Governor Andrew M. Cuomo yesterday announced that the “New NY Broadband Program” is well on its way to achieving “sweeping progress toward achieving its nation-leading goal of broadband for all” New Yorkers.

The governor claimed that 97% of New York residents will have access to high-speed internet access by 2017, with a vague goal of serving 100% of New Yorkers by the end of 2018.

To do this, Gov. Cuomo relies heavily on the state’s new and overwhelmingly dominant cable operator – Charter Communications, which closed on its acquisition of Time Warner Cable earlier this summer. A press release promoting the governor’s efforts quotes Charter’s executive vice president of government affairs Catherine Bohigia as being excited to work with the governor and his administration to expand service to about 145,000 households currently not served by Time Warner Cable or Charter in New York.

Charter officials are working with the Public Service Commission to identify the households to be served, and highly redacted documents suggest Charter is identifying new housing developments and areas immediately next to existing Charter/Time Warner Cable service areas for this expansion.

A second separate plan to subsidize private cable and phone companies to help cover the costs of reaching another 34,000 homes that won’t be served by Charter is only expected to reach 50% of the remaining unserved homes and businesses in the state. A further round of funding will target the the remainder of unserved areas, including certain rural landline areas where Verizon has shown no interest in offering customers internet access of any kind.

Charter Communications

Charter Communications has effectively canceled the Time Warner Cable Maxx upgrades that were either underway, in progress, or in the planning stage in upstate New York. Instead, Charter plans to speed up the roll-out its own originally proposed upgrade, which includes two tiers: 60 and 100Mbps, for more than two million upstate homes and businesses by early 2017 in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton and Albany.

Customers in Central New York are likely to be left in limbo, some already getting Maxx upgraded 300Mbps internet access while others were scheduled to get the speed upgrade the same week Charter froze further Maxx upgrades. Those customers are now likely to receive a maximum of 100Mbps service sometime next year under Charter’s new plan.

Charter is also negotiating with state officials about where it will deploy broadband to 145,000 currently unserved homes in upstate New York over the next four years.

State-funded Rural Broadband Awards – Round I

New York State will help subsidize broadband rollouts to approximately 34,000 homes and businesses currently not served (or not served adequately) in rural areas. All but two of these projects will rely on fiber to the home service and each will offer service to a few thousand people:

Applicant Name	Technology	REDC Region	Census Blocks	Housing Units	Total Units	State Grant Total	Private Match	Total Project Cost
Armstrong Telecommunications, Inc.	FTTH	Finger Lakes, Southern Tier, Western NY	176	1,135	1,162	$3,930,189	$982,549	$4,912,738
Armstrong Telephone Company	FTTH	Southern Tier, Western NY	74	466	504	$1,778,256	$444,564	$2,222,820
Citizens Telephone Company of Hammond, N.Y., Inc.	FTTH	North Country	146	1,789	1,860	$3,316,810	$829,202	$4,146,012
Empire Access	FTTH	Southern Tier	124	719	724	$1,797,894	$449,474	$2,247,368
Empire Access	FTTH	Southern Tier	117	1,202	1,268	$1,598,480	$399,620	$1,998,100
Frontier Communications	FTTH	Southern Tier	1	62	65	$67,592	$16,899	$84,491
Frontier Communications	FTTH	North Country	3	188	216	$129,634	$32,409	$162,043
Frontier Communications	FTTH	Southern Tier	12	129	142	$197,104	$49,276	$246,380
Frontier Communications	FTTH	Capital Region	23	391	394	$318,304	$79,576	$397,880
Frontier Communications	FTTH	Mohawk Valley	30	402	405	$924,663	$231,166	$1,155,829
Frontier Communications	FTTH	North Country	105	1,928	2,096	$1,702,246	$425,562	$2,127,808
Germantown Telephone Company	FTTH	Capital Region	208	2,195	2,334	$2,512,562	$628,140	$3,140,702
Haefele TV Inc.	FTTH	Southern Tier	413	3,029	3,238	$271,568	$67,892	$339,460
Hancock Telephone Company	FTTH	Southern Tier	136	1,505	1,675	$4,915,920	$1,228,981	$6,144,901
Heart of the Catskills Communications	Hybrid-Fiber Coax	Southern Tier	216	2,836	3,177	$1,224,946	$524,977	$1,749,923
Margaretville Telephone Company	FTTH	Mid-Hudson, Southern Tier	209	1,882	2,002	$4,791,505	$2,053,503	$6,845,008
Mid-Hudson Data Corp	Fixed Wireless	Capital Region	60	647	663	$950,184	$237,546	$1,187,730
Mid-Hudson Data Corp	FTTH	Capital Region	6	354	362	$59,155	$14,789	$73,944
State Telephone Company, Inc.	FTTH	Capital Region	231	3,801	4,134	$5,805,600	$1,451,400	$7,257,000
State Telephone Company, Inc.	FTTH	Capital Region	101	516	595	$2,914,960	$728,740	$3,643,700
TDS Telecom	FTTH	Southern Tier	156	2,369	2,423	$1,895,390	$1,895,390	$3,790,780
TDS Telecom	FTTH	North Country	74	506	543	$1,084,000	$1,084,000	$2,168,000
TDS Telecom	FTTH	Central NY, Finger Lakes	106	996	1,038	$1,424,793	$1,424,793	$2,849,586
TDS Telecom	FTTH	Southern Tier	395	3,528	3,551	$4,989,570	$4,989,570	$9,979,140
The Middleburgh Telephone Company	FTTH	Capital Region, Mohawk Valley	250	1,596	1,651	$5,562,548	$1,390,637	$6,953,185

*FTTH = Fiber-to-the-Home

Federally Funded Rural Broadband Awards – Round II

After Verizon abdicated any interest in participating in rural broadband expansion funding through the FCC’s Connect America Fund, New York’s Broadband Program Office (BPO) and the Public Service Commission urged the FCC to keep the original funding intended for rural New York intact and open to other applicants seeking to build rural broadband projects. The FCC has not fully committed to do this, but it is an agenda item. Assuming this funding becomes available, it will be used to help pay for independent broadband providers or rural cable operators to begin delivering broadband service into still unserved parts of New York not included in the Charter expansion or Round I projects noted above. Many Verizon territories are expected to be included.

Applicants will have to provide at least 100Mbps service in most places or a minimum of 25Mbps in the most remote corners of New York. The application form discourages applicants from delivering broadband over DSL or wireless and clearly favors fiber to the home or cable broadband technology. Price controls will be in place for the first few years to assure affordability and those winning funding are strictly prohibited from introducing usage caps or usage-billing.

A vaguely defined “third phase” is scheduled to launch early next year to offer internet access to all remaining unaddressed service areas. Nobody mentions where the money is coming from to cover the last 1-3% of unserved areas, which are likely to be notoriously expensive to reach.

Gov. Cuomo explains progress on his New York Broadband for All program. (26:31)

Verizon Communications is taking the New York Public Service Commission to court over the regulator’s ruling that $8 million in property tax refunds rebated to the phone company through a tax certiorari proceeding should be spent on improving Verizon’s service quality in the state.

Verizon wants to pocket the refunds of $1 million from New York City, $2 million from Oyster Bay, and $5 million from Hempstead for the benefit of the company and its investors, but regulators are insisting Verizon use the money to boost “capital expenditures to address purported service quality and network reliability concerns about its New York network.”

The PSC has been monitoring Verizon’s landline performance in the state since at least 2010 under its Verizon Service Quality Improvement Plan proceeding. Local officials and customers have filed complaints with the PSC about extremely long repair times, service outages, unreliable service, and sub-par line quality for several years, especially in downstate areas around New York City that have not yet been upgraded to Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home service.

Regulators want those issues resolved, particularly after Verizon made it clear it has suspended its FiOS expansion outside of New York City. Customers with long-standing service issues are often offered a controversial wireless landline replacement called Voice Link, that has earned mixed reviews, instead of a permanent repair of their existing service.

Verizon calls the regulator’s demands arbitrary and unwarranted confiscation of its property.

“The commission did something it had never done before — it allowed Verizon to retain the refunds as it had in the past but this time also imposed a spending mandate which required Verizon to use the funds for a particular purpose,” the company claimed.

Verizon used the company’s long and successful track record convincing New York regulators that Verizon’s wireline networks have faced hard times as it bled landline customers, so it deserved regulatory and rate relief. Because the PSC recognized Verizon’s marketplace challenges when it “found that a lightened regulatory approach for traditional incumbent telephone carriers was warranted and necessary in order to level the playing field and enable them to remain viable providers in the future,” it is unwarranted to suddenly now demand the company spend its tax refund on network improvements, Verizon argued in its lawsuit.

In the past, Verizon added, the PSC allowed the phone company to keep its tax refund money for itself, even as it reduced spending on its infrastructure. The company claimed that to be “a proper regulatory response to the financial stress Verizon claims it is and will be under as it continues its transition to an increasingly competitive market.”

Earlier this year, the commission began to take a more formal look at the mounting service complaints it was receiving from Verizon customers and found troubling evidence Verizon might not be taking its copper landline network as seriously as it once did, especially in areas where FiOS upgrades have not been scheduled.

“…[T]here may be an unwillingness on the part of Verizon to compete to retain and adequately serve its regulated wireline customer base, and warrants further investigation into Verizon’s service quality processes and programs,” minutes from a March commission meeting state.

If you live in parts of the Hudson Valley (N.Y.) or Ohio where Frontier Communications provides phone service, Vantage TV may be coming to your neighborhood soon.

Frontier’s cable television solution for customers still served by its legacy copper wire telephone network appears to be an IPTV service similar to AT&T’s U-verse. Vantage TV is already available to around 200,000 Connecticut customers served by Frontier, inherited from AT&T. Frontier also offers Vantage in Durham, N.C. and has applied for a statewide video franchise in Ohio (granting authority to offer service anywhere in the state it chooses) and another to serve Middletown, N.Y., a community of 28,000 in the Hudson Valley.

Frontier claims over the next four years it will offer Vantage in as many as 40 of its markets, many still served by legacy copper wiring. That represents about three million homes. After a second phase of buildouts, Frontier claims it will to provide video service to about half of the 8.5 million homes in its service area.

In late June, Frontier applied for a video franchise agreement in Middletown, where it expects to compete against Charter Communications (formerly Time Warner Cable). It will be the first time Frontier offers video service in New York.

Vantage TV offers up to 300 channels typically bundled with phone and internet service. Customers are provided a “total-home DVR” with 1TB of storage that can record up to six shows at the same time and played back on up to four wireless cable boxes attached to different televisions. An upgraded version 3.0 of Ericsson’s Mediaroom platform offers advanced set-top box features like improved visual search and the ability to watch up to four channels at once in a mosaic. Another feature lets customers bring up a small video screen showing another channel, useful if you are channel surfing during an ad break.

Multichannel News interviewed several Frontier executives about the service, which the company is confident will give it a competitive video product to market to customers. Until Frontier bought AT&T’s Connecticut customers (and its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood system), its only experience selling cable television came from its acquisition of Verizon FiOS systems serving Fort Wayne, Ind., and parts of Oregon and Washington. Frontier quickly learned the value of Verizon’s volume discounts for video programming, which it lost soon after acquiring the systems. In 2011, customers faced massive price hikes for video service and an unusual effort to convince them to switch to satellite TV instead — quite a downgrade from fiber to the home service.

Connecticut, in contrast, is served with a mix of fiber and old copper wiring that has been in place for decades, since the days the state was served by the independent Southern New England Telephone Company. Learning how to deliver reasonable video quality over copper wires in Connecticut gave Frontier experience to go ahead with targeted upgrades that can boost broadband speeds and deliver HD video over an internet connection as low as 2.6Mbps in other states.

In short, Frontier’s business plan for video may work if it can keep network expansion and technology costs as low as possible. Video programming costs are likely to be another matter, however. As programming costs increase in contract renewals, some cable operators are playing hardball and dropping channels that get too expensive for comfort. But many of those channel drops alienate customers. Frontier appears to be following an opposite formula — making sure potential customers know they are still carrying networks the cable operator in the area dropped. Comcast dropped Yankees regional sports channel YES, but Frontier still offers it to its Connecticut customers and goes out of its way to promote its availability.

Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries — two networks popular with older viewers who are among the most loyal to cable television, got the axe in 2010 on AT&T U-verse in Connecticut. After Frontier acquired the Connecticut system, it put the two networks back on the lineup.

The more customers Frontier can show it has at the negotiating table, the better position Frontier is in to secure discounts for the video programming it carries. Volume, volume, volume makes all the difference when competing against giant cable conglomerates like Comcast and Charter. Even if Frontier finds it eventually has to drop overpriced channels, it has a much more friendly relationship with over-the-top online video services like Netflix to offer customers as an alternative. Vantage customers can find Netflix’s main menu as a traditional TV channel on the Vantage lineup, allowing subscribers to choose any Netflix show to watch on their television. In the future, Frontier might offer customers other network’s apps as well, making it easy to stream on demand video without having to use a Roku or other similar device.

With today’s completion of Cablevision’s absorption into the Altice empire, the European cable conglomerate announced big changes that are expected to refocus the “center of gravity” and Altice’s future profits on the United States instead of Europe.

Altice today becomes America’s fourth largest cable operator, serving 4.6 million customers in 20 states. But Altice is not finished empire-building, and is widely expected to target privately held Cox Communications for acquisition sometime next year.

To lay the groundwork for future expansion, current controlling shareholder Patrick Drahi is turning over leadership of his growing U.S. operations to trusted lieutenant Dexter Goei, who will be chairman and CEO of Altice USA. Goei’s first mission is to lead a team of fierce cost-cutters into the offices of Suddenlink and Cablevision and ruthlessly slash expenses. Much of those savings are expected to come from significant job cuts among Cablevision’s 14,000 workers, especially middle management, engineering, and administrative workers. Last fall, Altice told investors Cablevision’s workers in the high cost suburban New York area were ripe for cutbacks, with much of the work currently managed by six figure salaried Cablevision employees likely to be transferred to Missouri-based Suddenlink, which operates in smaller cities in low labor cost states where employees are paid considerably less.

Approval of Cablevision’s sale to Altice by the New York Public Service Commission was given with the requirement Altice is prohibited from laying off, involuntarily reducing or taking any action “intended to reduce (excepting attrition and retirement incentives) any customer-facing jobs in New York,” such as call centers or walk-in centers for a period of four years. But as Altice’s call center employees at France’s SFR-Numericable attest, that does not prevent Altice from closing current call centers and transferring those jobs to cheaper locations in New York staffed by those willing to work for much less.

“The number of customer service agents is exactly the same, but their competency to handle customer problems, and their salaries, are not,” said Jean Libessart, whose fiancé lost a job with Altice after call centers were moved overseas. “They stayed within the competition authority’s rules by exploiting the loopholes.”

Altice is seeking cuts of “hundreds of millions of dollars” from Cablevision’s expenses within the first six months of ownership. After that, Drahi wants to earn 50% of Altice’s future revenue by refocusing the business on “the madness of margins” in the United States — a term that acknowledges the United States tolerates deregulated telecom duopolies that can raise prices at will, something European governments would consider to be unconscionable. Drahi noted there are just four super-sized telecom companies in the United States facing down smaller companies, many that agree not to compete in territories already served by other companies.

Les Echos notes France is the antithesis of the American model, with more than 100 competing mobile and wired telecom operators fighting for some of the same customers. The result is that telecom rates in France are the lowest in Europe. It’s hard for a billionaire to make billions more when he cannot raise prices. That is why Mr. Drahi is setting his sights on the United States, where constant rate increases are actually expected by consumers. Just as surprising to Europeans, the ever-increasing prices are tolerated by regulators and members of Congress that sometimes end up working for the same telecom companies they oversaw during their stay in Washington.

Drahi can usually find loan money to buy up more American cable companies, because those companies can raise prices to pay back the massive debts Altice has already accumulated during several years of spending sprees.

“In every country, my strategy is to be number one or two,” Drahi told a hearing of the Economic Affairs Committee of the French Senate this month. In France, Altice is already number two and it will be very difficult to pass Orange, the dominant leader in French telecom. In the United States, there is still plenty of room to grow. After the completion of the acquisition of Cablevision, Altice will only control 2% of the market, giving Drahi plenty of room to push towards at least 10% market share starting in 2017.

Drahi originally had no intention of waiting even a year to further consolidate the U.S. cable market, but financial markets trembled over the €50 billion debt Drahi’s companies have amassed. The new line is that Altice will wait until next year before it acquires more companies in the United States, to give it a chance to properly merge Suddenlink and Cablevision into a more efficient operation. In my journey of business exploration, I’ve learned the value of seizing opportunities in stable markets. Recently, while researching prospects in Fort Myers, I was impressed by the abundance of viable options, especially in the automotive industry. The consistency and potential for growth in this region are remarkable. If you want to explore further, visit https://trufortebusinessgroup.com/fort-myers-businesses-for-sale/.

“We want get bigger in the U.S., but I don’t know when, clearly not in 2016, which is the year of integration of our assets and operations,” Goei said in a recent interview. “Thereafter, you’d be surprised if we didn’t do anything, but we’re not going to buy things at stupid prices.”

Wall Street analysts are not so sure. More than a few believe Altice vastly overpaid for both Suddenlink and Cablevision. Many believe Drahi will have to be extremely generous to bring Cox Communications into the Altice family as well.

Some of America’s largest telecommunications companies continue to pay almost nothing in federal taxes even as state taxing authorities hungry for revenue  are getting more aggressive about denying access to tax loopholes and suing some for failing to pay their fair share.

Special interest-inspired “pro-business” loopholes have been a growing part of the U.S. tax code since the Reagan Administration. The premise seemed reasonable enough: high corporate taxes are simply passed on to consumers as a cost of doing business, so lowering them will trickle savings down to the consumer and also free capital to create more jobs. It has not worked that way, however. Product pricing for services like broadband have been based more on what customers believe the product is worth, not what it costs to deliver, and Verizon was among the companies cited for significant job cuts after its corporate tax rate plummeted. Regardless of corporate tax rates, providers continue to raise broadband prices, even as the costs to provide the service are declining. The old maxim of charging what the market will bear is alive and well. So where do the tax savings go? Into share buybacks, shareholder dividend payouts, increased executive salaries and bonuses, and lobbying.

Some states are discovering they have been leaving money on the table when they don’t insist on collecting owed state taxes, and as state budgets continue to be strapped with increasing medical and infrastructure-related expenses, taking companies to court who try to avoid their tax obligations is getting more popular.

One of the biggest potential windfalls could eventually fill New York State coffers with $300 million in damages and penalties courtesy of Sprint, which was accused of deliberately not billing customers for state taxes on its wireless services over seven years.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court turned away Sprint’s effort to void an October 2015 New York Court of Appeals decision that would allow the state to proceed to court arguing Sprint intentionally failed to collect more than $100 million in taxes from New Yorkers from 2005 on. At the time, Sprint was attempting to rebuild its market share by luring customers with cheaper mobile service. One way to offer a lower price is to stop charging tax. In New York alone, municipalities lost $4.6 million a month as a result of the scheme.

Sprint has repeatedly argued the lawsuit is invalid because a 2000 federal law trumps a 2002 New York State law that covered state taxes. The court disagreed, and the fact a whistleblower at Sprint revealed what Sprint was up to didn’t help. The case will now likely head to state court or get settled.

While $300 million sounds like a lot, it pales in comparison to the money Verizon manages to dodge paying the Internal Revenue Service. The phone company is the poster child of corporate tax dodging according to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Sanders targeted Verizon because between 2008-2013, Verizon not only did not pay a nickel in federal taxes, it actually received a refund from the federal government after achieving a federal tax rate of -2.5%, despite booking $42.5 billion in profits. American taxpayers effectively subsidized Verizon when it got its refund check.

In the last two years, Verizon is paying federal taxes once again, but at a rate of 12.4%, well below the tax rate of most middle class Americans.

It’s a sensitive matter for Verizon, because CEO Lowell McAdam launched a full-scale media blitz trying to paint the Sanders campaign as inaccurate. McAdam claims Verizon actually paid a 35% tax rate in 2015, which would only be true if the company added the tax obligations it owes on the billions of dollars it stashes in overseas bank accounts. Foreign taxes don’t help the American taxpayer, suggest critics, and Citizens for Tax Justice consider McAdam’s claims “artificial.”

“In fact, over the past 15 years, Verizon has paid a federal tax rate averaging just 12.4 percent on $121 billion in U.S. profits, meaning that the company has found a way to shelter about two-thirds of its U.S. profits from federal taxes over this period,” the group claims. “In five of the last 15 years, the company paid zero in federal taxes. While there is no indication that this spectacular feat of tax avoidance is anything but legal (the company’s consistently low tax rates are most likely due to overly generous accelerated depreciation tax provisions that Congress has expanded over the last decade), few Americans would describe the company avoiding tax on $78 billion of profits as ‘fair.’”

Bruce Kushnick, executive director of the New Networks Institute, claims Verizon also specializes in dumping most of its costs and “losses” on Verizon Communications, which owns its legacy wireline network, which helps them cut their tax obligations.

Too often, changes to the U.S. tax code have unintentional consequences, especially when corporations can hire tax attorneys that outclass those working for the federal government.

Fredric Grundeman helped draft a tax bill that was supposed to curb loopholes in the estate tax and though well-trained as a trusted attorney at the Treasury Department, the bill quickly backfired. The new law opened even larger loopholes than those it was originally written to close, allowing some of America’s richest families to pass on money to heirs with no tax implications at all. Grundeman admits legislators often don’t recognize a new tax law’s potential for abuse.

“How do I say it?” Grundeman told Bloomberg News back in 2013. “When Congress enacts a law, it isn’t always well thought out.”

That is also true on the state level.

Oregon officials push a legislative button and give Google Fiber a tax break. Then Comcast shows up.

Oregon wants to attract Google Fiber to Portland, but Google objected to one of the state’s property tax provisions that affects companies that sell data services. Oregon partly sets the tax rate commensurate with the value of the provider’s brand name, among other factors. It’s all very vague, but not so vague that Google would miss it could pay an even higher tax rate that its competitors — Comcast and CenturyLink.

Oregon’s legislature voted to correct the problem by exempting providers that offer gigabit broadband. The tax law changes were tailored to benefit Google, assuming Comcast and CenturyLink would continue to drag their feet to upgrade their Oregon networks.

But the enterprising lawyers at Comcast promptly requested the same tax exemption that Google would get in return for building its fiber network in the state. The reason? Comcast had introduced its own gigabit Internet service on a much more limited scale.

Rep. Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene) admitted Oregon had another law on its hands with unintended consequences. Barnhart told utility regulators this spring his fellow lawmakers never intended to give the tax break to Comcast, which charges hundreds of dollars for 2,000Mbps service. But nobody bothered to set any price guidelines in the law, meaning Google can charge $70 a month for gigabit service and get a tax break and Comcast can offer 2Gbps service in a limited number of locations, at the “go away” price of $300 a month, with start-up costs up to $1,000, and a multi-year contract, and get the exact same tax break.

Barnhart

Or maybe not, at least for now.

Last week, the Oregon Department of Revenue ruled Comcast is not eligible for that tax break, at least not this year, according to The Oregonian. The department wouldn’t explain why, citing taxpayer confidentiality. For good measure, the same department also rejected applications from Google Fiber and Frontier Communications (Frontier operates a very limited FiOS fiber to the home network in communities including Beaverton, Hillsboro, and Gresham that it inherited from Verizon), claiming Google and Frontier’s gigabit networks were theoretical in Oregon and there needed to be gigabit service actually up and running to qualify.

That leaves Google in a classic catch-22. It won’t bring fiber to Oregon so long as it faces a stiff tax bill and tax authorities won’t forgive the tax until there is gigabit fiber up and running. For some taxpayers, what burns the most is the legislature paved the road to tax bliss to attract Google Fiber, but the only company that may actually ultimately travel down it is Comcast.