $3.4 billion. Servicing this debt will mean less money for infrastructure, service quality, and high-speed internet build out.

While Frontier argues that somehow this deal will make it stronger, the issue for the states being sold is how much weaker it will make the operations in those states.

The leverage ratio is one way to measure the financial health of a company. The leverage ratio is calculated by taking net debt and dividing it by earnings (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). The leverage ratio for the states being sold will increase from 1.7 immediately before the transaction closes to 2.6 after the sale. The entire deal revolves around Frontier’s ability to cut its operational expenses by $500 million or 21%.

This is significantly greater than the 8-10% cut that FairPoint hoped to achieve—and much of these savings were to be generated from replacing Verizon’s network and back-office systems. Yet, Frontier states that all of the operations except for West Virginia will continue on Verizon’s existing systems—for which Frontier will pay a fee.

Where will Frontier generate the savings—from reduced service quality, workforce, or maintenance of the communications infrastructure? In spite of brave talk from Verizon and Frontier, as recent events have demonstrated, obtaining financing for a transaction this size can be difficult. Frontier does not currently have financing for the additional debt it will take on for this transaction.

As an existing Frontier customer, I’d like an answer myself.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Watch these two Wall Street guys talk about the previous Verizon deals that threw customers under the bus.  Plenty of praise for the skilled deal maker Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, and no concern for you, the consumer and telephone customer impacted by a deal that got a few people very rich and left you with a bankrupt phone company.  (3 minutes)

It’s Not Worth the Risk

Unfortunately, for too many rural Americans impacted by this deal, there is only one phone company.  Cable television is not in their future, and in mountainous regions like West Virginia, wireless phones may not be suitable as a phone line replacement.  Risking 100 years of solvent phone service on a deal that could ultimately follow earlier deals into bankruptcy is not worth the risk.  The nightmares of converting operations from one provider to another is a hassle consumers should not have to face.

For decades, you faithfully paid your Verizon telephone bill and made the company the telecommunications powerhouse it is today.  Now they want to abandon you because, frankly, you just aren’t important enough to them anymore.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  State regulators can tell Verizon they need to make different plans — by forgetting about trying to cash in on a deal that is good for them and bad for you, and by staying put and providing consumers with the same kinds of network upgrades they are building in communities across the country.

Unfortunately, Frontier before this deal was ill-equipped to embark on the kind of investment necessary to provide fiber optic broadband connectivity to its customers.  Now pile on billions of additional debt and the challenge of trying to more than double their size and integrate diverse phone networks in 13 different states and ponder what the chances will be for fiber service after the deal is done.  Far more likely for residents is a company that will rely on slow speed DSL service, providing “good enough for them” broadband for the indefinite future.

Take Action!

As has been the case with Hawaii Telecom and FairPoint, naive regulators believed the false promises and approved earlier deals, and are frankly responsible for part of the blame.  Face-saving telecommunications regulators in New England initially even tried to cheerlead for FairPoint as they stumbled through one customer service nightmare after another.  Too late, they realized the grim reality that their approval saddled their states with a phone company totally unequipped to do the job.

Consumers who do not want a repeat performance can contact their state representatives and tell them to put pressure on each state’s public utility commission to reject the deal.  You should also contact your state’s public utility commission yourself.

No amount of concessions and written agreements will make a difference if that phone company ends up in financial distress and takes a walk to Bankruptcy Court.  Regulators should not even bother trying, after witnessing the debacle with FairPoint.

In your polite, persuasive and persistent communication with state officials, let them know:

• We’ve been down this road with Verizon before, with FairPoint Communications and Hawaii Telecom, leaving a litany of broken service promises, unfulfilled broadband commitments, unacceptable billing mistakes, and poor quality customer service.  In both instances, customers fled and the companies ended up in bankruptcy;
• Frontier has been unable or unwilling to wire its largest service area, Rochester, New York, with the advanced fiber connectivity that Verizon is wiring throughout the rest of upstate New York.  If the company cannot meet the needs of customers in their largest service area, what in the world makes you think they’ll do it for us?
• The company has been fined twice by the New York State Attorney General for dubious business practices, costing consumers hundreds of dollars the company has now agreed to return to those customers;
• A broadband service for our community’s future should not come with a 5 gigabyte monthly limit attached in the fine print.  How can our community compete in the digital economy if you have to ration your broadband usage to an unprecedented level in wired broadband?
• The devil is always in the details.  Verizon has an aggressive plan to stay relevant in a digital future, with video, telephone, and Internet service running across advanced fiber optic lines.  Frontier has a plan to serve rural communities with yesterday’s technology.  Frontier’s vision for video is to “get a satellite dish” and rely on the existing aging copper wiring to do everything else.
• What kind of service and growth can we expect from a company mired in debt?  As seasoned Verizon employees in our community start retiring, understanding the writing on the wall, what do they know that you and I don’t?
• Phone companies are a regulated utility, essential to the public interest.  Why permit a risky deal that could ultimately lead to a taxpayer bailout to keep operations running if Frontier follows its predecessors into bankruptcy, all while Verizon walks away with billions in proceeds?

You can locate the names and contact information for your state representative(s) on Congress.org simply by entering your zip code.  When calling or writing, always be courteous, and request that your representative respond in writing to your concerns, and share with Stop the Cap! any correspondence you receive in reply.  As always, we’ll be holding elected officials accountable.

Your next contact must be with your state public utility commission.  If a hearing is planned in your community, share your views in person and feel free to point them here if they want to watch how bad telecommunications deals have unfolded in the past.  We have countless hours of news reports archived for their viewing pleasure.  Each state has a different procedure for contacting them.  In West Virginia, for example, consumers can call the Commission at 1-800-642-8544.  Ohio residents can fill out an online form.

Perhaps Frontier can one day take on a transaction like this, but only after it can demonstrate it has the resources and willingness to provide customers with better options for service.  Had they done that in our community, local residents would not have taken to signing a petition for Verizon to overbuild, or buyout Frontier’s Rochester operation.  Local residents want the advantage fiber optic service can bring our community and its local economy, some even expressing a willingness to send $10 and $20 checks to Verizon for an acquisition fund to get the sale done.  When consumers give money to the phone company when they don’t owe anything, that should be a clear signal consumers are dissatisfied and want a change Frontier, thus far, has not provided.

There are more videos below the jump….

… Continue Reading

Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona)

What a week.  Broadband policy now has its very own death panel, in the form of accusations that Net Neutrality policies are:

• a Marxist-Obama plot to control the Internet;
• designed to silence conservative talk radio like the Fairness Doctrine;
• going to ruin Sen. John “I don’t use e-mail” McCain’s (R-Arizona) day.

Just a few years ago we watched former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) tell us the Internet is not a truck but a series of tubes.  Glenn Beck earlier this week was coddling a small, terrified puppy that he claimed represented cowardly media missing out on the grand Marxist conspiracy underway, and Net Neutrality was just the latest piece of the coup puzzle.  Now one Tennessee congresswoman believes Net Neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine of 2009 and is being run by a czar.

Let’s review:

Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) has introduced the ironically named “Internet Freedom Act” to free the broadband industry from potential oppressive government overregulation.

“Today I’m pleased to introduce ‘The Internet Freedom Act of 2009’ that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation,” said McCain.  “It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment,” McCain continued.  “Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy.”

It’s certainly a stimulus — for broadband provider coffers and for McCain himself, who is Congress’ top recipient of big telecom money in the form of campaign contributions (over $900,000 and counting).  He’s the best senator the telecom industry could buy.  But wait, the guy who doesn’t own a computer or use e-mail says ‘father knows best’ for America’s online communities? McCain released a statement introducing his new bill:

The wireless industry exploded over the past twenty years due to limited government regulation.  Wireless carriers invested $100 billion in infrastructure and development over the past three years which has led to faster networks, more competitors in the marketplace and lower prices compared to any other country.  Meanwhile, wired telephones and networks have become a slow dying breed as they are mired in state and Federal regulations, universal service contribution requirements and limitations on use.

And we all know who has one of those dying breed rotary dial wired telephones, don’t we?

In fact, wireless industry profits have exploded over the past twenty years as the vast majority of Americans signed up for service.  The industry has been so awash in cash they’ve been on a consolidation shopping spree for at least the past three years, buying each other out through mergers and acquisitions.  The number of competitors John McCain thinks he sees growing is, in reality, a case of double vision.  He should get that checked.  Lower pricing?  Not quite.

Consumers don’t dump wired telephones because of government regulations:

“Honey, I can’t believe they are doing a Reverse Morris Trust deal with the phone company over in West Virginia.  We should cancel our Verizon phone line and take our business elsewhere… to Verizon Wireless instead — that will show them!”

Consumers confronting two telephone bills, one for the wireless and one for the wired phone, makes one redundant for those Americans trying to economize in this difficult economy.  The McCain family doesn’t have to

The dog knows more than it's telling

economize thanks to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon – just a few cutting checks to the self-described maverick.  Increasingly, consumers are looking for better deals and finding one with the cable company’s “digital phone” product, or an Internet-based Voice Over IP service.  State and federal regulations aren’t the problem — the quality and price of the service can be.

The vast majority of those consumers switching to wireless do not escape “universal service contribution requirements” either.  More often than not, wireless phone bills are decorated like Christmas trees with add-ons for everything from USF fees to 911 support surcharges, local, county, state and federal taxes, among others.

Limitations on use?  That would not be the wired telephone line’s flat rate calling plan.  The limitations are more commonly found on the wireless side, where many consumers get an allowance and a per-minute fee for exceeding it.  It sounds like the out of touch senator probably still makes station to station calls to “enterprise numbers.”  Welcome to the 21st century.

In short, John McCain doesn’t understand what he is talking about.  He apparently does understand those big telecom industry checks he gets, however.  No doubt that is the real inspiration for this industry-friendly legislation.

Rachel Maddow spent several minutes Friday night breaking down McCain’s legislation and what Net Neutrality is really all about.

[flv width=”596″ height=”336″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MSNBC Rachel Maddow Net Neutrality 10-23-09.flv[/flv]

Rachel Maddow and Xeni Jardin, co-editor of Boing Boing discuss Sen. McCain’s “Internet Freedom Act” and Net Neutrality. (6 minutes)

Glenn Beck from His Morning Zoo days on KZZP-FM Phoenix - Would Thomas Paine approve?

We’ve already dealt with the psychotic world of Glenn Beck.  The self-described “rodeo clown” is entertaining, as long as you recognize reality has a restraining order against Beck and must keep at least 900 feet away from him at all times.  Art Brodsky from Public Knowledge speaks to Beck’s worldview:

“Mr. Beck fails to understand the fundamentals of how the Internet works. He should be in favor of Net Neutrality, because it guarantees streaming of his program will not be able to be placed behind, say, Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. That could happen if NBC’s owner decided to pay protection money for prioritized data transmission.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) took time out from her tireless efforts to root out the czar problem in the Obama White House to conflate Net Neutrality with the Fairness Doctrine, conservative talk radio’s garlic-to-a-vampire bugaboo.  Appearing at an event sponsored by the Astroturf group “Safe Internet Alliance,” Blackburn railed against “government interference” in broadband, as Kim Hart from The Hill took it all down.  It was an amazing feat, considering she stumbled her way through a statement:

“Net neutrality, as I see it, is the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet,” she said.  The creators “fully understand what the Fairness Doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio.  What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP.  They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet. “They do not want a czar to determine what speeds will be available….  We are watching the FCC very closely as it relates to that issue.”

When it comes to broadband expansion, she said, she wants to make sure “all individuals’ rights are respected and that we look at the freedom of all broadband participants.” She said Congress needs to make sure the groups receiving stimulus funds for broadband expansion are able to deploy reasonable and effective network management tools so they can be helpful in tracking down illegal activity.”

“We shouldn’t look at technology as how do we punish and impede, but how do we encourage innovation,” she said.  “That needs to be a key thought as we move forward.  How do we encourage that innovation and not impede it?”

Blackburn herself is impeding a rational discussion with her word salad.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee)

Blackburn doesn’t see or understand much of anything.  Her off the rails representation of Net Neutrality as the equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine is bizarre at best, just plain rock stupid at worst.  Indeed, the Fairness Doctrine did dictate a form of balance in opinions for licensed radio and television stations in this country before it was repealed.  Net Neutrality specifically requires Internet providers, and everyone else, to keep their hands out of determining whether something is balanced or not.  The Internet is not a licensed medium, and the free exchange of ideas possible on today’s Internet already provides the ultimate fairness, where ideas can be freely expressed by anyone.

Glenn Beck sees Marxists.  Marsha Blackburn sees czars.  These folks need to cut down on the borscht for lunch.

Blackburn’s only priority for broadband stimulus seems to be using the money to help ferret out illegal activity online.  Perhaps she can come over and clear out my spam folder.

I didn’t even realize we had a Broadband Speed Czar.  I want to be the Broadband Speed Czar, moving across the land and banishing slow, expensive, and just plain lousy slow broadband technologies.  I decree no Internet Overcharging experiments and fiber-fast speeds for all!

As for the “Safe Internet Alliance,” considering their members include AT&T, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Verizon, and a whole mess of other astroturfers (many who also belong to Broadband for America), we can guess the kind of safety they are looking for.

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.