A column this week in The Post-Standard falls into the trap of believing usage caps on wired broadband service represent “fairness.”

Al Fasoldt, who writes a technology column for the Syracuse, N.Y. newspaper, told readers they should investigate buying and/or using usage measurement tools in order to protect themselves from a surprising bill at the end of the month.

Caps can make their service fairer to all customers by blocking excessive downloads that clog the network, and those who exceed their caps can be charged a great deal extra for service. This amounts to free money for ISPs.

But there is something counterintuitive about promoting new ways to get entertainment on the Internet — by using Hulu, for example, to stream TV shows to your home computer — while telling customers they can’t use more than a certain amount of data.

[…]

What’s needed is a simple way to measure how much data you use per month. Cable providers sometimes provide a Web page that logs each customer’s transfer totals — call your ISP to find out if your plan has such a feature — but you can easily track usage yourself with data-usage software utilities.

Time Warner Cable headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Fasoldt assumes facts not in evidence.  Simply put, there is nothing fair about usage caps, particularly on wired broadband service.  Fasoldt can be partly excused for making the assumption because he lives in Syracuse, where Verizon FiOS and Time Warner Cable compete heavily for customers in the Salt City.  Veterans of actual Internet Overcharging experiments, and those who live under usage caps and usage-based billing can testify about the true implications of such schemes.

They are nothing short of rationing broadband service for fatter profits.

In Rochester, where Fasoldt notes customers successfully fought off Time Warner’s experiment, customers do not have the luxury of two closely-matched competitors.  They have the cable company and a telephone company that stubbornly clings to its own 5 GB usage allowance in its terms and conditions, albeit presently unenforced.  Where competition is at bay, higher prices for limited service are in play.

At least Fasoldt admits it’s also about the money.

There is nothing counter-intuitive about promoting online video services and then slapping usage caps on them when you realize it’s really ALL about the money and not about “fairness.”  Limiting video consumption is critical to protecting cable television packages.  If you can watch it all online, why keep paying for cable-TV?  With a usage cap, there are no worries about that ever happening.

As this website has repeatedly documented, consumers do not need to invest in usage measurement tools that are a nuisance to install and monitor.  They just need a broadband provider that can be happy living off the billions in profits already earned from today’s unlimited broadband service without greedily trying to overcharge consumers even higher pricing for limited service in the future.

Fasoldt would do better by his readers telling them to follow the example of communities who have been exposed to such schemes.  They got involved, threatened to cancel service, and created a sufficiently large enough headache for providers who eventually determined, for now, it just wasn’t worth alienating customers with unwanted pricing schemes.

Charter customers thank the company for the speed increases

Charter Cable has made it clear — no metered billing and no enforcement of its “soft usage caps.”

“We have no plans to introduce metered billing,” Ketzer told Broadband Reports, adding no trials were forthcoming either.

But Charter Cable did say bandwidth consumption is a concern for the company, and a measurement tool to educate customers about their current usage was on the way.

“Right now we are gathering requirements to develop a resource so that customers can monitor and control their bandwidth resources,” said Ketzer. “This was something that our customers have been requesting and we want to meet that need.”

Separately, Charter also announced speed upgrades for many of its broadband customers.  Starting this morning, customers can briefly unplug their cable modems to reset them and enjoy some increased speeds at no additional cost.

Charter's old speed tiers (shown above) got an upgrade this morning. Prices quoted are for new customers. Existing customers: add $15 -- Internet Only customers: add $25

The new speed increases impact three of their broadband plans.  Only “Lite” speeds remain unchanged:

• Lite: Remains the same at “up to” 1 Mbps/128 kbps
• Express: Increases from 5/1 Mbps to 8/1 Mbps
• Plus: Increases from 10/2 Mbps to 16/2 Mbps
• Max: Increases from 20/2 Mbps to 25/3 Mbps

Charter advises Max customers will need to exchange their current cable modem to receive the new speeds.  They come as a result of DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which requires a modem that supports that standard.

Some Charter customers can go even faster with the company’s Ultra60 plan delivering 60/5Mbps service for $139.99 a month.  Customer promotions, typically running six months, can cut the cost to $109.99 during the promotional period.

Increasing speeds and shelving Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage-based billing build customer loyalty and bring new customers, particularly at the expense of telephone company DSL plans, which cannot compete on speed.  Most DSL providers have stopped increasing speeds beyond the maximum 6-10 Mbps they have advertised for years.  Many barely deliver 3 Mbps.

AT&T, which provides service in many Charter markets, has raised the stakes for competition as it rolls out U-verse, an advanced type of DSL service that can support video, telephone, and faster broadband.  In Reno, where AT&T has conducted usage cap experiments for more than a year, the news that Charter won’t comes as welcome news.

Stop the Cap! reader David canceled AT&T service when he found out the company was testing a usage cap in Reno.

“When we found out they were limiting us (after we signed up), we not only canceled AT&T broadband, but also disconnected our two phone lines as well,” David writes.  “We won’t do business with a company that wants to limit our broadband use and we resented being guinea pigs in the first place.”

David adds a “retention specialist” offered to waive his participation in the trial, but he wasn’t interested and is not looking back.

“Unless you deliver a clear message these ripoffs are unacceptable in a way they understand – money – they will just come back for more once the ‘experiment’ is over,” he said.

David is happy with his Charter Cable service, and estimates AT&T’s experiment cost them nearly $200 a month in revenue they used to earn from his family.

“Their cost control program certainly worked — for me.  I’m saving more money with Charter than what I was paying AT&T,” he adds. “I wouldn’t have switched except for their usage cap.”

Charter itself has some broadband usage limits, but they are almost never enforced.

Charter currently defines “normal” residential usage at around 15 gigabytes per month.  Charter’s usage allowances appear in its “excessive use” clause in the Acceptable Use Policy:

Residential service usage will not exceed 100GB of bandwidth per month for Customers subscribing to Services of 15 Mbps or less per month and 250GB of bandwidth per month for Customers subscribing to Service over 15 Mbps and up to 25 Mbps. Charter reserves the right to revise usage limits or to implement additional usage limits. In the event residential usage exceeds the above-described limits Customer will be notified and required to either limit Customer’s bandwidth consumption to permitted levels/limits or subscribe to a Service with a higher monthly bandwidth limit if a higher limit subscription is available.

Since these limits have not been aggressively enforced, they are known as “soft usage caps.”  Most Internet Service Providers have provisions for such limits in their customer agreements, although they are usually only enforced only when a customer’s usage reaches into the stratosphere (often terabytes of usage are involved) or creates a problem for the provider.

Still, some customers dropped Charter Cable even over the defined “soft caps,” switching to competitors who had no such provisions in their usage policies.  Consumers hate Internet Overcharging schemes, and will readily change providers to avoid them.

[flv width=”500″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Charter Thank You Ad 3-1-2010.flv[/flv]

Charter Cable created this ad from customer recorded submissions sent over their Internet service (1 minute)

That's not all that expanded in Reno... customer's broadband bills faced $1/GB overlimit penalties as part of an Internet Overcharging experiment

AT&T’s experiment with usage caps appears to have lost them loyal customers, and generated numerous complaints against AT&T with the Better Business Bureau regional offices in Nevada and Texas for false advertising.  Now there are indications AT&T will wrap up the entire experiment by this April and “study the results.”  Stop the Cap! reader John wrote to say the nightmare may be ending… for now.  At least one of our readers arguing with intransigent AT&T executives heard likewise.

AT&T last year subjected Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada to a trial forcing a usage allowance between 20-150 gigabytes per month on customers, depending on the type of broadband plan selected.  The proposed overlimit fee?  $1.00 per gigabyte, although problems with their usage meter often kept overlimit fees off customer bills.

We’ve documented the howls of complaints from customers who were falsely sold an “unlimited” plan from AT&T and were never notified, or notified after signing up, of the existence of the Internet Overcharging scheme.  Some customers received express mail letters officially notifying them of the scheme, others received robocalls.  Complaints to the Better Business Bureau usually got any excess charges refunded, and some managed to secure a complete exemption from the usage cap trial, under threat of canceling their accounts.

Stop the Cap! reader Robin is a typical example of a customer who was sold a bill of goods by AT&T’s marketing, only to be punished with the fine print after signing on the dotted line.

“I just got my Express letter in the mail today. My internet was hooked up yesterday – no one ever said anything about any cap! I was in shock when I received the letter in the mail, I have never heard of anything like this. I live about 30 minutes out of Reno. Needless to say I am very very upset and trying to figure out what I am going to do now as I know I will go over the cap every month, I can’t afford that and I can’t afford cable internet at this time either. AT&T sucks and so does their customer service.”

Robin joins many other customers in both communities stuck in a trial that even some AT&T customer service representatives don’t understand.  Robin’s calls to customer service met with claims the account could not be found, and transfers to four different AT&T departments before being able to address the usage cap surprise.

Albert, another reader, was similarly surprised.

“They are fraudulent in every respect. The state attorney should look into this. They say “unlimited” and when you sign up, they send you a little email saying you are screwed [with the trial],” he writes.

AT&T’s response to Albert was essentially “tough cookies” and if he didn’t like it, he could cancel.

Our readers in Beaumont went through the same AT&T Confusion Circus, transferred between departments until someone recognized the caller was a lucky winner of an Internet Overcharging experiment.

In both cities, delivering an effective message of customer contempt with AT&T’s usage cap scheme means filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.  As an accredited member, AT&T values its rating very highly, and targeting complaints to the Bureau forces them to spend time and money to respond.  Better yet, AT&T executives don’t like it one bit, as Albert writes:

“Go to the Southern Nevada Better Business Bureau and file a complaint. I just had the VP of Regional West of AT&T call.  She was pissed that I filed a complaint, and now she has to personally reply. She hung up on me.”

Being an active consumer willing to make your voice heard is an effective way to deliver the message pricing and usage tricks and traps are unacceptable.  Better yet, it annoys providers with dollar signs in their eyes, especially when canceling your service.

Albert was told the nightmare ends April 1st, when the trial wraps up, but now is the time to deliver the final protest AT&T cannot ignore.

April 1st is an ironic date — the first anniversary of  Time Warner Cable sharing word of its own Internet Overcharging experiment in Austin, San Antonio, Greensboro, NC and Rochester, NY. After two weeks of protest, Time Warner Cable shelved their experiment.

If you’re a resident of Reno or Beaumont, it’s critically important to deliver AT&T a message they can understand:

1. Contact the local media and request they publicize the ongoing controversy over Internet Overcharging schemes;
2. Contact your local and federal elected officials and let them know AT&T’s schemes are unacceptable.  See our “Take Action” section regarding support for legislation that would outlaw such schemes;
3. File a detailed complaint with the Better Business Bureau, particularly emphasizing any lack of disclosure about the experiment, bait and switch advertising, ripoff pricing, etc.  Demand an immediate and full refund for any overage charges and a free pass to cancel AT&T services without any early termination fees.
4. Reno residents — contact Barbara DiCianno at 775-334-3112. She is the mayor’s assistant. Call her and ask to have an investigation launched regarding AT&T’s discrimination against Reno with overcharging schemes that put the city at a distinct broadband disadvantage.  Local elected officials can deliver a strong political message to AT&T that such overcharging schemes will lead to robust support for re-regulation of AT&T’s broadband business to protect consumers.
5. Tell AT&T you will never remain a customer of a provider that has Internet Overcharging pricing schemes.  Tell them in no uncertain terms usage limits and usage based billing are unacceptable, and you will cancel service the moment they attempt to implement either.

A year ago, it was the residents of Beaumont and the other cities impacted by Time Warner Cable’s overcharging scheme that fought on the front line to protect every Time Warner Cable customer from facing a tripling of their price for broadband service.  Today it’s Reno and Beaumont fighting for AT&T customers, both inside their own communities and those nationwide.  As Albert reminds us:

“We will be the ones that determine if this continues or stops here and now.”

They're in your neighborhood, just waiting to break into your home network, according to WXYZ-TV in Detroit

The biggest security threat most broadband users will encounter doesn’t come from identity thieves or kiddie porn rings roving neighborhoods looking for unsecured computers to exploit — it’s from your neighbors looking for free access to your broadband service.

Local newscasts have recently been running sensationalist stories of mysterious cars parked on neighborhood streets driven by ne’er-do-wells barging onto unsecured home wireless networks.

In fact, the most common threat isn’t from drive-by crime rings, but right next door.  With most broadband accounts providing flat rate service, the occasional uninvited guest ‘borrowing access’ probably goes unnoticed.  But should Internet Overchargers have their way, the consequences of account sharing in a world with paltry usage limits and usage-based-billing could show up on your monthly bill.

In countries where these overcharging schemes already have taken firm root, reports of customers receiving enormous broadband service bills are common.  In Australia, rarely a week goes by without someone reporting a hacked wireless network incident.  Consumers have been forced to become watchdogs, constantly checking usage statistics to ensure someone in the neighborhood hasn’t been “borrowing” their Internet account and blowing through their monthly usage allowance.

One customer, who lives in an apartment complex, shares a too-common story:

Over the past 24 hours someone (or something?) has been sucking the life out of my internet connection and chewed up 10Gb of my quota. How do I troubleshoot the cause of this? I have a Buffalo WHR-G54S Wireless Router and my network is secured.  I live by myself in a small block of apartments; I have had no visitors either.

Another customer discovered when it’s your word against your provider’s, the provider wins:

Yesterday, I was checking my broadband bill and was surprised to find out that they had charged me for downloading an extra 4 GB of data. I checked my usage online for the current month and it was already 8GB! This is despite the fact that I have been on holiday for ten days, and my normal usage involves casual browsing and downloading e-mails.

Furthermore, I never exceeded my download limit since I started with my ISP. My ISP also confirms that this is quite unusual and against my normal usage pattern. I have asked them to provide me some usage statistics but they can only give me the data that I already see on my account online.

The cost of exceeding the limit can be enormous.  BigPond in Australia, for example, has a few Internet plans that charge a $0.15 per megabyte overlimit penalty.  That’s $150AUD per gigabyte.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXYZ Detroit Open Wi-Fi Risks 1-26-10.flv[/flv]

WXYZ-TV in Detroit ran this sensationalist report on drive-by hackers breaking into wireless networks. (3 minutes)

The solution suggested by most Internet Service Providers is to enable built-in wireless security.  How much protection that provides and whether customers will be able to understand how to configure security remain open questions.

Some phone companies providing DSL service have plenty of older equipment still in customer homes that only supports the older WEP security standard.  That’s insufficient to protect consumers from intrusion because WEP security has been seriously compromised.

“WEP as a security measure is so broken that your (and everyone else’s) kid sister can easily circumvent it,” computer security researcher Ralf-Philipp Weinmann told the BBC.  Weinmann is co-author of the aircrack-ptw tool that can crack WEP in minutes.

Anyone caring about their privacy, said Weinmann, should not use WEP to stop others using their wi-fi hotspot.

Current generation wireless routers typically provide both WEP and the more secure WPA standard. But now there is evidence WPA can also be compromised, with a little help from “cloud computing,” which puts several high powered computers together to quickly work on cracking your password. A service has even been launched to let would-be crackers rent time on the “cloud” to “test” network security passwords, starting at just $17. In as little as 20 minutes, those with relatively simple passwords will find their network security compromised.

You can protect yourself by at least making sure your router is “secured” with a password.  Most every router comes with instructions or software that make this process as simple as possible.  When you have a choice of security standards, aim for WPA2, if available.

Thus far, most reported WPA network break-ins occur because the user is relying on a simple password — often a common word, name, series of numbers, or something similar that is much easier to break. Try to use a password that is not a word in a dictionary, doesn’t correspond to information anyone could mine off your Facebook page (city/town, school, birthday, parents or siblings names, etc.), and would be impossible to guess off-hand.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

How to secure your wireless network (6 minutes)

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.