Customers sitting down to watch the local news in Louisville, Ky. on Time Warner Cable (formerly Insight) now get to see stories about ongoing bankruptcy woes at Eastman Kodak, house fires in Irondequoit, road work in Greece, and Scott Hetsko’s local forecast… for Rochester, N.Y.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLKY Louisville WLKY Remains Off the Air 7-16-12.flv[/flv]

WLKY in Louisville is no longer seen on former Insight cable systems (now owned by Time Warner Cable). In its place, Louisville viewers are watching WROC-TV in Rochester, N.Y.  Here is why. (3 minutes)

No, it is not some weird sunspot reception and nobody transported you from Kentucky to western New York while you were sleeping. It’s simply another epic battle waged in:

RETRANSMISSION CARRIAGE CONSENT WARS: 2012

“Not getting the channels you are paying for does not necessarily entitle you to a refund, but does require you to pay more when a deal is eventually struck.”

WESH-TV in Daytona Beach/Orlando, Fla. is one of the Hearst-owned stations affected in the dispute with Insight/Time Warner Cable/Bright House Networks.

These skirmishes used to be commonplace around the end of the year, when carriage agreements between cable, satellite, and telephone companies with cable networks and local stations came up for renewal. When the programmer passed a figure written on a folded up piece of paper across the table to your pay television provider, the shock and awe of that number, occasionally 100-300 percent more than the year before, was the opening shot in a battle that now increasingly leads to favorite local stations or cable channels being stripped from your lineup.

In Louisville, that is precisely what happened to WLKY-TV, one of 15 stations owned by Hearst Television, taken off the lineup when Time Warner Cable/Insight/Bright House Networks could not successfully negotiate a renewal agreement. Time Warner complained Hearst wanted 300% more for each of the affected stations, an increase sure to be passed along to cable customers already long weary of endless annual rate increases. That was the same story told in other cities affected by what is now a week-long blackout. In Greensboro/Winston-Salem, N.C., Time Warner customers are doing without WXII-TV. Kansas City customers lost two local stations owned by Hearst — KMBC and KCWE. Two stations are also missing from Bright House’s lineup in Orlando: WESH and WKCF.

[haiku url=”http://www.phillipdampier.com/audio/WHAS Louisville Interview with WLKY GM 7-16-12.mp3″ defaultpath=disabled]

Hearst Television’s general manager and president of WLKY has stopped referring to those watching the station simply as “viewers.” Glenn Haygood now calls them “subscribers.” Haygood talks with WHAS Radio about the dispute and what he thinks about Insight/Time Warner Cable. (10 minutes)

Insight/Time Warner Cable customers in Louisville, Ky. are now watching CBS shows on WROC-TV from Rochester, N.Y.

But why are Louisville viewers now watching the boating forecast for Lake Ontario, several hundred miles away? Because Time Warner Cable thinks it has a signed contract with Nexstar Broadcasting Group that lets them turn several Nexstar-owned stations into “superstations,” importing them in cities where contract disputes have knocked the local station off the cable lineup. In Louisville, WLKY, a CBS affiliate, has been replaced by WROC, the CBS affiliate in Rochester. In Greensboro and several other cities, WXII, an NBC affiliate, has been replaced with WBRE in Wilkes Barre, Penn. Some other Time Warner customers are instead watching WTWO out of Terre Haute, Ind., for NBC shows.

It represents a half-measure that Time Warner Cable’s Jeff Simmermon tells Stop the Cap! is “making the best of a tough situation.”

Viewers are naturally outraged.

“I’ve always wanted to know the weather and news in Rochester, Buffalo, Ontario and Caribou,” Kelly Grether teased. “Louisville did make [WROC’s weather] map believe it or not.”

Others are simply confused and engaged in must-flee TV.

“I saw the news coming on,” Greensboro resident Mona Wright told the News & Record. “It didn’t take me but one minute to figure out that these counties were nowhere around us; I changed the channel.”

Some Louisville viewers are even assuming the sales and discounts being advertised on WROC are good in Kentucky as well (often, they are not).

For now, it is difficult for Kentucky viewers to know what WROC is airing because the local on-screen program guide has not been updated to include listings for the Rochester station. Time Warner is pushing a lot of viewers to WROC’s website for program information.

Viewers hoping to practice their Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune skills during the dinner hour lost that opportunity altogether in some cities, while in the Triad of North Carolina, viewers discovered the two shows on two different channels at the same time.

For now, WROC has completely ignored its new Kentucky audience, but WBRE’s morning anchors now regularly acknowledge and welcome their viewers from several states away.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFTV Orlando WESH Disappears from Bright House 7-10-12.flv[/flv]

WFTV in Orlando reports on Bright House Networks’ customers being shut out of WESH-TV in Daytona Beach after the cable operator failed to meet Hearst Television’s demands for an increase in carriage payments.  (2 minutes)

The dispute has since enlarged to bring in side players who are unimpressed with Time Warner’s creative problem-solving:

• Impacted stations now off Time Warner’s lineup think the “new” stations on the lineup are about as honorable as employing scab workers during a union strike;
• Nexstar, for the second time, declares Time Warner is illegally importing their stations to unauthorized places. They are threatening to complain to the FCC and possibly sue to stop the practice. Nexstar earlier complained about a similar dispute in upstate New York which left viewers in northern New York watching WBRE in Wilkes-Barre. But the carriage dispute was settled quickly enough for WBRE to go back to being  viewable only in Pennsylvania, ending the dispute;
• Syndicated program owners sell shows like Wheel of Fortune on a “market exclusive” basis, which means competing local stations already paying for syndicated shows do not want out of area stations also carrying those shows to local audiences, diluting their audience.
• Advertisers on stations now off the lineup paid ad rates based on tens of thousands of cable viewers who are now probably watching another station. Some are demanding “make goods” or outright refunds to get the value for money they were originally promised.

But nobody is more caught in the middle than consumers, especially those paying for channels they are no longer getting.

“I want my money back,” says Orlando Bright House customer Luis Fernandez. “I have lost two stations on my lineup and my bill should be going down to compensate, but Bright House is refusing to credit me.”

Time Warner Cable does not usually give refunds either, arguing that its customers pay for a package of channels and the technology that delivers those networks to customers. Giving a refund for the loss of one or two stations would be tantamount to the industry’s worst nightmare: getting customers used to the idea of paying individually for every channel.

One customer willing to make himself a major nuisance in Wauwatosa, near Milwaukee, Wis., finally wore Time Warner down and secured a $5 a month discount on his bill for the length of the dispute that knocked Milwaukee’s WISN off his lineup.

“[I called] Time Warner to voice my disgust in them putting me (the paying customer) in the middle of their negotiation failures, and after reaching a ‘supervisor,’ I was able to get a discount on my monthly bill,” the reader told the Journal-Sentinel. “It wasn’t easy, but I did it.”

Hearst is encouraging viewers to drop Time Warner like a hot potato and switch to AT&T U-verse or a satellite provider like DirecTV. Negotiations seem to be continuing on a sporadic basis, but one week later, customers heading for the door have already left or are simply watching the local news on another channel.

Satellite Showdown — DirecTV vs. Viacom: Playing Down and Dirty With Everyone

[flv width=”426″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Viacom Ad.mp4[/flv]

Viacom turns the tables on DirecTV’s clever ads to lambaste the satellite provider for cutting off more than two dozen cable channels owned by Viacom.  (1 minute)

If a customer took Hearst’s advice, they might find themselves out of the frying pan and into the fire. Newly arriving DirecTV customers can join the Anger Party 20 million satellite customers are now throwing over a much larger, higher profile dispute between the satellite provider and Viacom. Collateral damage: the loss of networks including Palladia, Centric, Tr3s, CMT, Logo, NickToons, VH1 Classic, TeenNick, Nick Jr., Nick@Nite, Spike, BET, VH1, TV Land, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and MTV.

Some financial analysts are calling the dispute the mother-of-all-program-fee-battles, and as they watch both sides dig in, some warn it could mean DirecTV customers won’t be watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart until August.

DirecTV says Viacom wants a 30% rate increase to renew its contract to carry the company’s networks. That is comparatively cheap contrasted with the prices Hearst wants Time Warner Cable to now pay. Analysts expect DirecTV and Viacom will eventually settle their dispute by agreeing to a 27% rate increase, but nobody knows how long the two will battle it out before an inevitable agreement is reached.

Regardless of the timing, customers will likely pay the price. Nomura analyst Michael Nathanson informed his Wall Street clients DirecTV will end up paying Viacom $2.85 per subscriber — about 60 cents more per month than it pays today. That’s tough for DirecTV to swallow, and probably even harder to pass along to customers. Satellite TV providers have some of the country’s most-frugal pay television customers who are especially resistant to rate increases.

The dispute is so high profile, both companies are bringing out high-powered executives and show talent to argue their respective cases.

Millions of dollars are at stake, and both Viacom and DirecTV are willing to fight to the death, even leaving customers on the battlefield.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/DirecTV Viacom Dispute 7-12-12.mp4[/flv]

Not so fast, says DirecTV CEO Michael White, seen here presenting DirecTV’s position in the Viacom dispute for the benefit of concerned customers.  (1 minute)

“All we are trying to get is a fair deal for our customers and I’m sorry our customers are being forced into the middle of this,” DirecTV’s Michael White said. “We just think we pay a half a billion dollars a year and a billion dollar increase over five years, over 30 percent, is not justified by the marketplace or fair relative to our largest competitors or by their ratings.”

Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman counters, “In the last seven years since we did the last DirecTV deal, we have successfully and peacefully concluded affiliate agreements with every major distributor in the U.S. We are prepared to move forward. It’s unfortunate consumers for the first time are not able to enjoy our channels,” said Dauman, adding, “I don’t want to negotiate in public.”

DirecTV was telling its customers it can watch many of the missing shows for free online, until Viacom reportedly began removing that direct viewing option last week. That hardball tactic could impact everyone trying to stream Viacom’s shows — DirecTV customer or not.

“We’ve temporarily slimmed down our offerings, as DirecTV markets them as an alternative to having our networks,” a Viacom spokesman told CNNMoney. “The online content is intended to serve as a complimentary marketing tool for our partners.”

“At least they were honest about the reasons why they pulled this,” said Stop the Cap! reader Dick Armlo, a DirecTV customer in Idaho. “But fortunately, you can still find a lot of the shows on Amazon’s video on demand and Hulu.”

Customers threatening to switch providers often discover the new neighborhood they move to is just as bad as the one they left.

Dish Network customers are currently enduring a long-standing dispute with Cablevision-owned AMC Networks. The result is no AMC, IFC, Sundance Channel and WeTV on Dish. AMC is telling Dish customers to turn their dish into a birdbath and head elsewhere… perhaps to AT&T U-verse which just recently averted its own blackout with AMC over the same channels. AT&T customers can expect part of their next rate increase to cover the negotiated rate hike AMC won for itself — the one AT&T agreed to on your behalf. After all, it’s your money at stake, not theirs.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Viacom CEO on Dispute 7-12-12.flv[/flv]

CNBC talks with Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman to get his views about the dispute with one of his best customers — DirecTV.  (2 minutes)

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

A new study predicts an agreement between Verizon and the nation’s top cable companies to cross-sell each other’s products could cost up to 72,000 jobs in the northeastern U.S. and potentially threaten Verizon’s state-of-the-art fiber optics network FiOS.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Justice are continuing to review a proposed deal that would allow Verizon Wireless and companies including Time Warner and Comcast to cross-market each other’s products, which critics allege will eliminate competition and job-creating investment.

In the crosshairs of the deal: Verizon’s fiber to the home network FiOS, which has been stalled since 2009 when Verizon signaled it was “winding down” FiOS spending. According to the new report, produced by the Communications Workers of America (CWA), FiOS is at risk of being undercut by Verizon in favor of reselling cable-TV packages from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and other cable companies. At worst, some critics of the deal contend Verizon will eventually abandon FiOS altogether.

The CWA has already seen the impact of Verizon’s declining interest in expanding FiOS as the company has left several major American cities in its service footprint, including Baltimore, Buffalo, Syracuse and Boston without fiber optic upgrades.

The CWA is calling on regulators to impose conditions on any deal between Verizon and cable operators:

• Prohibit Verizon Wireless and the cable companies from cross-marketing in Verizon’s landline service areas;
• Require Verizon to build the FiOS network to 95% of Verizon households in its landline footprint, including in rural and low-income areas;
• Ensure that Verizon Wireless and other cable companies are not able to lock out competitors.

If Verizon were to maintain the expansion of FiOS to non-FiOS areas, about 72,000 new jobs would be created, the CWA report found. Job growth would be concentrated in eight Eastern states and Washington D.C.

“If done right, the proposed deal would add tens of thousands of new jobs and allow underserved communities access to high quality broadband service,” said Debbie Goldman, telecommunications policy director for the CWA. “The FCC has the obligation carefully to assess this deal in terms of likely job loss.  We expect regulators to reject this deal unless the parties accept conditions that would create jobs, increase network investment, and promote consumer choice.”

Those living in Verizon service areas without FiOS are already upset that they have been effectively bypassed by the phone company.

“It’s an arrogant stand,” Buffalo Councilman Darius Pridgen said in a phone interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer. Verizon has upgraded other areas in upstate New York with FiOS, but not financially distressed Buffalo. “It’s advertised in the city, but it’s not available in the city.”

In Philadelphia, Verizon obtained a 15-year video franchise agreement with city officials and the company agreed to extend FiOS throughout the city by 2016. But residents are complaining that Verizon’s definition of “extending service” has meant wiring cables down major thoroughfares, not wiring up every home that wants the service.

City Councilman James Kenney called for a public hearing in April amid complaints that Verizon was reneging on its commitment to city officials and residents.

Cole

Baltimore councilman William Cole thinks his city was skipped by Verizon for a reason, while more affluent areas are set to get fiber upgrades. Cole told the newspaper his constituents have called Verizon after seeing local ads for FiOS service, but are told they cannot get the service.

Verizon spokesman Edward McFadden said the decision to build the FiOS network was never popular on Wall Street. “We got hammered,” he told the Inquirer, “and our shareholders were punished for this.”

Now that the network is up and running, McFadden says Verizon retains a strong incentive to maintain its FiOS business because of the huge investment and the increased earnings it brings the phone company.

But the CWA’s Goldman remains convinced Verizon has broken its word with regulators and politicians who believed promises from Verizon and other telecom companies that passage of the deregulation-packed 1996 Telecommunications Act would inspire the dawn of a new competitive era in American telecommunications. Now instead, Verizon and the cable companies want to simply sell each other’s services.

“They wanted deregulation, and they said they would compete,” Goldman said. “This marks the beginning of the surrender, this truce.”

The New York State Attorney General has argued that Sprint’s failure to pay at least $100 million in owed sales taxes to New York taxing authorities may leave its customers in the state on the hook for past taxes, interest, and fees the company never paid.

As the state continues its lawsuit against Sprint-Nextel for what it argues is deliberate underpayment of New York sales tax, Sprint’s lawyers argued Thursday that the entire case should be dismissed because the state is selectively interpreting state and federal law.

The case originally began as a whistleblower action through a private company, Empire State Ventures, which is seeking a 25% share of any lawsuit proceeds. N.Y. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is seeking $300 million in damages from Sprint for knowingly violating tax laws.

A review of the lawsuit shows there are serious implications for Sprint’s customers in New York if the company loses the suit or fails to pay sales taxes the state claims are owed.

Over three million current and former Sprint customers could be liable for sales tax underpayments representing a portion of their monthly bills dating back to 2005, potentially including accumulating interest charged at 14.5% annually, and penalties amounting to double the amount of the unpaid taxes or up to 30 percent of the underpayment.

Sprint has also misled millions of New York customers who purchased Sprint flat-rate plans. In its customer contracts, on its website and elsewhere, Sprint represented that it would collect and pay all applicable sales taxes. Yet Sprint did not, and it concealed this fact from its New York customers. As a result, Sprint exposed these customers to the risk of having to pay the unpaid taxes, for they are also liable under the law if Sprint fails to pay.

Although Sprint misrepresented how it would handle sales taxes, it has locked its customers into contracts with early termination fees. The customers must remain in these contracts sold under false pretenses unless they pay hundreds of dollars to Sprint.

Schneiderman

Schneiderman’s office appears to have a strong case, with evidence showing Sprint allegedly conspiring to undertax customers using an arbitrary formula to gain a competitive advantage over other wireless carriers with the promise of a lower monthly bill, in part because the company was not collecting the proper amount of state sales tax.

The lawsuit claims Sprint repeatedly ignored warnings from state taxing authorities, including senior tax officials, that declared Sprint’s creative way of determining applicable taxes was putting the company at serious risk of adverse tax department action.

That adverse action came in April when the state filed the lawsuit against Sprint seeking back taxes and triple damages.

A careful reading of the lawsuit reveals just how much bureaucracy America’s wireless industry maintains to seek out any edge it can find against regulators, tax authorities, and local, state, and federal elected officials.

Sprint, the third largest wireless company in the country, can afford to maintain that bureaucracy with $33 billion in annual revenues partly at stake.

Wireless Industry’s Tax Employees Go to Vail to Ski Discuss Tax-Avoidance Strategies

The wireless industry employs hundreds of workers who spend their days pouring over tax laws in all 50 states looking for loopholes, strategies, and creative solutions to the ongoing problem of paying local, state, and federal taxes. Sprint, a considerably smaller wireless carrier than either Verizon or AT&T, still has the resources to maintain more than 100 workers in their State and Local Tax Group. It includes a well-defined management chain, with an assistant vice-president that runs the unit reporting to Sprint’s vice president of Tax, who, in turn, reports to Sprint’s chief financial officer.

These employees, and similar ones working at every other wireless phone company, try to figure out how to pay the least amount of owed tax possible, and kick tax strategies around in regular sessions and conferences at posh resorts in places like Vail (come for the corporate meeting, stay for the skiing), Colorado.

At the 2002 Communications Tax Executive Conference in Vail, Sprint executives told other wireless carriers that tax avoidance strategies like “unbundling” posed risks of audits by taxing authorities and litigation.

The wireless industry sends their tax experts to posh resorts in Vail, Colorado to discuss tax-avoidance strategies.

The following year, a Sprint executive turned up at another industry-backed conference run by “the Wireless Tax Group,”  alerting other wireless companies that “unbundling for taxes causes significant assessment risk.” He told the group that his “marching orders” at Sprint were to “mitigate tax issues by pursuing legislation or pre-audit agreements that allow for component taxing.”

In Schneiderman’s view, Sprint never followed those marching orders in New York.

In fact, the lawsuit argues even as Sprint was lecturing other phone companies about the importance of being conservative when dealing with tax authorities, the company was conspiring to use its own creative tax interpretations to undercut their competitors with a lower monthly cell phone bill.

How to Lower Your Prices Without Risking Profits

The technique Sprint uses to this day to hand customers that lower bill is based on selectively applying sales taxes only to certain portions of a customer’s voice plan. Sprint is the only company engaged in this practice in New York. Verizon, T-Mobile, Cricket, AT&T, and MetroPCS won’t go near the concept.

New York tax law says that phone companies must collect taxes on the monthly voice plans wireless companies sell customers. If Sprint sells you 450 minutes a month for $39.99 a month, New York taxing authorities expect customers will be charged the prevailing state and local tax rate on the fixed amount of $39.99 each month. Only Sprint does not do this. Sprint leverages federal rules which state that telephone calls placed to numbers outside of the state (also known as an “interstate call”) cannot be taxed. Therefore, in Sprint’s view, customers deserve a tax break for those interstate, non-taxable calls.

But Sprint does not actually review individual calling records to figure out what specific out-of-state numbers were called. Instead it created what New York officials argue is “an arbitrary formula” to guesstimate how much the average customer spends talking to in-state vs. out-of-state numbers. But those percentages varied wildly from 2005 to the present day, with different amounts for Sprint-Nextel customers living in upstate and downstate New York:

• July 2005-October 2008: Sprint did not pay state or local sales taxes on 28.5% of its fixed monthly voice service charge;
• April 2006-October 2008: Nextel of New York did not pay state or local taxes on 13.7% of its fixed monthly voice service charge;
• May 2006-October 2008: Nextel Partners of Upstate New York did not pay state or local taxes on 15% of its fixed monthly voice service charge;
• October 2009-Present Day: Sprint does not pay state or local taxes on 22.5% of its fixed monthly voice service charge.

Here comes the taxman.

In January 2005, an internal Sprint memo obtained by New York State found the company could save $4.6 million per month using this tax avoidance strategy, without costing the company a cent in profits.

It implemented the strategy later that summer.

New York’s lawsuit makes it clear the company was warned about the practice before the suit was filed:

Sprint continues to not collect and pay New York state and local sales taxes on the full amount of its receipts from its fixed monthly charges for wireless voice services, despite being specifically informed of the illegality of this practice by a field-auditor of the New York Tax Department in 2009, and then, in 2011, by a senior enforcement official of the New York Tax Department.

Customers Caught in the Middle?

As the case winds its way through court, New York has informally put Sprint customers on notice they could be held responsible for the unpaid taxes and penalties if Sprint reneges on the owed amounts. Schneiderman’s office recognizes customers are caught in the middle, partly because Sprint decided to keep the tax changes “secret” to keep customers off the phone to Sprint customer service:

[…] In its contracts with these customers, on its website and elsewhere, Sprint represented that it would collect and pay all applicable sales taxes on its calling plans. […] Sprint’s representations in the contracts, on its website and elsewhere were false because Sprint knew it would not collect and pay the applicable sales taxes in New York.

Contrary to its promises, Sprint failed to collect and pay sales taxes on substantial portions of the fixed monthly charges for voice services under its flat-rate calling plans. As a result of this non-payment, Sprint left its New York customers liable for those unpaid amounts of sales taxes under New York law.

At no point did Sprint disclose to its New York customers that it was leaving them liable for the sales taxes that Sprint failed to collect from the customers and pay to the government, as promised.

Before Sprint began unbundling, members of its State and Local Tax Group and its marketing group considered in the early part of July 2005 whether to communicate with customers about the fact that Sprint was unbundling and that the unbundling would affect taxes for some customers. They jointly opted not to communicate the change. Sprint’s Director of External Tax was concerned that disclosing the information would “drive too many calls” to Sprint’s customer care division.

In November 2005, just months after Sprint began unbundling, a Sprint employee in the Customer Billing Services department questioned a member of Sprint’s State and Local Tax Group about whether unbundling was “presented to the customer as part of the Subscriber agreement, shown in the invoice and/or available to Customer Care Rep.” The response was simply that “we have not educated our customers on how we are de-bundling transactions for their tax relief.”

Sprint continues to misinform its current and prospective customers about sales taxes, and to subject them to undisclosed sales tax liability even today.

Sprint’s position in court is that New York’s tax laws give the company the option of unbundling its tax obligations and that the state was trying to collect money it was not owed.

“The New York Attorney General’s complaint seeks to impose liability for practices that do not violate New York law,” said Sprint’s response to the lawsuit.

Luckily for Sprint’s tax experts, many states foreclose the possibility of creatively escaping taxes by imposing a “gross receipts tax” on the total gross revenues of a company, regardless of their source. That makes it difficult, if not impossible to escape the kind of sales taxes Sprint has been maneuvering around for nearly a dozen years in New York. With fewer loopholes to find, that leaves the wireless industry’s tax experts more time on the ski slopes.

It is safe to assume Sprint hopes for a positive outcome of the case, if only to avoid the inevitable avalanche of customer complaints from New York customers who might find a notice of apparent tax liability in their mailbox one day in the future.

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

Virtually every mayor in the urban centers of upstate New York is accusing Verizon Communications of redlining poor and minority communities when deciding where to provide its fiber-to-the-home service FiOS.

Now they are telling the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice to become more closely involved in reviewing a proposed anti-competitive marketing partnership between the phone company and some of the nation’s largest cable operators.

The mayors are upset that Verizon has chosen to target its limited FiOS network primarily on affluent suburbs surrounding upstate New York city centers.

“Verizon has not built its all-fiber FiOS network in any of our densely-populated cities. Not in Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Binghamton, Kingston, Elmira or Troy,” the mayors say. “Yet, Verizon has expanded its FiOS network to the suburbs ringing Buffalo, Albany, Troy, and Syracuse, as well as many places in the Hudson Valley, and most of downstate New York. As a result, the residents and businesses in our cities are disadvantaged relative to their more affluent suburban neighbors who have access to Verizon’s FiOS, providing competitive choice in high-speed broadband and video services.”

The mayors fear the reduced competition that will come from the marketing partnership between the phone and cable industry will eliminate any pressure on Verizon to expand its fiber optic network into more New York cities. The agreement allows Verizon Wireless customers to received significant bundled discounts when they sign up for cell phone service and a cable package from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, or Bright House Networks. No corresponding discount is available to a Verizon Wireless customer choosing to bundle Verizon FiOS, putting the fiber service at a competitive disadvantage.

“These commercial agreements appear to eliminate any incentive that Verizon might have had to expand its all-fiber network to our high-density urban centers,” the mayors say. “After all, Verizon Wireless, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, will now be able to sell Time Warner’s video and broadband service as part of their bundled package in our communities.”

That leaves most with Verizon’s DSL service, a product Verizon has been marketing less and less to its customers. The company recently announced it would no longer sell standalone DSL broadband, another point of contention for the mayors.

The mayors are concerned that Verizon’s deteriorating landline network will have profound implications for city centers, where tele-medicine, education, business, and entertainment services will all be left lacking if the fiber network is not extended.

“As you are well aware, high-speed broadband is critical to economic development and job creation, as well as improvements in health care, education, public safety, and civic discourse which is so essential to communal life,” say the mayors. “The economic health of our cities and our upstate region depends upon access to the same first-rate communications infrastructure available to the New York City metropolitan region and the suburban communities that ring our cities.”

The nine mayors are also questioning whether Verizon executives misled them when they claimed Verizon’s strong financial performance would allow the company to reinvest profits into further expansion of its FiOS network. Verizon executives have since admitted the company is indefinitely finished with FiOS expansion, except in areas where it already committed to build the fiber network.

Signing the letter were:

• Byron W. Brown – Mayor, City of Buffalo
• Stephanie A. Miner – Mayor, City of Syracuse
• Gerald D. Jennings – Mayor, City of Albany
• Matthew T. Ryan – Mayor, City of Binghamton
• Shayne R. Gallo – Mayor, City of Kingston
• Susan Skidmore – Mayor, City of Elmira
• Brian Tobin – Mayor, City of Cortland
• Robert Palmieri – Mayor, City of Utica
• Lou Rosamilla – Mayor, City of Troy

(The city of Rochester is served by Frontier Communications, which has no plans to deliver a fiber to the home network within its local service area.)

Schuyler County

The fastest thing in Schuyler County, N.Y., isn’t broadband — it’s the Watkins Glen International speedway.

County officials hope to change that, voting unanimously this month to approve an agreement with the Southern Tier Network to bring a regional fiber optic system into the county.

The not-for-profit local development corporation established to build and manage the regional fiber network doesn’t sit well with some county residents, however, including one retired Verizon employee who dismissed the project.

Odessa resident Karen Radenberg called fiber optics technology “old school” and said no private company will connect to the fiber network to expand broadband service.

Radenberg urged the county to consider that communications companies have now moved on to using 4G wireless technology instead of fiber.

“That’s ridiculous,” countered Legislature Chairman Dennis Fagan (R-Tyrone).

Fagan

Fagan pointed to nearby Ontario County’s fiber middle-mile and institutional network which has signed companies, including Verizon, as customers.  Verizon reportedly uses the Ontario County network to deliver backhaul connectivity to its cell tower network in the area.  Ontario County is served by several different landline companies including Frontier Communications, Verizon, and Windstream.  Time Warner Cable is the dominant cable provider, but large sections of the county are deemed too rural for cable television service.

Fagan said the new fiber network will improve the chances private companies will expand broadband across the county, but also help deliver an important upgrade to the region’s emergency responder communications system.  The extremely hilly terrain across much of the southern tier creates problems because of signal gaps.  The new fiber network will allow the county to build radio repeaters into areas where the existing network of microwave communications towers cannot reach.

Schuyler County currently has no plans to sell Internet connectivity to the public, but hopes existing private cable and phone companies — including Time Warner Cable and Verizon Communications — will consider utilizing the network to expand service.  Neither company has shown much interest expanding service to new areas recently, most likely because expansion costs will not be recouped fast enough.

If the county network reduces the cost to expand service, more homes and businesses may now fall within a “Return on Investment” formula that could mean the difference between broadband and dial-up.