"Too rich for my blood."

Former Verizon FiOS customers now served by Frontier Communications in Oregon and Washington are receiving word of astonishing rate increases of as much as 46 percent from the phone company.  The massive rate increase is being blamed on “increasing programming costs” charged by the cable networks carried on a cable system that competes with Comcast, which charges far less for the same channels.

Frontier’s rate hikes are so dramatic — $30 a month for the popular standard 200-channel package, some customers are wondering whether the company is trying to sabotage their own fiber-to-the-home service.

“They sent us a rate increase letter stating our former standard package, priced at $65 a month, is now going up to a ridiculous $95 a month for basic cable,” says Tom, a regular Stop the Cap! reader. “That’s a rate increase only my health insurance company could love.”

New customers face the new rates immediately, but existing customers have until Feb. 18 before the new high price kicks in.  Many are preparing to move back to Comcast, which raised rates this year as well — but is now a relative bargain at $63 a month for a similar package.

“As much as I love FiOS, Frontier has managed to screw it up as badly as the rest of their services and now I am going back to Comcast,” Tom says. “You have to wonder if they are purposely incompetent or if it’s part of a larger plan to sabotage the Verizon FiOS network they inherited.  Either way, they’ve priced their service out of the market.”

When Tom called Frontier to complain, the company offered to rip out the advanced fiber network Verizon installed and stick a DirecTV satellite dish on his roof instead.

“Frontier is a real ‘Back to the Future’ kind of company — they just don’t get it,” Tom said.  “The operator actually told me she couldn’t understand why I would want to cancel service.”

Customers receiving new customer promotional discounts will get a real case of sticker shock when Verizon’s original promotional rates reset to Frontier’s new regular price.

“Washington County better beef up their hospitals because there are going to be a lot of heart attacks when that bill arrives,” Tom says.

The Oregonian newspaper reports customers are not the only ones to be shocked by Frontier’s enormous rate increase.  Regulators promised more competition and cheaper prices as part of Frontier’s purchase of Verizon landlines feel had as well.

“[Frontier’s rate hike] is essentially a white flag surrender and an exit from the head-to-head video competition,” lamented David Olson, director of the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission.

That’s a far cry from what Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter told the newspaper in September when asked if the company would raise FiOS rates.

“That is not our plan. If I look across the board at our basic service pricing, I don’t think we’ve raised prices anywhere in the last four or five years,” she said.

The Oregonian quotes a Frontier representative who says the company’s relatively small customer base disqualifies them from volume discounts Verizon used to receive.

“Part of the challenge we have, compared to other providers, is that our footprint is so small,” said Frontier spokeswoman Stephanie Beasly. “They’re able to spread it out over a much larger customer footprint.”

That can’t be the whole story, said Fred Christ, policy and regulatory affairs manager for the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission, which regulates cable TV in Washington County.

“There’s more to it than programming costs. Anybody in the industry can pretty much figure that out. What more there is, we don’t know yet,” he said. “Unless programmers are trying to run Frontier out of business, why would they jack their rates that much?”

Smaller companies like Frontier generally do not try and buy programming on their own, but join group-purchasing plans like those offered by the National Cable Television Cooperative.  Municipal providers routinely purchase programming at substantial discounts.  It is not known if Frontier is a member, but they could be.

No rate increases are planned for broadband or telephone service.

Verizon FiOS pricing increased at less than half the rate Frontier will demand from subscribers in 2011. (Source: Metropolitan Area Communications Commission, Tualatin Valley, Ore.)

The Federal Reserve comes to the rescue of Big Telecom

Credit crisis?  What credit crisis?  That’s for little people.

While “challenging economic times” and “a difficult business environment” were among the reasons cited by banks for raising consumer credit interest rates, closing accounts, and slashing credit lines, some of America’s largest corporations received special credit favors from the Federal Reserve — cheap and easy money with little collateral required.

Among the companies that feasted on $3.3 trillion dollars of bailout credit largess — Verizon Communications, which had its $1.5 billion in debt picked up by the Fed — easy credit accessed twice during a major credit crisis.

The Washington Post uncovered Verizon’s Federal Reserve “Platinum Card” while reviewing more than 21,000 recently released loan records, forced into the open by new financial regulatory legislation.

Most of Verizon’s credit came in the form of covering the company’s “short term paper” — temporary debt taken on to fund daily business activities.  Although the Federal Reserve got the loan money back, the fact only major corporations, Wall Street banks, and other inside players got access burns many Americans, especially small business owners forced into hardship or out of business when their credit lines dried up at the height of the credit crisis.

While banks like Advanta, popular with small businesses, shut down all of its credit operations and raised interest rates to 30 percent or more on current balances, large companies like Verizon never had a thing to worry about thanks to the federal government.

“The American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed’s multitrillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America,” said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime Fed critic whose provision in the Wall Street regulatory overhaul required the new disclosures. “Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions.”

Verizon spokesman Robert A. Varettoni said that it was “an extraordinary time,” adding that there was no credit available otherwise at the time.

Ordinary Americans already knew that, of course.  But they didn’t get the same kind of help companies like Verizon received.

As far as Sanders is concerned, banks and large American corporations did splendidly during The Great Recession — some like Goldman Sachs are paying record-busting bonuses for the second year running — all thanks to the special favors given by the federal government during the last months of the Bush Administration.

Sanders told the Post the federal government could have made demands on those accessing easy credit to help ordinary Americans, such as requirements to lend to small businesses, modify mortgages of homeowners, or agree to hire more workers.

“We bailed these guys out, but the requirements placed upon them had very little positive impact on the needs of ordinary Americans,” Sanders said.

Julius Genachowski

Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski signaled recognition he was outmaneuvered by some of America’s largest broadband companies when he told attendees at the Web 2.0 Summit last week that a Verizon-Google compromise on Net Neutrality did serious harm to the Commission’s own plans on the subject of a free and open Internet.

“I would have preferred if they didn’t do exactly what they did when they did. It slowed down some processes that were leading to a resolution,” Genachowski said.

Genachowski was referring to last summer’s sudden agreement between the two tech giants — former opposites on Net Neutrality — regarding a proposed compromise.  Under its terms, Verizon would guarantee free speech rights on the Internet, but Google would concede Verizon’s rights to use limits, throttles, and other “network management” techniques on its wireless networks, which are critically important to Verizon’s bottom line.  Genachowski had been advocating broad-based Net Neutrality protections for all technologies, including wireless.

When word of Verizon and Google’s proposal hit the New York Times, it caused a series of confidential talks among industry players and FCC staffers to collapse.  That wasn’t bad news for consumer groups, who were locked out of the discussions from the start.  But it also may have also taken the wind out of the sails of the regulatory body’s urgency to implement broadband reform policies, as members of Congress opposed to the concept used news of the voluntary agreement as cannon fodder against “unnecessary and intrusive” government regulations.

It also embarrassed the FCC, which Daily Finance calls the most ineffectual regulatory agency in Washington.

Ever since the talks collapsed, all sides have been frustrated by the Commission’s apparent ongoing inaction on Internet policy.  Genachowski had made speeches earlier this year that left many with the impression Net Neutrality was a front burner issue at the Commission.  But as 2010 draws nearer to a close, the Commission has made no progress on the issue.  The incoming Republican Congress will not make it any easier, and consumer groups continue to call on the Commission to act before the end of the year.

Free Press President and CEO Josh Silver issued this statement:

“We are heartened to hear Chairman Genachowski finally express his disappointment with the Verizon-Google proposal. The loud public backlash made it evident that consumers would not accept a deal that would have divided the Internet into fast and slow lanes and allowed Internet service providers to block and prioritize content accessed through wireless devices. Clearly, relying on backroom deals cut between giant industry players is not the way to make policies that protect the public interest.

“The American people are still waiting for the chairman to deliver on his promise to establish real Net Neutrality rules that would prevent AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from creating toll roads on the Web. There is only one Internet, and consumers need clear rules to ensure that they are protected from Internet service providers who are seeking to monetize and monopolize the Web to pad their bottom lines.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Heath Shuler Campaign Ad.flv[/flv]

Congress doesn’t seem to know right from wrong, but we do.

It’s not right when big insurance companies write health care laws when millions can’t afford to see a doctor.

It’s not right when big oil companies write energy laws as gas prices skyrocket.

It’s not right when Congress passes trade bills that send our jobs overseas.

Congress won’t change until we change the people we’re sending to Washington.

–Rep. Heath Shuler’s 2006 campaign commercial

That was less than four years ago.  Apparently these days Rep. Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) believes it -is- right for large telecommunications companies to censor online content, slow down Internet services they don’t want you to use, and allow the phone and cable industry to control broadband policies in this country.

Shuler’s abandonment of his mountain values was made easier with $23,000 in campaign contributions from a grateful industry.

Shuler

When those telecom checks cleared the bank, Shuler went to work for big telecom companies, becoming a leading opponent of consumer-friendly Net Neutrality.

For his supporters who once had high hopes for the Democratic congressman first elected in 2006, it’s been one disappointment after another.

Last fall, Shuler was a co-signer of a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Net Neutrality.  To reiterate the point, many of the same co-signers of last fall’s letter were back on board with a second letter sent last month.

The latest letter was a godsend to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other Net Neutrality opponents who are using it to suggest there is considerable bipartisan opposition to broadband reform.

Many of his constituents are not impressed with Shuler’s legislative record these days.  One of them is Dave Houck:

I have long since had it with Mr. Shuler.  I admit it, I have no more patience for him.

[…]

I campaigned for you, and phone banked for you, and made cash contributions.  Today I find out that you are against net neutrality, that you signed a letter to the FCC Chairman supporting AT&T and other large corporations — choosing corporations over the people.

In 2010 I will be voting for anybody who runs against you, Democrat or Republican, as you have consistently demonstrated in the three years you have been in Congress that you are quite simply not up to the job of representing the people of Western North Carolina.  You and the “Blue Dog Coalition” are surrogates for corporate interests; you do not have the interests of the people of North Carolina at heart.  Or at least that’s the message you are sending to me.

I’m just fed up.

North Carolina's 11th District is currently served by Rep. Heath Shuler

Similar sentiments from upset residents in his district are voiced all over Shuler’s Facebook page.  Why not add yours?

Then give his office a call or drop him an e-mail.

Ask Rep. Shuler how standing with big phone and cable companies against consumer broadband protection could ever represent western North Carolina mountain values.

Tell him trusting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable with our broadband future is like trusting BP to protect the Gulf Coast.

Let him know you were disappointed with his decision to sign the first letter opposing Net Neutrality last fall, but now you are simply appalled he’s done it again.

It’s not right when big phone and cable companies have the power to write their own legislation and stop pro-consumer protections like Net Neutrality.  Where is the Rep. Shuler who campaigned on doing the right thing in 2006?

If Shuler won’t change his mind on an issue as important as this, perhaps we need to take his own advice and change the person the 11th district sends to Congress.

Phillip "Don't over-complicate this" Dampier

Promises made during election campaigns that are later dropped for political expediency are broken promises.

Those are wise words for both the Obama Administration and the FCC as they ponder what to do about broadband regulation.  President Obama campaigned on developing an effective National Broadband Plan and preserving the integrity of the Internet with Net Neutrality policies.  Both will now be tested in how they respond to a recent court decision which has thrown a wrench into broadband policy initiatives.  At issue:

• How Americans access the Internet;
• What kind of Internet they find once they access it;
• How much money is it going to cost at the end of the month for what kind of service.

These are all laid on the table of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski with a big bow attached, courtesy of Comcast.  The nation’s largest cable company threw a hissyfit when the FCC rebuked them for throttling the speeds of their Internet customers.  They sued and won more than they bargained for when the DC District Court ruled the Commission lacked the authority to regulate broadband as an “information service,” a dubious premise cooked up by former FCC chairman Michael Powell.  The concept was akin to a police officer placing you under arrest on the authority of a bottle of green tea.  Of course you could get away with that too as long as nobody challenged it in court.

Chairman Genachowski could choose to kick the ball down the field to be played another day by appealing the court decision or trying to get Congress to pass new legislation.  Or he can strike decisively and effectively by declaring broadband to be what it actually is — a “telecommunications service.”  Under that declaration, the FCC can implement its National Broadband Plan, which will dramatically improve access for rural America and promote better broadband service for those who already have it.  The Commission can also move forward on common sense Net Neutrality policies that tell providers not to interfere with online traffic for monetary reasons.  It can even give the Commission the authority to keep a watchful eye for the next clever scheme that benefits providers at the customer’s expense.

But that depends on Chairman Genachowski standing up to the broadband industry, their friends in Congress, and the inevitable industry-funded BS Festival from astroturfers designed to sucker people into supporting industry positions.

The threats and concern trolling are already parading across the Beltway:

• “The industry would declare war on the FCC“: That war has been underway ever since the litigious broadband industry first started running to friendly courts whenever it encountered a regulatory nuisance just waiting to be overturned on “free speech for corporations”-grounds.  Chairman Genachowski needs to borrow from President George W. Bush and declare, “bring ’em on!” He can fight industry propaganda about “lost jobs” and “investment” with facts found in every provider’s quarterly financial reports showing bountiful harvests of profits, while spending and costs decline.  It’s not the FCC’s fault Verizon fired more than 13,000 employees in the past few years.  The FCC didn’t tell Verizon to stop upgrading its copper wire network to fiber optics to remake traditional landline phone service into something far better and eventually even more profitable.
• “Congress would be upset by an overreaching Obama Administration”: That would mostly be the same Republican members who reflexively oppose every aspect of the Obama Administration’s legislative agenda.  Considering warmed-over health care reform is still being called “socialist” and an “apocalypse” by these people, there isn’t a Pick-Me-Up Bouquet in the world that could get them to support this administration.  Ordering a ham sandwich and leaving the Swiss cheese off would probably result in some members of Congress reciting Glenn Beck’s declaration the omission is proof Obama is working with lactose-intolerant high officials of the Chinese Communist regime.
• “Verizon, AT&T, and others will step up spending on Astroturf Campaigns”: If a consumer like myself can sniff out an industry-funded campaign to convince consumers to support policies directly challenging their own wallets, why can’t Washington policymakers?  The industry talking points rarely change anyway, and those shouting the loudest usually try to obscure who paid for the megaphone.  When in doubt, simply ask “is there any industry money funding your organization?”  If they won’t say, you have your answer.
• “But they’ll sue”: When are they not suing?  Of course the industry will challenge the legality of any policy that puts their quest for unlimited profits at a disadvantage.  We live in a system of checks and balances between private enterprise and public oversight and regulation.  The struggle for the perfect balance between the two will persist forever, but after an era of reckless deregulation and abdicated oversight responsibility, the resulting Great Recession should provide strong evidence the pendulum needs to swing in the opposite direction.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

USA Today today published a piece on Genachowski’s coming decision which hit all the aforementioned bases.

Astroturf Campaigns and Legal Threats: “If the FCC changes the way it treats high-speed Internet, then “everybody in the industry would sue,” says Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, an Internet forum supported by cable and phone companies. “It would be like an 8.0 earthquake under the sector,” he adds. “Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested (in broadband) in the belief that there’d be a market rate of return, not a regulated rate.”

Cleland is a notorious industry mouthpiece, but at least he openly acknowledges his strings are pulled by the industry that generously funds his anti-consumer, pro-provider rhetoric.

Republicans: The FCC’s two Republican commissioners have said they’d fight a move to reclassify broadband.

No surprises there, and you can expect most Republicans in Congress to also take the industry’s position on these matters.  Guess what?  They still won’t vote for you even if you compromise with the broadband industry.

USA Today, itself headquartered in suburban Washington, delivers up the beltway solution always pressed on pliable Democrats – compromise away your principles and split the difference:

If Genachowski wants to defuse the issue, he could try to engineer a compromise. For example, he could agree to take broadband reclassification off the table as long as providers make legally binding promises to offer consumer protections called for in the National Broadband Plan and to agree to treat all Web services equally. But it will be hard to please everybody as advocates gear up for a fight.

That’s the understatement of the year.   It’s also a classic case of reinventing the wheel.  What USA Today‘s reporter suggests is exactly what the FCC used prior to the Comcast case to regulate broadband — an “understanding” with the industry without clear-cut regulatory authority.  That lasted until the three judge panel laughed it out of court.  The FCC has no authority in its current form to make legally binding promises with an industry that contemptuously dismisses the notion it should have any in the first place.  Without reclassification, the judge certain to hear the next court case challenging the “understanding” will almost certainly throw that out as well.

Declaring regulatory authority does not, as the industry likes to pretend, mean that your Internet Service Provider will be saddled with 1930s telephone rules.  It merely gives the FCC the authority to move forward on its agenda to improve broadband, protect its integrity, and help coordinate a plan for the future that first takes your interests to heart, not simply those on Wall Street.

For a change of pace, let’s choose the clearly marked road of reclassification and avoid the deregulatory dead end of broken promises offered by the broadband industry or the equally awful decision to build a new road in a futile effort to win bipartisan brownie points.

[Article Correction 4/15/2010: The original piece laid blame for the classification of broadband as an “information service” on former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.  In fact, the classification was made by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who served during the first term of the Bush Administration.  We regret the error.]