Time Warner Cable Speed Test Results (Turbo)

The Rochester-Finger Lakes Division of Time Warner Cable has upgraded upload speed for Road Runner Standard service customers, up from 384kbps to 1Mbps effective over the weekend.  Stop the Cap! reader Sergey first noticed a change on Thursday evening, but it took the weekend for the upgrade to make its way across the region.  Standard service is now 10/1Mbps in Rochester, although the Powerboost feature, also included for all Road Runner customers, can create speed test results showing 20-25Mbps download speeds, at least at the start of a file transfer.

The upgrade may make Road Runner Turbo less valuable, as no corresponding increase in upload speed for that package has been noted.  Turbo provides Rochester Road Runner customers with 15/1Mbps service and remains at those speeds.

According to Time Warner Cable’s website, the increase brings Rochester closer to the speeds other nearby cities have.  Buffalo enjoys double the upload speed, however.

• Buffalo/Western NY:  Standard: 10/1Mbps   Turbo: 15/2Mbps
• Syracuse/Central NY: Standard: 10/1Mbps  Turbo: 15/1Mbps
• Albany: Standard: 10/1Mbps  Turbo: 15/1Mbps

If you are not receiving improved speeds yet, unplug your cable modem briefly and plug it back in.

Road Runner Customer Speed Test

We’ve heavily covered the proposed sale of Verizon landline service to Frontier Communications since the deal was announced last spring.  This should not come as a big surprise, considering Frontier Communications’ decision to insert a 5GB monthly usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy in the summer of 2008 was what instigated the launch of Stop the Cap! in the first place.  Frontier’s decision was boneheaded at best in a city like Rochester with a very aggressive cable competitor only too willing to bash Frontier for implementing it if they thought it would win more customers.

But of course Frontier Communications’ Rochester operation is an anomaly for ‘rural America’s phone company.’  For the majority of rural customers, it’s far easier to slap customers around with a usage cap and 1-3Mbps DSL service when those customers have few, if any practical alternatives.  Unfortunately, there is real money to be made from their business plan serving frequently non-competitive communities with incrementally-upgraded “just enough” broadband service with unfriendly terms and conditions attached.

In several of the 14 states impacted by the proposed sale, the relatively small number of customers involved made it easy for regulators to quickly approve the proposal with few conditions attached. The deal flew under the radar and got scant press in most of these states.  Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia are another matter.  Regulators are taking a closer look at the deal in all three states where most of the controversy is taking place.  The deal is most contentious in West Virginia, where Verizon’s exit threatens to turn most of the state’s landline business over to Frontier Communications.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing the public comments left on more than a dozen news sites, forums, and printed letters to the editor regarding the deal.  We’ve seen comments obviously coming from Frontier employees, union members, politicians, business leaders, and competitors.  But the vast majority come from ordinary consumers who have concerns about what the deal will do to their telephone and broadband service.  Most of the comments from consumers that embrace the sale don’t do so because they are fans of Frontier.  They simply loathe Verizon and want an alternative.  Boiled down, the consensus among those in favor of Frontier taking over is “let them try… they can’t do any worse than Verizon.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston PSC Phone Hearing 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covers West Virginia’s Public Service Commission hearings reviewing the proposed deal.  Frontier employees arrived in Charleston to lobby for the sale. (1 minute)

Desperate for Broadband

There are a lot of West Virginians who still have no broadband options.  Frontier claims Verizon provides only 60 percent of their customers with a broadband option — DSL service that tops out at 7Mpbs, if you live in an urban area.  Those that don’t have often waited years for Verizon to extend DSL service into their communities or neighborhoods.  It’s a problem common in mountainous, often rural states like West Virginia where infrastructure costs can be prohibitive.  Customers believe that Frontier Communications will tolerate a lower return on their investment providing DSL service to those customers Verizon ignored.

Promising to expand broadband service in rural, unserved areas is a common sales point for all of the prior Verizon sell-offs.  Hawaiian Telcom promised improved broadband service and speed.  Fairpoint promised to expand DSL availability to 75 percent of all access lines within 18 months of the sale, 85 percent within two years and 95 percent within five years.  Frontier Communications promises to expand broadband service as well, claiming they already provide 92 percent of their existing West Virginia customers with the option.  Of course, Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint both reneged on their commitments before going bankrupt.  Frontier Communications hasn’t yet been held to any specific commitment or timeline in West Virginia as part of their proposed takeover of service.

Consumer Reports rated TV, phone, and Internet providers, including Verizon and Frontier, in its February 2010 issue

To those suffering with dial-up or satellite fraudband, -any- broadband option seems like a miracle, even if it turns out to be 1-3Mbps DSL service with a 5GB allowance.  But as those kinds of anemic speeds arrive, cutting edge multimedia-rich broadband applications will become increasingly mainstream and leave these customers behind, again.  With a 5GB usage limit, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because customers will never be able to take advantage of services that will rapidly blow through those limits.  Make no mistake, a user’s broadband experience at 1.5Mbps with a 5GB allowance is going to be considerably different than a customer enjoying online multimedia from a cable provider or the next generation broadband service from Verizon FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse.  Think e-mail and basic web browsing, and that’s about all.

What kind of broadband experience does Frontier Communications bring?  This month, Consumer Reports rated Frontier dead last among DSL providers that own and operate their own broadband networks (subscription required).  The magazine rated 27 regional fiber, cable, and satellite providers and Frontier’s DSL ended up #19 on the list, the lowest rating of any DSL provider selling service on its own network.  Only Earthlink, which usually buys access on other providers’ networks came in lower among DSL providers.  Verizon actually scored higher than Frontier.

Frontier’s DSL service merited a 67 out of 100 score, rating only fair on value, speed, reliability, and customer support, based on 56,080 Consumer Reports subscribers who have a home Internet account.

Frontier’s phone service rated even lower, second to last in the survey.  Frontier was rated fair on value, reliability and call quality.  Only Mediacom did worse.  Verizon scored much better on reliability.  The magazine’s survey of phone companies was based on 37,484 respondents with phone service and was completed in the spring of 2009.

The consumer magazine did not recommend DSL for broadband access, suggesting consumers would do better with fiber optic broadband first, and cable modem service second.

Union Bashing – The enemy of my enemy is my friend

A significant minority of comments were focused entirely on union bashing, completely ignoring the specifics of the Frontier-Verizon sale.  All these people knew was that if the Communications Workers of America or other union was involved, they were the “real problem,” accusing union bosses of opposing the deal until they were paid off.

Nonsense.

Reality trumps anti-union talking points.  Consumers can review for themselves who correctly predicted the outcome of the last two deals of the recent past.  They were the CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who accurately identified the service problems, the network transition problems, the debt load that prevented service expansion and upgrades, and the eventual bankruptcies experienced at Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint Communications.  It turns out that asking front line employees who work in the office and out in the field maintaining the network are well positioned to give an honest assessment of these transactions that others seek to candy coat to get the deal done.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Charleston Frontier Defends Deal 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV in Charleston delivered this decidedly pro-Frontier news report on the company’s efforts to counter opposition to the proposed sale. (3 minutes)

The Opposition

A large number of comments from those who oppose the deal believe they will actually be far worse off with Frontier.  Most relate the experiences of themselves or their friends and family who live in Frontier service areas, and they’re unhappy with Frontier’s poor customer service, reliability, and slow speed DSL.  Many were also unhappy with Frontier’s automatically-renewing contracts committing customers to stay with the company or face a steep early cancellation penalty.  Many more lament the lack of a future with Verizon fiber optics.

David Swanson, who blogs from his home in Golden Valley, Arizona just dumped Frontier for his local cable provider – Golden Valley Cable & Communications.  He says he was overpaying for Frontier’s DSL and phone package.  Together, after fees and taxes, $90 a month went to Frontier and $73 a month went to DirecTV for television service.  With his new cable bundle, he pays $100 a month for everything.  He uses Boost mobile for his phone, and has no need for a landline.

Reviews on DSL Reports aren’t exactly positive about Frontier either.

One Rochester customer isn’t happy with the “spotty service” he’s experienced on Frontier’s aging copper wire infrastructure, noting they don’t seem to be in any hurry to upgrade facilities in western New York.  He’s stuck with unreliable DSL service far slower than what Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service can provide. Another customer in Lowville, New York admits he has to live with Frontier’s slow speed DSL because there is no other provider available.  In Kingman, Arizona one customer rated the company’s DSL service “slightly better than nothing.”

Even customers who had had good things to say about Frontier in forums often acknowledge their service simply isn’t a good value when considering the high cost charged for the slow speed received.

What Can Be Done?

At this point, it is critical impacted customers contact their state utility commission and state representatives and tell them this deal does not work for you.  It is true Verizon wants out of these service areas, and should they win the right to withdraw someone will have to assume control of landline operations in these communities.  But the terms and conditions for the company seeking to provide service should favor customers and not the Wall Street dealmakers.  Strict financial pre-conditions should be in place to guarantee the buyer is up to the task of providing service and upgrades.  Historically, it’s been far too easy to simply renege on the deal with a quick trip to Bankruptcy Court to shed the debt these deals pile on, and be rid of the service commitments that were part of the approval process.

A company that believes they’ll earn plenty from this deal should be spending plenty to provide quality broadband service starting at 10Mbps, not the 1-3Mbps service Frontier provides most of its rural service areas.  What chance do communities in West Virginia have to stay competitive in a digital economy that requires faster broadband access without the ridiculously low usage limits Frontier includes in their customer agreements?  In fact, usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes should be explicitly banned as part of any sales agreement.

Holding Verizon responsible for the outcome of deals that benefit them and their shareholders while sticking customers with a bankrupt provider must be considered.  An important component of past Verizon’s landline-dumping-deals involves the Reverse Morris Trust — delivering a tax-free transaction for Verizon and piles of debt for the buyer. That puts all the risk on ratepayers, lower level employees who are among the first to go when cost-cutting begins, and head-scratching regulators wondering where it all went wrong.  The only ones not doing any hand-wringing are Verizon’s accountants and the executive management of both companies who conjure up such deals.  That’s because they are rarely held accountable, and often win retention bonuses even while a company is mired in bankruptcy.

Regulators should insist Verizon play a fundamental role in insuring that customers are protected even after the deal closes, honoring commitments and financing operations should the buyer fail soon after the sale is complete.  Under these conditions, customers are protected and Verizon might think twice about structuring a deal that loads the buyer down in insurmountable debt.

“This deal is driven by greed — and we can learn from Northern New England’s and Hawaii’s experience to make sure it does not come to pass here or in the other 13 states,” said CWA’s District Two Vice-President Ron Collins, who has been leading the campaign in West Virginia.

Apparently the “fight back” component of Time Warner Cable’s campaign against the high cost of cable has not been a stunning success because the nation’s second largest cable operator continues to roll over its subscribers with some striking rate hikes, this time across upstate New York.

The usual promotional brochure began appearing in mailboxes across the state, filled with glowing words about all of the wonderful things Time Warner Cable did for you since your last rate increase, and promises for more wonderful things to come… along with fine print language at the bottom subtly labeled “2010 Rates.”  They don’t even call it a rate increase anymore, although it will cost most video and broadband subscribers in Rochester an additional $7.70 a month — $92.40 a year, effective February 1st.

After the company complained back in April it “needed” to engage in Internet Overcharging experiments to use that revenue to upgrade networks, the additional $3 a month/$36 a year they will get from millions of Road Runner subscribers in New York alone should be more than enough to do just that.  Those on lower speed economy tiers are also facing rate hikes: $3 a month for Road Runner Lite and $4 a month for Road Runner Basic, reaching $22.95 and $29.95 a month in Rochester, respectively.

As a concession to Rochester, one of the last remaining cities in New York still stuck with 384kbps upload speeds, the company will increase the upload speed for the division’s Standard Road Runner service customers to 1Mbps sometime in 2010.  Those with Road Runner Turbo will probably see upload speed increasing to 2Mbps, accordingly.  But Rochester still isn’t on the upgrade list for DOCSIS 3, bypassed because of the very limited competition Frontier offers the cable company locally.  Verizon FiOS fiber to the home service is being provided in most other large New York cities.

You probably didn’t ask for it, but you’re going to get it anyway: NBA TV HD and the Sundance Channel was added today to the Rochester-area’s digital cable tier.

Time Warner Cable's new rates for the Rochester/Finger Lakes region of western New York become effective February 1st.

Meanwhile in the state capital Albany, news of the rate increase was particularly unwelcome in the hard hit upstate economy.  The Albany Times-Union called the rate increase “an insult” on hard-hit New Yorkers:

Your neighbor lost his job, the housing market is in the tank, and the economic recovery is nowhere in sight.

And now to add insult to injury, as other household costs rise, your cable TV bill is going up next year too — in some cases by nearly 10 percent.

Time Warner Cable sent a flier to local customers this month with the new prices. Except for the most basic package, all the rates are going up. The “basic with standard” TV package, which includes dozens of mainstay cable channels such as CNN, ESPN and Comedy Central in addition to local broadcast channels, will rise 9.7 percent to $61.95 a month from $56.45 currently.

The company’s “All the Best” package that combines TV with Internet and phone service will go from $139.95 a month to $146.95 a month, an increase of 7 percent.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTEN Albany Time Warner Bill Increase 12-31-09.flv[/flv]

WTEN-TV Albany reports that Time Warner Cable’s latest rate increase will cause many upstate New York residents to drop premium channels in even greater numbers to economize. (2 minutes)

Verizon FiOS, for now anyway, will be cheaper than most of Time Warner Cable’s packages in Syracuse.  The Salt City faces rate increases averaging six to eight percent.  Time Warner Cable spokesman Jim Gordon blamed the rate hikes on the same things cable always blames rate hikes on — increased programming costs.  From the Syracuse Post-Standard:

Time Warner spokesman Jim Gordon said there are two major reasons for the increase: higher prices charges by the providers of programs and the rising cost of doing business. Customers are using more services more often, Gordon said, and cable is becoming more important in people’s lives.

In 2009, the number of channels on which the “start over” feature is available rose from 45 to 90, and customers used the feature 10 million times, he said. Customers also watched 85 million videos on demand, he said. “People are staying home more, and they’re hunkering down and they’re utilizing these services,” he said.

Cable operators are free to raise rates on everything except the basic service of broadcast and educational channels, for which operators need permission of regulators.

Below is a list of popular packages and corresponding rate increases:
• Talk ‘n’ View package, of telephone and cable television service, will rise from $100.50 to $108.95 – an increase of about 8 percent.
• Surf ‘n’ View, a combination of Internet and cable television, will increase from $105.50 to $111.95, an increase of 6 percent.
• All the Best, which combines cable, internet and phone, will rise from $135.50 to $144.95, or 7 percent.

Prices are slightly lower with Verizon Communications Inc.’s FiOS, which recently entered the Central New York market and offers a basic package of telephone, Internet and cable television for $109.99 to $129.99.

Further north in Watertown, rates are also increasing by 6 to 8 percent starting February 1st, the second increase in the past 11 months. Time Warner last raised its rates in March.

Time Warner Cable spokesman Jim Gordon said the current increases are due to price increases by programmers and an increase in the company’s cost of doing business. Gordon also cited an increase in the use of the company’s features including “Start Over” and video on demand.

“People are staying home more because of the current economic situation, and customers are finding value in these enhancements,” Gordon said.  The Watertown Daily Times notes Gordon doesn’t think subscribers will mind enough to leave.

“Our goal in doing this is to enhance the customer experience,” Mr. Gordon said.

Mr. Gordon said he doesn’t think the rate increases will prompt many Time Warner Cable customers to switch to another provider, because of the local customer service the company offers.

“We’re more than ready to compete,” Mr. Gordon said.

Customers can expect to see the following increases on their cable bills this year:

• A combination of standard and basic cable service costs will increase from $62.50 to $67.75, an increase of about 8 percent.
• The Surf ‘n’ View package will increase from $105.50 to $111.95, an increase of about 8 percent.
• The Talk ‘n’ View package will increase from $100.50 to $108.95, an increase of about 8 percent.
• The All the Best package, including cable, phone and Internet service, will rise from $135.50 to $144.95, an increase of about 7 percent.

Verizon FiOS, a new cable provider in the area, has a basic package that includes cable, telephone and Internet service for $109.99 to $129.99.

Satellite television provider DirecTV also has announced rate increases of 3 percent to 5 percent, which also will take effect Feb. 1.

Watertown residents noted the irony of the company’s “Roll Over or Get Tough” campaign in light of today’s rate increase.

“Imagine if you went to the supermarket and they told you that you had to buy 100 items you didn’t want and would never use for ever item you actually wanted. This is how Time Warner Cable operates,” one writes.

A Raymondville resident remarks, “Isn’t it strange after Time Warner solicits its customers to support their get tough effort to fight with the Fox networks in negotiations over price increases for programming that they can institute one of their own? Is this the real reason that they lobbied all of their customers? Is this the beginning of setting things up so that we end up paying for every channel that we watch? If enough people push to get rid of the junk they give us, that we never watch, so we get a package we will? It almost sounds like a shell game in which the pea is not under any of the shells, a no win situation for subscribers no matter how it shakes out. New businesses have been created here ones in which someone has figured out how to get money from consumers without really doing anything to get it. The New American Way. Welcome to the new Millennium.”

Time Warner Cable and Fox are now into their final day of negotiations before the agreement expires governing Fox-owned affiliate stations and cable networks.

One thing that the dispute has accomplished is increasing media attention on both companies and a spotlight on the business models of television programming and distribution.  It used to be so simple – television programming would air on broadcast television, enjoy massive audiences and the lucrative ad revenue that comes from having top-rated programming.  Cable networks couldn’t survive on the much smaller ad revenue they earn from their smaller audiences, so they charged cable operators a small fee for every subscriber who could watch their channels.

With the advent of TiVo and other digital video recorders, online viewing, and the audience erosion that comes from both, what worked for more than 50 years didn’t work so well anymore.  Time-shifting viewers no longer felt committed to watching live television, satisfied with being able to watch when they want and fast forward past the increasing amount of advertising television stations crammed into programming.  With broadband, viewers could download or stream their favorite programs online, often for free and with limited (if any) commercials.  Cable networks that used to be content running older syndicated programming, movies, and low budget documentaries and specials began creating their own original programming, often just as good as anything the networks produced.  Subscription fees charged programmers increased accordingly to help finance these shows.

Today, some cable networks are coming close to rivaling the viewership of broadcast networks’ lesser-watched programming.  If the economic downturn didn’t challenge the advertising industry, the ongoing loss of network television viewers would have accomplished the same thing – lower ad rates for ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox.

At the heart of the debate is a new discussion about whether “free over the air television” is a sustainable business model.  Networks like Fox evidently don’t think so, which is why they seek payment from the pay television industry, be it cable, FiOS, U-verse, or satellite.  Since the majority of Americans now watch television through one of these services or through their broadband connection, there is plenty to be made from such payments.  Of course, those costs are passed on to you.

The result?  You are now paying for “free television.”

The hardball game between Fox and Time Warner Cable will be replayed often between the other networks and programmers and pay television companies.

Today’s video reports include another update from the business side of the story, several additional reports from impacted Fox stations, and basic education about what television antennas are all about.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Reporter Stelter on News Corp Time Warner Cable Talks 12-31-09.flv[/flv]

New York Times reporter Brian Stelter reports the two parties remain “pretty far apart” from an agreement in this report from Bloomberg News. (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Time Warner Fox Dispute 12-31-09.flv[/flv]

CNBC discusses the business side of the Time Warner Cable-Fox dispute, and now Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has put himself in the middle of the dispute as well. (1 minute)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KXAN Austin Cable dispute could turn off bowl games 12-31-09.flv[/flv]

In Austin, KXAN-TV reports Time Warner Cable has been telling Texas viewers they can watch most of the Fox Network programming on Hulu for free.  Some Austin residents are sick of hearing about the dispute and are abandoning Time Warner Cable for DirecTV.  “Football is everything in Texas,” say some who are watching the dispute with concern. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDFW Dallas Watch FOX 4 without Time Warner 12-31-09.flv[/flv]

Some local Fox stations are teaching their viewers how to receive their stations if Time Warner Cable no longer carries them on their lineup.  KDFW-TV in Dallas went to Best Buy where they’re only too happy to sell antennas and digital converter boxes to Metroplex residents. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOFL Orlando Fox Orlando Affiliate Teaches Viewers About Antennas 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

WOFL-TV in Orlando spent part of the newscast teaching people what a TV antenna is.  For many under 30, television viewing has always been through cable or satellite, never over-the-air, so the concept of rabbit ears is a new one for some. (1 minute)

Lots more to watch below the page break.  Click the link below to continue!

… Continue Reading

Charleston, West Virginia is just one of many cities potentially served by Frontier

Frontier Communications has won approval from state utility commissions in California, South Carolina, and Nevada to take over telephone service currently provided by Verizon Communications.  The decisions were unanimous in all three votes by Commission members, and involve telephone service in several small communities in all three states.

Circles represent Verizon service areas transferred to Frontier in Nevada and California

Verizon’s castoffs serve a small percentage of customers, which made the transaction fly under the media radar in most cases.  In California, Verizon dumps customers in a small section on the northwest border with Oregon.  In Nevada, several small communities south of Reno are involved.  In South Carolina, Verizon drops scattered groups of customers in small clusters across the state.

These state regulatory approvals follow an October 27 announcement by Frontier that its shareholders have approved the transaction, which will result in Frontier owning Verizon’s wireline operations in all or parts of 14 states.

While the approval appeared pro forma in those three states, West Virginia is another matter.  Strong employee union and consumer group protests continue across the state, with many consumers concerned about the implications of Frontier controlling nearly all wired phone lines in the state.  The Communications Workers of America held a conference call with the media Wednesday to outline its opposition to the deal.

The CWA has been a vocal opponent of the deal, claiming it will risk West Virginia’s telecommunications future with a company without the financial capacity to provide the type of advanced services Verizon is providing in other states.  Kenneth Peres, an economist with the Communications Workers of America, said the deal was extremely risky for consumers, workers and the affected communities.

Peres pointed to the perfect record of three out of three failures for earlier Verizon spinoffs.  FairPoint Communications declared bankruptcy early this week after trying to take on the service needs of three New England states.

Peres told the Charleston Daily Mail that if the deal goes through, Frontier “will find it extremely difficult” to meet its $8 billion in debt obligations while simultaneously investing enough capital to maintain its physical plant, improve service quality, set up a new system in West Virginia, lease systems from Verizon in 13 other states, provide video service for the first time (in Indiana), and ensure adequate staffing “while paying out a lot more in dividends than it makes in profits.”

Frontier went on the attack Thursday, accusing the union of interfering just to grab concessions for itself.

Verizon service areas sold off to Frontier in South Carolina

Steve Crosby, Frontier spokesman, said, “They’re just throwing stuff up against the wall. They know this is a good transaction and they’re trying to extract their pound of flesh. They want more concessions. This is their opportunity to ask for more money for their union membership and more benefits. That’s what they want. Union membership across the country is declining. This is how they’re trying to extract as much as they can from either Frontier or Verizon.”

As for Frontier’s debt load, “This is actually a de-leveraging transaction,” Crosby said. “We’re taking on debt but we’re taking on a whole lot more revenue. We’re currently at a 3.8 times revenue-to-debt ratio, going down to 2.6. So we actually get better in terms of revenue to debt. And today we’re fine. We’re able to pay a nice dividend. The day the transaction closes, we are approaching investment-grade borrowings.

“Our board of directors made the decision to lower our dividend by 25 percent when the transaction closes to give us even more cash to invest in infrastructure and to give us even more financial flexibility,” Crosby said.

“Every time we have an argument we win and they bring up other stuff,” Crosby said. “They never bring up the de-leveraging because it undermines their argument. They never bring up the fact that we will reduce our dividend because it undermines their argument.

“We have said we will maintain employment levels for 18 months” after the transaction closes, Crosby said. Because of required regulatory approvals and other factors, the deal can’t close before April 2010.

“So you can figure that’s two years,” Crosby said. “Who nowadays has that kind of job security? I think we’re bending over backwards. I wish I had the pension plan, the job security the CWA has. They’re looking at extracting more from Verizon and Frontier.”

When asked by the newspaper why Frontier shareholders would approve a deal that was destined for failure, Peres told the newspaper:

Frontier’s business model is built on acquisitions. Frontier bought a portion of Global Crossing’s business which increased revenue and access lines “but that began to decline,” he said. “They bought Commonwealth Telephone but that’s flat-lining. What’s the next step? What were they going to do – improve infrastructure or go through the acquisitions route again?” Continuing with acquisitions “postpones the day of reckoning,” he said.

Commentary: Our Take

Crosby’s comments seem more suited for a talk show audience that hates unions.  Obviously the union does not think this is a good deal for West Virginia, and considering the track record of earlier Verizon deals, and the correct predictions from employee unions on their inevitable outcomes, they have every right to oppose the deal on its face.  Crosby apparently has time to address declining union membership, but not the much more relevant decline in the traditional phone company’s bread and butter business – landlines.  Frontier, like other phone companies, continues to see disconnect requests coming from coast to coast as customers dump the phone company for a cable digital phone product, Voice Over IP line, or rely on their cellphone.

West Virginia would be solidly Frontier territory if the state approves the sale

Verizon recognizes their traditional business is a dying one, which is why they are in a hurry to diversify into competitive broadband and video services over their fiber optic FiOS network.  Where it doesn’t make economic sense (under their current business plan) for Verizon to deploy FiOS, decisions are being made about whether to keep those smaller phone operations within the Verizon family, or sell them off to companies like Frontier.  What Frontier acquires today from the standpoint of customers and revenues could represent the high water mark, and without offering robust options for a digital future, Frontier will likely continue to see customer erosion.

FairPoint acquired seemingly healthy Verizon companies serving the entire states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.  When their efforts to seamlessly combine Verizon’s legacy systems with FairPoint’s own systems failed, that along with an inability to properly service customers, caused a death spiral as customers dropped service, which led FairPoint straight into bankruptcy.

Frontier’s record of investment and service in western New York speaks for itself.  Time Warner Cable eats Frontier for lunch, with less expensive “digital phone” service, much faster and more reliable broadband, and a video package that Frontier doesn’t offer (reselling DISH Network is hardly the same as providing video service that doesn’t come from a third party company’s satellite dish nailed to the roof).  Frontier is ready and willing to stick with DSL service at speeds that are basically maxed out.  Time Warner Cable evidently doesn’t even consider Frontier a significant enough player to deploy upgrades in this area while they are in a hurry to provide them where Verizon FiOS is under construction.

When a company isn’t prepared to keep up with the rest of New York with fiber deployment to the home, the chances of that kind of service reaching West Virginia anytime soon are near zero.

But Frontier’s unique position as a specialist in “rural service” allows it to eke out an existence in areas where cable isn’t a big competitive threat, and where any broadband is better than no broadband at all, at least for now.  But without a plan for keeping up with the fast changing broadband world, customers happy with 3Mbps service today will despise the company for being stuck with those speeds later.  A lot of people in Rochester sure aren’t happy being stuck with Frontier DSL, and that nasty 5GB “reasonable use” language in the Acceptable Use Policy.

Crosby’s comments about CWA member job security, which he evidently envies, says more about the union’s commitment to its members than Frontier has to him.  Perhaps Crosby can quit his spokesman job and switch to a position that gets him CWA membership with a pension and job security.  Perhaps if the people of West Virginia say thanks, but no thanks, Frontier will be in a better economic state than it would be if this mega-deal collapses under the weight of debt and integration challenges.  Then Crosby can keep his job with the evidently lousy benefits.

Peres’ assumption that Frontier lives only through acquisitions isn’t the complete story.  Just like the myth sharks must constantly swim to survive, Frontier doesn’t constantly have to acquire to survive either.  It does have to concern itself with an ever-consolidating telephone line industry, where the smaller independent companies continue to be snapped up by a dwindling number of players.  If a Windstream or CenturyTel comes along with a great offer, Frontier itself may have a new name — Windstream or CenturyTel.

The economies of scale and cost savings are routinely cited by investors promoting consolidation.  It’s no surprise Frontier shareholders voted for the deal.  Bigger is often better for many investors, as long as the quarterly financials play to their interests.  Listening to Frontier investor conference calls, the Wall Street bankers, and the media that support them, are constantly concerned with keeping costs cut to the bone, customer defection limited, risk reasonable, and that dividend being paid.  They are satisfied with Frontier’s rural, less competitive market focus, even if the customers that end up served by them are not.