We’ve heavily covered the proposed sale of Verizon landline service to Frontier Communications since the deal was announced last spring.  This should not come as a big surprise, considering Frontier Communications’ decision to insert a 5GB monthly usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy in the summer of 2008 was what instigated the launch of Stop the Cap! in the first place.  Frontier’s decision was boneheaded at best in a city like Rochester with a very aggressive cable competitor only too willing to bash Frontier for implementing it if they thought it would win more customers.

But of course Frontier Communications’ Rochester operation is an anomaly for ‘rural America’s phone company.’  For the majority of rural customers, it’s far easier to slap customers around with a usage cap and 1-3Mbps DSL service when those customers have few, if any practical alternatives.  Unfortunately, there is real money to be made from their business plan serving frequently non-competitive communities with incrementally-upgraded “just enough” broadband service with unfriendly terms and conditions attached.

In several of the 14 states impacted by the proposed sale, the relatively small number of customers involved made it easy for regulators to quickly approve the proposal with few conditions attached. The deal flew under the radar and got scant press in most of these states.  Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia are another matter.  Regulators are taking a closer look at the deal in all three states where most of the controversy is taking place.  The deal is most contentious in West Virginia, where Verizon’s exit threatens to turn most of the state’s landline business over to Frontier Communications.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing the public comments left on more than a dozen news sites, forums, and printed letters to the editor regarding the deal.  We’ve seen comments obviously coming from Frontier employees, union members, politicians, business leaders, and competitors.  But the vast majority come from ordinary consumers who have concerns about what the deal will do to their telephone and broadband service.  Most of the comments from consumers that embrace the sale don’t do so because they are fans of Frontier.  They simply loathe Verizon and want an alternative.  Boiled down, the consensus among those in favor of Frontier taking over is “let them try… they can’t do any worse than Verizon.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston PSC Phone Hearing 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covers West Virginia’s Public Service Commission hearings reviewing the proposed deal.  Frontier employees arrived in Charleston to lobby for the sale. (1 minute)

Desperate for Broadband

There are a lot of West Virginians who still have no broadband options.  Frontier claims Verizon provides only 60 percent of their customers with a broadband option — DSL service that tops out at 7Mpbs, if you live in an urban area.  Those that don’t have often waited years for Verizon to extend DSL service into their communities or neighborhoods.  It’s a problem common in mountainous, often rural states like West Virginia where infrastructure costs can be prohibitive.  Customers believe that Frontier Communications will tolerate a lower return on their investment providing DSL service to those customers Verizon ignored.

Promising to expand broadband service in rural, unserved areas is a common sales point for all of the prior Verizon sell-offs.  Hawaiian Telcom promised improved broadband service and speed.  Fairpoint promised to expand DSL availability to 75 percent of all access lines within 18 months of the sale, 85 percent within two years and 95 percent within five years.  Frontier Communications promises to expand broadband service as well, claiming they already provide 92 percent of their existing West Virginia customers with the option.  Of course, Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint both reneged on their commitments before going bankrupt.  Frontier Communications hasn’t yet been held to any specific commitment or timeline in West Virginia as part of their proposed takeover of service.

Consumer Reports rated TV, phone, and Internet providers, including Verizon and Frontier, in its February 2010 issue

To those suffering with dial-up or satellite fraudband, -any- broadband option seems like a miracle, even if it turns out to be 1-3Mbps DSL service with a 5GB allowance.  But as those kinds of anemic speeds arrive, cutting edge multimedia-rich broadband applications will become increasingly mainstream and leave these customers behind, again.  With a 5GB usage limit, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because customers will never be able to take advantage of services that will rapidly blow through those limits.  Make no mistake, a user’s broadband experience at 1.5Mbps with a 5GB allowance is going to be considerably different than a customer enjoying online multimedia from a cable provider or the next generation broadband service from Verizon FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse.  Think e-mail and basic web browsing, and that’s about all.

What kind of broadband experience does Frontier Communications bring?  This month, Consumer Reports rated Frontier dead last among DSL providers that own and operate their own broadband networks (subscription required).  The magazine rated 27 regional fiber, cable, and satellite providers and Frontier’s DSL ended up #19 on the list, the lowest rating of any DSL provider selling service on its own network.  Only Earthlink, which usually buys access on other providers’ networks came in lower among DSL providers.  Verizon actually scored higher than Frontier.

Frontier’s DSL service merited a 67 out of 100 score, rating only fair on value, speed, reliability, and customer support, based on 56,080 Consumer Reports subscribers who have a home Internet account.

Frontier’s phone service rated even lower, second to last in the survey.  Frontier was rated fair on value, reliability and call quality.  Only Mediacom did worse.  Verizon scored much better on reliability.  The magazine’s survey of phone companies was based on 37,484 respondents with phone service and was completed in the spring of 2009.

The consumer magazine did not recommend DSL for broadband access, suggesting consumers would do better with fiber optic broadband first, and cable modem service second.

Union Bashing – The enemy of my enemy is my friend

A significant minority of comments were focused entirely on union bashing, completely ignoring the specifics of the Frontier-Verizon sale.  All these people knew was that if the Communications Workers of America or other union was involved, they were the “real problem,” accusing union bosses of opposing the deal until they were paid off.

Nonsense.

Reality trumps anti-union talking points.  Consumers can review for themselves who correctly predicted the outcome of the last two deals of the recent past.  They were the CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who accurately identified the service problems, the network transition problems, the debt load that prevented service expansion and upgrades, and the eventual bankruptcies experienced at Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint Communications.  It turns out that asking front line employees who work in the office and out in the field maintaining the network are well positioned to give an honest assessment of these transactions that others seek to candy coat to get the deal done.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Charleston Frontier Defends Deal 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV in Charleston delivered this decidedly pro-Frontier news report on the company’s efforts to counter opposition to the proposed sale. (3 minutes)

The Opposition

A large number of comments from those who oppose the deal believe they will actually be far worse off with Frontier.  Most relate the experiences of themselves or their friends and family who live in Frontier service areas, and they’re unhappy with Frontier’s poor customer service, reliability, and slow speed DSL.  Many were also unhappy with Frontier’s automatically-renewing contracts committing customers to stay with the company or face a steep early cancellation penalty.  Many more lament the lack of a future with Verizon fiber optics.

David Swanson, who blogs from his home in Golden Valley, Arizona just dumped Frontier for his local cable provider – Golden Valley Cable & Communications.  He says he was overpaying for Frontier’s DSL and phone package.  Together, after fees and taxes, $90 a month went to Frontier and $73 a month went to DirecTV for television service.  With his new cable bundle, he pays $100 a month for everything.  He uses Boost mobile for his phone, and has no need for a landline.

Reviews on DSL Reports aren’t exactly positive about Frontier either.

One Rochester customer isn’t happy with the “spotty service” he’s experienced on Frontier’s aging copper wire infrastructure, noting they don’t seem to be in any hurry to upgrade facilities in western New York.  He’s stuck with unreliable DSL service far slower than what Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service can provide. Another customer in Lowville, New York admits he has to live with Frontier’s slow speed DSL because there is no other provider available.  In Kingman, Arizona one customer rated the company’s DSL service “slightly better than nothing.”

Even customers who had had good things to say about Frontier in forums often acknowledge their service simply isn’t a good value when considering the high cost charged for the slow speed received.

What Can Be Done?

At this point, it is critical impacted customers contact their state utility commission and state representatives and tell them this deal does not work for you.  It is true Verizon wants out of these service areas, and should they win the right to withdraw someone will have to assume control of landline operations in these communities.  But the terms and conditions for the company seeking to provide service should favor customers and not the Wall Street dealmakers.  Strict financial pre-conditions should be in place to guarantee the buyer is up to the task of providing service and upgrades.  Historically, it’s been far too easy to simply renege on the deal with a quick trip to Bankruptcy Court to shed the debt these deals pile on, and be rid of the service commitments that were part of the approval process.

A company that believes they’ll earn plenty from this deal should be spending plenty to provide quality broadband service starting at 10Mbps, not the 1-3Mbps service Frontier provides most of its rural service areas.  What chance do communities in West Virginia have to stay competitive in a digital economy that requires faster broadband access without the ridiculously low usage limits Frontier includes in their customer agreements?  In fact, usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes should be explicitly banned as part of any sales agreement.

Holding Verizon responsible for the outcome of deals that benefit them and their shareholders while sticking customers with a bankrupt provider must be considered.  An important component of past Verizon’s landline-dumping-deals involves the Reverse Morris Trust — delivering a tax-free transaction for Verizon and piles of debt for the buyer. That puts all the risk on ratepayers, lower level employees who are among the first to go when cost-cutting begins, and head-scratching regulators wondering where it all went wrong.  The only ones not doing any hand-wringing are Verizon’s accountants and the executive management of both companies who conjure up such deals.  That’s because they are rarely held accountable, and often win retention bonuses even while a company is mired in bankruptcy.

Regulators should insist Verizon play a fundamental role in insuring that customers are protected even after the deal closes, honoring commitments and financing operations should the buyer fail soon after the sale is complete.  Under these conditions, customers are protected and Verizon might think twice about structuring a deal that loads the buyer down in insurmountable debt.

“This deal is driven by greed — and we can learn from Northern New England’s and Hawaii’s experience to make sure it does not come to pass here or in the other 13 states,” said CWA’s District Two Vice-President Ron Collins, who has been leading the campaign in West Virginia.

Some of the crowd at Sunday's rally in Charleston

Verizon employees affiliated with the Communications Workers of America turned out in force Sunday to protest the proposed sale of Verizon’s West Virginia operations to Frontier Communications of Connecticut.

Hundreds of workers and union members rallied at the West Virginia Culture Center in Charleston, the state capital, to protest the deal.

The CWA is concerned the transaction will enrich a handful of corporate executives and Wall Street bankers while saddling the state with sub-standard phone and Internet service for years to come.  Frontier Communications will assume enormous debt to make the deal happen with Verizon, and set itself down the same path that ended in bankruptcy for two similar deals in the recent past involving FairPoint Communications and Hawaiian Telcom.

Union members are, of course, concerned about their future employment prospects at a Frontier-owned operation, but insist they are also concerned with the citizens of West Virginia.

“I work in the community and live in the community. I want to be able to go out to the stores with nobody yelling at me for not being able to provide service for them,” said Jim Radcliff, a Verizon employee.

(from left to right) CWA Pres. Larry Cohen, Local 2003 Pres. Anekia Greiner, and CWA District 2 VP Ron Collins

West Virginia’s governor Joe Manchin made an appearance at the rally, saying he has concerns about the proposed sale, and joined labor and community leaders to say he would do everything in his power to make the proposed deal work for working families in the state, not just Wall Street bankers.

Other rally speakers included Sen. Jack Yost, Del. Mike Caputo, state AFL-CIO President Kenny Perdue, and representatives from the firefighters, nurses and senior citizens.

Firefighters and other public safety officials are concerned about potential disruptions of 911 service, which were an ongoing problem after FairPoint Communications took control of Verizon lines in northern New England.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA 911 Service At Risk Ad.flv[/flv]

The Communications Workers of America is concerned the sale of Verizon’s phone lines to Frontier Communications could cause disruptions in 911 service, as happened with FairPoint Communications in northern New England.  The CWA is running this ad in West Virginia.

“We need to bring high speed broadband to West Virginia and communities across the country, to foster economic growth,” CWA President Larry Cohen said.  “Instead, Verizon is using an obscure tax loophole to do a tax free deal that will leave West Virginia without a platform for achieving the speeds that are necessary for economic development.  This deal is only good for Wall Street, not Main Street.”

Cohen was speaking about Verizon’s use of the Reverse Morris Trust provision in corporate tax law, which Stop the Cap! explored last fall in detail.  This transaction could cost taxpayers as much as $600 million in lost tax revenue.

Audio Clip: Communications Workers of America Frontier-Verizon Radio Ad (30 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston Union Opposes Sale of Verizon Landlines 1-10-10.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covered the weekend rally by CWA opposing the sale of Verizon’s landlines to Frontier Communications. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Rally Excerpts 1-10-10.flv[/flv]

Here are some excerpts from Sunday’s rally including speakers protesting the proposed sale and praising union involvement in consumer protection. (courtesy: LairdWilliam) (10 minutes)

Phillip "Doesn't Worship Wall Street" Dampier

Bray Cary, president and CEO of a group of West Virginia television stations enjoying advertising revenue from Frontier Communications, was back on his Decision Makers program to allow an opposing viewpoint to the puff piece interview he held earlier with Frontier’s Ken Arndt, Frontier’s Southeast region chief.  This time, he invited Ron Collins, vice-president of the Communications Workers of America to give the CWA side.  Cary’s Tea-‘N-Cookies Breakfast Club With Ken this was not.  Cary decided to play hardball with Collins, leaving no viewer in doubt where Cary stood on the question of Frontier’s proposed purchase of West Virginia’s phone lines from Verizon.

Unfortunately, Collins was not completely prepared to rebut Cary’s pro-Wall Street, pro-deal propaganda and looked ill at ease at times during the interview.  We’re not, and Cary’s “facts” deserve some investigation.  After all, how hard should it be to rebut a guy who believes Wall Street and the banks have all the right answers for West Virginians’ phone service?

• Video No Longer Available.

Right from the outset, Cary wants to play “devil’s advocate” with Collins, asking why in the world the CWA is opposed to this deal.  That was a major departure from his cheerleading session with Arndt.

Bray Cary, Host of Decision Makers

“I’ve looked at this […] their stock has been extremely stable.  Wall Street appears to be signaling their financial viability is okay.  Why is the stock market not reacting negatively?  If it’s good for stockholders, how can it be bad for their financial stability.  Stockholders want financial stability,” Cary said in a series of statements about the deal, including mentioning a Moody’s report on the deal.

The Moody’s report Cary talks about is for shareholders who will reap the rewards or suffer the losses based on the success or failure of the deal.  Moody doesn’t rate the deal’s impact on consumers who have to live with the results.  What’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily what’s best for customers.

“What you don’t have is anyone in the financial community suggesting this is a bad financial deal,” Cary said December 13th.

Wrong.  Almost a week earlier, on December 7th, D.A. Davidson, a respected Wall Street analyst said the opposite.  In a story published in Barron’s: “Frontier Communications’ Shares Not Wired for Success,” the analyst firm argued the regional telecom’s acquisition of Verizon’s rural lines will be… wait for it… bad for the stock.

Cary’s claim that Wall Street is concerned with the long term viability of companies belies the growing reality that much of the investment culture in America has a long term obsession with short term results.  Your company is only as good as your last quarter’s financial earnings statement, and several bad ones in a row are usually enough to bring a recommendation to dump shares.  Frontier has kept its stock value stable largely as a result of their steady dividend payment.  Collins claims Frontier has gone beyond reason, paying 125% of earnings in dividends.  That may make the stock a popular choice for income investors, but is also eerily familiar.

FairPoint Communications also enjoyed a healthy stock price because of its high dividend payout.  Wall Street only got concerned when they thought that deal might not go through.  Morgan Stanley issued a report in 2007 suggesting the deal between FairPoint and Verizon to take control of landline customers in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, was itself helping to prop up the stock’s value.  We saw how far that got FairPoint when the company declared bankruptcy a few months ago.

Ron Collins, CWA's vice president

Indeed, smaller independent phone companies commonly use high dividends to remain attractive to investors and stay viable in a tough market.  Windstream is another such company and even CNBC’s Jim Cramer gave due diligence to the fact high dividends and stock value by themselves don’t necessarily predict the company’s long term success or failure.

Make no mistake, Frontier has sold this deal to investors based on dividend payouts, claimed cost savings, and a safe bet that any broadband in rural America will earn them increased revenue, especially where consumers have no other place to go for service.

Frontier will take on massive additional debt to finance the deal, but on paper it actually appears to reduce their debt ratio.  That’s because when you add millions of new customers, the debt doesn’t look so big next to the increased revenue those additional customers will bring, assuming they stay with Frontier.  Should Frontier’s performance underwhelm customers, they’ll drop service if they can.  If mobile phone networks do a better job of reaching these rural customers, many will drop landline service anyway.  When wireless broadband service becomes a more realistic option, customers might toss Frontier’s slow speed DSL overboard.

AT&T and Verizon have read the writing on the wall — an ongoing decline in landline service and the eventual death of the kind of service Frontier is providing its customers on its legacy network.  Would you be better off with a company that recognizes the truth about the future of wired basic phone service, or the one that wants to buy up obsolete networks and hang on until the last customer leaves?

Cary’s concern starts and stops with shareholder value, not the individual long term needs of consumers across West Virginia.

“All of the bankers and all of Wall Street are saying financially this is a good deal financially for Frontier,” Cary argued.

“Good for Wall Street, bad for West Virginia,” Collins replied.

“Well, see I disagree… that has been a myth put out there, and the reason we don’t have any jobs in this state is companies don’t want to come here just because of that mentality.  People need to make money.  You look at where companies are flourishing, the workers flourish when they do,” Cary said.

Really.  Then why are several of these telecommunications companies awash in revenue also continuing to reduce their workforce in their relentless effort to obtain “cost savings.”  Someone is making money, just not the average employee.  Every state has pro-business acolytes claiming businesses don’t want to come to their state because of regulation and a hostile business climate, even those with the fewest regulations, lowest taxes, and little protection for employees and consumers.

Cary does make one valid point: Verizon wants out of West Virginia and refuses to invest a dime in the state as it looks for a quick exit.  Instead the company has diverted resources from serving smaller states’ phone service needs into its larger city FiOS fiber to the home system where it believes it can reap more revenue.  Whether that disinvestment should be permitted in the first place is a question that needs to be asked.

Verizon is a regulated utility that is required to meet certain performance standards, and the company’s long history of operations under that framework, under which it profited handsomely, does require consideration.  But the state can also provide additional incentives to make it more attractive for Verizon to commit more resources in the state, ranging from tax credits, public-private investment, rewards for performance and service improvements, etc.  It can also find someone else to provide the service, or let local communities band together into cooperatives to run their own networks, should customers find that could deliver better service.

At the very minimum, Frontier should he held to strict conditions that require a fiscally responsible transaction for ratepayers, not just for shareholders and management.  Verizon’s workforce, already cut to the bone, should not bear the brunt of “cost savings” either, both now and into the future.  If Frontier wants to deliver broadband, they should commit to offering 21st century speed (not the 1-3Mbps service typical for their smaller service areas) without their draconian 5GB usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy.

Cary doesn’t concern himself with those kinds of details, but consumers and small businesses in his state sure do.

Cary wants more jobs and more earnings for West Virginia.  In the changing digital economy, high speed broadband isn’t an option — it’s a necessity.  Verizon has a proven track record of being able to provide 21st century broadband — Frontier does not (sorry, 1-3Mbps DSL is more 1999, not 2010).

Cary makes an astonishing statement in the third segment of the interview which makes me question his ability to grasp the reality-based community most Americans live in today.

“I have great faith in the banking system in America, in Wall Street, to evaluate these things.”

That stunned Collins, who asked, “even after the 2008 crash?”

Cary seems to think “everything is back to normal.”  Unfortunately, after the bailouts and big lobbying dollars being spent in Washington to preserve the status quo as much as possible, everything is back to normal… for Wall Street and the banks.  The rest of the country, including West Virginia, is another matter.

FairPoint's Stock Price from 2007, when it announced the deal with Verizon, to late 2009 when the company declared bankruptcy. By late 2008/early 2009, what seemed like a great deal for investors was apparently not, as the panicked rushed for the exits.

I’ll put my trust in the wisdom of West Virginians who want good service and reasonable prices.  If Cary wants to read from the Good Book of the “paragons of virtue” like AIG, Bear-Stearns and Goldman Sachs, let him sell his TV stations to help finance the bailouts.  Remember that when we went through this before with Hawaii Telecom and FairPoint Communications, the cheerleading session on Wall Street lasted only as long as the quarterly balance sheets looked good.  At the first sign of trouble, they bailed on the stock and both companies ended up in bankruptcy.

For them, it represented just another roll of the dice in the giant financial casino we call Wall Street.

For the rural residents of states like West Virginia who ultimately have to live with the results, this is their phone and broadband service we are talking about.  Before all bets are placed and the dice are thrown, isn’t it worth considering them?

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.

Byron L. Harris heads the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission

Strong opposition to the proposed spinoff of Verizon service in West Virginia to Frontier Communications erupted Monday as the state Public Service Commission (PUC) published a flurry of written testimony filed with the state agency.

Some of the strongest criticism of the deal came from the state’s Consumer Advocate (CAD), an independent division of the PSC that represents residential utility customers.  Division director Byron Harris testified the deal carried “too many risks” for the state, and suggested Frontier failed to do its homework before considering the implications of the deal for nearly the entire state’s telephone system.  Harris added residents faced higher phone bills, early termination fees, little improvement in service, and was highly skeptical of Frontier’s promises to expand broadband service in the state, suggesting the company will not be in a financial position to offer acceptable “plain old telephone service,” much less broadband.

Harris testimony called on the Commission to reject the deal:

The proposed transaction poses too many risks for retail telephone customers in West Virginia from both a financial and an operational standpoint. The proposed transaction also poses too many risks for Verizon-WV’s wholesale customers and, ultimately, the tens of thousands of West Virginians served by these entities.

In his testimony on behalf of the CAD, Mr. Roycroft [one of two expert consultants hired to analyze the proposed sale] explains the operational difficulties that Frontier will face in assimilating the Spinco properties and operating systems. As Mr. Roycroft makes clear, the operational difficulties associated with a transaction as large as the one proposed are exacerbated by the fact that the proposed transaction – from an operational standpoint – actually involves two mergers in one:

1. The acquisition of the legacy Bell Atlantic network and OSS in West Virginia, and
2. The acquisition of the old GTE network and systems in 13 other states.

Mr. Roycroft details the multitude of risks that the proposed transaction presents for retail and wholesale telephone customers in West Virginia. Not only do customers face service and service quality risks, but they also face the risk of higher rates and/or other adverse terms and conditions of service such as early termination fees.

Mr. Hill points out, in his testimony, the many unrealistically optimistic financial projections Frontier makes in support of the proposed transaction. As Mr. Hill points out, Frontier’s projections rely too much on financial information that has been provided by the seller, Verizon, without independently verifying Verizon’s numbers. Frontier’s projections similarly rely on a number of assumptions about reducing access line loss, cutting operating expenses and capital expenditures, and realizing merger savings that would require Frontier to substantially reverse recent trends.

The fallout from the proposed merger not going well obviously affects retail and wholesale customers currently served by Verizon-WV and Frontier-WV as well. As discussed below, and in Mr. Roycroft’s testimony, Verizon-WV’s customers already have experienced sharp declines in their service quality, which is the predictable result of years of falling investment in the company’s telephone plant and workforce in West Virginia, as Verizon has focused its attention on other markets in other states and other service offerings, such as wireless service and video/Internet/telephone service provided via its FiOS offering (which is not offered in West Virginia).

The financial and operational risks associated with the proposed transaction jeopardize the combined company’s ability to maintain even current service quality in Verizon-WV’s service territory, let alone follow through on Verizon-WV’s obligation to improve that service quality going forward under the Plan.

Although the CAD obviously is (and has for some time been) concerned with the poor service quality currently provided to customers by Verizon-WV, the CAD believes that service is likely to get even worse under Frontier’s ownership. The proposed transaction will result in a post-closing Frontier that will not have the financial resources to be able to improve service quality for “plain old telephone service” – as voice-grade traditional telephone service is often called – in Verizon-WV’s service territory, much less to deploy broadband to the extent suggested in Frontier’s direct testimony.

Harris likened the deal to Frontier buying a used car from Verizon without knowing what’s under the hood.

“Frontier has essentially agreed to purchase a used car without first having the car examined by a mechanic. Without a thorough investigation of Verizon-WV’s plant, Frontier has no way of knowing whether its buying a pre-owned car that has had regular oil changes and proper tune-ups, or whether it is buying a clunker with a new paint job and a blown transmission. If Verizon-WV’s network has not been properly maintained (as the evidence seems to suggest), just like a car that hasn’t been properly maintained, getting it back to serviceable condition will be a very expensive proposition,” Harris testified.

Harris gave five specific reasons why the deal was bad for West Virginia:

First, Frontier has not done any in-depth analysis of the quality of the Spinco facilities that it is acquiring. This lack of analysis is disturbing on its face, as it would seem to be a fundamental area of inquiry for any prospective buyer. But the importance of this lack of meaningful review is magnified in West Virginia by the fact that Frontier knows, or reasonably should know, that Verizon-WV’s outside plant facilities in West Virginia are not in good shape. The Commission is well aware of the significant decline in service that Verizon- WV’s customers have experienced over the last several years. This decline is documented in the public record (in both the informal complaint records maintained by the Commission’s Staff, and in the record in proceedings related to Verizon-WV’s service quality docketed in the last few years). That record should have triggered a much more searching analysis by Frontier. This lack of analysis also impacts the overly optimistic assumptions that Frontier has used in its financial analysis of the transaction.

Second, Frontier’s overly optimistic financial projections increase the risk that the post-merger company will not be able to remedy Verizon-WV’s current poor service quality or to provide its promised broadband deployment. Verizon is obviously a larger and more financially sound company than Frontier. For a company such as Frontier which historically pays out greater dividends than its net income, the risk that the optimistic financial projections will not transpire is magnified.

Third, as of October 14, 2009, Frontier still had not determined how it will handle the additional call center volumes that will occur when the company acquires access lines in West Virginia.  Obviously, the proposed transaction would adversely affect the public if it is approved without a concrete plan to handle service calls from current Verizon-WV customers.

Fourth, similarly, no concrete plan has been put forth by Verizon for serving customers in West Virginia who are currently served out of central offices in Maryland. Again, the proposed transaction would adversely affect the public if it is approved without a concrete plan to serve Verizon-WV customers who are currently served from central offices in Maryland.

Fifth, current Verizon-WV retail customers face the prospect of increased rates and/or early termination fees as a result of having their current package or bundle service migrated to a similar package or bundle offered by Frontier. In discovery, Frontier has to date refused to identify the packages that will be offered to replace current Verizon-WV packages or to state at what price the packages will be offered to such customers. Verizon- WV customers with bundles that include Verizon broadband service also appear to likely face significant early termination fees of at least $120 if they elect not to transition or migrate to Frontier’s service after closing. This likelihood appears even greater when the companies’ obtuse response on this subject is considered. When the CAD asked whether Verizon-WV customers who elected not to remain with Frontier post-closing, would be charged any early termination fees, the companies merely stated that they will “honor the terms of their contracts with customers.” Obviously, “honoring” the terms of a contract that includes an early termination fee could very well mean enforcing that provision of the service agreement.

Hundreds of New York state residents were unfairly charged early termination fees that eventually brought Frontier to the attention of the New York Attorney General’s office, which obtained relief in the form of full refunds for affected New York residents.

Ironically, even though Verizon may seek to exit West Virginia’s landline telephone business, the company will continue to exist as a competitive player in the state — through Verizon Wireless, its mobile telephone division.  Verizon Wireless sent letters to customers urging them to terminate their home phone lines.  That will spell additional competition for Frontier Communications, as Stephen Hill testified, on behalf of the Consumer Advocate Division:

“Simplify your life and your budget by cutting the cord on your home phone today.”  It is reasonable to believe that such a letter coming from the company that had been a customer’s land-line phone service provider urging them to end that type of service and return to their former provider’s wireless service, would have an impact on Frontier’s ability to maintain that customer. The presentations to Frontier’s board of directors regarding the merger do not discuss potential competition from Verizon.

Perhaps the more troubling aspect of Verizon as a formidable competitor, however, is that, under the current post-merger plan, Verizon will continue to operate the billing and back-office functions of most of the local exchange operations sold to Frontier. Under such circumstances, Verizon becomes both a business partner and a competitor of Frontier-a situation that would put Verizon in an even greater competitive position than it would be otherwise (Le., if it weren’t also leasing operating systems to Frontier). Therefore, it is quite possible that, due to competition-in which Verizon is likely to play an important role-the reduction in the rate of revenue decline forecast for the future may not be realized. Instead, the rate of access line loss may accelerate from historical conditions, making the fbture financial picture for a combined Frontier/Spinco more tenuous than now forecast.

Strong opposition also came from other providers, some of whom who may be affected by the sale through wholesale agreements currently in place with Verizon, as well as from the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Susan Baldwin, who served as Director of Telecommunications for the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Utilities, submitted testimony on behalf of CWA.  In her testimony she stated, “If the transaction goes awry, consumers will bear the consequences….Even if the transaction does not go awry, it will adversely affect consumers because Frontier’s financial constraints will prevent it from investing in the WV telecommunications infrastructure.” Baldwin strongly urged rejection of the proposed deal.

David Armentrout, on behalf of FiberNet stated, “Frontier lacks the requisite resources, experience, and incentive to comply with wholesale obligations it will take on …in West Virginia.”

Some companies waived their right to file direct testimony but asserted their right, along with the parties who did file today, to file rebuttal testimony in December.

Coming up… The truth about Frontier’s DSL products, network capacity, and why their 5GB Acceptable Use Limit is part of official testimony calling on the Public Service Commission of West Virginia to just say no to Frontier Communications.