The Tiresome Return of the “Gas & Electric” Analogy

It’s baaack.  Gary Kim, self-described member of MENSA, elected to link to our recent article about a customer in Austin having his Road Runner service cut so that he could drag out that we have heard before.  Mr. Kim, who has penned his views for a boatload of industry trade publications, as well as running a few of his own, has trotted out that old chestnut about not paying flat rate for gas, electric, and water.  Except he takes the analogy to the extreme “conservation” argument, as if the world of online video is leading us to a broadband global warming catastrophe.

Are you as smart as the industry guy?

Are you as smart as the industry guy?

Now I’m not a member of MENSA.  My experience with IQ tests was limited to those wooden pyramid puzzle things they used to put on your table at the Cracker Barrel.  But I’ll give this a shot anyway.

Lots of people get upset about bandwidth caps that strike me as extraordinarily generous. Does anybody think the planet or the economy would be better off, companies better able to improve service or people given incentives to “do the right thing” if electricity, gasoline, water, natural gas or heating oil were sold on an “all you can eat” basis.

Which bandwidth caps are extraordinarily generous?  The 5GB cap on your wireless phone plan (or the one Frontier considered but discarded in light of the competitive advantage it now seeks in one Time Warner test market), the 40GB power user tier Time Warner started out with, the 150GB limit AT&T is playing with, or the 250GB cap Comcast has today?  The caps are all over the lot, with each company swearing on a stack of press releases their cap is the one most justified and required if a company can survive the Irwin Allen-like Exaflood future.

Second question: What exactly is “the right thing?”  Bowing to the cable television industry’s business plan opposing a-la-carte video packages in order to enjoy the revenue that comes from all you can watch television?  Is it the wrong thing for people to make their own decisions about what they do with their Internet connection?  We’ve been down the road of why the Internet is not the same thing as oil, gas, or even water for that matter.  StoptheCap! reader Brion perhaps had the best debunking of this analogy:

I suggest a simple analog to demonstrate how bandwidth usage tiers is not in any way like your utilities.

Instead of thinking of bandwidth as being like water or gas, think of water or gas companies implementing what Time Warner proposes: cap your usage and give you a meter to monitor it. But that is only half the analogy.

First off, in the best case scenario you already provide your gas, electric, or water meter readings to your utility and they bill you based on consumption. But if you don’t then they either read the meter (attached to your house) directly or make an estimate based on past usage.

Secondly, utilities meter consumable resources: gas, water, electricity — all of which cost time, money and energy to generate. Bandwidth does not get “generated” or “produced” it simply exists at a specific level based on the network hardware Time Warner owns or leases. Bandwidth cannot be consumed in the sense gas can be consumed because when a user stops using bandwidth the amount they were using is once again available for someone else to use. So the real problem (if there is one) is one of simultaneous bandwidth usage.

One could liken this to a water main that’s 12″ in diameter and serving 20 houses on one street. The civil engineers that designed the water main system designed it to service 20 houses on that street. Now imagine the city building 20 or 30 extra houses on the same street without replacing the water main and then telling everyone they now have a “water cap” and if they go over that cap they must pay extra for their “heavy usage”.

Anyone in their right mind can see that the main is simply too small for the demand of 40 – 50 houses because it was built for 20 and it should be upgraded instead of trying to get everyone to reduce their usage or suffer poorer water pressure performance and extra charges.

Time Warner has oversold its bandwidth (the size of the pipe, not the amount of data) and it needs to upgrade its Internet connection, not downgrade the customer experience (while simultaneously charging them for the downgrade).

They’re trying to tell us that this potato is called an apple and for the vast majority of fruit-lovers they won’t notice a difference. Bandwidth is not the amount of data you send or receive, it’s the amount of data you can *possibly* send or receive *at one time*. They are completely different things!

Mr. Kim then suggests he doesn’t necessarily like his electricity or water rates, but he conserves because there is a penalty for unrestrained use.  Actually, there isn’t really a penalty at all.  Gas, electric, and water service are sold on a true metered basis.  There are no “bucket plans” for these services.  They are also utilities, and their rates are either regulated outright, or carefully monitored in the limited competition models some states have for these services.

Your water company bears the minimal cost of pumping a gallon of water from a body of water or aquifer.  It then resells that water at a per gallon rate marked up to cover all of the overhead and expenses it has, sets a little more aside just in case of a non-rainy day, and delivers it to you at a rational, non-gouging price.  If you don’t want to pay, you leave the faucet off.  On the Internet, the faucet drips… all the time.  The only way you are assured of not paying is to unplug your modem, never check your e-mail, and avoid websites with ads, because those are now now on your dime, especially when Time Warner marks up its wholesale cost by 1000% or more for that data.  It’s like getting a glass of water but handing half of it to the stranger walking by your house, who also wants you to pay him a dollar on top of that.

Time Warner is also, like many cable providers, hip deep in a conflict of interest on broadband consumption.  Cable has a vested interest in forcing you to “conserve” your connection, particularly by not using those services which directly compete with its business models.  Streaming video online offers the customer the possibility of foregoing a cable TV package altogether.  A Voice Over IP telephone provider on the Internet makes Time Warner’s Digital Phone product redundant.  A Netflix set-top box that streams movies and other video programming in competition with premium/pay per view channels represent just one more service that panics many in the upper floors at Time Warner Cable’s headquarters.

Consider the difference between wireless “unlimited” plans and other plans that simply offer more minutes or capacity than you actually use in a month. Is there really any practical difference–for most people–between “truly unlimited” and “more than I can use” plans?

unlimited-callingThank you for at least bringing up the telecommunications industry in this equation.  After all, telephone and wireless telecommunications services are a far better analogy than big oil and gas.  You yourself saw the writing on the wall for the long distance market in some of your essays several years back.  This was a business whose costs to deliver the service were plummeting, especially with the advent of Voice Over IP, and as those costs declined, so would prices, threatening the very business model for long distance in the United States.

Ironically, it was the very same cable companies that are whining about Exafloods and a crisis of costs who have contributed to the demise of “long distance.”  Time Warner, among others, are now pitching cheap unlimited calling plans to customers who will never pay for another long distance call.  In the wireless industry, price skirmishes have already broken out with carriers marketing true unlimited calling plans or calling circles which, for most people, mean no more airtime minute watching.

When I renew my Verizon Wireless contract this December, I will be handed a new phone and the option of a better plan with more minutes at or below the price I am paying now.  By that time, there is every likelihood Time Warner will be asking me to pay three times more ($150 a month) for precisely the same level of service I am receiving now for around $50 a month.  One of these companies is responding to the reality that bandwidth costs are declining, and are reducing rates and offering more.  The other is taking advantage of a very limited competitive market and wants to triple charges claiming they are on the edge of broadband bankruptcy — only they’re not when you read their financial reports.  Guess which is which.

I am also glad you are asking real people these questions, because companies like Time Warner certainly aren’t.  Any reader here can recite poll after poll.  The overwhelming majority of broadband customers, even those who are not defined “at the moment” as “abusers” of the network are content and satisfied paying one monthly fee for their service.  They don’t want your plan, the industry’s plan, buckets, limits, caps, overlimits, or whatever else the marketing people decide to call the equivalent of Internet rationing at top dollar pricing.

We are consumers.  We are customers.  We are not industry insiders and we don’t write for industry trade publications.  We don’t get a paycheck from this industry.  Indeed, this industry raises our bill year after year, delivers inconsistent messages about why we are now being asked to pay for “buckets of broadband,” yet still denies us the ability to choose the channels we want for our own video package, paying just for what we want.

We also are empowered and educated enough to use this incredible tool called the Internet to research the assertions some make and simply expect others to accept at face value.  We now read financial reports and statements.  We verify.  We also discover the language of the lobbyist, the marketers, the astroturfers, and the executive elements that are now attempting to sell consumers on their scheme to pay considerably more for the exact same thing, or less.  Then we compare that with the glowing results given to shareholders, and we see the chasm between the two messages.  We realize what we are being sold:  a soon-to-be-even-more-inflated bill of goods.

Frankly, you don’t have to be a genius to recognize that looking at a gas gauge, worrying about overlimit fees, and being stuck paying $100 more a month for broadband is not going to make anyone outside of this industry happy.

Caps are just buckets. As long as the buckets are capacious enough, the plans clear enough, the usage information available and the prices reasonable, buckets work. Bandwidth caps are just buckets.

The first time a consumer gets a bill from a company with a plan like Time Warner’s, they are going to kick the bucket.

Anyone who doesn’t recognize and admit the real potential of market abusive pricing and policies in a limited competitive marketplace isn’t being completely honest, especially when the players do not offer roughly equivalent levels of service.  If the future of broadband in this country is to be unregulated virtual duopolies, then perhaps consumers need to insist on common carrier status for those networks, allowing equal access to a variety of competing providers, with oversight to guarantee fair wholesale pricing and access.

Share

WROC Rochester Connects Time Warner Outage to “Capacity”/Exaflood Theory

Phillip Dampier April 28, 2009 Broadband "Shortage", Time Warner Cable, Video 4 Comments

Argh…  Lauren MacDonough, WROC Web Reporter, what were you thinking?  MacDonough adds to WROC’s highlighted coverage of the Time Warner service outage, with a follow-up explanation that belies belief.  She gets the first part of the explanation correct: a router failed in Syracuse which affected domain name servers, among other things.  That assured any connections made through the Syracuse Operations Center would end up getting no further if they were relying on Time Warner’s equipment to route the traffic properly.

But then MacDonough wades out into the deep end, and gets into trouble.  She posits the theory it could have been a “strain” on its network which caused the hardware to fail, and then quotes Time Warner’s earlier press release about “Internet brownouts could be on the horizon,” and then draws a line between the events on Sunday and Time Warner’s exaflood theory.  [Shudder]

Generally speaking, traffic on an electronic piece of equipment does not wear it out, leading to a failure.  Routers have failed since Road Runner began service.  It happens.  Sometimes it’s heat related, other times a power supply stops functioning properly.  A pesky spider spinning a web inside the case might be indictable.  There are lots of reasons.  Heavy traffic, on a Sunday morning yet, causing the thing to flame out is unlikely to be among the first theories I’d come up with.

Some readers have asked why I’ve been covering this story in the first place.  Today you know.  It’s not an intention to pile-on any negative bad news about Time Warner, but rather to be sure we are on guard against media misinterpretation of unrelated events which lead to any inappropriate tie-ins to Time Warner’s kooky theory of broadband management.

As you’ve just seen, that’s precisely what Lauren MacDonough did.  It’s likely unintentional on her part, but it doesn’t change the fact we will need to help correct the record and not allow debunked exaflood theories to be used as “evidence” for usage caps and rationing tier plans.

Share

WETM Elmira – Why Limited Competition & Caps Kill Smaller Communities

Phillip Dampier April 28, 2009 Community Networks, Public Policy & Gov't, Video 2 Comments

Many people still think of broadband Internet access as some sort of luxury “extra,” like a premium movie channel on your cable subscription, or maybe a nice dinner out at an expensive restaurant.  Only it’s not.  Increasingly, students are choosing where to attend school based on connectivity, high tech business incubators are built in communities where access is available at affordable prices, and now one New York State senator has released a report showing lack of access to affordable broadband is hurting the real estate market.

Senator George Winner (R/C/I – Elmira) released a report last fall documenting the trials and tribulations of inadequate availability and competition for broadband in smaller towns and cities, including many in his district in the southern tier of New York.

Winner fears that without equity of access and a healthy competitive marketplace, the impact will be felt community-wide.

Lack of access to broadband is influencing the real estate market. Homes that have broadband are winning out over more remote ones that don’t. Areas with better and faster broadband are becoming more desirable than ones with slower access. Experts believe that over time, the lack of universal broadband, could pull people from the countryside toward cities and suburbs. On the federal level, the FCC is considering using the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes phone service in rural areas, to promote broadband coverage as well.

That’s why communities like Elmira, and others in the Twin Tiers region, were paying attention when Time Warner announced broadband usage cap experiments in Beaumont, Texas.  For most, Road Runner -is- their broadband provider.

Can anyone place that anchor’s accent?  It’s definitely not from the western New York area!

StoptheCap! heard from many Frontier customers scattered nationwide across their service area, which encompasses mostly rural communities from coast to coast.  For them, broadband Internet service means getting it from an expensive satellite service, or getting DSL from Frontier Communications.  There is no cable service in many of these communities.  When Frontier was considering a usage cap of 5GB per month, these consumers weren’t just alarmed, they were in full panic.

Rural and underserved markets are routinely bypassed by providers from the latest technological innovations, and are often under punitive contracts at high prices.  Senator Winner’s report details private and public initiatives to reach these communities.  He’s a conservative Republican who serves a district that would prefer not to be bothered by political schemes hatched in Albany, but the issue of broadband access is one that crosses party lines, as readers of this site have come to learn.  It’s not a right or left issue.  It’s one that will rapidly become as important as wiring communities for electricity and universal access to telephone service.

Expensive caps and overlimit fees are an anathema to the development of broadband nationwide.  It’s an issue rural communities are following, as they often have few, if any alternatives.

Share

Policy Change: Comments Section

Phillip Dampier April 28, 2009 Editorial & Site News Comments Off

Effective today, I am making some policy changes affecting our Comments section.  It is important for everyone to understand that organizing a pushback against usage caps means putting aside non-germane issues that really don’t help to keep people focused on the issues here.  Therefore,

  1. This is not a “right” or “left” issue.  We have people from all political points of view here, each concerned for their own reasons or beliefs why caps are bad.  Some feel this is a slippery slope towards controlling what people do online, others see it as a corporatist agenda to reduce competition and abuse market power.  Some seek a regulatory approach, others want competition in the free market, and many more want a combination of the two.  They are all valid, and it’s okay to offer different solutions.  But this is not the fault of any political party, past or current president, or federal official.  After 20 years of watching this industry, there are both Democrats and Republicans who support or oppose our views on these issues.  It’s remarkable how bi-partisan the good and the bad ideas are.  A Democrat in the North Carolina legislature is pushing the anti-municipal broadband legislation.  Republicans in Texas have largely not been receptive to appeals from constituents about usage caps.  In short, you’ll find good and bad all over, and we’ll need all of the good we can find, no matter what political party one aligns with.
  2. Resist flame wars in the Comments section on other writers.  I am going to start purging the more egregious ones.  Argue and debate the issues, not each other.  It’s okay to have different opinions, and people should expect they might be debated about them, but let’s keep it above the belt.

The Comments system is now configured to allow you to edit your comments for up to 30 minutes after they are written.  If you are particularly annoyed with someone, you might consider writing the reply in a text editor, saving it, and waiting a few hours/next day before you paste it into the comments editor and send it.  Heat of the moment replies are often regretted later.

Thanks for helping out.

Share

WXII Triad – “For Right Now, Cap Plan Is On Hold” – Down But Not Out In North Carolina

Phillip Dampier April 27, 2009 Time Warner Cable, Video 2 Comments

WXII in the Triad told its viewers that although the Time Warner usage cap plan was being put on hold, it was by no means gone for good.  The reporter told viewers the suspension came from “confusion” and “backlash” from Time Warner customers.

Time Warner’s talking point about saving the elderly money is on full display here, as the reporter tells viewers if they send only a couple dozen e-mails, it means they “end up paying more for those who spend hours on end gaming online.”  Of course, the report fails to mention those customers can save money today on a Road Runner Lite plan.  It’s really just a classic case of trying to pit customers against one another using the “us vs. them” card.  They hope dangling those shiny keys in customers’ faces will distract them from realizing that nobody’s cable bill ever really goes down — not unless you drop services along the way.

thumbs-down2A talking point festival from Time Warner’s perspective.  I’m not sure if this report was a companion to another, but this on a standalone basis was simply a recitation of Time Warner’s claims.  Interestingly, the piece still quotes Time Warner maintaining the same plan — the gas gauge will then tell viewers “whether they need to go up a plan or down a plan.”
Share

R-News – Schumer: They’re Not Going to Use Rochester for Tiered Pricing, Period

Phillip Dampier April 27, 2009 Time Warner Cable, Video 4 Comments

R-News is owned and operated by Time Warner.  There has traditionally been a firewall in place between R-News and Time Warner itself, and the reports have generally been far more balanced than the hackery at News 14 in North Carolina.  Still, they managed to use a broken up talking point from me about “loving the company.”  Of course, if the cap issue were dead and buried, as most of us in attendance were led to believe that afternoon, why not?  I’ve been happy with Road Runner since being one of the early beta testers back in 1998.  At the end of the press event that Thursday, I was thrilled for about … oh, 45 minutes, until getting home and reading the press release from Time Warner.

Senator Schumer’s very insistent point that “they are not going to use Rochester as a guinea pig for any tiered pricing plan, period” may come back to haunt Time Warner if they bring the dog and pony Cap ‘n Tier show back to the Flower City this fall.  There certainly wasn’t any wiggle room in the senator’s statement on the matter.  Will Time Warner defy the senior senator from New York?  We’ll be watching.

Unrated.  I’m in it, so I am not going to rate this.  It -is- certainly a major improvement over what we saw last week from the Carolinas, though, which was limited to company employees interviewing other company employees.
Share

WOAI San Antonio – “We Heard a Lot of Complaints”: Time Warner Suspends Plan For Now

Phillip Dampier April 27, 2009 Time Warner Cable, Video 2 Comments

As we continue our journey across the cities that were originally intended to be part of Time Warner’s experimental caps, it’s not difficult to see that viewers had been complaining long and loud, not just to Time Warner, but also to area TV station news departments.

The temporary suspension announcement reached San Antonio late in the afternoon on Thursday, April 16th.  Same upset customers, same talking points from Time Warner that “education” is all that is needed to cram a rate hike and ration plan on customers.  They still don’t get it.

thumbs-up12This was probably a quick report for the late afternoon newscast.  No packaged piece here.  But the anchor makes it clear customers didn’t like it, and also gave Time Warner’s views, making it balanced.
Share

R-News Silence on Time Warner Outage Brings Questions

Phillip Dampier April 27, 2009 Time Warner Cable 2 Comments

A source and one of our commenters has told StoptheCap! that Time Warner’s news operation in Rochester was asked not to report on yesterday’s critical service outage pending the arrival of an official corporate statement on the matter.  R-News has traditionally operated with a firewall in place between the newsroom and Time Warner Cable’s executives.  R-News was not supposed to answer to Time Warner Cable in how they handle their coverage.  Now there are questions about whether that firewall remains in place.

As of this afternoon, there was no mention of yesterday’s service outage on the R-News website at all.

NorthEast Radio Watch, which in my opinion is an essential weekly read for any and all things broadcast related in the northeast, has heard the same information.  Scott Fybush, who writes the weekly online newsletter, reflected on this and his past employment there as a reporter:

TWC did a remarkably poor job of getting the word out about the extent of the outage and its attempts to rectify the problem. At least here in Rochester, TWC’s phone lines were, understandably, in a state of constant busy for several hours.

So what about the cable news channels the company operates, such as R News in Rochester? We’re hearing that the word came down from upstairs not to mention anything at all about the issue until an official statement was available, which turned out to be some time after the problems had been resolved.

Noting here that your editor is a former R News reporter – and that there was a little more editorial independence back in our days there – we’re wondering: if R News and its sister channels are no longer making any pretense of independent news coverage of their parent company, why not at least put those channels to use as a readily-available way to let customers know about big outages like this…and maybe even ease the pressure on overloaded call centers?

Share

Affected by the Time Warner Outage? Get One Day Service Credit

Phillip Dampier April 27, 2009 Time Warner Cable 6 Comments

If your Road Runner and/or Digital Phone was impacted by yesterday’s service outage, you can request (they usually won’t give it unless you ask) a one day service credit.  Visit Time Warner Cable, select your service area, and the click the Contact Us button at the top.  You can send an e-mail message with your account information, and request a one day credit for the service outage on April 26th.  [Hat tip: Christopher, who brought this to our attention.]

Share

The Trouble With Frontier…

Phillip Dampier April 27, 2009 Frontier, Time Warner Cable 19 Comments

Several weeks ago, I documented Frontier Communications as a potential competitor customers in the Rochester area could choose for cap-free DSL service.  Much of that information is in our “Alternatives” section.  Unfortunately, some of that information is wrong, not because I got it wrong, but because the customer service representative got it wrong when they shared it with me.

FrontierI now have had the opportunity to sit down and document the correct pricing information, as well as my DSL experience thus far.  This is also an important article for another reason — it helps explain why Frontier is never going to be a viable competitor for a lot of people in this community.

It’s All in the Bundle

Frontier Communications, like Time Warner, believes in the “bundle.”  They want to be your single provider for television, telephone, and broadband service.  The incentive for taking the bundle is the greater discount you receive from a combined package.  Take all three components, get the largest discount.  Take just one and the discount is less.

Unfortunately, Frontier has a problem with their bundle.  They cannot deliver a wired television package.  They resell Echostar’s DISH satellite system instead.  That automatically excludes some people who don’t have a good “look angle” to the proper spot in the sky to receive the satellite signal, do not want a dish on or about their house, or live in an apartment building that makes satellite equipment untenable.

Frontier’s broadband service uses ADSL (digital subscriber line) technology.  It transmits data on frequencies above the frequency range of the human voice, which lets you use the same phone line for both data and regular phone calls.  The telephone company gets to leverage their copper wire infrastructure to deliver Internet service to customers without having to rewire entire communities.

Unfortunately, DSL cannot provide as consistent a level of speed to customers as fiber or coaxial cable systems can.  That’s because the further away you are from the telephone company “switch,” or “central office” which serves your exchange, the lower the signal level reaches your home.  If you are within 5,000 feet of the central office, your speeds will likely achieve those close to what the company markets.  If you are within 5,000-10,000 feet, you’ll probably end up with around half of what they promise in their ads.  If you are over 10,000 feet, things start to drop off rapidly.  At over 18,000 feet, at least with Frontier, you are basically out of luck.  The phone company usually “locks” your speed at the rate which can best sustain itself without dropping out, in a setting on your modem.

For people who just use their connection for e-mail or web page browsing, they may not know the difference.  They don’t often understand 10Mbps down/1Mbps up, much less realize their effective speed might be far less than that.  But for anyone who uses higher bandwidth applications like video, downloading, and other types of streaming, the difference can be dramatic.

The Competitive Situation for Broadband in Rochester, N.Y.

Rochester divides the broadband market into two players: Time Warner, which has the largest percentage of broadband customers, and Frontier Communications, the local telephone company which has had a declining percentage of the market.  Clearwire and wireless data services do not have a significant market share for consumer broadband.

Time Warner has been cleaning up in Rochester because their infrastructure provides a far more consistent product, at substantially higher speeds, than what Frontier can provide.  The differences are dramatic for speeds, and consumers are not obligated with the cable provider into a term contract.  There is no equipment rental fee, and taxes are lower on the cable broadband product.

Frontier DSL can be less expensive than Road Runner, as part of a discounted bundle package.  Frontier routinely tries to market a bundle with a two year service commitment with a $300 cancellation fee.  But if you are outside of the range for acceptable DSL service, Frontier DSL is not an option at all.  If you are on the periphery of a central office switch, your service will be degraded, at best.   For many who are concerned about speed and performance, DSL locally has not kept up.

My Personal Experience With Frontier

Things weren’t going well from the start.  During my initial phone call to inquire about rates and packages for Frontier’s DSL service, confusion reigned on the part of the call center employee in DeLand, Florida.  That’s because we were enrolled in a long-since-discontinued Frontier Choices plan, which allowed customers to choose which phone features they wanted on their line for one flat price.  You just had to call and request them.  We were told that DSL would be available to us for an additional $29.99 per month.  We said yes.  The call center representative tried to add the service, but actually ended up stripping all of the included phone features we’ve used (caller ID, call waiting, etc.) out of the Frontier Choices package and began charging full retail price for each one.  Then, since the DSL service was not added properly, no proper work order was issued, no equipment was ever sent, but the billing sure started.  I should have realized something wasn’t right when the representative kept saying we qualified for “free wee-fee.”

Two weeks after waiting for the self-install kit to arrive, I called to inquire and was promised that a second self-install kit would be mailed out by overnight express.  That never arrived either.  I finally drove down to the local Frontier store and picked one up myself because I grew weary of waiting.  I installed it and… nothing.  The service didn’t work at all.

Finally, over the weekend, a Frontier specialist was assigned to the case and promised to get a service call established and get things straightened out.  It was then he discovered just how botched my account was.  Our last month’s bill was around $50.  This month, so far, it was $122.94 and counting.  Oh good.

After a prolonged conversation, we got the right account plans configured (details and pricing below).  Now all that was necessary was a service call to straighten out the horrendous speed I was getting after the service was activated.  The modem was locked at 320kbps down/192kbps up because that was all the line could sustain.  The representative in DeLand figured that with some creative technical work, we might achieve 6-7Mbps for downloads.  That was still less than the marketed 10Mbps down service, but within tolerable limits considering my distance from the office.

Frontier's Speedstream DSL Self-Install Kit

Frontier's Speedstream DSL Self-Install Kit

The Frontier representative that just completed work here was friendly and exceptionally helpful.  He diagnosed some problems with wiring, installed an external DSL filter outside the house, and ran a new wire to segregate the DSL signal from the telephone line.  One of the irritating side effects of DSL is that you can hear the subtle wooshing of the data stream in the background of all of your phone calls, even with the filters installed.  Phone cable traditionally has two pairs of wiring.  The Frontier technician left one pair for the basic phone line, and ran DSL down the other.

Then the moment of truth arrived.  What kind of speeds was my telephone line capable of providing me from Frontier’s DSL service?  After some testing, a very disappointing result: just over 3Mbps download speed could be provided at my location.  That is as good as it is going to get.  The technician himself complained that the call center representatives are wildly optimistic about speeds in the metro Rochester area.  Local technicians that know the area’s network of wiring are far better at predicting speed levels, and my technician was just a shy under what he thought my line could sustain.

Ultimately, that means a service that is 70% less than what was marketed, and I am not even close to being at the far end of acceptable DSL in Rochester – 18,000 feet maximum.

I am going to take a few days to contemplate all of this, but my initial leaning is to dump Frontier DSL and declare it a non-viable option, at least in my circumstance.  No company should expect a customer to be satisfied with a product or service that delivers only about 30% of what it promises, all at regular pricing.  I may lean on them to see if there is some alternative engineering solution to improve speeds, but if that doesn’t happen, I will likely exit Frontier’s data service before the 30 day satisfaction window closes.

Is Frontier Truly a Competitive Alternative for Broadband?

This is a very important question, because Frontier argues they are and Time Warner has never suggested they are the only provider in the area.  But it comes down to how you define “broadband.”  For suburban customers like myself, 3Mbps is honestly not an acceptable amount of speed for broadband service, especially at a price not too lower than what Time Warner charges for Road Runner.  Customers are stuck, because until they install the service, they won’t know what speeds they will ultimately achieve.  Sure it may work for light bandwidth uses, but it’s hardly a good value when the competition offers considerably more (for now at least).

This represents more evidence of the threat of the Broadband Backwater, where the dominant player exercises market power by limiting access, charging enormous overlimit fees, or refusing to upgrade because equal competition does not exist.  I am a textbook case of a customer that, based on my requirements, will have just one company to choose: Time Warner.  DSL cannot meet my needs with 3Mbps service, except perhaps as a backup.  If Time Warner caps usage, then my only true option would be to pay up to triple the price I am charged today for exactly the same service I get today.

The choice in Rochester would be clear: either take the capped and tiered broadband plan from Time Warner and ration your use of it, or go with Frontier for a potentially dramatically slower connection, with no cap for now.  And Frontier cannot match my current Road Runner Turbo service (15Mbps/1Mbps) at all.  It’s a choice consumers in this area should not be forced to make, and would not have to if more advanced services like Verizon FiOS were available here.

In Buffalo and Syracuse, both adjacent to Rochester, your choices include faster Road Runner service at the same price paid in Rochester, plus Verizon FiOS, with speeds as high as 50Mbps/20Mbps, which aren’t available in Rochester period.  Add draconian usage caps in the Flower City, and you might as well move.  Your broadband service sure won’t.

… Continue Reading

Share

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Phillip Dampier: I have a friend headed out to San Francisco who independently shopped between AT&T, Sonic, and Comcast and naturally made the best choice: Sonic.net. ...
  • Phillip Dampier: Wow... what a great feature. We can all correct each other now. Obviously, I'll have to take this back offline and mess around with it. I was con...
  • Smith6612: I always avoid the hype about super antennas. They don't do much besides induce more noise which really puts you back at square one anyways with digit...
  • Smith6612: Do you have any proof that they are in fact messing with VPN connections and what not? I'd like to see that myself, personally. If you don't use VP...
  • Smith6612: It seems there is still some work to be done to the comment editor, unfortunately. For some reason I can edit others' comments and I'm not even an adm...
  • James R Bivins: I live on a budget and cable is in that budget,but if you don't have cable or the speeds for the these sevices.You are out of luck when is comes to ru...
  • James R Bivins: People in rural area are not been offered the better option for true broadband.Cable is faster,cheaper,and has the GB's.They offer 1 to 3 services an...
  • Fred: Bruce Edward Walker and Dr. Joseph P. Fuhr, Jr are two frauds who no one needs to listen to....
  • nolan: antenna did not work, i have a outside antenna with a digital converter box that pulled in 31 channels.and clear cast only got 12, also have 2nd tv w...
  • David Smith: AT&T's bandwidth capping is akin, in my opinion, to trampling on free speech. The Internet and today's technology makes us realize that there is ...
  • Michelle: How can I file a lawsuit against Cricket broad spying on my service. Every time I connect to the internet, I am bombard with a VPN connection of a rou...
  • Theresa Reid: I just got my Clear Cast today I was able to get only 4 channels. It WILL be going back....

Your Account: