Home » Broadband Speed »Competition »Consumer News »Editorial & Site News »Frontier »Public Policy & Gov't »Rural Broadband » Currently Reading:

Four Telcos-Four Stories: Rightsizing Revenue, Irritating Broadband — Today: Frontier

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

Today: Frontier — “Rightsizing” Our Broadband Revenue in Barely-Competitive Markets, Even When It Costs Us Customers

“We have been very disciplined with our [data] pricing and really trying to make sure that we are moving the prices up in a right direction and looking at customers who are paying way below where they should be,” Donald R. Shassian, chief financial officer and executive vice president of Frontier Communications told investors on a conference call earlier this month.They are not a valued customer. If we can’t get them up, we are sort of letting them disconnect off, if you would, and it’s enabling us to be more disciplined.”

That “direction” has meant higher bills for some long-standing customers that suddenly lost discounts or service credits. One common example is Frontier’s mandatory broadband modem rental fee, increasingly turning up on customer bills even though they own their own equipment or had previously arranged a fee waiver. Ex-Verizon customers were particularly hard hit when Frontier switched to its own billing platform. Just about every customer has also been impacted by Frontier’s “junk fees,” including company surcharges that effectively raise the price of the service.

As a result of higher pricing and dissatisfaction with the quality of service, some customers have disconnected, and the company recently reported second quarter profits were down 44%, offset by slightly higher earnings from higher bills.

The New Frontier

Frontier Communications has enormously expanded its reach over the past few years. Frontier’s original “legacy” service areas were dwarfed in 2010 by the company’s acquisition of 4.8 million landlines from Verizon Communications.

Frontier’s Combined Service Map — Areas in red are “legacy” Frontier service areas. Those in blue were acquired in 2010 from Verizon. (click to enlarge)

Frontier roughly tripled in size as a result, and the huge spike in customers delivered four straight quarters of triple-digit revenue growth. But the transition for ex-Verizon customers has not been easy. Customers endured billing errors, service plan confusion, and service quality issues as Frontier got up to speed managing Verizon’s landline network. A significant number of those customers have had enough and are switching to other providers.

West Virginia is the best place to study the contrast between Frontier’s failures and successes. A large number of service problems and lengthy outages plagued the state after Frontier took charge of a landline network Verizon treated as an afterthought. Over at least a decade, Verizon allowed its landline network to deteriorate to abysmal condition in several areas of the state. Little was invested to upgrade service, and Verizon ultimately left West Virginia with one of the lowest national broadband service penetration rates — about 60 percent.

Verizon’s priorities were elsewhere: spend millions on FiOS fiber upgrades in larger, urban markets while letting rural landline networks stagnate. Eventually, Verizon’s management team decided it was no longer worth hanging on to these low priority service areas and began selling them off. FairPoint Communications acquired Verizon customers in northern New England and Frontier bought mostly rural midwestern and western territories long struck from Verizon’s priority list.

Wilderotter

Frontier’s key argument for acquiring Verizon landlines was that the company could bank on deploying broadband to a much larger percentage of customers than Verizon ever bothered to serve.

Frontier places a very high priority on broadband, because the company can significantly boost the average revenue it earns from each customer by providing the service. With Frontier often the only home broadband choice around in its most rural markets, the company can charge whatever it wants for DSL service, tempered only by how much customers can afford to pay. Broadband is also a proven customer-keeper, an important consideration for any company facing ongoing losses from customers dumping landlines for cell phones.

Since its acquisition, Frontier has been aggressively deploying rural broadband in the former Verizon territories — typically the cheapest form it can deliver — 1-3Mbps ADSL service. Frontier considers its legacy service areas already well-covered, claiming around 93 percent of customers can already subscribe to Frontier DSL.

In states like West Virginia, the fact anyone is supplying anything resembling broadband has been well-received by those who have never had the service before. But where competition exists, Frontier has been losing ground (and customers) as cable competitors provide more consistent, higher speeds and quality of service.

The frustration is especially acute in the Mountain State. Steve Andrews, a Beckley resident complained, “This company’s idea of broadband access is up to 3Mbps DSL while nearby states like Virginia and Pennsylvania are getting fiber or cable broadband speeds ten times faster.” Andrews added that on most days his Frontier-provided broadband provides only around 800kbps, not the advertised 3Mbps.

Frontier Admits It Uses Government (Your) Money to Expand Broadband Where It Would Have Expanded Service on Its Own… Eventually

Frontier Communications was by far the most enthusiastic participant in the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund (CAF). This subsidy program currently covers $775 of the cost to extend broadband service to a currently unserved customer. Frontier agreed to accept nearly $72 million from the program, which commits the company to offering at least 4Mbps broadband service to an additional 92,877 homes and businesses around the country.

But Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications, admitted Frontier would have eventually spent its own money to extend service to those rural customers without a subsidy:

“Get broadband out faster to a bunch of customers that we would have built anyway, at some point in time. And it also accomplishes the objectives of using the funds that are available from the FCC. We actually could have taken more money…. So we felt good about it. We totally understand why the other carriers made the decisions they made because we didn’t — we’re not building anything on our legacy markets. So it’s the money. It’s all in the acquired properties where we still had pretty low penetration with enough density to support the parameters that the FCC put in place.”

The fund, paid for by telephone customers nationwide through a surcharge on customer bills, will also subsidize a lucrative business opportunity for Frontier, according to Wilderotter.

“These are unserved locations that really are not competitive at all,” Wilderotter told investors. “So there’s no competition in those areas. So we’re pretty excited about it. We think that this is going to be good for Frontier and good overall.”

More than $38 million of the total broadband subsidy Frontier received will be spent in 30 counties in just one state: Wisconsin. Among other locations where Frontier will spend the money:

  • 1 Arizona county
  • 2 California counties
  • 1 Florida county
  • 5 Idaho counties
  • 25 Illinois counties
  • 2 Indiana counties
  • 26 Michigan counties
  • 2 Nevada counties
  • 8 New York counties
  • 1 North Carolina county
  • 8 Ohio counties
  • 5 Oregon counties
  • 2 Tennessee counties
  • 7 Washington counties
  • 25 West Virginia counties

Trying to Hang Onto Customers Frontier Already Has… With Serious Speed Boosts

Frontier’s speed plans through 2013.

One of the loudest and most consistent complaints Frontier broadband customers mention is the slow speeds they receive from Frontier’s DSL. Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps in rural areas, up to 10Mbps in urban areas. But in fact many customers report their speeds are much lower than advertised. Data from the FCC’s national broadband speed measurement program bears this out. Frontier was the only measured provider in the United States that has been losing ground in promised broadband speed and performance.

Frontier officials announced earlier this month the company was shifting some of its capital investments away from broadband expansion towards improving the performance of its broadband service for current customers.

In highly competitive, urban markets Frontier will deploy VDSL2 technology which can support significantly faster and more reliable Internet speeds. In more rural markets, bonded ADSL 2+ will deliver speeds of 10Mbps or better to customers currently stuck with around 1-2Mbps speed.

Daniel J. McCarthy, president and chief operating officer:

  • We expect our 20Mbps service to move from 28% of residential households today to 42% by year-end and then 52% by the end of 2013;
  • The 12Mbps services planned to increase from 33% of homes today to 51% by year-end and 60% by 2013;
  • And the 6Mbps service is planned to increase from 57% of homes today to 74% by year-end and 80% by 2013.

The new speeds will not come free of charge. Customers will be marketed speed upgrades for additional monthly fees.

Customers will also discover Frontier has been simplifying its packages and moving away from high-value promotional offers that bundled a free laptop, television, or satellite dish in return for a lengthy contract. Today, the company is emphasizing increasing discounts for customers subscribing to two or more services that include telephone/long distance, broadband, and satellite television.

Speeds Going Up, Employees (and their salaries) Going Down

Finally, Frontier executives told investors they are scouring the company looking for cost savings. They appear to have identified around $100 million worth, a good portion of which will come from employees facing job cuts or salary reductions.

Wilderotter said she is focusing on call center workers, retiree positions, and “tech op” savings.

“We still have some bubble workforce in the call centers that will continue to go away,” Wilderotter told Wall Street. “We have a number of employees, too, that are going to be retiring over these next several months. And our goal is not to replace any of those retirees either.”

One of the best examples of this cost savings, according to unions representing Frontier employees, is the forthcoming closure of an Idaho-based call center in Coeur d’Alene. More than 100 workers, average age 55, will lose their $15-21/hour jobs Sept. 18 while Frontier prepares to leverage cheaper labor in South Carolina.

Frontier’s new call center employees in Myrtle Beach will receive $11 an hour while training, $12/hour after training — with a five year wage freeze. Benefits will be considerably leaner for South Carolina employees as well, according to union officials.

Share

Currently there are 4 comments on this Article:

  1. fred says:

    Frontier’s new call center employees in Myrtle Beach will receive $11 an hour while training, $12/hour after training — with a five year wage freeze. Benefits will be considerably leaner for South Carolina employees as well, according to union officials.

    What a surprise! South Carolina is one of the worst paying states in the US. Lousy pay and benefits are the norm here. It is time to step somewhere else.

  2. txpatriot says:

    Just be glad they didn’t off-shore their call centers like so many companies have done.

  3. Anonymous Coward says:

    I tried to keep this short, I failed. tl;dr version: frontier sucks.

    Frontier has been my ISP for something like ~10 years. For that entire time they’ve been the only option (outside of satellite). When we got it we had ~1.4 Mbps down. About ~8 years ago I talked to a regional manager (or some similar title) who said the whole area was going to get upgraded to 3 Mbps. As of right now, with my attenuation and SNR speeds of 2.5 Mbps down should be attainable. And, right now, the modem is connected at 768 Kbps (actual speed a bit slower).

    Additionally, because Frontier is the main ISP in my town, we have an average download speed (from speedtest.net) at least 2-3 times slower than comparable towns in a 100 mile radius (and significantly more expensive, too).

    So, I’m a bit tired of reading frontier’s crap about rainbows and unicorns like this: “Frontier officials announced earlier this month the company was shifting some of its capital investments away from broadband expansion towards improving the performance of its broadband service for current customers.”

    It is worth noting the people I’ve worked with at the local level (for service calls and whatnot) have always been nice and tried to be helpful. However, there’s only so much they can do when the corporate culture seems to be one completely devoted to screwing the customer. Something that comes with this article talking about how they go into areas without competition.

  4. Smith6612 says:

    I’ve been using Frontier since they installed DSL service in my area. I was one of their first customers, and THE first person to order on the remote I’m attached to. Frontier has improved speeds from 1Mbps/128kbps to 3Mbps/384kbps since I got the service which was a few weeks after hook-up, but otherwise nothing has changed since. Reliability has been there, as I never see or notice the line being down, but the consistently of the line’s performance is another thing. The service ran great back when I had it installed and Frontier didn’t have quite as many folks on their service or for that matter at higher speeds, but as content evolved online, as more folks got hooked up and as speeds were boosted, I started noticing congestion issues. They first began at my Central office, which was due to a sudden flood of customers getting DSL service during the Adelphia > Time Warner transition and those who realized during the Winter months DSL was available where no other broadband could be gotten besides Wireless.

    Frontier was prompt to fix the congestion issues at the CO, taking a few weeks to install and bring up a new fiber circuit to Rochester which resolved congestion issues locally. The DSLAMs (Remote or integrated) are connected via Fiber back to the CO so they have never been an issue. However as time went on congestion started occurring deeper into the network. At my edge router/BRAS in Rochester, at the fiber ring in Rochester, when the Virginia POP was brought online at the backbone going to that POP, Chicago was marked as a backup POP and New Jersey was taken offline. Now during the Winter months while I get my 3Mbps, the speeds are reduced at night due to congestion in Rochester and this has been outstanding for a few years now. When it’s not winter, congestion is happening most nights but not all. They’ve had a while to fix it but I’m not sure what is being done.

    Speeds have also not been improved in my area. Businesses get a max of 6Mbps/600kbps, Residents 3Mbps/384kbps. Frontier Lite is still 1.2Mbps/160kbps, and Max is what I quoted above. They have ADSL2+ cards available in the remotes (mine has one card free in the very old Adtran DSLAM) and from the CO, but they are not running to their potential. Right now I have my line set at 3712/896kbps due to QoS issues I’m seeing with the network while uploading which is being resolved, so I’ve been gifted a speed boost on the upstream, but my line is in such a condition to where 6+Mbps isn’t a problem.

    I’m in a legacy market which has copper in great shape and equipment ready to go for higher speeds, but Frontier needs to do something about that and also improve their backbone quality a good amount to the residential network. From what I understand, marketing and other heads high up in the company are stopping me from getting more, and everyone I’ve spoken to has stated there’s no technical reason why I can’t get more. Frontier could reach their goal as mandated by FCC and make themselves look better with a few well-placed steps.

    FYI: I have 1Mbps/1Mbps, 3Mbps/1Mbps, 10Mbps/1Mbps, 20Mbps/2Mbps, 30Mbps/5Mbps and 50Mbps/5Mbps (soon to be 50Mbps/25Mbps according to rumors) Cable available to me. I’m with Frontier because they’ve treated me well and I do not exactly like the cable company, but Frontier needs to get in the game.







Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • txpatriot: Here is yet another love letter from the NY Times to Susan Crawford: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-bac...
  • txpatriot: Oh I'm not complaining -- you do a great job. Thanx...
  • Phillip Dampier: I usually try and get away from the computer on the weekends, so I don't usually wipe these out until Monday. Some increased security measures have he...
  • Phillip Dampier: My nomination list is a wasted effort since neither you or I have any power to change the current one. I'd say in general, the benefits that accrue...
  • txpatriot: Looks like the spammers are back...
  • FrankM: AT&T also needs to follow Google's lead of NO DATA CAPS!...
  • Report Them - It's Easy!: Bills with the new Administrative fee are being received by customers by now. Some momentum is growing at forums.att.com to have a mass of customer...
  • Michael Elling (@Infostack): Phil, first, suggest 3 people you think are more qualified and we'll do an objective analysis. Second, are you aware of the personal expense Mr. Wh...
  • Danny Lampley: "As we’ve reported before, Tom Wheeler has said almost nothing on his blog about consumer interests . . . ." Expecting a bit much aren't we? After ...
  • Phillip Dampier: I received information from our friends in North Carolina: AT&T has already won the right to redline customers in states like N.C. where they have a s...
  • elfonblog: And I certainly have a problem with that. AT&T is suggesting that they *deserve* the same deal. And they don't. Always playing the victim. Poor, p...
  • txpatriot: The NY PSC partially approved the VZ Tariff filing; you can find the Order and press release on this page: http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Matte...

Your Account: