Frontier Communications today announced it was keeping a commitment to use only American-based call centers to provide customer service.  That will be a welcome change for former Verizon customers who often found their customer service calls transferred to overseas help desks and representatives.

“In addition to voice customer service, our broadband Internet help desk jobs will continue to be staffed by a 100 percent U.S.-based workforce. This will include the creation of 500 new US-based jobs replacing work that Verizon sent overseas,” said Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier’s Chairman and CEO.

Many calls for assistance with Frontier’s Internet service end up in Henrietta, New York — near Rochester.  A good deal of Frontier’s general customer service assistance is provided from a large call center in DeLand, Florida — midway between Daytona Beach and Orlando.

Frontier is also pr0mising its customers appointment windows within two hour blocks, making it easier to know exactly when a technician will arrive.  If Frontier keeps its appointments, it means customers don’t have to take an entire day off from work waiting for someone to show up.

Early reaction and declarations of a price war notwithstanding, yesterday’s “price cuts” from Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility on their unlimited calling plans may bring price increases for many customers who don’t need all of the components of the wireless industry’s Cadillac plans.

First, an explanation of what has changed.

Verizon started the ball rolling announcing a $30 price cut on their Nationwide Unlimited Talk plan.  Formerly $99.99, customers now pay $69.99.  For those with multiple phones on a single account, Verizon’s Nationwide Unlimited Talk Family SharePlan, which includes two lines, now drops to $119.99.  AT&T immediately matched Verizon’s new pricing.  AT&T’s Nation Unlimited plan is now also $69.99 and their shared line plan, FamilyTalk Nation Unlimited is $119.99 and also includes two lines.

Customers currently paying more for a wireless plan with either carrier have to call customer service at either carrier to switch to these plans.  You won’t incur a service charge or extend your existing contract.

Verizon’s plans with unlimited calling and texting features have also dropped in price.  Verizon’s Talk and Text plan costs $89.99 per month, down from $119.99. The Nationwide Unlimited Talk & Text Family SharePlan is now $149.99 per month.  AT&T customers can add unlimited texting to an existing plan, and the rates for doing so remain unchanged — $20 for single phone accounts, $30 for family plan accounts.

However… Here comes the tricks, traps, and gotchas.

For big families with multiple phones, these unlimited plans bring a nasty surprise  — the additional charge for each third, fourth, and fifth line is $49.99 per month for each phone, not the traditional $9.99 each for those on plans with minute allowances.

Those who receive employer-related discounts from the wireless carriers may find those discounts do not apply to the Unlimited talk plans.  Verizon declares all of their unlimited plans are not eligible for any monthly access discounts, period.

AT&T goes out of its way to define what they believe a “voice call” means:

Unlimited voice services are provided primarily for live dialogue between two individuals. If your use of unlimited voice services for conference calling or call forwarding exceeds 750 minutes per month, AT&T may, at its option, terminate your service or change your plan to one with no unlimited usage components. Unlimited voice services may not be used for monitoring services, data transmissions, transmission of broadcasts, transmission of recorded material, or other connections which do not consist of uninterrupted live dialogue between two individuals.

Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless may try and up-sell you on the new data plans when you call to change your plan.  Customers calling both carriers have reported customer service representatives only too willing to provide steep discounts for new handsets or try and convince you to add one of the company’s new data plans.  Take advantage of their offer to upgrade your phone and you’ll likely discover yourself forced to also take a mandatory data plan with it anyway.  The list of phones falling under this trap keeps expanding.

Last year, Verizon started requiring customers choose data plans for the LG EnV Touch and the Samsung Rogue.  With this week’s changes, customers activating LG Chocolate Touch, LG EnV, LG VX8360, Motorola Entice W766, Nokia 7705 Twist, and Samsung Alias2 are now also subject to required data plans.  Don’t expect Verizon Wireless representatives to sell you on their cheapest pay-per-use option, which is priced at $1.99 per megabyte.  I’ve witnessed Verizon Wireless’ store employees pushing Verizon’s new unlimited $29.99 data plan.  If customers complain that’s too much, the $9.99 data plan for a piddly 25MB of access is offered next.  If it looks like a balking customer might cost a sale, the representative will grudgingly sell you pay per use plans.

AT&T customers buying many midrange and “quick-messaging” phones are also going to be required to spend at least $20 a month on a combination of texting and/or data plans. Customers using phones like the LG Neon or the Samsung Propel are affected, and weren’t required to buy data plans before.  Unlimited data for quick-messaging devices is priced at $15 a month.

If you already own a top of the line phone, your data plan charges remain the same.  Verizon customers using Windows Mobile, BlackBerry or Android phones will still pay $29.99 a month for unlimited data.  AT&T customers using the iPhone, BlackBerry, Nokia smartphone or Windows Mobile phones will also pay $29.99 a month for unlimited data.

Customers using wireless broadband with a USB dongle are also unaffected by these changes.  Whether you tether or use the dongle, your usage is limited to 5GB per month.

Existing customers will not be forced to add a data plan until their contract is up for renewal or they upgrade their phones.

Do These Changes Save Customers Money?

For most, the answers is no.  In fact, these pricing changes guarantee higher bills for most customers down the road.

Only a tiny percentage of customers pay for unlimited calling plans because most calling-allowance plans provide generous usage ranges, free night/weekend calling, and often free calling for the most frequently called, or those who are also customers of your wireless carrier.  AT&T even rolls-over unused minutes from month-to-month.  Paying considerably more for an “unlimited” calling option makes little sense for customers not exceeding existing calling allowances.

Changes to calling plans and the features associated with them occur year to year, but many customers prefer to remain on legacy plans that may offer fewer minutes, but have far fewer revenue-enhancing tricks and traps.  Verizon customers hanging on to their America’s Choice II FamilyShare plan offered four years ago maintain 700 minutes of calling time between multiple phones, get free night and weekend calling, and can access data features on their phones that deduct from their airtime allowance instead of billing for data usage charges.  The price?  $60 a month for two lines.  The equivalent plan today is priced at $69.99 for the voice calling plan, plus a mandatory data plan for the increasing number of phone that require one.  Even for phones on a pay-per-use plan, any data access will incur a minimum charge of $1.99 per month.

Where the real money will be made is from overpriced data plans forced on customers whether they want them or not, especially for midrange phones.

Wireless consultant Chetan Sharma estimates fewer than 10 percent of these customers buy data plans.

“There’s a significant number of consumers out there who like the idea of a cutting-edge handset but not of paying for services,” Michael Nelson, founder at Nelson Alpha Research told Business Week.

Wall Street analysts know mandatory data plans will bring exceptional new revenue to both major providers, especially at current prices.

“We could see a move upwards rather than downwards [in revenue/earnings],” says Jennifer Fritzsche, an analyst at Wells Fargo Securities in Chicago, who recommends buying shares of AT&T and Verizon Communications.  “Any kind of voice pricing is very much a commodity,” Fritzsche tells Bloomberg News. “Data is the future.”

JPMorgan is celebrating the potential windfall for both companies and their stocks, estimating just two percent of customers will realize any savings from these pricing changes, while many more will see prices increase.

For Verizon Wireless, it’s party time.  Even though Credit Suisse analyst Jonathan Chaplin estimates the carrier will sacrifice $540 million in voice revenue, they’re likely to gain $630 million in data plan sales. The costs of providing the service are likely to be minimal, considering most of the customers now forced to choose a plan are unlikely to use it much.

“Price War” or “War on Customers”

Still, some on Wall Street are unhappy with the prospects of any pricing changes that head downwards, especially if it sparks a price war.  Some have dumped their wireless stocks as a result of industry trends this year.  But what they may need to worry more about is the prospect of middle class customers switching from traditional postpaid two-year contract plans to prepaid services that offer light and medium mobile users better value with fewer tricks and traps.

As families face the prospect for $100+ monthly bills just for cell phone service, with mandatory data charges likely to add another $20-30 on top of that, will non-power-users stick with AT&T and Verizon for service?  Sprint and T Mobile argue they already offer better value for the hard-hit middle class, but prepaid mobile has garnered new respect for its simpler plans and easy-to-understand billing (and taxes and fees are typically included in the prepaid plan price.)

Formerly the domain of those willing to pay a steep per minute fee and buy top-up cards at convenience stores, today’s prepaid wireless plans often offer month-to-month service with familiar “minute bucket”-allowances or unlimited calling, and operate on Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile’s nationwide networks.

A real price war has broken out in the prepaid wireless sector, with competitors offering unlimited calling plans as low as $40 a month.  Straight Talk, using Verizon Wireless’ network, goes even lower for a simple 1,000 minute/1,000 text/30MB web access plan for $30 a month.  The only downside is a very limited selection of phones.  Regional players like MetroPCS and Cricket offer comparable pricing for their unlimited plans, but their network coverage is a shadow of the larger players, roaming agreements notwithstanding.

As major carriers pile on extra fees for services many customers don’t want, many will find far better values in the prepaid phone marketplace.  Without the two-year contract common on major carriers, customers can switch providers at will, taking their phone number with them in most cases, if one provider doesn’t provide good service.  Best of all, they don’t have to pay for a cancellation fee or take services they don’t want or need just to satisfy AT&T and Verizon’s quest for cash.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIVB Buffalo Price War Between Cell Phone Providers 1-19-10.flv[/flv]

WIVB-TV in Buffalo appeared to be drinking the industry’s Kool-Aid about the benefits of new, ‘lower pricing,’ but towards the end even they admitted there are tricks and traps involved. (3 minutes)

One of the promised benefits of permitting the Verizon-Frontier spinoff is that Frontier will bring more and better broadband service to areas Verizon has ignored for years.  The company has been running television ads in West Virginia promoting Frontier’s promised “next generation” of broadband.  But what does that mean?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Verizon Deal Advertisement West Virginia.flv[/flv]

Frontier Communications is running this advertisement in West Virginia.

The West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission brought in Trevor R. Roycroft, PhD., former Associate Professor at the J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management, Ohio University, to examine the details behind the marketing and public relations push to promote the deal.

He was not impressed.

After an extensive review of confidential and public documents from Frontier, his conclusion was that Frontier’s DSL service is just plain bad, and for plenty of West Virginians who may only have one choice for broadband in the foreseeable future, being stuck with Frontier’s idea of broadband is particularly bad.

Indeed, Frontier’s idea of what defines “next generation broadband” would be true, if this was the year 1992.

“Frontier has made no commitment regarding improved broadband deployment in West Virginia. Frontier, while achieving higher levels of DSL availability in West Virginia, generally offers its broadband services at higher prices and provides lower quality than those associated with Verizon’s DSL. Frontier’s ability to increase broadband deployment in West Virginia will depend on the condition of the outside plant that it has acquired, which may negatively impact Frontier’s costs of deployment. Furthermore, Frontier must upgrade substantial numbers of customer locations outside of West Virginia, and West Virginia will be competing with this larger priority,” Roycroft writes in his testimony to the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

The infrastructure Frontier utilizes to deliver its broadband service is revealing even to those Frontier customers not directly impacted by this transaction.  Some of the documents Roycroft reviewed laid bare the nonsense the company has used to defend its Acceptable Use Policy language defining an “acceptable amount” of monthly broadband usage at just five gigabytes.  Company officials have said for more than a year that they were concerned about the growth of usage on their network, and its potential to slow service for other customers.  But company documents, included within the scope of Roycroft’s testimony, tell a very different story:

Frontier plans to increase its core backbone from its current level of 10 Gbps to a capacity of 20 Gbps (should the spinoff be approved). With regard to the capacity of its existing backbone, Frontier states:

Frontier expanded the backbone from OC 48 to 10 Gigabit Ethernet during the first half of 2009. Because of this network expansion we do not have peak usage for the past 12 months. No backbone link has peaked above 2.8 Gigabit/second or 28% of the capacity of a link since the augment was completed in 2009.

Thus, Frontier’s current backbone configuration appears to have excess capacity. With the expansion of its backbone network to 20 Gbps, the company’s current data traffic load results in about 14% of capacity being utilized at peak.

Potentially limiting customers to just five gigabytes of usage is so unjustified, in Roycroft’s analysis, its potential imposition on West Virginian customers should be a deal-breaker.

Roycroft ponders whether Frontier will invest enough resources to make sure capacity is not an issue. The only way Frontier’s network will show signs of strain is if the company makes a conscious decision not to sufficiently upgrade their network as they take on millions of new Verizon customers, or they dramatically underestimate the average Verizon customer’s usage.

Roycroft was also asked to evaluate whether Frontier’s claims of 90% broadband availability in its overall service area and 92% in its West Virginia territory rang true.

Roycroft writes that Frontier’s numbers don’t tell the whole story.  In five states, Frontier admits the percentages are notably lower, so no guarantee can be inferred for West Virginia based on Frontier’s talking points.

Frontier’s “Advanced” Broadband Network Is Hardly Advanced and Barely Qualifies As Broadband

Heavy criticism was leveled at Frontier for its “advanced” broadband service.  Roycroft compared Frontier DSL with several other providers and was unimpressed with the company’s broadband speeds.

Roycroft's table illustrates what's on offer from the competition

“Frontier’s advertised DSL speeds are generally much lower than those available from Verizon and other carriers. Based on a location-based search of Frontier DSL service offerings, it appears that Frontier’s most prevalent DSL speeds are 3 Mbps and 768 kbps (for download),” Roycroft said.

Frontier's DSL Speeds in Selected Cities

Although the expressed upload speed for Rochester should be listed at a higher rate (I managed around 512kbps myself), Roycroft is correct when he says, “it can be seen that outside of Rochester, NY, the DSL speeds associated with Frontier offerings cannot be considered ‘cutting edge.'”

Even while noting Rochester’s potential DSL speeds, real-world speeds are another matter entirely.

[flv width=”640″ height=”405″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Real World Frontier vs Road Runner Speeds.flv[/flv]

One New York customer provided real world evidence of the significant differences in speed offered by Road Runner from Time Warner Cable and Frontier’s DSL (courtesy: 1ComputerSavvyGuy) (1 minute)

Frontier’s DSL offerings in West Virginia are of even lower quality. Frontier indicates that it offers three grades of DSL service in West Virginia:

Up to 256 kbps download/128 kbps upload;
Up to 1 Mbps download/200 kbps upload;
Up to 3 Mbps download/200 kbps upload.

These data transmission speeds, especially upload speeds, are at the very low end of commercial offerings that I have observed.

Comparing Verizon DSL vs. Frontier DSL Pricing & Gotchas, Contracts, and Internet Overcharging Schemes

Roycroft’s study found Frontier’s pricing significantly higher than Verizon for DSL service.

Frontier’s DSL prices, either with telephone service, or on a stand-alone basis, are significantly higher than are Verizon’s. For example, the entry-level Frontier plan has a nominal price that is 100% higher than Verizon’s.

However, when considering the per Mbps price, Frontier’s price is 160% higher. It is also notable that Frontier’s upload speeds are also low when compared to Verizon’s.  Consumers are increasingly relying on upload capabilities to share large files, such as videos. Overall, Frontier’s DSL products are low quality.

Comparing Prices

Roycroft also gave special attention to Frontier’s infamous 5GB Acceptable Use Policy, which he suggested was a major negative for West Virginia’s online experience.

Frontier indicates that it monitors network usage if “it receives a complaint of slow service or if it discovers that network bandwidth utilization is unusually high in a particular area.

Frontier was asked to identify any action taken against a customer associated with its acceptable use policy and, in response, the company stated that it has not “terminated a customer’s service based on exceeding the 5 GB threshold identified in the AUP.” However, the restriction on usage further raises the relative cost of Frontier’s service. Frontier indicates that consumers may face action by the company if they exceed the usage cap, thus indicating that the prices reflect both speed and volume. Verizon’s DSL service does not include a similar limit.

Frontier’s DSL pricing policies and usage restrictions will represent a significant negative impact on West Virginia consumers, should these policies be implemented in Verizon’s service area in West Virginia.

Even more importantly, Roycroft considered the argument for imposing such Internet Overcharging schemes as unwarranted.

“While DSL provides dedicated bandwidth to the customer in the last mile, DSL subscribers will share network capacity in the ‘middle mile.’ For example, shared data networks will carry consumer traffic from the telephone company central office to an Internet gateway. I believe that Frontier’s policy is more likely to reflect an unwillingness on Frontier’s part to invest in ‘middle mile’ Internet access facilities that would require capacity additions as customer demand increases, and choose to restrict customer usage instead of investing in the capacity needed to meet customer demand,” Roycroft writes.

“Furthermore, Comcast’s download-cap policy includes limits that are dramatically higher than Frontier’s. Comcast’s acceptable use policy identifies 250 gigabytes as the threshold at which Comcast may take action against a customer, which is fifty times the usage associated with Frontier’s policy,” he added.

Roycroft was also concerned about the many ‘gotchas’ that are part of Frontier’s marketing efforts which bring even higher prices to consumers choosing to have DSL service installed.

“To receive the services of Frontier’s technician, the consumer will incur a $134 fee unless the consumer signs up for a term service contract. Even with the term service contract, the customer must pay a $34 fee for the on-site set-up. Furthermore, the technicians that Frontier dispatches to new broadband customers’ homes are also sales agents. Thus, while it may be that these individuals can help with system set-up and the like, they also are part of Frontier’s overall up-selling strategy,” said Roycroft.

Frontier markets a variety of services to customers as part of their promotions and service offerings.  For instance, recent Dell Netbook promotions required customers to sign multi-year contracts for service, with an early termination fee up to $400 if the consumer chooses to cancel service.  Such promotions do not come out of the goodness of Frontier’s heart.  Indeed, such promotions provide even more revenue potential by pitching customers on its “Peace of Mind” services, which include computer technical support, backups, and inside wire maintenance for an additional monthly fee.

Customers don’t even qualify for many Frontier promotions unless they accept a bundled service package combining broadband with traditional phone service and a multi-year service contract.

Roycroft says West Virginia should demand modifications to Frontier’s proposal before it should even consider accepting it.  Among the changes:

• Frontier should be required to make broadband services available in 100% of its wire centers, and to 90% of its West Virginia customers by the end of 2013. Frontier should expand broadband availability to 100% of its customers by 2015.
• Frontier should be required to deploy and promote broadband services in West Virginia so that, by the end of 2013, at least 90% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 3 Mbps; 75% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 6 Mbps; and 50% of customers can achieve download speeds of 10 Mbps.
• To achieve these broadband objectives, Frontier should be required to exceed Verizon’s baseline level of capital investment by at least $117 million during the period ending December 31, 2013, or by an amount sufficient to meet the broadband objectives.
• Frontier should be required to offer broadband services at prices that do not exceed those currently offered by Verizon for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps services, i.e., Frontier should offer services at Verizon’s advertised prices for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps service (respectively, $19.99 per month and $29.99 per month) for a period of 24 months following the merger.
• Frontier should be prohibited from imposing its broadband “download cap” in West Virginia.
• Frontier should be required to provide individual written notice to its customers regarding the merger, and should notify customers of any change in services that result from the merger. Changes in billing format should also be clearly explained to customers, both in writing, and through a web-based tutorial.
• Frontier should be prohibited from migrating any Verizon customer to a Frontier plan that either increases the customer’s rates, diminishes the level of service, or has a materially adverse impact on any of the terms and conditions of the customer’s service. West Virginia customers should experience a rate freeze for a period of 24 months.
• Frontier should be required to allow former Verizon customers to take a “fresh look” at their purchases, including those customers who have term contracts with Verizon. All early termination charges should be waived for a period of 90 days following the merger, and the long distance PIC charge should also be waived for Verizon long-distance customers who select a long-distance provider other than Frontier.

As we approach Halloween, it’s time to share a scary story.

The “Reverse Morris Trust” is something a majority of Americans have never heard of before, but if you are a Verizon customer and happen to live in one of 13 states where Verizon is just itching to abandon you, it’s time to learn more about this twister in the tax laws.  A debt-laden phone company may haunt your future.  Another is already haunting millions of New Englanders.

When Verizon throws telephone customers overboard to companies like FairPoint (and Frontier Communications if that deal is approved by state regulators), the company has found a great way to cash out, saddle the buyer in massive amounts of debt, and walk away without paying one cent in taxes.  How?

The Reverse Morris Trust.

To be fair, Verizon is not the first company to use this tax loophole to structure mergers, acquisitions, and spinoffs.  Before 1997, the use of the original Morris Trust provision was commonplace.  A company would split itself into two pieces, one of which would be swapped for stock in an unrelated company.  Then those shares would be redistributed, effectively transferring ownership.  The tax savings were enormous.  A $3 billion dollar sale would normally net the taxman nearly $1 billion in capital gains taxes.  But when using the magic of the Morris Trust, the taxman got $0.00.

In 1997, Congress realized how much tax money they were losing from this loophole.  They enacted Internal Revenue Code Sec. 355(e), which made these transactions taxable.  Or did they?

With billions in savings now potentially gone, businesses started looking for a way around Sec. 355(e) and found one in the Reverse Morris Trust.

Follow this:

A Reverse Morris Trust - "D"=Verizon, "C"=Spinco, "A"=FairPoint or Frontier

Companies involved in a Reverse Morris Trust deal don’t buy and sell from each other directly.  Instead, the seller sets up a new corporation, usually referred to in company financial reports as “Spinco” and conducts the transaction through that entity.

Spinco issues stock (and why not), which is owned by a majority of the shareholders of the parent company cooking up the sale.

When Verizon cast off its New England customers into the fetid waters of FairPoint, it structured the sale as a Reverse Morris Trust.  Verizon “spun off” Bell Atlantic Communications, NYNEX Long Distance, and Verizon New England assets serving Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont into Northern New England Spinco, a new corporation it created just for the deal.  It needed to find a buyer smaller than itself to take advantage of the tax-free magic of the Reverse Morris Trust.  It found FairPoint Communications, a tiny independent phone company based in North Carolina, dwarfed by the three New England states’ Verizon customers.  Imagine living alone in a one bedroom apartment and then letting The Brady Bunch move in with you.

Spinco, by design, has an addiction to piling on debt.  It’s like giving a shopaholic a wallet full of credit cards all issued by Verizon.  Spinco lards itself with as much debt as it possibly can.  When it’s finally teetering under the weight of  as much as $1.7 billion in debt, Verizon effectively sends a bill saying “we want our money — pay us back our $1.7 billion in full.”  Of course, Verizon doesn’t expect to receive the check.  Instead, it demands Spinco pay a “dividend” in the form of an IOU for the entire amount.

Spinco now has a problem.  Its balance sheet looks terrible.  Would you buy a company that has a $1.7 billion liability on its balance sheet?  FairPoint would, but of course, they knew this was part of the plan all along.

FairPoint now seeks to merge with this Spinco company that has more debt than some third world countries.  State regulators announce they have to examine this deal to make sure a company like FairPoint, now proposing to take on Spinco’s debt, will be able to run the company, make investments in its upkeep and expansion, and still pay back the Bank of Verizon, or whoever else ends up owning the IOU.

Regulators (foolishly) go ahead and approve the deal, and the newly merged Spinco and FairPoint issue stock to Verizon shareholders, the original owners of Spinco.  Verizon also gets cash and securities.  Technically, Verizon shareholders now own 60% of FairPoint.  Of course, nobody says every shareholder gets an equal vote.  In the end, FairPoint runs and manages the entire operation, or tries to, saddled with what is now $2.5 billion in debt and on the brink of bankruptcy.

How much did taxpayers lose from all of this?  Considering the spending machine in Washington is going to get the money from somewhere (us), they are going to be looking at you and I for the estimated $700 million Verizon never had to pay in capital gains taxes.

Make your check payable to “U.S. Government” and make sure it’s in the mail by Halloween.

Yes, this scary story is true, and has a sequel: Frontier and Verizon plan to structure their magic deal using the same technique.

Boo!  (Now add another zero on the dollar amount of your check.)

If this new deal is approved, Verizon walks away with $3.3 billion in tax-free cash.  Verizon shareholders (lucky them) get to be owners of just under 70% of Frontier Communications, soon to be saddled with its own Spinco debt which will run well into the billions.  Knowing this, they dump their stock in Frontier in droves as soon as the deal completes.  Why hang around for another financial Titanic to sink like a rock around their portfolio?

Verizon customers get to join the Frontier Family, and those of us who are already members get to see whether Frontier can survive the minimum monthly payment on that debt.

Or maybe not.

A large contingent of the New England Congressional delegation has written a letter to Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who chairs the Ways and Means Committee responsible for overseeing tax policy in Congress, asking that a stake be driven through the heart of the loopholes in the Reverse Morris Trust.

Reps. Michael Michaud, Chellie Pingree, Peter Welch, Paul Hodes, and Carol Shea-Porter all signed the letter asking Rangel to reform the Reverse Morris Trust (they abbreviate it “RMT”) and take it away from companies like Verizon looking for a tax-free windfall:

We projected that the transaction [FairPoint-Verizon] would have disastrous consequences in our states.  Unfortunately, our concerns were well founded with widespread consumer dissatisfaction evident across the region.

Recently, we have learned that other states across the country face similar threats to service and employment as Verizon, once again, seeks to avoid taxes through the use of the RMT in its proposed transaction with Frontier Communications.

[…]

Now is the time to restrict the utility and benefits of the RMT to protect the public interest.

West Virginians, in particular, have expressed increasing concern about their state following a similar path northern New England took. Frontier would assume control over all of Verizon’s operations across the state of West Virginia.

“I hope this vital request, now based on past history, isn’t ignored again,” said Elaine Harris, International Representative with the Communications Workers of America.  “West Virginia is being given the opportunity to avoid some of the pitfalls of the FairPoint disaster and it would be a real shame if we simply follow the same path and our communications operations end up in bankruptcy.”

Expect the usual Washington lobbyists to fight to preserve the loophole.  Remember, in the world of Halloween telecommunications finance, tax free trick or treat candy is for closers.

Customers love the iPhone, but hate using it over AT&T’s wireless mobile network.

That is the conclusion of CFI Group’s Smartphone Satisfaction Study 2009 (free registration required), which found Apple’s iPhone “the undisputed leader in smartphone customer satisfaction,” scoring 83 out of a possible 100.

But while customers love their iPhones, in the United States, they are generally stuck using it on AT&T’s mobile network, which CFI Group rated dead last in customer satisfaction.  CFI also found that despite the iPhone’s exclusive agreement with AT&T, the iPhone does not improve AT&T’s customer satisfaction in any meaningful way.

“The iPhone has been a cash cow for AT&T, but that cash comes at a cost in terms of overall satisfaction. In effect, switchers can be satisfaction saboteurs if they were not already inclined to choose AT&T,” said Doug Helmreich, program director with CFI Group.

Apple iPhone

“As for Verizon, the scales may tip if customers continue to demand smartphones that the company fails to supply. Then again, will its network hold up if it adds network-heavy smartphones? For now, its an apples to oranges comparison.”

CFI’s study top rated Verizon and T-Mobile for smartphone users, both with satisfaction scores of 79 out of 100.  Verizon’s perceived advantage in coverage makes them the top rated network for customer loyalty, with 86% of current Verizon customers identifying the company as their ideal provider.  Customers believe Verizon’s marketing slogans that suggest Verizon has the best nationwide network coverage of any provider.  But customers recognize they pay a price for that coverage in the form of a higher monthly bill.

Customers looking for the best value with competitive pricing will find it with Sprint and T-Mobile, according to the study findings.  AT&T scored among the worst values, in part because they penalize iPhone owners with a mandatory data plan customers thought was “pricey,” especially if they never had a data plan before.

The customer bashing of AT&T didn’t stop with bottom rating the network and its pricing.  CFI found that half of iPhone respondents would flee AT&T for another carrier if given the chance.  At least 40% of iPhone owners said they switched to AT&T only because they had to in order to purchase the iPhone, and they resented it, and the quality of service they found going forward.