Verizon Goes to Court to Break Impasse and Bring Cable Choice, Lower Prices to Montgomery County, Maryland

Verizon Goes to Court to Break Impasse and Bring Cable Choice, Lower Prices to Montgomery County, Maryland

County's Unlawful Cable Franchise Demands Violate First Amendment, Federal Law; Protect Cable Monopoly

County Is Costing Households More than $725,000 per Month in Lost Savings by Preventing Verizon From Offering Cable Choice

WASHINGTON, June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- In an effort to bring video choice and competition to citizens of Montgomery County, Maryland, Verizon today filed a federal lawsuit against the county for its unreasonable and illegal cable-franchising process and demands.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt, asks the court to declare that Montgomery County's cable franchise process and requirements violate federal communications and antitrust law, as well as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Verizon is asking the court for a preliminary injunction invalidating Montgomery County's current cable franchising law and directing the county to negotiate a franchise with Verizon on lawful terms within 60 days. At the same time -- in an effort to help speed the negotiations to resolution -- Verizon is asking the court to invalidate the numerous unlawful requirements the county is attempting to impose on the company.

"Verizon regrets having to take this step, but the county's unlawful demands leave us no other choice," said John P. Frantz, Verizon vice president and associate general counsel, who is leading the company's legal team on the case. "We would prefer to reach agreement on a franchise that would offer Montgomery County consumers more choice for their cable services, but after a year of essentially fruitless negotiations, we are at an impasse."

Montgomery County's Demands Hurt Consumers, Protect Incumbent

Over the year that Verizon has been negotiating to obtain a franchise to offer its FiOS TV in Montgomery County, county officials have made numerous unlawful demands that have stymied the negotiations. For example:

* The county asserts the right to collect fees on, and otherwise regulate,
Verizon's telephone and broadband Internet service, in clear violation
of federal law. In addition, the county claims authority to regulate
the engineering, construction, placement and maintenance of Verizon's
entire fiber-optic network once the company starts offering video
service, again in clear violation of federal law.

* The county is demanding that Verizon set aside roughly 65 channels of
digital capacity for public, educational and governmental programming,
even though the county currently has programming for only 11 channels.
Verizon wants to use the channels the county is insisting the company
set aside to deliver programming that county residents want to see.

* The county is demanding that Verizon pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars to cover the fees that the county owes to its own private
consultants and attorneys; federal law forbids such demands.

* The county is demanding additional cash and free services as a condition
for granting a franchise; it has no right to demand such terms under
established federal law.

"We're frustrated at the lack of progress in these negotiations, because the inordinate delay benefits only the monopoly cable incumbent," said Frantz. "Meanwhile, Montgomery County residents continue to suffer, held hostage to Comcast's ever-rising cable rates."

Comcast has increased Montgomery County cable rates more than three times the inflation rate since 2000. In Montgomery County, the stalled franchise negotiations are costing county households more than $725,000 a month in possible savings.

"Competition will bring lower prices, more innovation and better quality," said Frantz. "It's past time for Montgomery County residents to join their neighbors in Howard County and Northern Virginia who are reaping the benefits of cable competition and choice."

Montgomery County is the only place in the Washington metropolitan area where Verizon has sought a franchise and has not been able to obtain one. In Maryland, Howard County, Bowie and Laurel have all granted Verizon a franchise; Anne Arundel County is poised to do so July 5; and Verizon's negotiations with Prince George's County are on track for an agreement by late summer. In northern Virginia, Verizon has obtained franchises from Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties; the City of Fairfax, Dumfries, Herndon, Falls Church and Leesburg; and the Marine Corps Base at Quantico.

Montgomery County Neighbors Enjoy Cable Choice, Competition

In other markets where Verizon has introduced FiOS TV -- including neighboring Howard County -- cable incumbents have responded with lower prices, more innovative bundled offerings of phone, broadband and video service, and increased broadband speeds.

Verizon's standard FiOS TV package, FiOS TV Premier, offers 180 digital video and music channels, two dozen high-definition channels and access to an extensive on-demand library for $39.95 a month. Comcast's most comparable cable package costs $68.60 in Montgomery County.

A family that switched to Verizon's video offering would save more than $300 a year and get more for its money. Verizon currently offers numerous other channels not provided by Comcast, including the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which broadcasts Washington Nationals baseball games.

The competitive response to Verizon's entry to the video market is swift and dramatic. In communities where Verizon already is offering FiOS TV, incumbents initially responded by slashing prices by 28-42 percent.

"Verizon's interest in this is simple," said Frantz. "We want the ability to bring choice and competition to Montgomery County consumers as quickly as possible, and we want Montgomery County officials to do the right thing by their constituents to make that happen."

Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ), a Dow 30 company, is a leader in delivering broadband and other wireline and wireless communication innovations to mass market, business, government and wholesale customers. Verizon Wireless operates America's most reliable wireless network, serving 53 million customers nationwide. Verizon Business operates one of the most expansive wholly-owned global IP networks. Verizon Telecom is deploying the nation's most advanced fiber-optic network to deliver the benefits of converged communications, information and entertainment services to customers. Based in New York, Verizon has a diverse workforce of more than 250,000 and generates annual consolidated operating revenues of approximately $90 billion. For more information, visit http://www.verizon.com/.

VERIZON'S ONLINE NEWS CENTER: Verizon news releases, executive speeches and biographies, media contacts, high quality video and images, and other information are available at Verizon's News Center on the World Wide Web at http://www.verizon.com/news. To receive news releases by e-mail, visit the News Center and register for customized automatic delivery of Verizon news releases.

SUMMARY OF VERIZON'S COMPLAINT AGAINST MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

In May 2005, Verizon asked Montgomery County to grant a franchise to offer cable service in competition with Comcast. A full year later, the county has failed to approve Verizon's application. Instead, county officials have responded by demanding that Verizon agree to a host of unlawful requirements as a condition for getting a franchise.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY'S ILLEGAL ACTIONS

Montgomery County's Cable Franchising Process Violates the First Amendment.

* By adding cable television to its menu of communications services,
Verizon seeks to engage in a form of speech protected by the First
Amendment. Local laws licensing speakers must spell out narrow,
objective standards that limit the discretion of government officials in
deciding whether to grant franchises and what conditions may be
attached.

* Montgomery's County's cable franchise process violates the First
Amendment because it delegates to county officials discretion to approve
or withhold franchises at will, to charge any fees they wish, to
condition franchises on any demands they see fit, and to render
decisions on any timeline they choose.

* The First Amendment requires that local authorities issue franchises in
a timely manner. Yet county officials told Verizon it would take until
at least November 2006 to grant a franchise, even if Verizon agreed to
all the county's illegal demands - a full 18 months after Verizon first
asked for a franchise.

Montgomery County's Franchise Demands Violate the Federal Communications Act.

* The Communications Act expressly prohibits local governments from
exploiting their control over cable franchises to seize control over
telephone and broadband Internet services. Yet county officials have,
by ordinance and regulation, imposed a host of requirements on broadband
and telephone services, as well as a series of rules governing the
construction, operation and maintenance of Verizon's telephone network,
to which Verizon would be subject once it begins offering video service.

* The county has no justification for these requirements. Verizon is
selling broadband and telephone services in Montgomery County today free
from these regulations. There is nothing about Verizon's offering video
programming that suddenly creates a need to regulate its other services.

* Federal law limits the fees the county can collect to 5 percent of
Verizon's cable revenues. Montgomery County's cable ordinance requires
Verizon to pay 5 percent of its revenues on all services, including
Internet service.

* In addition, to secure a franchise, the county has demanded that Verizon
pay an additional 3 percent of its revenues to cover the county's cable
programs; provide free cable service to hundreds of government and
private buildings around the county; pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars to cover the county's consultants' and attorneys' fees; and
provide additional cash or free services on top of all these other
concessions. Federal law prohibits all of these demands.

* The county's contention that its actions are justified because it
imposed the same requirements on Comcast is specious. Comcast's
franchise provides that if the county negotiates an agreement with a new
entrant that requires smaller monetary contributions, Comcast can
renegotiate its agreement to match those terms. This is not a question
of competitive equity, but of county officials being unwilling to part
with the perquisites offered by a cable monopolist.

* The county does not need the money. It is projecting a surplus of
roughly $1 million for its cable fund in fiscal year 2007.

Montgomery County Is Enforcing Its Franchise Agreement With Comcast in a Way That Violates Federal Antitrust Law.

* Congress outlawed exclusive franchises in 1992. Prior to that, cable
operators often offered perks over and above what the law required in
order to win monopoly control of a market. The cable operator could
then exploit its monopoly position to recoup the costs of these
give-aways. Incumbent cable operators continue to employ this strategy
to raise barriers to entry.

* The county has interpreted Comcast's franchise agreement to block the
county from offering a franchise agreement to a Verizon on different
terms. This halts competition and protects Comcast's monopoly. By
entering into an agreement with Comcast that ensures the county will
impose cost-prohibitive terms on new entrants, effectively blocking
entry, the county has violated federal antitrust laws.

COMPETITION WILL BENEFIT MONTGOMERY COUNTY CONSUMERS

If allowed to compete in Montgomery County, Verizon's FiOS TV will introduce much-needed competition and create significant benefits for cable customers.

The Lack of Cable Competition Is Harming Montgomery County Consumers.

* Control of the Market ... Comcast currently controls the video market
in Montgomery County. Roughly two-thirds of all households in the
county, and roughly 75 percent of households that purchase cable or
satellite service, subscribe to Comcast.

* Rising Prices ... Because of a lack of competition, Comcast has been
able to raise prices in Montgomery County by 25 percent since 2000 -
nearly three times the rate of inflation. From 2004-2005, Comcast
raised prices by 6 percent.

* No Competition ... While satellite service is available, the FCC has
determined that satellite is not effective at constraining price
increases by cable companies.

Competition Can Constrain Comcast's Price Increases.

* Competition Works ... In its March 2006 report on video competition,
the FCC found that in areas with real cable competition, monthly cable
rates are 16 percent lower and customers pay 27 percent less per
programming channel.

* Delay Costs Consumers ... Nationwide, the delay in wireline
competition is creating economic losses of between $8.2 billion and
$21.4 billion per year.

* Montgomery County Consumers Are Paying a Huge Price ... Thomas
Hazlett, an economist at George Mason University who submitted a
declaration in support of Verizon's case, concluded that the county's
actions are costing residents more than $725,000 per month.

Verizon's FiOS TV: A Much-Needed Competitor in Montgomery County.

Customers who switch to Verizon will save money. Verizon's standard digital package costs $28.65 less than the comparable package offered by Comcast in Montgomery County. A family in Montgomery County that switches to Verizon could save more than $300 per year.

Even customers who don't subscribe to FiOS TV will benefit from competition. In communities where Verizon has been allowed to compete, cable prices have dropped 28 to 42 percent.

* In Keller, Texas, the first location where FiOS TV began competing,
Charter lowered its rate by $16 per month or 28 percent.

* In Herndon, Va., Cox dropped its price from $52.44 per month to $30 per
month after FiOS TV entered the market.

* In Temple Terrace, Fla., Bright House lowered its price from $58.45 per
month to $36.33 per month.

Verizon carries the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which broadcasts Washington Nationals baseball games. This is just one of the many channels Verizon carries that Comcast does not.

Company News On-Call: http://www.prnewswire.com/comp/618232.html
Web site: http://www.verizon.com

Source: Verizon

CONTACT: Harry Mitchell, +1-304-344-7562, harry.j.mitchell@verizon.com,
of Verizon

-------
Profile: intent