Communications Daily is a Warren News publication.
No 'Systemic' Problems

Connecticut Sees Fewer Frontier Complaints, But Also 'Room for Improvement'

There are fewer consumer complaints about Frontier Communications and they have leveled off in Connecticut since a spike of consumer outrage immediately after it acquired AT&T’s wireline business in October 2014, said the state’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). But there’s still “room for improvement,” the head of the state's Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) said in an interview Monday. Frontier faced more transition trouble in April when it took over Verizon’s wireline business in Texas, Florida and California. Some legislators in those states are asking why regulators didn’t learn from Connecticut (see 1607080045).

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!

PURA received 609 complaints about Frontier in 2014, according to numbers provided by Michael Coyle, PURA director of Special Enforcement and Consumer Affairs -- 383 about telecom and 226 about video. That was after only two full months in the market. In 2015, PURA received 691 complaints all year about Frontier, with 507 on telecom and 184 video. That rate of complaints has continued into this year, with PURA receiving 298 complaints -- 183 for telecom and 115 for video -- in the first half of 2016.

PURA continues to monitor Frontier’s performance in Connecticut,” Coyle emailed. He said PURA generally requires customers to attempt to resolve disputes with the utility directly, intervening only when that fails, and he said a recorded complaint doesn’t necessarily mean the company has breached a contract or violated a rule or law: “At times, we find that a matter may not have been resolved to the customer’s satisfaction, but that the efforts or response of the company was consistent with its regulatory or contractual obligations.” Coyle noted PURA doesn’t have authority to regulate most Frontier services -- including internet, video and VoIP -- due to FCC and court rulings.

When the merger first happened, we had a huge spike” in complaints to the OCC, but that’s come down significantly, said Connecticut Consumer Counsel Elin Swanson Katz in an interview. The OCC is an independent state agency. Most complaints go to PURA, she noted. “These numbers are slightly higher than we see with our other telecommunications companies like the cable companies, but it doesn’t seem to be a systemic problem … such as we saw when the merger first happened. … We’re not in that crisis mode, anymore.” When the Frontier/AT&T deal closed in 2014, the number of complaints -- particularly on the telecom side -- caught Frontier by surprise, said OCC principal attorney Joseph Rosenthal. “They admittedly didn’t have the staff they needed to have to respond.”

That doesn't mean everything is perfect now, and “there’s always room for improvement with customer service,” said Katz. “I hate to say that there’s any normal level of customer unhappiness.” Katz said she still hears anecdotal complaints about service outages, length of time spent on the phone with Frontier, and missed service appointments. Rosenthal said some consumers have been upset to find items on bills increasing in price. “When the customer complains about it, PURA’s finding that the customer’s often right -- that under the contract, there are increases going on that shouldn’t be happening,” he said. Some of these stem from contracts made with AT&T before the cutover, said Katz. Frontier honored the contract, but when it expired, the price went up, she said. “People are feeling like they’re not getting the benefit of the bargain they thought they had.”

Frontier agreed “there are no systemic issues,” a spokeswoman said. She didn't comment specifically on the other issues: “Frontier is committed to Connecticut and our more than 3,000 employees dedicate themselves each day to provide our customers with an extraordinary experience.”

PURA has an ongoing proceeding to ensure Frontier compliance with transaction commitments on service quality and network upgrades. But the company and the OCC are debating who's allowed to read Frontier’s network modernization plans. The OCC wants to see Frontier’s complete plans, but Frontier has objected to sharing confidential parts of its business strategy with the independent state agency because OCC's Office of State Broadband (OSB) advises municipalities on broadband procurement (see 1605240046). PURA proposed an order restricting access to confidential Frontier material only to OCC staffers who don’t perform OSB duties. The OCC objected to the plan, saying it doesn’t see a conflict of interest.

The OCC said in comments filed Friday in docket 15-04-36 it would commit to a voluntary recusal plan. Under the plan, OCC said it will designate staffers to the PURA proceeding who won’t be assigned to the state broadband office until after the proceeding ends and who won’t use confidential information in any other matter. Also, Rosenthal and another OCC employee who has been active in the broadband division will recuse themselves from future involvement in the PURA proceeding, it said.

Frontier pitched several alternative proposals for reviewing its network plan submitted April 15 last year. “Since that time, the Authority’s ability to conduct its review within the docket framework has been hampered by the challenges of managing access to Frontier’s highly sensitive, confidential and competitive network information in a manner that protects Frontier’s due process rights, yet allows participation in the process by the OCC, which, along with [OSB] has been increasingly active in promoting alternatives to Frontier’s and other provider networks,” the company said. “The Company will be severely prejudiced if the Consumer Counsel and others within OCC who are engaged in broadband promotion and OSB-related activities are allowed to gain access to Frontier’s confidential Network Plan information.”