Consumer Reports today released its 2012 list of America’s best phone, broadband, and pay television providers (subscription required), giving top scores to fiber-to-the-home and cable broadband and exposing some familiar phone and cable companies which year-after-year deliver “bottom of the barrel” scores.

Nearly 70,000 readers of the consumer magazine participated in rating their local telecommunications providers for value, reliability, customer service, and broadband speed.  No provider scored higher than “average” for value, but wide discrepancies in broadband speed and the quality of service made choosing winners and losers easy.

Top-rated WOW! (formerly WideOpenWest), is the 15th largest cable provider in the United States, but regularly wins top scores from Consumer Reports readers for the quality of its services. WOW! currently serves mostly suburban subscribers in a handful of cities in Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. But the provider will soon be coming to several new locations thanks to its April purchase of cable overbuilder Knology, which provides service in multi-dwelling units and administers some community-owned broadband networks around the country.  This could provide relief for customers dealing with onerous usage caps in cities like Lawrence, Kan., where Knology’s buyout of Sunflower Broadband kept that company’s Internet Overcharging scheme in place. WOW! has no usage limits on their broadband service.

Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network is also a consistent winner in the ratings, especially for its fast broadband service.

AT&T’s U-verse also scored high in the ratings for broadband.  AT&T’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service still works with existing copper phone wiring inside the home and delivers 20+Mbps broadband, a major improvement over AT&T’s traditional DSL service, which usually tops out at 7Mbps.

Among top-rated cable companies you have heard of, Bright House Networks scored a major coup, winning third place for its broadband service.  Ironically, consumers gave very high marks to Earthlink delivered over Time Warner Cable, scoring it fourth place for broadband. But Earthlink’s performance on Time Warner Cable is actually slightly less than the cable company’s own broadband service. Although both services share exactly the same network, Time Warner adds “speedboost,” a temporary speed increase for downloads. But the cable company got no respect from customers, who put TWC in 19th place.

Other findings of interest:

• TDS, an independent phone company serving primarily rural areas scored a very high fifth place in broadband, despite offering only traditional DSL service (except in limited areas where it has built fiber networks to stay competitive with community-owned providers and cable companies).  But the company won high marks for service reliability;
• Frontier Communications’ inherited FiOS fiber to the home services in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest were that company’s only bright spots for broadband, putting both systems in sixth place.  Everywhere else… forget about it. The company’s traditional DSL service was rated a lousy value and delivered mediocre speeds, earning 24th place.
• Satellite fraudband providers Wildblue and HughesNet continue to torture their customers, scoring dead last for lousy value, speeds, reliability, and everything else.
• Still awful after all these years: Mediacom, Charter, and FairPoint Communications all continue their dubious distinction scoring at the bottom of the barrel for broadband. It’s nothing new for any of them, and it appears nothing is likely to change those rankings in the immediate future.

Americans still hate the big boys.  Outside of AT&T and Verizon’s shorter history delivering triple-play-packages of cable, phone, and Internet service, the legacy of lousy pricing and service from the country’s largest cable operators still hold them back in the ratings.  Comcast managed only 24th place, dragged down by terrible customer service and worse value.  Cablevision did better at 16th place with higher marks for everything but value.  It was the same story for 12th place Cox Cable.

What was the top choice for telephone service in 2012?  Ooma, a Voice over IP phone company that works with an existing broadband connection.  Phone companies that have been in the business of phone service for decades (or longer) were all bottom-rated: AT&T, Verizon, FairPoint, and Frontier Communications.  Only Mediacom, a cable operator, kept Frontier from scoring dead last.  And they wonder why Americans can’t wait to disconnect traditional landline service?

In fact, Consumer Reports says no other industry alienates consumers more than America’s telephone and cable companies.

But you can fight back and score a better deal.  Stop the Cap! was quoted in the magazine piece with our advice to play hardball with cable and phone companies who charge too much and deliver too little.

“The magic word is ‘cancel,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, of the website Stop the Cap! He suggests you schedule your disconnection date for a week or two in the future. “When you’re on their disconnect list, they are going to start calling you offering very aggressive deals,” he says.

Top-rated WOW! only delivers service in a handful of cities in the midwest, but is getting larger after acquiring Knology in April 2012.

Indeed, Consumer Reports found most providers willing to deal… eventually, but they have gotten wise to halfhearted negotiation tactics by consumers looking for a better deal. If a provider suspects you won’t follow through on a threat to change providers, they often stubbornly refuse to deal. That’s why we recommend requesting to be placed on a “pending disconnect” list — proof you are prepared to leave in a week or two if they won’t negotiate.

We’ve followed investor conference calls for most major providers over the past two years. Every provider has gotten more aggressive with customer retention offers, in part because of the poor economy and increased competition. Customers are paring back cable packages and cutting out extra channels and services they can no longer afford. Some have become expert at bouncing between new customer promotional offers. Cable operators like Time Warner Cable have tried to keep customers, even those coming to the end of promotions, with slightly less aggressive discounting.

“We have a very well-choreographed program for moving people from the most heavily discounted promos into the rational next-step pricing packages,” Rob Marcus, president of Time Warner Cable told the magazine. “Over time, that discount will decrease, but you’d probably still save 20 to 30 percent off the rack rate,” or regular price.

But we found consumers who get back on the disconnect list usually do much better than Time Warner’s “next-step” pricing, some even earning a better retention offer than what they received in 2011. The more serious customers are about their willingness to leave, the better the offer in return.

Dead last place for cable companies... again.

The magazine also offers solace for customers who literally have nowhere else to go for service:

Alan Curtis of Manchester, N.H., whose condominium is served only by Comcast, says his rates go up each year but he pushes back. “If you say, ‘We’ll have to buy less,’ occasionally they’ll come up with a cost-cutter that will apply to you,” he says. Similarly, a staffer who lives in a New York City apartment served only by Time Warner Cable more than offset a $5 increase in his overall bill by negotiating an $8-a-month cut in his DVR rental fee for 12 months.

Consumer Reports also warns customers to choose broadband providers wisely, because the speeds they advertise may never materialize. Case in point, Frontier Communications’ dreadful DSL service, which the magazine found met the company’s speed marketing claims only 67% of the time. Frontier has been struggling with a vastly oversold broadband network, causing speeds to slow dramatically during peak usage times, particularly in states like West Virginia.  The magazine recommends fiber to the home providers and cable operators for more consistent broadband performance that comes closer to the broadband speeds advertised.

At all costs, avoid satellite broadband, which remains slow, expensive, and heavily usage-capped.

Can we have 90 seconds of your time, please?

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks has put together some compelling evidence about how some of the most advanced broadband networks in the country are being built by and for the communities they ultimately serve.

You may think the best broadband around can be found in the biggest cities in America, but you’d be wrong.

“It may surprise people that these cities in Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have faster and lower cost access to the Internet than anyone in San Francisco, Seattle, or any other major city,” says Christopher Mitchell, Director of ILSR’s Telecommunications as Commons Initiative. “These publicly owned networks have each created hundreds of jobs and saved millions of dollars.”

The fact is, public broadband is convincing some of the country’s biggest tech companies, including Amazon.com, to locate enormous distribution centers right in the middle of fiber-plentiful cities like Chattanooga, and that means job growth — a lot of it.

Unfortunately, too often today’s “broadband innovation” comes only from how to extract more money for less service from some of America’s top providers. Usage caps, overcrowded networks, and speed constraints conspire to help America lose the global speed race.  But some communities are fighting the good fight themselves, even as big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and CenturyLink are trying to smash those networks through special interest corporate welfare legislation.

Mitchell and his team have assembled the facts: BVU Authority’s OptiNet in Bristol, Virginia; EPB Fiber in Chattanooga, Tennessee; and LUS Fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana — all built by publicly-owned utilities, demonstrate the public sector can deliver effective, innovative service at prices consumers can afford.  Better yet, they’re doing it in places big telecommunications companies decided were unworthy of getting world-class service.

Watch this video and learn why community broadband networks represent America’s most innovative broadband, and then learn more about how you can get involved and support better broadband in your community.  (2 minutes)

At a time when cable operators are more reluctant than ever to overbuild into another operator’s territory, something very strange is going on in central North Carolina.

Time Warner Cable is moving into the neighborhood — one already receiving service from a community-owned cable operator.  That would be like Time Warner moving into one of Comcast’s service areas.  For some reason, those large cable companies completely avoid competing head-to-head, but where community-owned provider MI-Connection has managed to sign up around 15,000 customers for service, Time Warner Cable has also arrived.

As a result, customers north of Charlotte, in communities around Davidson and Mooresville, are getting some amazing prices for cable television, phone, and broadband.  Time Warner will even deliver an offer right to your front door.

Susan Wagner in Mooresville got her deal when she threatened to cancel Time Warner Cable and return to MI-Connection.

“(Time Warner) gave everyone a really good offer when they first came in and then drove up the price after a while,” Wagner told the Charlotte Observer.

When Wagner called to cancel, Time Warner sent an employee to her door offering to slash her cable bill by $50 a month, enough to keep her business.

Other residents in nearby Cornelius are also getting prices substantially lower than residents in cities like Charlotte, where many residents have one choice for cable: Time Warner.  Sam, a Stop the Cap! reader in the Morrison Plantation neighborhood, noted they skipped the last few rate increases from the cable company.

“You just call and tell them the rate is too high and as soon as they find out you have MI-Connection as an alternative, they lower the price,” he said. “My niece in Charlotte can’t get the same deal even when we gave her the details — it’s only good in areas where MI-Connection operates.”

That leaves Charlotte residents paying $35-50 more a month than savvy customers further north can have for the asking.

“It sounds like predatory pricing to me when the company offers a special low price that people like my niece are probably subsidizing on their higher bill,” Sam suspects.

The Observer reports Time Warner is also laying cable in other neighborhoods, such as Heritage Green, where the cable company is soliciting business from MI-Connection subscribers door-to-door.

MI-Connection’s CEO, David Auger, formerly from Time Warner Cable himself, claims he’s unconcerned about Time Warner’s aggressive overbuild of his service area.

But the state’s largest commercial cable company has been signing up some of MI-Connection’s current customer base and successfully holding its existing customers in place with significant discounts on service.  Since last July, MI-Connection signed up 667 new customers, but also lost 577 others, most likely to Time Warner Cable.

MI-Connection was launched from the ashes of a bankrupt Adelphia Cable system acquired by the communities of Mooresville and Davidson.  After investing in a needed system upgrade, the community owned provider relaunched service nearly identical technically to other cable systems.  Unlike Wilson and Salisbury, where new fiber-to-the-home systems were built, MI-Connection offers a more traditional cable package.

That makes competition with Time Warner Cable more difficult, but the community provider is trying.  Time Warner Cable’s regular pricing in the area runs $68.49 a month for 85 basic channels.  MI-Connection sells 86 channels for $61.99.  But when customers call Time Warner to complain about their higher prices, the cable operator dramatically lowers them to keep the customer’s business.

“The regular price only matters until you call and complain about it,” says Sam.

There have been complaints, but many of them are less about the cable bill and more about politics.  MI-Connection has not come cheap either town, which had to cover some of the costs of a needed system upgrade and service installation, estimated to run about $1,000 for every new customer signed.

Last fall, mayoral challenger Vince Winegardner made local government involvement in broadband a political issue, saying the purchase of the cable system was a mistake.  He lost his bid, but the system’s money needs remain a frequent topic of discussion in all of the communities involved in MI-Connection, and earlier this year the company company asked for $1.1 million from Davidson and Mooresville to ride out the rest of the fiscal year.

Time Warner’s recent interest in invading a fellow cable operator’s service area and slashing prices for those customers has raised the question whether their overbuild is about competition or predatory pricing to drive MI-Connection out of business.

Wagner doesn’t seem to mind either way, telling the Observer it is a “win-win” for her, scoring a lower cable bill with Time Warner.

But Sam isn’t so sure the savings will last.

“It seems pretty clear to me that Time Warner isn’t hurrying to compete with Comcast or Charter — just MI-Connection and that makes me suspicious,” Sam says. “After spending all that money to ban community broadband in the state, they now seem to be trying to drive out of business the handful of companies that were exempted.”

“My niece is probably paying for this right now on her cable bill too, and once MI-Connection is out of the way, those prices will shoot right back up,” Sam concludes.

Maggie Wilderotter's "High Speed" Fantasies

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter wrote this week the company’s network improvements and expanded broadband has moved West Virginia from the bottom five states in the country to the top five.

In an Op-Ed editorial published in the Charleston Gazette Tuesday, Wilderotter likened Frontier’s broadband improvement to the 1960s moon program.  Customers in West Virginia living with Frontier broadband can relate — to the 1960s anyway.

Where did Wilderotter get her information?  Perhaps from Frontier’s own Dan Waldo, who made the same claim last summer in an interview with MetroNews Talkline.  At the time he said it, West Virginia was ranked 47th in the country for broadband access.  It now ranks even lower today — 53rd by the federal government’s national broadband map (the federal government also ranks U.S. territories and possessions.)  In fact, West Virginia is in dead last place among U.S. states.  Only Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are worse.

This chart ranks the percentage of customers within a state receiving a minimum of 3Mbps download speeds and upload rates of at least 768kbps. (Source: National Broadband Speed Map/National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission )

The Center for Public Integrity is slightly more generous.  It ranked West Virginia 46th in broadband subscriptions.

Even Ookla, which analyzes millions of speed tests, tanked West Virginia, noting the average download speed is among the lowest of all 50 states at just 8Mbps, and that number seems high because it includes the state’s largest cable operators — the providers that actually deliver substantial broadband speeds.

Frontier’s contribution to West Virginia’s broadband improvement effort is measurable and noteworthy, at least for rural residents who can’t get broadband service any other way.  But many customers living with Frontier sure wish they could.

The company is expanding slow speed DSL service (1-3Mbps) to an increasing number of rural homes, but it does not come cheap.  On a megabit by megabit basis, all of the state’s cable providers deliver better value — more speed for the buck, when examining the actual “out the door price” that includes taxes, modem rental fees, and surcharges.  Frontier charges all of the above.

While Frontier delivers an average speed of 2.41Mbps in West Virginia, Comcast delivers more than 13Mbps.  Among wired providers, Frontier remains in last place.  Ookla shows some minor improvements in broadband speed, perhaps attributable to the network upgrades Wilderotter wrote about, but every other wired provider in the state performs better than Frontier’s DSL.  Who did worse?  Sprint’s 3G/4G wireless network and Wildblue, a satellite Internet Service Provider.

Average download speed performance of ISPs within West Virginia. (Source: Ookla; Graph Period: October 2009 - April 2012)

Wilderotter:

Broadband connectivity throughout all of America can be the thread that unites us all and helps pull our nation up again. Over the past two years in West Virginia, Frontier has worked with the state to bring broadband to thousands of residents and businesses. We have invested in a fiber backbone infrastructure that connects cities, libraries, schools, hospitals and government service facilities. The network improvements and the access to broadband have moved West Virginia from the bottom five states in the country to the top five. Economic development has picked up, and entrepreneurship is alive and well. Frontier is focused on taking this model to the other rural areas we serve throughout the United States.

Frontier’s efforts to expand broadband in a state its predecessor Verizon underserved for years is admirable and the company has indeed expanded service to areas that never had access before.  But as broadband rankings illustrate, Frontier’s incremental efforts are being overshadowed by more dramatic service and technology improvements in other states — the primary reason West Virginia is actually ranking worse than ever.  Frontier is not fooling anyone promoting its institutional fiber broadband networks ordinary West Virginians cannot access from their homes or businesses.  Our own readers tell us the company has repeatedly missed deployment schedules, broken promises, reduced speeds, and suffers from a woefully oversold network that slows to an intolerable crawl during peak usage periods.

Getting West Virginia among the top-five broadband states will require:

• Major investments in fiber optics into neighborhoods and homes.  All of the highest ranked states receive fiber to the home and/or fiber to the neighborhood service in larger cities, and faster DSL than what Frontier routinely sells West Virginians;
• An upgrade of the state’s broadband backbone to better manage increasing Internet usage during peak usage periods;
• Additional penetration of competing technologies into more rural areas.  Cable and fiber broadband deliver the fastest speeds, but most rural areas are bypassed.  Frontier will need to deploy faster and better service to dramatically improve the state’s broadband ranking.

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem. Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.” — Martin Cooper, inventor of the portable cell phone

Despite the fear-mongering by North America’s wireless phone companies that a spectrum crisis is at hand — one that threatens the viability of wireless communications across the continent, some of the most prominent industry veterans dispute the public policy agenda of phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, Bell, and Rogers.

Martin Cooper ought to know.  He invented the portable cell phone, and remains involved in the wireless industry today.  Cooper shrugs off cries of spectrum shortages as a problem well-managed by technological innovation.  In fact, he’s credited for Cooper’s Law: The ability to transmit different radio communications at one time and in the same place has grown with the same pace since Guglielmo Marconi’s first transmissions in 1895. The number of such communications being theoretically possible has doubled every 30 months, from then, for 104 years.

National Public Radio looks back at the earliest car phones, which weighed 80 pounds and operated with vacuum tubes. Innovation, improved technology, and lower pricing turned an invention for the rich and powerful into a device more than 300,000,000 North Americans own and use today. (April 2012) (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A traditional car phone from the 1960s.

The earliest cell phones have been around since the 1940s.  St. Louis was the first city in the United States to get Mobile Telephone Service (MTS).  It worked on three analog radio channels and required an operator to make calls on the customer’s behalf. By 1964, direct dialing from car phones became possible with Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS), which also increased the number of radio channels available for calls.

In the 1970s, popular television shows frequently showed high-flyers and private detectives with traditional looking phones installed in their cars.  But the service was obscenely expensive.  The equipment set customers back $2-4,000 or was leased for around $120 a month.  Local calls ran $0.70-1.20 per minute.  That was when a nice home was priced at $27,000, a new car was under $4,000, gas was $0.55/gallon, and a first run movie ticket was priced at $1.75.

With many cities maintaining fewer than a dozen radio channels for the service, only a handful of customers could make or receive calls at a time.  The first “spectrum crisis” arrived by the late 1970s, when car phones became the status symbol of the rich and powerful (the middle class had pagers). Customers found they couldn’t make or receive calls because the frequencies were all tied up.  Some cities even rationed service by maintaining waiting lists, not allowing new customers to have the technology until an existing one dropped their account.

Instead of demanding deregulation and warning of wireless doomsday, the wireless industry innovated its way out of the era of MTS altogether, switching instead to a “cellular” approach developed in part by the Bell System.

In the 1970s, when the first cell phone “spectrum crisis” erupted, the Bell System innovated its way out the the dilemma without running to Congress demanding sweeping deregulation.  This documentary, produced by the Bell System, explores AMPS — analog cell phone service, and how it transformed Chicago’s mobile telephone landscape back in 1979.  (9 minutes)

“Arguing that the nation could run out of spectrum is like saying it was going to run out of a color.” David P. Reed, one of the original architects of the Internet

Instead of one caller tying up a single IMTS radio frequency capable of reaching across an entire city, the Bell System deployed lower-powered transmitters in a series of hexagonal “cells.”  Each cell only served callers within a much smaller geographic area.  As a customer traveled between cells, the system would hand the call off to the next cell in turn and so on — all transparently to the caller.  Because of the reduced coverage area, cell towers in a city could operate on the same frequencies without creating interference problems, opening up the system to many more customers and more calls.

Inventor Martin Cooper holds one of the first portable mobile phones

In Chicago, Bell’s IMTS system only supported around a dozen callers at the same time. In 1977, the phone company built a test cellular network it dubbed “AMPS,” for Advanced Mobile Phone System.  AMPS technology was familiar to many early cell phone users.  It was more popularly known as “analog” service, and while it could still only handle one conversation at a time on each frequency, the system supported better call handling and many more users than earlier wireless phone technology.  By 1979, Bell had 1,300 customers using their test system in Chicago.

AMPS considerably eased the “spectrum crunch” earlier systems found challenging, and subsequent upgrades to digital technology dramatically increased the number of calls each tower could handle and allowed providers to slash pricing, which fueled the spectacular growth of the wireless marketplace.

Yesterday it was voice call congestion, today it is a “tidal wave” of wireless data.  But inventors like Cooper believe the solution is the same: engineering innovation.

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem,” Cooper told the New York Times. “Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.”

Cooper believes in the cellular approach to wireless communications.  Dividing up today’s geographic cells into even smaller cells could vastly expand network capacity just like AMPS did for Windy City residents in the late 1970s. Using especially directional antennas focused on different service areas, placing new cell towers, innovating further with tiny neighborhood antennas mounted on telephone poles, or building out Wi-Fi networks can all manage the data capacity “crisis” says Cooper.

New technology also allows cell signals to co-exist, even on the same or adjacent frequencies, without creating interference problems. All it takes is a willingness to invest in the technology and deploy it across signal-congested urban areas.

Unfortunately, network engineers are not often responsible for the business decisions or public policy agendas of the nation’s largest wireless companies who are using the “spectrum crisis” to argue for increased deregulation and demanding additional radio spectrum which, in some cases, could be locked up by companies to make sure nobody else can use them.

The New York Times offers this easy-to-follow primer on wireless spectrum and why it matters (or not) in the current climate of explosive growth in mobile data traffic.  (3 minutes)

“Their primary interest is not necessarily in making spectrum available, or in making wireless performance better. They want to make money.” — David S. Isenberg, veteran researcher, AT&T Labs

Innovation, not wholesale deregulation, allowed the Bell System to solve the spectrum crisis of the 1970s by creating today's "cell system" that can re-use radio frequencies in adjacent areas to handle more wireless traffic.

Spectrum auctions bring billions to federal coffers, but actually deliver a hidden tax to cell phone customers who ultimately pay for the winning bids priced into their monthly bills.  It also makes it prohibitively expensive for a new player to enter the market.  Already facing enormous network construction costs, any new entrant would then face the crushing prospect of outbidding AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Bell or Rogers for the frequencies essential for operation.

As the New York Times writes:

When a company gets the license for a band of radio waves, it has the exclusive rights to use it. Once a company owns it, competitors can’t have it.

Mr. Reed said the carriers haven’t advocated for the newer technologies because they want to retain their monopolies.

Cooper advocates a new regulatory approach at the Federal Communications Commission — one that mandates wireless phone companies start using today’s technology to amplify their networks.

Cooper points to one example: the smart antenna.

Smart antennas direct cell towers to focus their transmission energy towards the specific devices connected to it.  If a customer was using their phone from the southern end of the cell tower’s coverage area, why direct signal energy to the north, where it gets wasted?  New LTE networks support smart antenna technology, but carriers have generally avoided investing in upgrading towers to support the new technology, expected to be commonplace inside new wireless devices within two years.

T-Mobile calls these technology solutions “Band-Aids” that won’t address the company’s demand for more frequencies to manage its network.  But that kind of thinking applied to the mobile phone world of the 1970s would have maintained the exorbitantly expensive IMTS technology discarded decades ago, since replaced by innovation that made more efficient use of the spectrum already on hand.  That innovation also transformed wireless phones from a tool (or toy) for the very wealthy to an affordable success story that now threatens the traditional wired phone network in ways the Bell System could have never envisioned.

It’s A Whole New System: AT&T and other wireless phone companies might want to learn the lesson the Bell System was trying to teach their employees back in 1979: Meet Change With Change.  This company-produced video implores the phone company to do more than the same old thing.  No, this video is not “PM Magazine.”  It is about innovation and actually listening to what customers want. With apologies to Mama Cass Elliot, there was indeed a New World Coming — the breakup of the Bell System just five years later.  Don’t miss the diabetic-coma-inducing, sugary-sweet jingle at the end.  Then reach for a can of Tab.  (10 minutes)

The home of Atlantic Canada’s largest hot air balloon festival is getting more than hot air from broadband providers promising better broadband in New Brunswick.  Bell Aliant announced this month it will spend $2 million to expand its FibreOp fiber to the home service to 3,000 homes and businesses in the town of Sussex.

“Access to the FibreOP network represents a tremendous growth opportunity for Sussex, and has huge potential to connect businesses and families,” said Andre LeBlanc, vice president of Residential Products for Bell Aliant. “We are excited to continue our expansion in New Brunswick, and to offer the best TV and Internet to our customers in the Sussex area.”

Bell Aliant’s FibreOp delivers broadband speeds up to 250/30Mbps and is marketed without data caps — a rarity from large providers in Canada.

The company was the first in Canada to cover an entire city with fiber-to-the-home and by the end of 2012, will have invested approximately half a billion dollars to extend it to approximately 650,000 homes and businesses in its territory. FibreOP builds are complete in Greater Saint John including Quispamsis, Rothesay, Grand Bay/Westfield, as well as Bathurst, Fredericton, Miramichi, and Moncton, including Riverview, Dieppe and Shediac. Customers in parts of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland & Labrador also enjoy fiber to the home service.

While Bell Canada owns a controlling stake in Bell Aliant, it allows the Atlantic Canada phone company to operate under its own branding and supports their aggressive fiber upgrade project across the relatively rural eastern provinces.  Even more remarkably, while Bell is one of Canada’s strongest proponents for usage-based billing and caps on broadband usage by its customers, Bell Aliant competes with cable operators by advertising the fact it delivers unlimited, flat rate service.  Bell Aliant is aggressively expanding fiber to the home service in Atlantic Canada while Bell relies on its less-advanced fiber to the neighborhood service Fibe TV in more populated and prosperous cities in Ontario and Quebec.

That is counter-intuitive to other providers who eschew fiber upgrades in rural communities, suggesting the cost to wire smaller towns is too high for the proportionately lower number of potential customers.  That does not seem to bother Bell Aliant, who considers fiber to the home its best weapon to confront landline cord-cutters.

Bell Aliant introduces Atlantic Canada to its FibreOp fiber to the home service, delivering unlimited fiber-fast broadband.  No Internet Overcharging schemes here.  (2 minutes)

Found more new customers than AT&T

If you are among the handful of people with an Android phone or tablet running Android v.4 (also known as ‘Ice Cream Sandwich’), Time Warner Cable’s latest version of its TWC TV for Android app introduces live streaming video.

Available as of 3pm ET this afternoon from the Google Play store, TWC TV for Android finally brings streaming video to an app that used to only allow Android owners to browse an online program guide and remotely manage their DVR boxes.  Time Warner Cable originally introduced its TV Everywhere streamed video service on Apple’s iPad.

But the company’s decision to limit streamed video only to the latest Android devices running Ice Cream Sandwich (ICS) is a major disappointment and will leave a lot of Android owners with a hobbled app.

“It’s currently the only version of the Android OS that allows us the security and stability necessary to distribute video over our private network,” claims Time Warner Cable’s Jeff Simmermon. “But it’s up to the device manufacturer and the sometimes the data carrier when or if ICS will be deployed to a particular device.”

Simmermon suggested the iOS platform developed by Apple was easier to contend with because one company developed the operating system and the devices on which it operates.

If you upgrade to the latest version of TWC TV for Android running on a non-ICS phone, a notification warns that live streamed video remains unavailable to you, leaving the app about as useful as its earlier version, which is to say not very.  Simmermon also warns the upgrade is not available to “rooted” devices.

Smartphones purchased within the last year are likely to receive eventual upgrades to ICS, although exactly when depends on your wireless carrier.  Older phones may or may not receive upgrades.  As a general rule, the older the device, the less likely the manufacturer will be willing to keep upgrading it.

Hastings vents on his Facebook page.

As Stop the Cap! has warned Netflix for years, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, usage-based billing, and speed throttles represent an end run around Net Neutrality. If a provider cannot openly discriminate against the competition, slapping usage limits on them (while exempting favored services from that cap) can eventually accomplish the same thing.

Netflix founder Reed Hastings is finally getting the message after a frustrating weekend watching his Comcast usage allowance bleed away while streaming video.  He shared his views on his Facebook page:

Comcast [is] no longer following net neutrality principles.

Comcast should apply caps equally, or not at all.

I spent the weekend enjoying four good internet video apps on my Xbox: Netflix, HBO GO, Xfinity, and Hulu.

When I watch video on my Xbox from three of these four apps, it counts against my Comcast internet cap. When I watch through Comcast’s Xfinity app, however, it does not count against my Comcast internet cap.

For example, if I watch last night’s SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn’t use up my cap at all.

The same device, the same IP address, the same wifi, the same internet connection, but totally different cap treatment.

In what way is this neutral?

Comcast says it is “neutral” by framing its own Xbox-streamed video as a “set top box replacement,” even though the video that flows to the Xbox console travels down the same last-mile network Comcast says it needs to “protect” with its 250GB monthly usage cap.

Comcast doesn’t actually need a 250GB usage cap, particularly after the company upgraded its broadband facilities to DOCSIS 3 technology.  That vast improvement in capacity at a comparatively low cost (easily recouped by the company’s latest round of rate increases) should be shared with customers.  Instead of “applying caps equally,” Comcast should abandon them altogether.

[Thanks to Earl, one of our regular readers, for sharing the story.]

As AT&T joins Verizon selling off its Yellow Pages publishing unit and payphones keep disappearing from street corners, the media is writing the landline obituary once again.

CNN Money asks today whether we’re witnessing the death of the landline.

In as little as 20 years, the concept of a wired phone line may become the novelty a rotary-dial phone represents today.  Yes, traditional phone lines will still be found in businesses and in the homes of those uncomfortable dealing with a mobile phone, but America’s largest phone companies are well aware the traditional telephone line is in decline.

The Bell System, as it was known until the 1980s, used to comprise AT&T, Bell Labs, Western Electric, Long Lines, and two dozen local “operating companies” like New York Telephone, Mountain Bell, etc.  This AT&T documentary, from 1976, explores how “the phone company” used to function.  New innovations like “lightwave” are showcased, promising to deliver voice phone calls over glass fibers one day.  

Much of the technology seen in the documentary may be unfamiliar if you are under 30 (and check out how customer records were maintained back then), but those who remember renting telephones in garish colors from your local phone company will recognize the phones that occupied space in your home not that long ago.  The only part of the landline network that hasn’t changed much in the last 40 years is the wiring infrastructure itself, which has been allowed to deteriorate as customers continue to depart.

Why was the company so darn big back then?  Because it had to be, the documentary says, to serve a big America.  Hilariously, the company defends its then-status as a “regulated monopoly” telling viewers “[a] regulated monopoly works well in communications because you don’t duplicate facilities and you produce real economies over the long haul.”  (14 minutes)

CNN reports nearly one-third of all American homes no longer have landline service, double the rate from 2008, triple that of 2007.  Verizon is feeling the heat the most, with revenue down 19% over the last five years.  AT&T has seen their revenue drop 16.5% over the same period.

But things are not all bad for phone companies willing to spend money upgrading their networks.  Verizon’s top-rated FiOS fiber to the home service is a compelling competitor to Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  AT&T’s U-verse has gotten a respectable market share larger midwestern cities and draws customers who like its DVR box and the chance to stick it to the local cable company they’ve hated for years.

But where both companies have decided against investing in upgrades — notably in their rural service areas — the traditional phone line is trapped in time.  Only the network it depends on is changing, and not for the better.

Back in 1993, AT&T produced seven advertisements dubbed the “You Will” series, showcasing future technologies AT&T would “deliver to you.”  Eerily, the vast majority of these predictions came true, but mostly from companies other than AT&T.  While the phone company predicted what would eventually become E-ZPass, Apple’s iPad, Apple’s Siri, the smartphone, Skype, Amazon’s Kindle, the cable industry’s home security apps, video on demand, and GPS navigation, most of those innovations were developed and sold by others.  

AT&T spun away Bell Labs and became preoccupied selling Internet access, cell phones and reassembling itself into its former ‘hugeness’ through mergers and buyouts. With limited investment in innovation, AT&T risks being left as a “dumb pipe” provider, selling the connectivity (among many others) to allow other companies’ devices to communicate. (Alert: Loud Volume at around 2 minutes) (4 minutes)

Verizon decided to ditch its rural service areas to FairPoint Communications in northern New England and Frontier Communications in 14 other states.  The results have not been good for the buyers (and often customers).  FairPoint went bankrupt in 2009, overwhelmed by the debt it incurred buying phone lines in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  Frontier has watched its sales fall ever since its own landline acquisition, and the company has gotten scores of complaints from ex-Verizon customers about broken promises for improved broadband, billing errors, and poor service.

Analysts predict AT&T will start dumping its rural landline customers in the near future as well, letting the company focus on its U-verse service areas.  But who will buy these cast-offs?  CNN reports nobody knows.  CenturyLink and Windstream, two major independent phone companies, don’t appear to be in the mood to acquire neglected landline facilities they will need to spend millions to repair and upgrade.

One thing is certain — both AT&T and Verizon are tailoring business plans to favor Wall Street approval.  The companies’ decisions to temporarily boost revenue selling pieces of its operations has helped stock prices, but has also made the companies shadows of their former selves.  Nearly 30 years ago, customers still paid the phone company to rent their home telephones, relied extensively on the companies’ lucrative White and Yellow Pages for directory information, and discovered new technology innovations like digital switching thanks to Bell Labs, the research arm of AT&T — today independent and known as Alcatel-Lucent.  Today, people in some cities cannot even find a telephone company-owned payphone.

WJBK in Detroit this week ventured out across Detroit to see if they could find a pay phone that actually works.  That old phone booth on the corner is long gone, and some admit they haven’t touched a pay phone in 20 years.  (2 minutes)

Other than the original “five families” that ruled New York’s underworld from the 1930s on, it is hard to find a level of collusion higher than in today’s telecommunications marketplace.  It’s a veritable No-Fight Club, and the first rule is cable companies don’t fight with other cable companies. (The second is phone companies don’t compete with other phone companies.)  Everyone has their respective territory, and only the bravest interlopers dare to intrude on the cozy duopoly territory most North Americans endure, at least until the boys can drop a dime with the feds and put the kibosh on them with anti-community broadband laws or buying them out and telling them to scram.

But Time Warner Cable does not have to rub it in.  But they do anyway, see.

One reader of the Consumerist was perturbed when Time Warner Cable sent him a letter congratulating him for his decision to move... and welcoming him to consider Comcast Cable as his new provider.

Do you think Ford would ever send you a letter suggesting you give Toyota a try? Or would McDonald’s ever shoot you an e-mail telling you to check out the lovely Burger Kings in your new neighborhood? Of course not. So why would the cable industry not care which company you choose?

Consumerist reader Mike recently moved out of an area where he had no choice for cable TV other than Time Warner Cable to a town where Comcast is the only option.

[...] “What makes me even angrier is that they spent money printing and mailing this letter that only serves to remind me that I don’t have any choice!”

That mailer came courtesy of something called, “The Cable Movers Hotline,” which sounds like a clearinghouse for consumers searching for a moving company.  Indeed, the website for the group even includes video moving tips courtesy of HGTV’s Lisa LaPorta, David Gregg, senior editor, Behindthebuy.com, and interior designer Libby Langdon.

What’s the real story, morning glory? Don’t blow your wig, sister.  It’s coming.

In fact, the “Hotline” is a creature of CTAM – the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing, a Maryland-based trade group that includes most of the nation’s largest cable operators as members.  CTAM’s “Hotline” is the cable industry’s attempt to make sure that fresh start in your new cave doesn’t include service from the dirty rat phone company or some grifter satellite TV provider with a flim-flam rebate scam.  With none of CTAM’s members willing to compete head-on with other cable operators, trading customers back and forth doesn’t hurt business, keeps the butter and egg man counting up those bills, and helps bleed you dry.

A 21st century clip joint?  You said it!

Don't thank us, it was nothing!