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.”

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.

Barely 18 months after taking control of telephone and broadband service from Verizon Communications, FairPoint Communications collapsed under the weight of enormous debt and an economic downturn, announcing they would declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy this morning.

As Stop the Cap! reported Friday afternoon, sources told us the company had quietly notified key employees of the impending filing, which was expected as early as this weekend.  On Monday morning, the announcement of the filing was made to the media and to an unsurprised customer base of several million dissatisfied customers in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont who lived through a never-ending nightmare of bad service and broken promises from a company many believe “bit off more than they can chew.”

Today’s announcement may bring additional scrutiny to the next telecommunications deal Verizon has planned for customers in 13 states.  Frontier Communications, much like FairPoint, wants to take on the operations of a departing Verizon, who wants to disengage from smaller communities to focus on providing fiber optic telecommunications service in larger cities.  Today’s bankruptcy announcement marks three out of three failures for companies assuming control of Verizon’s discarded operations.  Hawaii Telcom declared bankruptcy last December, three years after being sold to The Carlyle Group, a politically well-connected private equity investment firm.  Idearc Media, a Verizon spinoff of the phone company’s print and online yellow pages business declared bankruptcy on March 31st, and FairPoint Communications, which took over Verizon’s northern New England phone operations made its bankruptcy known this morning.

FairPoint executives admit the downturn in the economy and much larger than anticipated conversion problems contributed to the declaration.  FairPoint has accumulated more than $2.7 billion in debt, mostly from the Verizon transaction, and faced difficulty making payments on that debt as credit markets froze and customers fled the terrible service problems that developed when the company tried to integrate 600 Verizon computer systems and software to 60 FairPoint systems on January 30th.

“Those two things contributed to FairPoint having too much debt, at the end of the day,” said David Hauser, chairman and CEO of FairPoint.

Creditors now effectively control FairPoint Communications, and they’ve agreed to forgive $1.7 billion dollars in debt and reduce the company’s interest payments to keep service operational.  Company officials are also looking for savings from cost-cutting measures.  Union officials are extremely concerned that could mean significant job losses for a company already stressed to provide service.  Although company officials characterized today’s announcement as a “non event” for FairPoint customers, many are not so sure.

“There have been a lot of promises made by FairPoint,” one customer told a Maine television station.  “Services that were promised are not being delivered,” said another.

Skepticism was rampant that today’s bankruptcy announcement would be the start of a new beginning for a restructured FairPoint.

“On the news they said that the services would go on as usual, which means crappy,” said one Maine customer in Portland.

Perhaps to underline that sentiment, FairPoint spokeswoman Jill Wurm reported FairPoint broadband’s e-mail service is out of order this evening.  Wurm said anyone with a fairpoint.net e-mail address has been without service since 6pm.  The company was unable to project an estimated time when service will be restored. It was also not known how many customers were affected.

Union leaders said they take no pleasure in the fact their predictions were all-too-accurate about the ultimate outcome of the FairPoint-Verizon deal.

“What good does it do us? We can say it, but we’re left here to deal with it,” Pete McLaughlin of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents FairPoint employees, told the Associated Press.

State regulators across all three New England states plan to keep a watchful eye on reorganization proceedings.  Special consultants and attorneys have been hired to give the states input and guidance as the restructuring commences.  For some consumers, that doesn’t provide much comfort because many of these same regulatory agencies approved the deal in the first place.

Stop the Cap! has extensive coverage of today’s developments from across all three states’ local newscasts.  We’ve also been notified representatives of utility boards now considering a similar spinoff with Frontier have also arrived here to gain our perspective on the sales deal now before them.  For that reason, we will continue covering FairPoint’s final months before today’s announcement to complete the record on FairPoint and its impact on customers, state regulators, and public safety officials.

Our coverage begins with today’s announcement, starting in Maine, where it was a lead story across the state.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGME Portland FairPoint Mess 10-26-09.flv[/flv]

WGME-TV in Portland leads their 6pm newscast this evening with the news of FairPoint’s bankruptcy and what it means for customers, some of whom remain skeptical. (5 minutes)

More video to view below ….

… Continue Reading

The FCC today voted unanimously to begin writing a formal Net Neutrality policy to govern broadband services across the United States.  Three Democratic commissioners voted yes and applauded the concept of Net Neutrality.  The two Republican commissioners also voted to move the process forward, but signaled they would likely oppose the final draft of the rules.

Support for Net Neutrality, which would prohibit providers from slowing down, blocking, or charging higher pricing for favored access to web content, was spearheaded by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Genachowski said the rules were needed to protect consumers from abusive behavior by telecommunications companies that might seek to block or restrict access to broadband content, including telephone and video services.

“Internet users should always have the final say about their online service, whether it’s the software, applications or services they choose, or the networks and hardware they use to the connect to the Internet,” Genachowski said.

Other Democratic commissioners agreed with Genachowski.  Commissioner Michael Copps stated it was important to hear from everyone about the proposed rules.

“We need to recognize that the gatekeepers of today may not be the gatekeepers of tomorrow,” Copps said.

John McCain

Many Republicans were unconvinced of the need to establish Net Neutrality as formal policy.

“I do not share the majority’s view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it,” Republican commissioner Robert McDowell said.

“These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace,” Sen. John McCain wrote in an opinion piece published by The Washington Times.

McCain compared Net Neutrality with the federal bailout of Wall Street and the American auto industry.

Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;
4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;
5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and
6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.

The draft rules make clear that providers would also be permitted to address harmful traffic and traffic unwanted by users, such as spam, and prevent both the transfer of unlawful content, such as child pornography, and the unlawful transfer of content, such as a transfer that would infringe copyright.

Today’s vote marks only a beginning of the process to begin writing the formal policy of Net Neutrality governing Internet use in the United States.  As with the ponderous debate on health care reform, what ends up defining “Net Neutrality” will be open to interpretation, and a barrage of lobbyists and arm twisting from politicians will be part of what comes next.

On the eve of the historic vote, Verizon Communications seemed to join Google in affirming some of the basic principles of Net Neutrality.

However, the devil is in the details, as is always the case in telecommunications policy.

Verizon supports its own interpretation of Net Neutrality, which is wrapped in a concept they call “innovation without permission,” which is code language for a deregulatory open free-market environment.  It broadly accepts the concept that telecommunications companies should not interfere with legal content, but the company doesn’t want a whole barrage of new regulations to specifically define what would constitute “interference.”  Verizon believes onerous rules would stifle investment, and that existing rules already in place at the FCC are sufficient protection.

Things get downright dicey when Verizon spells out its “network management” principles, warning the FCC overly specific rules in this area could have unintended consequences.

Broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, “malware” and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future–so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers’ preferences, and don’t unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television.

It is in this area where very specific rules are appropriate to write, because what one company defines as appropriate “network management,” could be discriminatory against selected content those providers seek to “manage.”

No broadband user has ever objected to network management that controls spam, “malware,” denial of service attacks, and other like-minded traffic.  In fact, most consumers wish more could be done to control these things.  Nothing in the current framework of telecommunications regulations or in those proposed have ever sought to impede this type of management.

No consumer minds having access to additional content, such as IP television.  But consumers do object when such content is used as an excuse to ram through Internet Overcharging schemes limiting broadband usage or imposing higher fees for using the types of services companies like Verizon now advocate.  “The broadband sky is falling” rhetoric about “exafloods,” overloaded “Internet brownouts,” and other such scaremongering nonsense often comes from the same providers that now want to provide IP television.  What they provide with their left hand, they want to limit with their right.

It’s anti-competitive, because the same companies with an interest in selling these pay television services (FiOS, cable television, fiber-telephone U-verse, etc.) also provide the broadband service that companies like Netflix and Hulu use to indirectly challenge their video business models.

Another concern is “traffic congestion” management, which all too often has meant speed throttles selectively imposed on “offending” applications, particularly peer to peer traffic.  There is good traffic management, such as routing equipment that provides even delivery of services like streaming video and Voice Over IP telephone calls, which rapidly deteriorate on loaded down networks, and then there is bad traffic management which selectively slows down the speed of whatever the provider deems to be of “lower priority.”  Allowing the customer to make the decision about which traffic gets priority is one thing.  Allowing a provider to do it without the consent of the customer is quite another.

Too often, the “unintended consequences” Verizon and Google speak about in the joint statement go to the provider’s favor, not to the consumer.  Overly broad, non-specific language opens loopholes through which providers will eagerly leap through.

Verizon also advocates transparency — “All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings.”

Disclosure alone doesn’t suffice for consumers, particularly if there are few competitive places to take your business if you disagree with company policies.  Those rules should include realistic speed information (marketing stating “up to 10Mbps” that in reality only delivers 3Mbps would be one example).  It should not simply be an escape clause for providers to abuse their customers with throttled, slow service, and give them the excuse that “we disclosed it.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Federal Communications Commission Open Meeting

October 22, 2009

112 minutes

(Warning: Loud audio)

This newspaper ad is running across West Virginia opposing the sale of the state's phone business to Frontier Communications

Opposition to the sale of Verizon’s landline business to Frontier Communications in 13 states continues to increase, particularly in Ohio and West Virginia, where several employee unions have argued the deal represents a win for Wall Street and company executives, but a raw deal for millions of consumers.

The Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who also warned state regulators in New England about the consequences of approving the sale of Verizon’s operations in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to FairPoint Communications, continue to warn consumers and state officials that a similar deal between Verizon and Frontier Communications could spell major problems for telephone customers.  They call on state officials to reject the deal and force Verizon to invest some of their substantial profits earned in these communities into providing better service instead of dumping customers overboard.

The CWA says the sale would put $3.3 billion dollars into Verizon’s coffers — tax free — and leave Frontier buried in debt, which could impact both new and existing Frontier Communications customers, including hundreds of thousands of those in Rochester, New York, Frontier’s biggest service area.

“Verizon Communications has been divesting assets to smaller, less stable corporations in order to reap large, tax-free, profits,” CWA International Representative Elaine Harris said. “Verizon proposes to repeat that formula, and its disastrous effects, with the sale of all of its wireline operations here in West Virginia to Frontier.”

The CWA considers the transaction based primarily on corporate greed, not the best interests of phone customers.

“The only winner in all of these deals has been Verizon Communications and especially Verizon’s corporate executives,” Harris said. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg is the highest paid executive in the telecom industry, with $24.31 million dollars in annual compensation from Verizon.

“His salary could have funded the entire network of senior services in West Virginia last year and he still would have had $8 million in his pocket,” Harris said.

The deal will leave Frontier Corporation with a total of $8 billion dollars in debt. “The West Virginia consumers will experience the effects of converting more than 617,000 aging access lines to a smaller, debt-ridden company,” Harris said. “The public will be forced to pick up the pieces if Frontier follows Verizon’s other buyers and files for bankruptcy.”

“We’ve closely watched the failures of the companies that purchased Verizon’s assets and we don’t need a crystal ball to figure out what will happen if Verizon tries the same scheme in West Virginia. There’s absolutely no reason to gamble West Virginia’s telecommunication’s future just to increase Verizon’s bottom line,” Harris added.

The CWA is running radio ads across the state of West Virginia opposing the deal.

Audio Clip: Communications Workers of America Radio Ad (1 minute)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Verizon spokesman Harry Mitchell said Verizon wants to sell its access lines so the company can focus on its wireless and broadband business. Mitchell told The Charleston Gazette the union has opposed the deal from day one.

“They’re spending their members’ dues on advertising in an effort to cloud the issue,” he said.

Frontier Communications has protested accusations that their purchase of Verizon assets will result in the same kinds of colossal failures impacting other Verizon sell-offs.  Company officials claim Frontier already has a successful customer support operation in DeLand, Florida, and billing and operating systems in place.

In West Virginia, those existing operations serve 144,000 Frontier customers.  If the deal is approved, Frontier will take on the responsibility of serving 1.3 million landlines across the southeastern U.S. alone.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, integrally involved in fighting the FairPoint transaction in New England, says the Frontier deal is reminiscent of what happened with FairPoint:

Regulators in the 14 states where Verizon now proposes to sell its landlines to Frontier face an almost identical situation as New England regulators did last year. Frontier Communications is proposing to buy Verizon’s entire wire line operation in West Virginia – as well as Verizon’s scattered landlines across 13 other states – in a similarly structured deal.

In both cases, Verizon chose a much smaller company in order to take advantage of an obscure tax loophole. With the Frontier sale, Verizon will avoid paying any taxes on the $3.3 billion it will receive from Frontier. Frontier will have to cope with three times more employees, three times more access lines and a 75 percent increase in its debt from $4.5 to $8 billion.

Verizon has a very poor track record in these sales. Verizon sold its Hawaii operations to Hawaiian Telcom in 2005 and it filed for bankruptcy. Customers, service and employees have suffered as a result.

Frontier – just like FairPoint – is a making promises that it may not be able to meet. Like FairPoint, state regulators are being asked to approve a deal where a small company will attempt to simultaneously run a much larger operation, pay off billions of dollars more in debt, integrate Verizon’s computer systems and spend more money to expand broadband.

In the end Verizon will profit but consumers, workers and communities are put at real risk.

Expanding broadband access is an especially critical factor for all rural areas. But Frontier has failed to make any specific commitments, set any timeline or offer a plan for its broadband buildout.

Union leaders believe that states shouldn’t risk their telecommunications’ future just so Verizon can fatten its bottom line. Regulators shouldn’t approve this sale because the risks are too great. Instead, our legislators, regulators and the Governor should require Verizon to meet its service responsibilities. Verizon shouldn’t be allowed to walk away with $3.3 billion tax free, and leave the fate of its customers in the hands of a company with a lot less resources. If Frontier should falter, customers and the public would be required to pick up the pieces – not Verizon!

The track record for Verizon spinoffs has hardly been one of success.

FairPoint Communications, the company to which Verizon sold its Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont operations in 2008, is foundering as it tries to integrate operations and is choking on the debt it incurred to finance the transaction Since the deal was announced, FairPoint’s stock price has declined by about 95%, and the company has been forced to suspend dividend payments.

Hawaiian Telecom, the company to which Verizon sold its Hawaii operations in 2005, filed for bankruptcy. Verizon sold its 715,000 access lines in Hawaii. Since then, Hawaiian Telcom has experienced significant transition issues that resulted in major financial and customer service problems. In three years, the company lost 21% of its customers. In December 2008, Hawaiian Telcom filed for bankruptcy.

The yellow pages company that Verizon spun off also filed for bankruptcy. In November 2006, Verizon spun off its yellow pages directory business to Verizon shareholders, loading the new company, Idearc, with about $9.5 billion in debt and extracting a cool $9 billion in cash and debt reduction. Last year, interest payments alone on Idearc’s debt accounted for almost one-quarter of its total revenues! Representing something of a Verizon failing company “hat trick,” Idearc filed for bankruptcy in March 2009.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Huntington Frontier CWA Fight 10-14-09.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV Huntington, West Virginia reported on the growing opposition to the Frontier sale by employee groups on October 14th. (3 minutes)

In Washington State, IBEW Local 89, outside Seattle, says the sale could cripple one of America’s most tech-savvy regions.

“We’ve always been a leader in communications in this part of the country,” said Ray Egelhoff, business manager of IBEW Local 89. “If this happens, we’re afraid businesses won’t move in, and some may even move out.”

Egelhoff, along with more than 1,500 Verizon workers who may become Frontier employees, deluged officials with letters and e-mails expressing their concerns. More than 500 have gone out so far to senators, house members, governors and business leaders. The workers worry Frontier —at about the a third the size of Verizon—won’t be able to absorb the huge Verizon assets, won’t be able to keep customers happy and, eventually, will have to shed staff.

Robert Erickson, International Representative in the IBEW’s Telecommunications Department said, “The deal poses risks to consumers and employees. Frontier is making all kinds of promises about synergy and how they’ll expand broadband. FairPoint Communications made the same grand claims and now they can’t meet their commitments and fulfill the promises they made. It’s clear that Frontier will be in a similar situation and not have the resources to fulfill the commitments they are making.”

Consumer groups are also raising objections to the sale.

The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates urged the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing the proposed transaction, to reject the deal.

“The merger proposed by Frontier and Verizon is not in the public interest,” said David Springe, president of the consumer advocate group. “The failure of the companies to offer adequate consumer benefits or protections puts customers at risk of being served by a company without enough financial strength to make necessary improvements to local telephone facilities and widen the deployment of broadband access.”

Free Press, a nonpartisan group that works to reform the media, also raised concerns about the sale in a filing with the FCC. Free Press cited Verizon’s sale of lines in New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont to FairPoint, which subsequently acquired substantial debt, was unable to accommodate the increased service area, and is now on the edge of bankruptcy.

“This trend has the potential to leave rural areas with ill-equipped companies offering inadequate service at high prices,” says the Free Press report. “This is in direct contrast to the stated intent of Congress and the Obama Administration to foster universal broadband to all Americans.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston Verizon Sale Fight 10-14-09.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston, WV talked with the CWA and company officials about the sale of Verizon operations to Frontier Communications. (1 minute)