Telecom companies that receive Connect America Fund (CAF) dollars to deploy rural broadband service will not have to prove suitable internet speed and performance until early next year, after the FCC’s Wireline Bureau today announced it is delaying mandatory testing because of telecom industry objections.

The delay puts back the schedule for proof of performance testing that was originally intended to begin later this year. The rule would require those companies getting taxpayer funding to aid in network construction costs to test whether those networks meet the FCC’s minimum broadband standard of 25/3 Mbps.

Last summer, the FCC notified internet service providers that it intended to hold all carriers, including those receiving CAF funding before the FCC established its 25 Mbps minimum speed benchmark, to the same standards.

Frontier Communications is selling its wireline and fiber assets in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington in a $1.35 billion all-cash deal with two private investment firms.

Frontier will continue operating its FiOS and traditional landline networks in the four states until the transaction closes with regulator approval.

The buyers are WaveDivision Capital, a private investment firm run by the founder of Wave Broadband, an independent broadband provider serving the Pacific Northwest and Searchlight Capital Partners, a Wall Street investment firm seeking to “accelerate value creation” for its investors. The new owners plan to launch a new company to service existing Frontier customers and will honor existing contracts and service commitments.

“The sale of these properties reduces Frontier’s debt and strengthens liquidity,” said Dan McCarthy, Frontier’s president and CEO, in a statement. “We are pleased to have a buyer with extensive experience building and operating advanced fiber-based communications assets in these regions. We will be working very closely with the new owners to ensure a smooth, successful transition for our customers and the communities we serve.”

About 150,000 fiber, 150,000 copper and 35,000 fiber video customers are impacted by the sale in the four affected states. Frontier’s service area in the region is made up of large former Verizon service areas, many upgraded to fiber-to-the-home service, and a significant number of rural telephone exchanges operating with traditional copper wire networks. WaveDivision Capital claims it wants to invest in Frontier’s existing network to upgrade service and potentially retire additional copper infrastructure in favor of fiber.

Frontier service areas in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

“We are excited to transition these operations to a local ownership team and to invest in building out the network of next generation fiber throughout our region,” said Steve Weed, CEO of WaveDivision Capital, and founder and former CEO of Wave Broadband. “We are big believers in the Northwest’s future growth opportunities and that future runs on broadband. As the former leaders of another successful Northwest internet provider, Wave Broadband, we know what it takes to bring fiber and other advanced services to residential and business customers, give them choices, and keep them happy.”

Frontier, which has been struggling with a tremendous debt load and underinvestment in its network, sees the sale as a way to improve its balance sheet and cut both debt and expenses. The Pacific Northwest is a difficult region to serve because it is sparsely populated and can be a high cost area because of difficult terrain or long distances between customers. Although Frontier had committed to spending on upgrading its fiber customers, it promised little for its copper wireline customers still relying on low-speed DSL. Weed says his company hopes to change that.

“Our plan is to invest further in our markets, specifically by extending fiber to more homes and businesses, to bring them the high speeds they want,” Weed said in a statement.

Frontier’s Montana operations are in the northwest corner of the state, near the Kootenai National Forest.

The transaction is subject to regulatory approvals by the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), applicable state regulatory agencies, and certain local video franchise authorities where Frontier FiOS operates. Frontier expects little opposition to the deal.

Weed’s involvement in Wave Broadband is no more, but at the time he left the company, Wave had reached 140 cities and towns in Washington, Oregon, and California. Wave was formed in 2003 with a series of strategic acquisitions of “distressed” independent cable systems and those owned by pre-bankruptcy Charter Communications, Northland Communications, and Cedar Communications. In May 2017, Wave Broadband was sold to TPG Capital for $2.36 billion, and today operates under TPG’s leadership with its close cousins RCN and Grande Communications.

Weed has a reputation for successfully deploying fiber networks in a region where capital can be difficult to find and easy returns on investment are rare, so there is considerable good will he will successfully upgrade Frontier service areas that have been neglected for years.

Although the transaction could deliver temporary fiscal relief for Frontier, shareholders remain displeased with the current leadership team at the company, and there are still significant signs Frontier remains in serious financial and operational distress, especially because of its ongoing customer losses. Frontier is likely to be pressured to find other sales opportunities, assuming it can find willing buyers.

Pai

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai found a lot to like about the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint and has recommended his fellow commissioners approve the transaction after the companies offered new commitments to ease anti-competitive and anti-trust concerns.

That typically means the FCC’s 3-2 Republican majority will quickly approve the deal in a forthcoming vote, with three Republicans in favor and two Democrats opposed, if tradition holds.

Pai’s support for the merger is hardly surprising. Since joining the FCC as a commissioner in the second half of the Obama Administration, Pai has consistently opposed every pro-consumer item on the FCC’s docket. He loves industry-consolidating mergers, hates telecom companies being forced to open their businesses to competition on things like set-top boxes, and considers almost all pro-consumer protection policies from net neutrality to merger deal conditions examples of “overregulation” that he argues are harmful to the free market and investment.

The troubled merger, which would create what we will call T-Sprint, has remained under review for months, recently stalled over revelations the two companies tailored the transaction to appeal to President Trump. T-Mobile executives spent $195,000 repeatedly renting rooms at the Trump International Hotel in Washington and spent large sums hiring Trump-connected “advisors” including Reince Priebus and Corey Lewandowski. The merger pitch was changed to emphasize its impact on rapidly growing 5G networks, a talking point favorite of President Trump, who wants to beat the Chinese over the development of next generation wireless networks.

The merger must win approval from both the FCC and the Justice Department. The latter is said to be troubled about the anti-competitive impact of reducing the number of national wireless carriers from four to three. Such a consolidation would likely permanently change the wireless competition paradigm, because there has been no interest among new entrants to construct multi-billion dollar national cellular networks to compete with established wireless companies.

On Monday, T-Mobile and Sprint delivered additional concessions which seem to have won the approval of Mr. Pai.

“Two of the FCC’s top priorities are closing the digital divide in rural America and advancing United States leadership in 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity,” Pai said in a statement Monday. “The commitments made today by T-Mobile and Sprint would substantially advance each of these critical objectives.”

But a closer examination of “T-Sprint’s concessions” shows there is remarkably little there to protect competition and consumers:

• A proposed spin off of prepaid Boost Mobile, which relies on the weaker Sprint network, is hardly much of a concession considering it will likely be impacted by the decommissioning of Sprint’s network, requiring at least some customers to buy new equipment that works on T-Mobile’s network. T-Sprint would also continue to control Boost competitors Virgin Mobile and MetroPCS, putting Boost at a distinct disadvantage.
• The “nationwide” 5G network promised by T-Sprint is replete with fine print. The company will not be formally assessed on its expansion progress for three years, has demanded that T-Mobile’s own employees be allowed to conduct network performance tests — a conflict of interest, and that if it fails to meet its own proposed metrics, the FCC must forego the use of its regulatory forfeiture powers. Instead, the company agrees to pay “voluntary” fines if it fails coverage expansion commitments that are open to wide interpretation and litigation.
• T-Sprint agreed to expand its “5G” coverage, but will rely heavily on existing macro cell towers and low and mid-band spectrum, shared by a much larger number of users than millimeter wave/small cell technology. That will probably deliver a more modest, incremental upgrade over existing 4G LTE technology, not a game-changer that can deliver gigabit speeds to wireless customers. Nothing precludes AT&T and Verizon from deploying similar upgrades without a competition-crushing merger between the third and fourth largest competitors.
• T-Sprint’s proposed wireless home broadband replacement does not include a commitment to provide unlimited service. In fact, vague language in the commitment letter suggests T-Sprint will offer the service with a performance and usage expectation akin to other fixed wireless networks. That likely means customers will endure a data cap and speeds that are not comparable to wired technology. Once the company has signed up 9.5 million home broadband customers, any commitments offered to regulators about that service automatically expire.
• The FCC is expected to give up much of its regulatory authority in return for T-Sprint’s commitments. If T-Sprint walks away from its commitments and not invest billions on its network expansion, it can pay a much smaller fine and have its merger obligations disappear. The FCC will not be able to use its more effective compliance power: forfeiture penalties.

T-Sprint’s argument is that this transaction will accelerate the deployment of 5G technology in a war for 5G supremacy with China. But exactly what technology is deployed, on what spectrum, using small cells or macro cell towers, makes a lot of difference. China’s wireless companies are owned and controlled by the Chinese government, which is also underwriting some of the costs. America’s networks are financed with private capital (and customer bills). T-Sprint’s 5G plans are also far less ambitious than those from AT&T and Verizon, and the cost to long-term competition is too high. The FCC should know that.

Congress has noticed that this merger has been rejected before during the Obama Administration for being anti competitive. Nothing has changed with respect to that. But T-Mobile’s lobbying sure has — this time trying to appeal to the Trump Administration for approval. Pai is certainly on board, and that could cost American consumers plenty.

Most telling of all is Wall Street’s reaction to today’s news. A merger that is being sold as as an AT&T/Verizon killer appears to be anything but. Verizon stock rose by 4.2% and AT&T by 4%. Investors recognize that consolidation can mean only one thing: higher prices. It means the end of the wireless price war that had Sprint and T-Mobile taking potshots at their larger rivals, forcing them to cut prices and bring back unlimited data plans.

It would be ruinous for T-Sprint to continue slashing prices and taunting AT&T and Verizon with costly promotions and giveaways. AT&T and Verizon expect T-Sprint will join their comfortable cartel with suspiciously similar plans and pricing, while firing up to 30,000 redundant workers and decommissioning Sprint’s wireless network. That last fact is well known on Wall Street, too. Cellphone tower owners took a beating in the stock market on the news they could lose Sprint as a customer. American Tower was down 1.9%, Crown Castle fell 3.2% and SBA Communications Corp. dropped as much as 4.5%.

The deal still must pass muster with the Justice Department, and attorneys general from multiple U.S. states are also opposing the deal on the state level. But the Republican members of the FCC joining up to support the deal make it more likely that it will eventually get approved.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – T-Mobile US Inc’s $26 billion acquisition of rival Sprint Corp won the support of the head of the Federal Communications Commission on Monday, in a big step toward the deal’s approval.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, came out in favor of the combination after the companies offered concessions including selling Sprint’s Boost Mobile prepaid cell service.

Sprint shares surged 23.2% while T-Mobile shares rose 5.1%. If okayed by the FCC, the deal would still need approval from the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust division.

If the deal is completed, the number of U.S. wireless carriers would drop to three from four, with Verizon Communications Inc and AT&T Inc leading the pack.

Some telecommunications experts have predicted that prices for cell phone service would rise as a result, and U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal agreed.

“The FCC’s seeming abdication makes it even more important for the Department of Justice to step up to the plate to block this merger,” the Democratic senator said in a statement.

Pai will recommend that the other four FCC commissioners vote to approve the merger. Commissioner Brendan Carr, a Republican, said on Monday he will vote in favor.

The third Republican, Mike O’Rielly, did not reply to a request for comment. The Commission is made up of three Republicans and two Democrats.

Pai

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, tweeted her disapproval.

“We’ve seen this kind of consolidation in airlines and with drug companies,” she said. “It hasn’t worked out well for consumers. But now the @FCC wants to bless the same kind of consolidation for wireless carriers. I have serious doubts.”

The FCC will not formally vote on the merger on Monday but will first draft an order, two people briefed on the matter said.

The FCC move boded well for the Justice Department to also approve the deal, Citi analysts said in a note.

“While the two federal agencies have different standards of review that could lead to different outcomes, we believe the likelihood for some coordination between the agencies is encouraging for the approval prospects by the (Justice Department),” the note said.

Reviews by state attorneys general and public utility commissions could push full approval back to the third quarter of this year, the Citi note said.

CONCESSIONS

In a filing with the FCC on Monday, the companies pledged to sell prepaid wireless provider Boost Mobile.

The sale will include the brand name, any active accounts and dedicated Boost assets and staff but no wireless spectrum. The new Boost could buy network access from T-Mobile for at least six years.

One critic of the deal called the concession weak.

“I don’t understand how the mere spinning off of one of three prepaid services would satisfy (Pai), given all the evidence in the record that post-paid (wireless) prices will go up,” said Gigi Sohn, who held a senior FCC position during the Obama administration. “I just think this is very weak tea.”

The Boost sale is aimed at resolving concerns that the deal would give the combined company 54% of the prepaid market, which generally includes those with poor credit who cannot pay with a credit card.

T-Mobile, which is about 63 percent owned by Deutsche Telekom AG, also promised the new company would build a “world-leading” 5G network, which is supposed to be the next generation of wireless service. It promises to give rural Americans robust 5G broadband and enhance home broadband.

The FCC and Justice Department had been expected to make a decision in early June. They have been weighing potential a loss of competition and higher prices for consumers against the prospect of a more powerful No. 3 wireless carrier that can build a faster, better 5G network.

T-Mobile has about 80 million customers and Sprint has about 55 million customers.

Reporting by David Shepardson and Diane Bartz, additional reporting by Douglas Busvine in Frankfurt; Editing by Susan Heavey, Paul Simao and Jeffrey Benkoe

Frontier Communications has no plans to upgrade most of their legacy copper DSL internet customers this year, leaving customers in many markets stuck at speeds as low as 1-3 Mbps.

Frontier CEO Dan McCarthy told analysts in a late afternoon conference call Tuesday that around one million homes have access to Frontier’s 100 Mbps DSL service, and six million can sign up for DSL at or above 25 Mbps. McCarthy considers those customers valuable targets for marketing campaigns because most are not Frontier customers. For the rest of Frontier’s legacy copper areas that cannot access those speeds, Frontier will have little to offer in 2019.

“I don’t think you’re going to see us do a lot of significant copper upgrades this year,” McCarthy admitted. “Our big focus is really future proofing kind of the [California, Texas, and Florida] fiber markets. So, we’re spending the money to upgrade th[ose markets] to 10 Gbps capability.”

Frontier reported another quarter of poor results late yesterday, widely missing analyst expectations. Frontier’s share price lost 26.8% of its value overnight in heavy trading. Over the last 12 months, Frontier’s share price has dropped by 77%.

Analysts remain deeply concerned about Frontier’s customer defections, which have persisted for several years and show no signs of ending. Even more daunting, Frontier’s high debt levels are still a problem. A major tranche of Frontier’s debt comes due for repayment in 2022, and there are concerns Frontier may not be able to cover it, which could force the company into bankruptcy. In February, Bloomberg News ranked Frontier No. 1 on the list of deeply distressed debt issuers in North America.

While cable companies can count on quarterly boosts in the number of customers signing up for broadband, Frontier shareholders have become accustomed to reading about subscriber losses. The company lost 38,000 broadband subscribers in the last quarter, including in its fiber to the home markets. Most of Frontier’s losses are Charter Spectrum and Comcast’s gains. Frontier also reported landline and video customer losses.