Frontier Fires State Senate Leader (Who Also Worked For Frontier) For Supporting Attempts To Improve Broadband Competition

from the fighting-broadband-competition-at-any-cost dept

If you want to see what the US broadband sector really looks like, you should take a look at West Virginia -- a state where regional incumbent Frontier Communications holds so much sway over the state legislature, efforts to improve connectivity in the state have spent a decade in the gutter. Local Charleston Gazette reporter Eric Eyre has quietly done an amazing job the last few years chronicling West Virginia's immense broadband dysfunction, from the State's use of broadband stimulus subsidies on unused, overpowered routers and overpaid, redundant consultants, to state leaders' attempts to bury reports highlighting how a cozy relationship with companies like Frontier, Verizon and Cisco has led to what can only be explained as systemic, statewide fraud on the taxpayer dime.

But things haven't been going all that well for Frontier lately. Frustrated customers are leaving in droves (assuming they have the option) after the company bungled an acquisition of Verizon's unwanted DSL customers in Florida, Texas and California. It's also now saddled with debt from that deal, which prioritized growing bigger over commen sense. And employees say morale at the company is at an "all time low" after executives slashed all bonuses and merit pay increases -- but only for lower-level employees.

There's some indication that these problems are loosening the telco's traditionally iron grip on the West Virginia legislature. House Bill 3093, recently signed into law by West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, aims to improve broadband competition in the state through a combination of utility pole reform, and efforts to encourage local broadband community co-ops. Since it would have boosted competition in the state, Frontier obviously lobbied against the measure, hoping to keep its geographical fiefdom intact. It failed.

Eyre at the Gazette now notes that Frontier has responded by firing a six-year company executive and West Virginia Senate President (yes, at the same time) Mitch Carmichael for voting in favor of the measure.

So you should get a sense of what things are like in West Virginia just by the fact that Carmichael was deciding major state telecom issues while being a full-time employee of Frontier Communications. And Carmichael had been deciding on telecom-related issues for years with nobody apparently thinking that his recusal from some of these issues might just be a good idea.

This is so crazy that we should repeat it just so it sinks in: Carmichael was both a full-time employee of Frontier while also being the President of the state Senate, and constantly pushing for policies that favored his employer. And few, if any, state leaders apparently thought this was a problem. And it has been: Carmichael has long been an opponent of community run, municipal broadband, and had also recently voted down an effort that would have created a statewide broadband internet network, one that would have dramatically impacted Frontier's business interests.

Carmichael had just gotten a raise as well after almost being lured away by a Frontier competitor, so the firing surprised him. Carmichael says he also refused to sign an NDA demanded of him by the company to prevent him talking about his termination:

"Frontier Communications has laid off West Virginia Senate President Mitch Carmichael, a six-year Frontier executive who noted Monday that his dismissal follows his refusal to torpedo a broadband internet expansion bill that the company vigorously opposed...Carmichael said Frontier has asked him to sign a “nondisclosure” agreement that would prohibit him from talking about his dismissal. He said he refused to sign it. As senate president, Carmichael was Frontier’s most powerful ally in the Legislature.

Apparently, public annoyance at Frontier and the sorry state of broadband in the state (West Virginia is not-coincidentally ranked 45th in broadband connectivity) forced Carmichael to actually do the right thing:

"The one thing I’m not going to do here as Senate president is advance special interests,” Carmichael said. “It was obvious the body [Legislature] wanted that bill, and I wasn’t going to stand in the way of it."..."This was not something I wanted at all,” he said. “They had a bad year, from a legislative perspective. They severed ties from me."

To be clear, Carmichael had been willing to "advance special interests" previously, but Frontier's financial footing is so shaky -- and public annoyance at a lack of broadband competition was so severe -- he was forced to actually listen to what the public wanted. Now, courtesy of Frontier's waning influence, new West Virginia law allows 20 families or businesses to form nonprofit co-ops in areas shunned by traditional ISPs. The bill also authorizes up to three cities or counties to band together and build broadband networks in areas incumbents like Frontier have long refused to.

Meanwhile there are growing indications that Frontier, a company that has made a career out of trying to prevent real broadband competition in its territories at any cost, may at some point be looking at bankruptcy sometime in the next few years.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, conflict of interest, mitch carmichael, west virginia
Companies: frontier

Latest Attack On A Free Press: Reporter Arrested For Asking Questions To Trump Administration Officials

from the um-what? dept

Another day, another attack on a free press. The latest: a long-time reporter, Daniel Heyman, of the Public News Service in West Virginia was arrested for asking questions of Trump administration officials. Heyman yelled some questions to Health & Human Services Director Tom Price along with White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway:

Daniel Ralph Heyman, 54, with the Public News Service of West Virginia, was freed on $5,000 bond Tuesday night on a charge of "willful disruption of government processes," according to a criminal complaint.

“The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol,” the complaint states. It adds Heyman caused a disturbance by “yelling questions at Ms. Conway and Secretary Price.”

Whether you like it or not, the press is kind of supposed to ask questions of elected officials. That's their job. And, sure, some will argue that the complaint says that he was "aggressively breaching the secret service agents," but others on the scene indicated nothing beyond ordinary questioning happened:

Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price's group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was racing after them.

"I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that," she told Public News Service. "Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody's attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone's space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself."

And, making matters worse, rather than admitting to over-aggressive enforcement, Price is cheering on the arrest:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price on Wednesday commended police in West Virginia for “doing what they thought was appropriate” in arresting a journalist who shouted questions at him, but added that it wasn’t his call to say whether they took the proper measures.

Price said the reporter confronted him while he was walking down a hallway. “That gentleman was not in a press conference,” he said.

I'm curious if Price (or anyone else, for that matter) could point to where in the First Amendment there's a rule that says the press is only allowed to ask questions "at a press conference." That's not how it works. There's also this:

Asked Wednesday by STAT whether he thought Heyman should have been arrested, Price said: “That’s not my decision to make.”

Well, that's only partially true. Obviously, the local law enforcement gets to make that decision, but there's nothing stopping a competent public official from telling law enforcement to knock it off and to answer a few basic questions from a reporter.

In an era where we're hearing more and more about both attacks on a free press, as well as the need for a stronger press, these kinds of shenanigans should not be allowed. In the past, when we've covered police arresting reporters, the courts have come out repeatedly in favor of the reporters (that whole First Amendment thing still matters). But that's of little use in the moment when police are dragging reporters off to jail for shouting questions outside a press conference.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arrested, asking questions, daniel heyman, free press, free speech, kellyanne conways, press conference, tom price, west virginia

Lawsuit Claims Frontier Misused Millions In Federal Broadband Stimulus Funds

from the big-'ole-boondoggle dept

If you want to see what the U.S. broadband market really looks like, you should take a close look at West Virginia. Historically ranked close to dead last for broadband access and quality, the state has been a perfect example of what happens when you let the incumbent telecom monopoly incestuously fuse with state regulators and politicians. For years now the state has been plagued by news reports of unaccountable broadband subsidies, money repeatedly wasted on unnecessary hardware, duplicate consultants overpaid to do nothing, and state leaders focused exclusively on ensuring nobody is held accountable.

Frontier acquired Verizon's phone and broadband networks in the state back in 2010, and while jumping from an entirely apathetic incumbent monopoly ISP to a barely competent one netted some slight improvements initially for users, the lack of competition continues to keep serious advancement at bay. In an attempt to improve access to neglected areas of the state, Frontier that same year received $126.3 million in federal stimulus funds to provide high-speed Internet to such areas, including 1,064 public facilities such as schools, courthouses and first responders.

Roughly $40 million of that money was supposed to be used to build an "open-access middle-mile network" intended to help multiple, competing West Virginia ISPs improve last-mile connectivity to roughly 700,000 homes and 110,000 businesses. But it didn't take long for allegations to surface that Frontier had used that money solely to shore up its broadband monopoly in the state, building fiber connections that only benefited itself. Allegations also surfaced that Frontier had manipulated just how much fiber was actually laid, with state investigations and audits, as they're wont to do, going nowhere fast.

Fast forward to this week, when the courts unsealed a 2014 lawsuit (pdf) by competing West Virginia ISP Citynet, shining a little more light on the claims, while also naming a number of government officials as defendants alongside Frontier. Among other allegations, the lawsuit claims that Frontier artificially inflated fiber deployment metrics in ways that weren't even particularly creative and shouldn't have been difficult for regulators or auditors to uncover:

Citynet claims that Frontier “double-counted” fiber to 58 buildings in 32 counties, and “used excessive maintenance coil to make up for fiber not constructed.” “Frontier also misrepresented the proposed distances for many of the community anchor institutions by simply inputting the same number for several projects,” the lawsuit alleges. “Incredibly, there were 36 [buildings] in seven different counties that each required the exact same 4,390 feet of new fiber.”

Not only did Frontier deliver less fiber than actually promised in a way no competitor could access (again, the state and Frontier repeatedly promised this would be an open access network), the company charged significantly more than originally estimated. With the help of a former Verizon executive turned state Technology Officer, the lawsuit alleges that Frontier inflated its invoices using something called "loadings fees":

Citynet claims on July 1, 2012, Given, the former president of Verizon, was appointed as the new State Technology Officer and immediately took exclusive control over approving Frontier’s invoices for the BTOP project. Within one month, every one of Frontier’s invoices that were submitted for payment contained a “loadings” charge, which, per the invoices, was for “allocated indirect costs such as vehicles, accounting, administration, etc.”

In many instances, the indirect cost fee was higher than the original total cost estimate for the fiber build and there were 365 separate invoices with loadings fees, totaling $4,553,387.31, according to the suit.

“Even though Frontier often ended up building much less fiber than was originally estimated, its final charges were substantially higher than the original estimate,” the complaint states.

FCC data ranks West Virginia 48th in terms of broadband availability. After the project was completed, the lawsuit claims West Virginia ranked 53rd among 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. It's unfortunate in that broadband stimulus subsidies really have helped a number of communities where the private sector failed, just not in states where incumbent monopolies have excessive control over state players that should be policing this kind of behavior.

Should West Virginia's dysfunction follow the historical tendency of other boondoggles of this type by the likes of AT&T and Verizon, absolutely nothing will come of this case or any subsequent investigation, audits (in the rare case they actually occur) will magically conclude no wrong doing by any participant, and the entire sordid affair will magically be forgotten the next time Frontier is in line to receive additional taxpayer handouts.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, stimulus funds, subsidies, west virginia
Companies: citynet, frontier

If You Want To See What The U.S. Broadband Market Really Looks Like, Take A Close Look At West Virginia

from the dysfunction-junction dept

While sexy Google Fiber deployments get the lion's share of media attention these days, it's the notably less sexy service in states like West Virginia that continue to perfectly exemplify just how broken U.S. broadband really is. Local Charleston Gazette reporter Eric Eyre has quietly done an amazing job the last few years chronicling West Virginia's immense broadband dysfunction, from the State's use of broadband stimulus subsidies on unused, overpowered routers and overpaid, redundant consultants, to state leaders' attempts to bury reports highlighting how a cozy relationship with companies like Frontier, Verizon and Cisco has led to what can only be explained as systemic, statewide fraud on the taxpayer dime.

It's of course the one-two punch of regulatory capture and the resulting lack of competition that are to thank for West Virginia's problems, which certainly aren't unique across the country. In state after state, the largest, incumbent ISPs throw cash at the state legislative process, allowing them to literally write state telecom law aimed at protecting their uncompetitive geographical fiefdoms from real competition. Because the nation's suffering through a particularly nasty bout of partisan nitwit disease, when someone tries to do something about it, they're ironically assailed as anti-business, anti-American, or anti-states' rights.

I tend to focus on West Virginia as a shining example of this dysfunction because things have gotten so bad there, local players have stopped even the slightest pretense that the entire legislative process isn't under the thumb of the country's biggest and wealthiest telecom companies. Case in point is this latest report by Eyre citing complaints by West Virginia Delegate Randy Smith, who says things have reached the point where nobody, from any party, can get a bill through the West Virginia legislative process if it doesn't first get approval from Frontier Communications. From a recent post to his Facebook page:

"As you know, Frontier Communications is the only game in town for many rural communities in West Virginia when it comes to Internet service. After introducing the legislation, I spoke with someone in leadership and was told it'd go nowhere because it would hurt Frontier. In other words, Frontier has its hands in our state Capitol...No wonder they're called Frontier. Those are the kinds of speeds you'd expect on the American frontier in the 17th century."

What reckless, dangerous bills was Smith trying to pass? One would have restricted ISPs from advertising their service as "broadband" unless it offered speeds of 10 Mbps (the FCC's new definition is already 25 Mbps, or 10 Mbps for rural subsidized service). Another would have allowed consumers to take complaints about poor broadband service directly to State Attorney General Patrick Morrisey -- if the state Public Service Commission refused to hear their complaints. But because both would have marginally threatened Frontier's monopoly in the State, they weren't even seriously considered. Frontier's facing a lawsuit in the state for long repair delays and for advertising broadband speeds users can't actually get.

Again, West Virginia's certainly not unique; the ISP stranglehold over the state legislative process just tends to be more sophisticated and better obfuscated in larger States. Regardless of the state, attempts at reform are usually assailed by those professing to adore free markets, when more often than not what they really adore is being able to abuse government to help protect mono/duopoly revenues. That's why, although it was massively overshadowed by the net neutrality vote the same day, yesterday's FCC vote to begin gutting protectionist, ISP-written state laws is an incredibly important first step toward returning some degree of power back to local communities while taking the fight directly to the bloated and corrupt broadband industry status quo.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, municipal broadband, west virginia
Companies: frontier communications

Competitor Takes Over Verizon's West Virginia Landlines; Complaints Drop Nearly 70%

from the service-level:-abandonment dept

Verizon's service record has been less-than-stellar over the years. The increased scrutiny it faced after it decided it wouldn't restore copper line service to New Yorkers whose connections were destroyed by Hurricane Sandy resulted in it partially walking back that decision. It was also recently ordered to turn over cost data on its copper lines (as compared to the wireless service it was trying to push these customers to switch to) by the New York Public Service Commission. This followed its original response to the FOI request, which was nothing but page after page of retracted data.

It's no secret Verizon would prefer its customers to switch to its wireless Voicelink, which contains profitable data and voice caps. This is something it has in common with other major service providers like AT&T. It sometimes appears Verizon is waging a war of attrition against its customers in hopes of shedding those subscribed to services it no longer wishes to support while pushing others towards more profitable, but inferior, services.

Evidence of this approach recently surfaced in West Virginia, where a competing company had taken over Verizon's former service area. The net result? A nearly 70% drop in complaints. (via BroadbandReports, Karl Bode's other home)

Nearly four years after taking over Verizon's West Virginia landline operations, Frontier Communications has expanded broadband access to roughly 176,000 households and seen consumer complaints drop by nearly 70 percent.

The state set down a list of requirements when Frontier took over, including instructing it to invest nearly $300 million to build out the network and improve service quality. Frontier did both, and well ahead of schedule. Frontier was required to hit 85% broadband coverage by the end of this year. At this point, it has already hit 88%, well over Verizon's mark of 62% when Frontier took over. It has also added a 2,600-mile fiber optic transport system which has increased speed and reliability on the network.

But before we start inscribing Frontier's name on the Company of the Year trophy (remember: Frontier spent a bit of time pushing for data caps), it's important to note how little Frontier would have actually had to do to improve on Verizon's service level. As Karl Bode pointed out in the Techdirt back room, any company taking over that provided a minimum of competence and care would likely have seen the same level of improvement.

According to Bode, Verizon's "service" in the Charleston area rarely approached the lower rungs of "awful," and more frequently resembled complete abandonment. Verizon service members would throw garbage bags over outdoor equipment to "protect" them from the elements, service calls routinely went unanswered for days and the service techs themselves were further handicapped by the company's refusal to provide them with the proper tools and equipment. This abysmal service record helps explain the list of requirements the state's Public Service Commission handed to Frontier when it took over the territory.

In the end, though, it still looks like a win for Charleston residents. They're getting faster, more reliable service in more areas. But it also looks like a win for Verizon, which was able to ditch some landline territory it clearly had no interest in maintaining.

Filed Under: customer service, landline, telco, west virginia
Companies: verizon

Anatomy Of A Boondoggle: How The US Broadband Plan Led To WV Buying $20,000 Routers For A One Room Library

from the scam-scam-scam-scam dept

Back in 2009, we warned people that the President's mega-hyped "broadband plan" really just looked like a massive gift to large incumbent providers, who were about to get an influx of taxpayer money, which would translate into next to nothing in terms of actual broadband deployments. Indeed, we've seen an awful lot of waste happening under the program, which is finally starting to come to light. Recently, the NY Times profiled widespread waste in the program, suggesting that hundreds of millions of dollars are either being wasted or are part of various boondoggles to squeeze cash out of governments:

Nationally, $594 million in spending has been temporarily or permanently halted, 14 percent of the overall program, and the Commerce Department's inspector general has raised questions about the program's ability to adequately monitor spending of the more than 230 grants.

Perhaps nowhere are the details more apparent than in West Virginia. Ars Technica summarizes a recent report that is incredibly damning. The smoking gun? A $20,000 router installed in a one-room library the size of an ordinary trailer. But that's hardly the worst of it. At least that $20,000 router is being used (even if it's under-utilized).

Part of the reason for buying that router, rather than a cheapo one that would have sufficed, was that it would enable other services, including things like VoIP. The state bought 77 of them. Turns out that 75 are just sitting around collecting dust. And none of them can use the VoIP system they need.

Ironically, the routers can't even be used for VoIP in some key cases. The state police already have a VoIP-based phone system, but the new 3945 series routers did not come with "the appropriate Cisco VoIP modules" to work with the system. The state now has to spend another $84,768 to purchase those modules; without them, the state police can't use the routers, only two of which are actually installed and operating. (For those keeping score at home, this means that 75 $20,000 routers are depreciating in a state police warehouse somewhere in West Virginia.)

There's a lot of finger-pointing going on, but when it comes down to it, this is not at all surprising. Throwing billions of dollars into the broadband space with little reasoning or oversight always leads to questionable behavior. So why do we keep doing it? Are there ways the government could spend on infrastructure and have it be powerful. Sure, but the Broadband Plan clearly was not it. And we're only learning about the abuse and waste now, after the money's been spent.

Filed Under: boondoggle, broadband plan, expensive routers, routers, west virginia
Companies: cisco

West Virginia Looks To Criminalize Online Harassment

from the don't-be-a-jerk dept

There's been an increasing effort among some to make being a jerk online some sort of criminal activity, even though that almost certainly violates the First Amendment. The latest is an effort in West Virginia to create a new misdemeanor for posting false information about someone online, which could result in fines and jailtime. Now, as you probably already know, we already have laws against defamation -- though that's a civil issue, where the defamed party can take the defamer to court. In this case, the law would do two things: (1) make it a criminal issue, getting the government involved in determining who to prosecute and (2) lower the standard for what breaks the law. Specifically, defamation has required not just the spreading of false information, but that it be done with malicious intent, if you wanted any kind of punitive damages. Yet, this law in West Virginia has no such requirement, meaning that simply spreading false information, even if not for malicious intent, could get you brought up on criminal charges. That seems to go against the First Amendment, but since when has that ever stopped lawmakers from pushing bills?

Filed Under: defamation, first amendment, harassment, malice, west virginia

Guy Who Insists E-Voting Machines Work Fine... Demonstrates They Don't

from the say-that-again-please dept

If someone pitched a movie based on e-voting machines that work as bad as the ones being used in the current election, the story would be dumped as being unrealistic. But truth is, indeed, often stranger than fiction. You may recall on Friday that we had a post about problems with e-voting machines in West Virginia selecting the wrong candidate when voters touched the screen. Various officials rushed to insist that there was absolutely nothing wrong. One, the local county clerk, Jeff Waybright insisted that the problems were "the result of voter error."

Well, it appears that a group called Video The Vote went and visited with Mr. Waybright as he showed them how the e-voting machines work, and perhaps the "human error" is on Mr. Waybright's part. The beginning of the video is troubling enough, as he brushes aside concerns while he shows a miscalibrated machine. He demonstrates how he clicks on one candidate and another is highlighted, in a tone of voice that suggests why would anyone possibly be upset or annoyed if that happened? He then oddly thinks the fact that his wildly miscalibrated machine enhances his point because when he clicks on Barack Obama's name, the actual name highlighted isn't McCain (of course, it's not Obama either, but he doesn't seem troubled by this). Waybright seems to think that the only complaint people are making is the fact that some tried to vote for the Democratic ticket and saw the Republican ticket show up -- when the real concern is simply the fact that when you touch one name, someone else's name is highlighted. Democrat or Republican really isn't the issue here.

However, then things get worse. After mocking the idea that anyone clicking on a Democratic ticket vote would get the Republican ticket vote, he shows how to correctly calibrate the machine, showing how easy it is to fix the "problems" of the miscalibrated machine. When he's done, to prove it works, he touches the box to vote for a straight Republican ticket ticket... and, wouldn't you know it, Ralph Nader's name is highlighted as the voter's choice. His response? "Oh, that's out of calibration!" as if it was no big deal, apparently missing the fact that he had just calibrated the machine. He then seems to think none of this is a big deal, because voters will see the misvote before they submit it, apparently unaware of the idea that many people are already quite distrustful of these machines, and seeing them highlight the wrong name over and over again will make them seriously question the legitimacy of the election.

Filed Under: e-voting, glitches, west virginia
Companies: es&s

Surprise, Surprise: E-Voting Glitches Found In Early Voting

from the this-is-a-surprise? dept

The GAO had warned that there would be some pretty massive e-voting problems this year, as election officials were not properly trained on the already problematic machines, so it should come as little surprise that over in West Virginia, the "early voting" procedures have resulted in numerous complaints that the e-voting machines selected the wrong candidate. The scenario is depressingly similar to the one that The Simpsons predicted, where the voter selects one name, and the other one shows up as highlighted. Poll workers told them to just keep clicking until the right one was chosen, and noted that the machines have "just been doing that."

What's more depressing is how everyone involved seems to brush this off as no big deal. Officials claimed that these "were isolated cases and that poll workers fixed the problems so the correct vote was cast." That may be true of the two people that CNN spoke too, but who knows if others got the machines to work properly. And then there's West Virginia's Secretary of State, Betty Ireland , who basically pulled a page from Sequoia's playbook, of covering her eyes and ears and screaming loudly that everything is fine:

"There are no problems with the machines as recalibrated. Touch-screen voting in West Virginia is accurate and secure."

Because you say so? As opposed to those who are actually voting and finding it's not? That's comforting.

In this case, the machines are supplied by ES&S whose machines (like both Sequoia and Diebold) have a relatively long history of screwing up at election time. ES&S is also the company where an employee of the company showed up here to berate us and insist that no independent experts should be allowed to look at the machines and that they were safe and reliable because those working at these firms knew better than the rest of us. It's as if the e-voting companies and the politicians think that if they just keep repeating it, maybe it will become true.

Filed Under: e-voting, glitches, west virginia
Companies: es&s