Beep.  Beep.  Beep.

Verizon FiOS phone customers will one day hear that ominous sound in their home and begin searching for the source. The audible alarm isn’t coming from the smoke detector or your computer’s uninterruptible power supply. It is coming from a square white box mounted in your garage or basement with a Verizon logo on it.

The Verizon Optical Network Terminal (ONT) Battery Backup Unit (BBU) provides up to eight hours of backup power for your FiOS voice services in the event of a commercial power failure.

Verizon considers its battery your problem, even though you lease the equipment from Verizon as part of your monthly service. After one year of standard warranty coverage, customers are responsible for maintaining the battery and for any damages that might occur if one fails to replace or remove it. Verizon’s website warns not promptly removing the spent battery could result in leaking corrosive battery acid which might damage the BBU itself. You would be held responsible for any repair or replacement costs.

Some Verizon FiOS customers cannot understand why they should pay to maintain equipment Verizon still technically owns.

“They require us to lease the equipment (set-top boxes, wireless router, backup battery device, etc.) so they are responsible,” believes one disgruntled customer. “If they would sell it to us or allow us to provide our own I could see us paying for it.”

Verizon representatives say they fully disclose customers are responsible for maintaining the battery. But customers complain it is buried in the fine print. Many more are unhappy to learn Verizon charges at least $45 for a replacement battery that seems to last only about two years.

Joanne Gaugler is on her third battery in seven years, and that one is now on its way out.

“The battery I have now has been beeping for a long time,” Gaugler wrote.

Not only does the battery beep incessantly, but the company also begins sending e-mail messages warning customers they need to replace it to avoid the possibility of damaging their equipment.

“When I called about this problem ten months into my FiOS service, the representative had me remove and reinstall the battery, claiming it was probably a loose connection and that I did not need a new battery,” says Stop the Cap! reader Jim Connor. “When I called back about the same problem 13 months into my FiOS service — one month out of warranty — the representative insisted I buy a new battery.”

Connor said Verizon charges an exorbitant amount for the replacement.

“Another profit center for Verizon, because they charge $35 for the battery and another $9 to ship it, before taxes,” Connor writes. “I ended up paying $10 less at a local battery replacement store, but Verizon got all bothered I did not buy it from them, warning it could ‘damage my service.'”

Verizon strongly discourages customers from buying replacement batteries from anyone other than themselves and disclaims any responsibility for damages caused by “an improper battery.” Verizon also offers customers free battery replacement if you happen to buy a Verizon Protection Pak plan, which starts at $19.99 a month.

There is nothing special about Verizon’s backup battery, a standard issue 12-Volt 7.2Ah SLA (Sealed Lead Acid) model often found in home alarm systems. Frugal Verizon FiOS customers can find equivalent batteries online for less than half the price Verizon charges, often with no upfront sales tax or shipping.

A Stop the Cap! search for “GS Portalac PX12072” or “GT12080-HG” (from labels on current batteries) on websites like Amazon or eBay quickly uncovered several highly rated alternatives that cost as little as $18 with identical specifications.

Batteries of this type have a shelf life of 3-5 years, and an in-service useful life of 1.5-3 years, after which they should be replaced and recycled.

Another alternative is to simply remove the battery altogether. That will result in no backup landline service in the event of a power failure, but your cell phone may already offer a suitable alternative.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDKA Pittsburgh Verizon FiOS Battery 5-09-13.mp4[/flv]

KDKA in Pittsburgh reports around 10 Verizon FiOS customers a day are flooding into local Batteries Plus stores looking for new batteries for the company’s equipment.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Install Replacement Battery 2012.flv[/flv]

Now that you have a replacement battery in hand, here is a Verizon-produced video explaining how to safely install it.  (4 minutes)

Verizon Communications has filed a formal tariff obtained by Stop the Cap! with the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) that would establish conditions under which it can abandon its wired network in favor of wireless-only service.

If approved, Verizon will be able to drop wired landline and broadband service in any area of the state if the company can:

• certify that a substantial portion of its facilities in an area are destroyed, rendered unusable, or beyond reasonable repair, or,
• demonstrates that the use of wireless to serve specified customers, or groups of customers, is otherwise reasonable in light of the geographic location, the availability of competitive facilities to serve those customers or groups of customers, or in light of other criteria acceptable to the PSC.

Verizon is using the case of Fire Island, N.Y., to attempt a rewrite of New York’s communications tariffs. Although eastern Fire Island suffered some damage from Hurricane Sandy, a considerable amount of Verizon’s infrastructure further west did not survive the storm. Verizon wants to abandon that wired infrastructure, avoid spending money to upgrade the island to fiber optic service, and switch customers to a voice-only, wireless service called Voice Link that would leave Verizon’s DSL customers without broadband.

Although Verizon has currently only applied to drop wired service to the “western portion of Fire Island,” the tariff would set conditions under which Verizon could abandon its landline network for financial reasons in other portions of the state. For example, Verizon could argue that its declining number of rural landline customers are no longer financially viable to serve because of wired network upkeep and upgrade expenses. Verizon’s application would also allow it to abandon older facilities where competitive services (wireless or wired) are available, and allow Verizon’s wireless products to be considered a suitable alternative to meet universal service requirements.

Verizon says it will offer the same basic calling packages that landline customers can get at the same or lower prices. The company also promises to adhere voluntarily to PSC regulations on customer protection, customer complaints, service quality, safety and reliability.

But Verizon does not promise to offer a functionally equivalent wireless replacement for the landline.

For example, Verizon only promises to support voice calls, access local and toll calling, emergency services with E911 capability, assistance services, telecommunications relay services, and directory listings, including the option of non-published service.

Data services are not supported. Current Verizon DSL customers with unlimited use plans will be forwarded to Verizon Wireless to sign up for the same limited use wireless broadband plans already available in the rest of the country (the ones that charge $50 for up to a handful of gigabytes of monthly usage, depending on the plan). Business customers will need to buy new equipment and sign new contracts with Verizon Wireless (or other wireless carriers) to process credit card transactions. Although some voice calling features are supported, an exact list remains unavailable.

In the event of a power failure, a built-in backup battery will provide up to two hours of talk time, after which the line will stay out of service until commercial power is restored.

Because Verizon Wireless’ existing cellular network serving Fire Island is inadequate, the company has agreed to upgrade and improve service to the island.

Verizon argues its wireless solution is the only answer that makes sense.

“The cost of replacing facilities is very high, and if hurricanes or other severe storms occur in the future, there is a significant risk that the newly installed outside plant would again be damaged or destroyed,” argues Verizon’s Manuel Sampedro, who is overseeing Verizon’s service restoration effort on Fire Island. “Wireless service is already the predominant mode of voice communication on the island.”

But in the event of another major storm, Verizon’s wireless facilities could also be knocked out of service, potentially for weeks, as happened during Hurricane Sandy.

In the nearby coastal city of Long Beach, N.Y., every cell tower in the area failed because of the storm . City Manager Jack Schnirman told the FCC at a recent hearing wireless proved no more robust than any other technology, and described a frustrating experience attempting to reach representatives from major cell phone carriers about when exactly service could be restored.

“Long Beach reached out to one of the carrier’s customer support departments, explained the devastation and inquired about the carrier deploying a cell on wheels,” Schnirman said. “The customer service rep replied, ‘you might want to look that up on the Internet, I don’t know what that is.’ Well obviously, ironically, we had no Internet at that time.”

Customers did not fare any better.

“There was one woman in particular who passed away, of natural causes, an elderly woman,” Schnirman said. “And her daughter had to walk literally a mile and a half from her home to police headquarters just to say, ‘Listen, my mom has passed, and I thought I should tell somebody.’ ”

Wireless carriers are not obligated to provide backup service in the event of a power failure. An FCC effort to set minimal standards for backup cell service was met with legal threats by the wireless industry and the FCC backed down.

Verizon is in a hurry to win approval of its tariff change, requesting its filing be approved and take effort on less than 30 days’ notice with a waiver of the requirement that it publish a public notice about the change in area newspapers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Reuters ATT Verizon try to put end to landline telephone era 4-5-13.flv[/flv]

Reporter David Cay Johnston says Verizon and AT&T’s efforts to abandon the landline are no accident. They are part of a larger lobbying effort to abandon company obligations under the “carrier of last resort” policies that guarantee every American access to quality landline telephone service. Wireless phone service is unregulated. Johnston isn’t the only one reporting on this story. Stop the Cap! has covered it repeatedly since early 2010. (2 minutes)

Six months after Hurricane Sandy struck the northeastern United States, a significant number of Verizon customers are now learning they will never get their landline service back.

Mantoloking is the first town in New Jersey — but not the last — that will no longer be able to get landline service from the telephone company.

In its place, Verizon offers Voice Link, a home phone replacement that works exclusively over the Verizon Wireless network.

About 30 customers have signed up for the service after being without a home phone for a half a year.

The device looks like a wireless router, with an antenna and several jacks on the back to deliver service over your home’s existing telephone wiring. Instead of connecting with Verizon’s wired network, the unit receives a signal from the nearest Verizon Wireless cell tower to make and receive telephone calls.

Verizon is enticing customers to use this device instead of repairing its damaged network by promising free installation, unlimited nationwide calling and support for 911 and basic phone features like Caller ID and voice mail. For now, the service will not cost any more than a wired landline phone.

For Verizon’s bean counters, Voice Link is an inexpensive alternative to replacing copper wiring with FiOS fiber optic service. Verizon previously announced that maintenance on its aging copper wire network was becoming increasingly expensive.

“It acts just like a regular phone,” Tom Maguire, Verizon’s senior vice president of national operations told the Asbury Park Press. “There’s a dial tone. It has 911 capability, so if you dial 911 the emergency services guys are going to know exactly where you are.”

But members of Verizon’s unions who have had hands-on experience testing Voice Link suggest it isn’t everything Verizon says it is. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ Local 824 points out Voice Link was not intended to serve just anybody. It will deliver a voice-only service unsuitable for faxing, DSL, or data communications of any kind.

Stop the Cap! has also heard from Verizon customers directly affected by the forced migration to wireless, and many are unhappy about it.

“This is the death knell for wired broadband in areas bypassed by cable along coastal New Jersey,” shares Dale Smith. “We lost our Verizon landline and DSL service during Sandy and have had nothing but a cell phone for the last six months because Verizon has dragged its feet.”

Smith says a Verizon manager told him the company was “evaluating certain service areas” for an “exciting new wireless product” instead of repairing or replacing the company’s wired network.

“While they were ‘evaluating,’ we were getting no dial tone and huge cell bills from Verizon — good for them, but not for us.”

Smith had a chance to view Voice Link in action and thinks it represents a Verizon wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“It sounds remarkably better than a cell phone, which tells you something about how much effort manufacturers of smartphones spend on voice calling, but that is where the good ends and the problems begin,” Smith said. “The most annoying is no caller ID with name and fairly frequent call delays and failed calls.”

Smith says the Caller ID displays the caller’s number, but not name – a feature he relied on heavily. He found about 30 percent of test calls either took more than 10 seconds to start ringing, or never rang at all.

“Sometimes the calls would time out and other times you would just sit and listen in silence until the phone at the other end finally started ringing,” Smith said.

He also worries about call reliability.

“What happens if you are in a marginal signal area or the cell tower gets overcongested and starts dropping calls, or the power goes out at the cell tower? You can’t use your cell phone either in that case.”

Anne contacted us after complaining to the Federal Communications Commission that Verizon is dumping its reliable landline network for unreliable wireless, and is frustrated the FCC does not seem to understand what is going on in New York and New Jersey.

“The response from the FCC doesn’t even bother to recognize that Verizon isn’t going to fiber service from copper, but is relying on very unreliable wireless,” Anne tells Stop the Cap! “For a vulnerable area such as the barrier island, wireless will likely be useless during a disaster/big emergency, especially where electricity goes out.”

The FCC’s short response to Anne’s detailed complaint:

If Verizon wishes to replace the copper wiring with fiber it is strictly their business desicion (sic).  — Representative Number : TSR54

“I can’t believe this email is a product of the United States government,” Anne told us. “Why does the FCC exist at all?  It is a complete waste of taxpayer money.”

In addition to filing a complaint with the FCC, Anne has tried to help her elderly mother get her home phone back on the barrier island that was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. As of a week ago, every utility, except Verizon phone service, has been restored.

“Trying to get a straight story from Verizon has been impossible,” Anne said. “What a nightmare.”

Jim Mudd also takes care of his parents who are headed back to the New Jersey coast in an area that still lacks Verizon phone service after Sandy washed away utility infrastructure. New poles have been placed and the power is back, but Verizon is nowhere to be found.

“Our local town officials tell us Verizon was hinting we might end up with Voice Link as well, although nothing formal has been announced,” Mudd writes. “This would be a major problem for us, because Voice Link will not work with our home alarm system or my parents’ medical monitoring service.”

Mudd says Verizon confirmed to him that data services of any kind, including faxing or credit card processing is not possible with the first version of the service, although Verizon said it was exploring better options in the future.

“After waiting a half a year for Verizon to restore my home phone, I hope they pardon me for not waiting around for them,” Mudd said. “We signed up with Comcast the moment they got service back, but they know they have a working monopoly here now, especially with Verizon signaling it wants to pull out of anything that is not wireless.”

“What annoys me is Verizon wanted rate increases back in the 1990s and on to pay for upgrading their network and replace it with fiber,” Mudd adds. “We paid those surcharges or higher rates like everyone else and we are going to get nothing to show for it. Don’t replace the copper, but don’t abandon us with wireless either. We paid for something better: fiber.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Asbury Press Following-Sandy-destruction-Verizon-switches-all-wireless-service 5-2-13.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Tom Maguire demonstrates the company’s Voice Link landline replacement, courtesy of the Asbury Park Press.  (1 minute)

Are we being unnecessarily pessimistic and cynical when we oppose the likely nomination of Thomas Wheeler to replace Julius Genachowski as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission?

Some of our colleagues in the consumer-focused public policy arena suspect we might be.

Stop the Cap! is very skeptical that appointing a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist with 30+ years of experience is the best choice for consumers at the FCC.

Our friend Harold Feld from Public Knowledge, which has announced cautious support for Wheeler’s appointment, has a more optimistic view about his potential:

I understand where my friends are coming from when they look at Wheeler’s resume and think “oh God, another Washington insider, why can’t we ever get a real progressive!” But I cannot agree with Senator Rockefeller’s statement that “a lobbyist, is a lobbyist,” or the view of some that the taint of industry clings insidiously forever and corrodes the soul. It’s been ten years since Wheeler left CTIA, longer than that since he left NTCA. Had he really been interested in advancing the agendas of these industries, he was in an excellent position to do so when he headed up the Obama transition team. He did not. Indeed, Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach, long-time stalwarts of the public interest who worked for Wheeler on the transition team, have joined other public interest luminaries as Wheelers strongest public supporters. Had Wheeler been working behind the scenes in the transition to promote the incumbents, I expect Susan and Kevin would have known.

I also recognize that support from public interest friends is also not conclusive. But it should surely weigh in the evaluation of Wheeler as much as any blog post. And I recognize I’m also a “Washington insider” and as likely to be led astray by my personal friendships and the whole “Washington Bubble” culture as any other human being. That’s why I’m glad people in the community are asking the right questions and putting Wheeler on notice that, like any Chairman, he needs to prove himself as a champion of the public interest. We at PK have also made it clear we expect Wheeler to not just talk a good game, but to get his hands dirty and make tough decisions that will piss off incumbents. And when we disagree, as we expect we will, have no doubt we will make our displeasure known.

Harold specifically commented on our piece reviewing Wheeler’s personal blog, in which Wheeler fell all over himself praising AT&T’s chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi, and seemed resigned to approving a proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger with some preconditions:

It is certainly true that behavioral conditions often fall short, are short lived, and that companies generally find ways to work around them (and the FCC’s track record for enforcement is pathetic). Indeed, we at PK made these arguments in the context of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger for why no set of merger remedies could adequately address the harms such a merger would cause. But there is a huge difference between my belief that Wheeler was wrong about the best strategy to advance the public interest and accepting that he was motivated by a covert desire to support consolidation and deregulation.

It is more than likely we will have to do business with Tom Wheeler, and we can certainly understand efforts to paint a more optimistic and hopeful picture of the likely new chairman. But we would be dishonest if we said we have high hopes Wheeler will think first about ordinary Americans before steering the country’s telecommunications future. We have learned from the past.

Remember Your History: Catering to Big Special Interests is Bipartisan

Having covered the telecommunications industry since the 1980s when Dr. John Malone of Tele-Communications, Inc., was the American consumers’ worst nightmare, confronting today’s increasingly consolidated and expensive telecommunications marketplace is a case of “Back to the Future.” The deregulation and industry consolidation abuses in the 1980s riled up both Republicans and Democrats — wherever constituents flooded offices with complaints about the local cable monopoly. The “problem politicians” that reflexively defended the abusers were just as bipartisan. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) primarily represented the interests of the cable companies that were headquartered in his state. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended the cable companies. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) was outraged at the abuses cable operators like TCI heaped on Missouri consumers and not only introduced legislation to stop the abuse in 1992, he also was instrumental in overriding a presidential veto of the measure.

The first mistake one can make in this fight is characterizing this as “progressive” vs. “conservative.” Real conservatives want all-out competition to manage winners and losers. Progressives want to make sure in the absence of that competition, someone — anyone can act to check the power of concentrated markets that suppress competition, raise prices, and deliver less than compelling service. Five years ago, Barack Obama promised change and a D.C. reset that would have ended “politics as usual.”

The art of the possible — changing the perception that consumer interests take a back seat to the whims of professional lobbyists at the FCC has proved less than successful after four years with Julius Genachowski. President Obama is not completely responsible, but it would be dishonest not to hold him to a promise he would deliver “change we can believe in.”

Instead, at the FCC, we got “change we think we might be able to get away with, maybe, or not.”

Julius Genachowski remained silent on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger until the Department of Justice provided him with political cover to oppose it. He caved on strongly enforcing Net Neutrality, refused to make important regulatory declarations that would have satisfied federal courts the FCC has a right to oversee broadband policy, and near the end of his tenure, hobnobbed with the cable industry and declared his support for usage billing and capped Internet.

Where Does Mr. Wheeler Stand?

So we must ask ourselves, where does Mr. Wheeler, a man who spent most of his career as a consummate cable and wireless industry lobbyist, fall on these issues?

The best place those of us who have not shared lunch with him can make that determination is in his personal blog. Harold wants us to downplay some of Wheeler’s words written during his six years of blogging:

But in the ten years I’ve been blogging, I know that I’ve said many things that do not necessary reflect what I would have done if I had been the ultimate decisionmaker – as I have said on more than one occasion (noting that actual decisionmakers are not advocates). Certainly anyone who reads ten years worth of Tales of the Sausage Factory (has it really been ten years?) will have an excellent sense of my overall priorities and approach. But I can’t swear that all approximately 500 or so blog posts could hold up today as being either accurate predictions (like Wheeler, I too was a big believer in WiMax) or final expressions of what I would have done as Chair of the FCC.

We certainly agree that Wheeler’s predictions of industry trends like WiMAX, in hindsight, are not deal breakers (although they should serve as reminders that one should avoid picking too many winners and losers). But at the same time, Wheeler’s words on policy matters in nearly 60 articles since 2007 should not be ignored, rationalized away, or dismissed either. In some sense, this is comparable to the vetting process for an appointee to the Supreme Court. To get a feel for the philosophy of an individual, both the White House and Congress pour over one’s writings and public opinions. Being asked to accept someone who can reshape public policy for years based on the personal recommendation of others only goes so far.

Many of Wheeler’s views are profoundly concerning, because they seem to betray a telecom industry conventional wisdom about the state of technology, wireless spectrum, regulation, and competition. His familiarity and comfort working within the paradigm of big cable and wireless is strongly contrasted with his suspicions and surprise regarding interlopers like Google and Apple — dubbed by Wheeler as part of a “Silicon Mafia.” We sense Wheeler seems most comfortable expecting to oversee business as usual, while advocating and accommodating some minor innovation here and there.

What is almost completely absent in most of Wheeler’s writings is the perspective of, or concern for ordinary consumers. What would Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average think about yet another consolidating merger between AT&T and one of its smaller competitors? What impact would another cable merger have on the bills paid by ordinary people in Colorado, Nebraska, or Pennsylvania? Is it good for consumers to advocate eliminating wireless network redundancy, as Wheeler does, after major events from 9/11 to Hurricane Sandy to the recent Boston Marathon attack all reveal wireless networks are susceptible to call volume clogging and extended service outages?

More importantly, we are disturbed by Wheeler’s perspective about wired infrastructure that could have a major impact on the near future of rural telecommunications. Wheeler comes dangerously close to AT&T’s sentiments about its yesteryear rural landline network and its wish to switch those customers to wireless (with all the added costs, usage caps, and coverage issues). We cannot help but notice Wheeler frames the general issue much like AT&T does: an “evolution” that represents “weaning ourselves” from “the old wireline.” Ask yourself if AT&T is more or less comfortable knowing Mr. Wheeler’s attitudes about its wired telephone network. AT&T considers it an outdated money-loser and a nuisance in its rural service areas. Wireless is a license to print money, just as soon as the FCC and state regulators give the green light to go ahead. Is Wheeler to be the deciding vote?

We Don’t Believe Wheeler is an ‘Industry Plant’

Harold writes:

But while it is important to ask the right questions and give no one a free pass, it is equally important to evaluate the answers and the evidence fairly and accept their logical conclusions. The evidence that Wheeler would have approved the AT&T/T-Mobile merger had he actually been Chairman (rather than playing pundit) is pretty weak. To take that a step further and say that Wheeler’s justification for approving the merger as a means of reregulating the wireless industry was mere sham to hide his true sympathies seems to me exceedingly unjustified.

That mischaracterizes our sentiments about Mr. Wheeler. We do not believe he is some secret industry plant that is itching to deregulate the agency into a stupor. Nor do we believe a theoretical vote in favor of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is evidence he is in AT&T’s back pocket specifically. Let us be clear: he served as a professional lobbyist for these companies for nearly 30 years. His job was to absorb and reflect the views of the nation’s biggest cable and phone companies both to politicians and regulators. Some remain friends and colleagues.

It is a safe bet most of the industry will welcome and celebrate Wheeler’s appointment. Many know him personally. Many others will feel safe that he is a reachable industry insider already familiar with the issues that concern them. This is what makes the D.C. revolving door so insidious. When you move from the regulated to the regulator (and back again), the only real outsiders are average consumers.

Here is an example of Wheeler admiring AT&T’s prowess in the early days of its attempted merger with T-Mobile. Notice how he characterizes the deal’s opponents:

“The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler shows no evidence of being the FCC’s version of a game-changer like Elizabeth Warren. Instead, he’s an avowed admirer of AT&T’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi. What will that difference mean? The New York Times, reporting more broadly on the problem of D.C.’s revolving door, provides some valuable clues:

Government officials and lobbyists agree that former agency officials have a much easier time getting phone calls or e-mail messages returned from their old colleagues, and that access often extends to greater credibility in arguing their clients’ positions.

One corporate lobbyist who worked as a regulator, asked whether he believed he had an inside edge in lobbying his ex-colleagues, said: “The answer is yes, it does. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to justify getting out of bed in the morning and charging the outrageous fees that we charge our clients, which they willingly pay.”

The lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns about alienating government officials, added that “you have to work at an agency to understand the culture and the pressure points, and it helps to know the senior staff.”

The most likely outcome of a Wheeler nomination is that he will be quickly approved, maintain the agency’s relatively low profile, and avoid rocking the boat too much. Even he doubts the power of the FCC to effect regulatory change unless those regulated volunteer to submit to more regulation. That means more quid pro quo agreements attached to mergers, acquisitions, and other deals the industry brings the FCC for approval. But as this quote illustrates, the industry remains in the driving seat:

“[…] Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

Wheeler argued that the inability of the FCC to muster the political will to deal effectively with net neutrality and other broadband regulation made a consent decree around AT&T/T-Mobile the best way to update consumer protection rather than leave these services essentially unregulated.

Wheeler’s recognition of the inability of the FCC to get virtually anything done comes with no assurance he will do any better. Harold himself admits that the FCC’s track record of enforcement is “pathetic.” Has Wheeler written on his blog that he would seek to change that?

Wheeler’s reflections on the failed T-Mobile/AT&T merger present a clear sign he considers it a missed opportunity, with the usual voluntary divestiture of certain assets here and there with time limited pre-conditions that carry all the impact of one of those class action settlements that nets consumers a coupon or a $2 refund. Everybody but consumers walk away winners.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, in contrast, illustrated the usefulness of a backbone when it quickly declared the merger proposal monstrously anti-consumer and anti-competitive and announced it would sue to stop it. Deal over and dead. When is the last time the FCC issued such a clear-cut, high-profile decision all on its own? Why is it so hard for the FCC to see the same anti-competitive nightmare so visible at the Department of Justice? Public Knowledge and other consumer groups saw the dangers from day one. Does Mr. Wheeler agree with the Justice Department or does he think he can do business with that shrewd AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi to get such deals approved the ‘right way?’

Our view remains the country and the Obama Administration could do far better choosing someone to lead the FCC that has not made a career lobbying for big cable and phone companies. If we want to solve America’s rural broadband problems, enforce fair billing practices and Net Neutrality, find new creative ways to utilize and distribute wireless spectrum, and promote competition while restricting industry consolidation, would we do better choosing an ex-industry lobbyist or an engineer, network planner, professional regulator, or an antitrust attorney?

President Obama went with the ex-lobbyist.

I’m sure more than a few readers work for a company with a marketing department that churns out advertising and imagery that leaves you shaking your head wondering what they were thinking.

There are some employees at Frontier Communications who are head-scratching this week as the company unleashes “Frontier’s First Ever Spokesman.”

His name is Francis Abraham Buffalo (his friends get to call him “Frank.”) He’s a… buffalo.

An internal memo obtained by Stop the Cap! informs employees Frank is prepared to bulldoze his way through “the clutter and get consumers buzzing.”

“Think of the Aflac duck and the Geico gecko,” a Frontier executive writes. “People have a truly positive association with them that translates into a positive feeling for those companies.”

But can a new mascot really change perceptions about a company more than the quality of the products or services a company provides (or doesn’t)?

For the record, your editor has never been particularly moved by either the duck or the gecko, and I, along with many other Americans, stopped watching television commercials years ago with the advent of the DVR. I have also never bought a product or service based on anything other than its merits and price. Frontier’s buffalo will not change that.

The mascot search involved a nationwide focus group of at least 800 customers and non-customers who were shown a series of “try-outs” involving lip-synched ducks, pigs, and various other creatures you may have last encountered as roadkill.

“Frank was the top choice, lifting our preference rating over the competition by 8 points and decreasing the competition by 3 points.  That’s a net 11 point increase for Frontier and solid support that we’re on the right path,” the company trumpets.

Of course, their cable competitors can always suggest while Frontier is busy playing with animals, they are delivering far faster broadband service and a better package of phone, broadband, and television service that does not involve a third-party satellite dish stuck on your roof.

Even some Frontier employees were less than enthusiastic about the endeavor, already predicting the response ads from the competition.

“I thought the pig would’ve been a better choice,” writes one. “I can just see the competition running ads about not getting ‘Buffaloed’ by Frontier!”

Most of the excitement among employees seems to emanate from the office that envisioned the campaign and spent a lot of money to make it happen.

“A landmark decision in the continuing evolution of Frontier,” jokes a Frontier worker less than thrilled with the result.

Even Frontier executives admit that Frank might be a big, fat target:

“We have also heard some concerns from our employees that we are proactively addressing in the campaign so our competitors won’t take advantage of our new brand spokesperson.”

“Frank will be a boffo buffalo. A solid, truth-talking machine that doesn’t like fuss or tricks – and neither do we.   We play it straight — price guarantees and no contracts make it easy for consumers to understand our products and services.  So if anyone asks, Frank is not here to “buffalo” or trick anyone (call Cable if you want that!).  He doesn’t deal with BS or malarkey, and that means no hidden fees, no surprises.”

Frontier is asking for advice on how to make Frank a better buffalo and offer any additional feedback. At Stop the Cap! we are always willing to help, so we publicly offer advice for our hometown phone company.

1. The American buffalo is actually the American bison, but that probably sounds too French (it is actually Greek, but nobody wants to get too close to Greece these days). The bison’s story is remarkably similar to phone companies like Frontier. It once roamed across the American landscape in great herds but was targeted to near extinction. Just like your landline. It still maintains “near threatened” status, and is only gradually making a comeback with the help of conservation efforts. While our ancestors shared their lives with the bison, most people today will only meet one in a zoo or park. We are unsure why Frontier would want to associate itself with an animal best known in the past and unlikely to be seen today.
2. Lip-synching animals (and babies) has become cliché. We were not too impressed with the voice talent Frontier decided to use for their animals either. Instead, check out Telus, western Canada’s biggest phone company. They turn animal wrangling into an art form, using various critters in their ads for phone, broadband, and wireless service. Telus compliments their animal friends with Canadian musicians to visually and musically deliver whatever message the company wants to share.
3. While Frontier may have eliminated some of its old tricks like contract termination, equipment, service protection, and surcharge fees from customer bills, many of us have long memories of the surprise steep cancellation fees charged when dropping landline service that we kept for 20+ years. Others found Frontier’s inadequate DSL only slightly less annoying than the $100+ service termination fee thrown on the last bill. Some of those fees are still being charged to customers, including a particularly silly broadband account service order charge that still stings departing customers. It is hard to accept Frontier’s new marketing messages when the company is still baiting the traps.
4. Frontier’s reputation problem does not come from poor advertising. It comes from a poor selection of products and services. Frontier until recently has simply refused to keep up with the reality of today’s broadband market. Sorry, basic DSL will no longer cut it, particularly when a competitor arrives. Cable can still out-class Frontier’s broadband products even after upgrades to ADSL2+ and VDSL. Frontier bills are still loaded with surprise surcharges and extras that raise the out-the-door price, sometimes even higher than what cable charges. The more important question to ask focus groups is why people do business with Frontier. Is it because they have to or they want to?

Frontier still does not evoke “cutting edge” anything. Frontier FiOS, inherited from Verizon, is the child nobody wants to talk about.

For years, Frontier only offered ADSL at speeds that stopped keeping up with cable a decade ago, even in large metro areas like Rochester, N.Y. When the company advertised “up to” in association with broadband speeds, it meant it: advertise up to 12Mbps but deliver service as slow as 3.1Mbps. With VDSL, 25Mbps might be doable, but cable already offers 30/5 or 50/5Mbps that is a sure thing.

Frontier’s landline service is generally reliable and works even with a power outage if you have a wired phone. But the company charges too much for a phone line many people are now jettisoning in favor of their cell phone and the company is still pushing long distance calling plan bundles that are now irrelevant. Does anyone under 35 know what a toll-call is?

Frontier’s “television” service for most customers is a third-party reseller agreement with a satellite provider with its own contract and conditions. Exciting? Not exactly.

There isn’t much to see here. AT&T and Verizon have spent money to earn money. The only major success story from AT&T’s landline business is its U-verse platform. Verizon FiOS delivers the most formidable competition cable operators like Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have seen. Even CenturyLink has invested in Prism, a fiber to the neighborhood system that can deliver a true triple-play package of services that give customers a reason to stay.

Frontier has Frank the Buffalo and some long-overdue technology upgrades that probably won’t win back a lot of customers.

So what are the strengths Frontier can sell?

1. In most markets, Frontier has no hard limit on broadband usage. That is an attractive selling point where cable operators slap usage caps on customers. Usage caps can and do trigger customer defections;
2. Frontier phone service is generally more reliable than cable or Voice over IP. Talk to customers in storm-struck areas who lost power and cable, but their phone line kept on working;
3. Frontier ADSL2+ and VDSL can outperform rural cable operators who have either oversold their shared network or don’t offer higher DOCSIS 3 speeds yet;
4. Frontier Wi-Fi, if vastly expanded, can be a useful free add-on and selling tool in areas served by cable operators that do not offer the service. But Frontier Wi-Fi hotpots have to be more commonly encountered to make a difference.

Above all, Frontier must keep upgrading its network to stay competitive. Once you lose customers, they can be extremely hard to get back. For many of us, establishing an account with the phone company meant significant installation fees and several days before a crew would turn up to connect service. Frontier knows perfectly well going back to the phone company after leaving is a high hurdle many never attempt.

The best mascot a company like Frontier can adopt are real customers and employees talking about their satisfaction with the changes Frontier is making. Without that, the customers that left will probably always think of Frontier as yesterday’s news. Using an American buffalo that neared extinction itself is probably not going to change that perception.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Animal Mascot Tryouts 4-13.flv[/flv]

Here are Frontier’s animal mascot tryouts. (1 minute)