Cable operators will be challenged to find enough open video channels to support a gradual transition to IP-based video, which could mean an early end to analog cable television in large parts of the country.

The former chief technology officer of Charter Communications, Marwan Fawaz, noted cable operators will need at least 24-32 free analog channels to duplicate their digital lineup — considerably more than many operators have available on today’s crowded cable dial.

Fawaz

The transition to digital cable won’t be easy for some consumers, many who actively dislike set top boxes on every television and the endless rental fees that often accompany them.  Cable operators face more resistance from customers than their telephone and satellite competitors, who have always required equipment on every television in the home.  But with the demand for increased broadband speeds, new network-capable DVR boxes that can be accessed from other televisions in the home, and the never-ending addition of new HD channels, converting analog signals to digital is the most cost-effective way to free up space to handle today’s demands on existing cable systems.  The alternative would be expensive upgrades to increase available bandwidth — an investment unlikely to win favor on Wall Street or in company boardrooms.

Cable operators are taking different approaches to the challenge.  Comcast has been systematically reducing the number of analog signals on its cable systems, using that space for new digital signals, including HD broadcasts and faster broadband.  Time Warner Cable has deployed a transparent “on-demand” system for its lesser-watched digital channels that only transmit them into neighborhoods where viewers are watching them. Smaller operators are also moving to adopt nearly all-digital cable television lineups, especially on older systems that have already exhausted available space for new channels and services.

Fawaz says cable’s progression to IP-based delivery of cable channels is inevitable, a matter of “when” not “if,” according to an article in Light Reading:

For operators that don’t expect to have that much capacity available to them soon, he suggests that they could start off in smaller stages, perhaps beginning by moving Video-on-Demand services and some “niche” networks over to IP and supporting them with hybrid QAM/IP set-tops or gateways. Another transitional option, at least from an in-home multi-screen perspective, is to start using specialized transcoding that can convert QAM video to IP and pass those streams to tablets, PCs and other devices using the home’s Wi-Fi network.

Most cable operators are supplying customers with digital adapters that can accommodate digital signals on older, analog televisions, without a giant set top box taking up space.  To make the transition easier, operators typically provide up to 2-3 boxes for free for 1-2 years and then bill customers a nominal rental fee thereafter.

An increasing number of cable customers will become familiar with these “DTA” boxes in 2012.  Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest cable operator, will continue its progression to convert its cable operations to mostly-digital this year.  Time Warner’s customers in Maine were the first to experience the switch, with mixed results.  Fawaz expects some remnants of the analog lineup, as well as some limited support for QAM channels, will remain for the next 7-10 years.

Won 1.1 million new customers in 2011

Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively picked up more than 1.5 million new customers in 2011, with most of the growth coming from dissatisfied DSL subscribers seeking better broadband speeds.

Leichtman Research Group, Inc. (LRG) found the eighteen largest cable and telephone providers in the US — representing about 93% of the market — acquired 3 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers in 2011. Annual net broadband additions in 2011 were 88% of the total in 2010.

The top broadband providers now account for 78.6 million subscribers — with cable companies having over 44.3 million broadband subscribers, and telephone companies having over 34.3 million subscribers.

Stalled growth

Despite AT&T’s position as the second largest Internet Service Provider in the country, the company only picked up 117,000 new customers in 2011.  In contrast, Time Warner Cable, with 6 million fewer customers, added almost a half-million new broadband subscriptions last year.

Frontier Communications, which made broadband a primary target for expansion, has not seen considerable growth either.  The company only added just short of 38,000 new broadband customers last year, almost all getting DSL, often at speeds of 1-3Mbps.

Other key findings include:

• The top cable companies netted 75% of the broadband additions in 2011;
• The top cable companies added 2.3 million broadband subscribers in 2011 — 98% of the total net additions for the top cable companies in 2010;
• The top telephone providers added 750,000 broadband subs in 2011 — 68% of the total net additions for the top telephone companies in 2010;
• In the fourth quarter of 2011, cable and telephone providers added 765,000 broadband subscribers — with cable companies accounting for 82% of the broadband additions in the quarter.

Now serving 10.3 million

“Despite a high level of broadband penetration in the US, the top broadband providers added 88% as many subscribers in 2011 as in 2010,” said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group, Inc. “At the end of 2011, the top broadband providers in the US cumulatively had over 78.6 million subscribers, an increase of nearly 25 million over the past five years.”

Americans are increasingly treating broadband as an essential “utility” service, as fundamental as electricity or clean water.

The majority of consumers who lack the service either consider it irrelevant in their lives (a factor that increases with the age of the surveyed respondent), cannot obtain service from their provider because of their location, or cannot afford the service.

Sources: The Companies and Leichtman Research Group, Inc.
* LRG estimate
** Includes LRG estimates for Bright House Networks, and RCN
^ Totals prior to Time Warner Cable’s acquisition of Insight completed on 2/29/2012
^^ LRG estimate does not include wireless subscribers
Company subscriber counts may not represent solely residential households
Totals reflect pro forma results from system sales and acquisitions
Top cable and telephone companies represent approximately 93% of all subscribers

If you are customer of Charter Cable, chances are you are paying a lot more than $60 a month for a complete package of cable television with a DVR box and 30Mbps broadband, price locked for two years.  But Charter is selling precisely that package to customers in Monticello, Minn.  Why do they get a deal you can’t have?  Because your town probably doesn’t have a community-owned broadband provider delivering competition.

Charter’s website offers new customers a six-month cable/broadband promotion for $64.98 a month, but that does not include a DVR box and delivers half the speed Charter pitches to the chosen few in Monticello.  After six months, the deal ends. A package including what Charter sells in Monticello for $60 a month costs more than twice as much elsewhere — $145 a month for customers in Rochester and Duluth.

"For the BEST prices in town, you must call your 'In-Field' representative," the flyer declares, including the name and number of a local Charter representative.

The cable operator is keeping the two-year special offer quiet as much as possible with the use of door flyers hand-delivered to potential customers. If Charter’s five million customers nationwide find out, they may wonder why they are paying dramatically more for the exact same service.

The city of Monticello already knows why.  The local community decided the incumbent providers — TDS Telecom and Charter Communications — were not giving the city the attention it deserved, so it built its own 21st century fiber to the home system to bring faster broadband to the region.  Now the incumbent commercial operators appear to be stopping at nothing to put FiberNet Monticello out of business.  Charter’s pricing takes fat profits from customers in nearby Minnesota cities and appears to cross-subsidize the heavily discounted service on offer in Monticello.  While that delivers short-term savings to customers in Monticello, other Charter customers are helping cross-subsidize those low rates on their own high cable bills.

If you are a Charter Cable customer, why can’t you have the same deal residents in Monticello are getting?  Why not call Charter at 1-888-438-2427 and ask them?

Sen. Linda Runbeck, a dues-paying member of ALEC, a corporate funded pressure group that advocates for legislation advantageous to ALEC's corporate sponsors.

Rural Minnesota is facing a full frontal assault on community broadband, courtesy of a state representative so proud of her involvement in a corporate front group, she’s actually a dues-paying member.

State Sen. Linda Runbeck (R-Circle Pines) introduced HF 2695, a bill to prohibit publicly-owned broadband systems:

A bill for an act relating to telecommunications; prohibiting publicly owned broadband systems; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 237.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. [237.201] PUBLICLY OWNED BROADBAND SYSTEM; PROHIBITION.

(a) Notwithstanding section 475.58, subdivision 1, other state law, county ordinance, or any authority granted in a home rule charter, a city or a county may not use tax revenues raised within its jurisdiction or issue debt to construct, acquire, own, or operate, in whole or in part, a system to deliver broadband service.

(b) Notwithstanding sections 123A.21, 123B.61 to 123B.63, 125B.26, and 475.58, subdivision 1, no school district or service cooperative may use state revenues, tax revenues raised within its jurisdiction, or issue debt to construct, acquire, own, or operate, in whole or in part, a system to deliver broadband service.

(c) For the purposes of this section, “broadband service” means a service that allows subscribers to access information from the Internet by means of a physical, terrestrial, non-mobile, or fixed wireless technology.

(d) This section applies to a system to deliver broadband service whose construction begins after the effective date of this section, but does not apply to:

1. the city of Minneapolis, St. Paul, or Duluth; or
2. the maintenance or repair of a system delivering broadband service whose initial construction began before the effective date of this section, provided that the geographical area in which the system delivers broadband service is not expanded as a result of the maintenance or repair.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

The public broadband option delivers the most bang for the buck, which is why some providers want to see it banned.

Runbeck is a dues-paying member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a secretive corporate front group that lobbies lawmakers to introduce business-friendly legislation, often on the state level.  Runbeck told the Minnesota Independent via email that she paid $100 for a two-year membership in the organization, and says she’s never used ALEC’s “model legislation,” bills that are sometimes written by corporate members of the group and that pop up in state capitols across the country.

But Runbeck’s sudden interest in banning community broadband coincides with similar efforts in states like Georgia and South Carolina backed by big cable and phone companies.  Runbeck’s bill would directly target rural Minnesota, where broadband is the least robust, while exempting Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth (and incumbent phone and cable companies) from the bill’s provisions.  Runbeck’s bill also constrains existing public broadband services from expanding, an important matter for providers still rolling out service to additional neighborhoods in their communities.

Community broadband is already hampered in Minnesota by laws that make such projects difficult to approve and build.  When projects do break ground, incumbent providers do everything possible to throw up roadblocks to delay or abort the progress being made.  In Monticello, TDS Telecom filed nuisance suits against that city’s public broadband network before finally deciding to upgrade service themselves.  Mediacom and Charter, two major Minnesota cable operators, have objected to public broadband projects that don’t even serve communities they’ve wired.

When the networks are in operation, providers like Charter work to undercut them by selling service at prices so low, they’re predatory.  But when competitors are driven out, prices rise… quickly.

 Runbeck’s $100 membership in ALEC is paying dividends, if you are a big incumbent cable or phone company. Consumers will pay much more than that if broadband competition is curtailed.

Netflix continues to step up its attacks on providers who implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their wired broadband customers.

That concern is understandable as Netflix increasingly transitions to broadband streaming instead of mailing DVD’s to customers.

Getting in the way are five of the nation’s seven largest broadband providers, all imposing limits on customers just as they discover they might be able to do without cable television.

Netflix’s streamed HD shows now consume around 2GB per hour, according to Netflix general counsel David Hyman.  That can eat through usage allowances quickly.  Hyman penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year blasting the practices of usage caps and consumption billing.

Hyman

“Wireline bandwidth is an almost unlimited resource due to advances in Internet architecture,” Hyman wrote. “The marginal cost of providing an extra gigabyte of data—enough to deliver one episode of 30 Rock from Netflix—is less than one cent, and falling.”

That doesn’t seem to matter much to Comcast, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, and Cox.  All four providers have introduced hard usage limits on customers — a usage cap.  Exceeding it gives any of those providers the right to cut off your broadband service.  AT&T, always one to see a financial angle, charges for excess use of their DSL and U-verse service — $10 for every 50GB. Time Warner Cable recently announced its own experimental “optional” usage pricing package for very light users who consume fewer than 5GB per month.  It will slap overlimit fees on those participating customers who break through the 5GB ceiling at a rate of $1/GB, an enormous markup.

Providers with strict caps usually argue they come as a result of their own network’s capacity problems.  Cable operators who do not consistently manage their network traffic can experience traffic clogs by overselling service without upgrading capacity to sustain user demand.  But providers like Comcast, Cox, and Charter resolved those capacity problems with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which offer operators an exponentially bigger pipeline for Internet traffic.

Although Comcast promised to regularly review and adjust usage caps since implementing them four years ago, the nation’s largest cable operator has thus far seen no need to raise them.

“We feel that that is an extraordinarily large amount of data,” says Comcast’s Charlie Davis. “That limit is there to make sure we provide a great online experience for every single paying customer.”

Wall Street bankers have closely monitored the industry’s early results from Internet Overcharging, and have been encouraged, so long as operators implement it carefully.

Credit Suisse in a 2011 report to its investor clients suggested the key for successful usage-based pricing is to introduce it slowly and keep “sticker shock to a minimum in the early days” to reduce backlash by consumers and lawmakers.

Once established, the sky is the limit.

Netflix itself is also battling an Internet Overcharging scheme it faces — double-dipping by cable operators like Comcast.  In addition to the fees Comcast collects from customers for its broadband service, the cable operator also wants to be paid directly by Netflix to allow the movie service’s traffic on its network.

That’s an Internet toll booth, charges Netflix and consumer groups.  It’s also uncompetitive, says Hyman.

This month Comcast unveiled its own movie and TV show streaming service — Xfinity Streampix — from which, unsurprisingly, the cable company has not sought extra traffic payments from itself.

Opposed to Internet Overcharging

Three providers which don’t cap customers don’t see a reason to try.

Verizon Communications says its fiber network FiOS has plenty of capacity and has no plans to restrict customers’ enjoyment of the service.  In 2009, Cablevision’s Jim Blackley told one panel discussion usage caps are not in the cards.

“We don’t want customers to think about byte caps so that’s not on our horizon,” Blackley said. “We literally don’t want consumers to think about how they’re consuming high-speed services. It’s a pretty powerful drug and we want people to use more and more of it.”

California’s Sonic.net Inc., goes even further.  Its CEO, Dane Jasper, believes the Federal Communications Commission needs to be more assertive about protecting America’s broadband revolution and the customers that depend on the service.

The fact different operators can take radically different positions on the subject, despite running similar networks, suggests technical necessity is not the reason providers are implementing usage restrictions and extra fees on customers.

As Hyman writes:

Bandwidth caps with fees piled on top are a lousy way to manage traffic. All of the costs of supplying residential broadband are for supporting peak usage. Bandwidth consumed off-peak is completely free. If Internet service providers really wanted to manage traffic efficiently, they would limit speeds at peak times. If their goal is instead to increase revenues or lessen competition, getting consumers to pay per gigabyte is an excellent strategy.

Consumer access to unlimited bandwidth is good for society. It fosters innovation, drives commerce, and advances political and social discourse. Given that bandwidth is cheap and plentiful and will only grow more so with time, there is no good reason for bandwidth caps and fees to take root.

Consumers and regulators need to take heed of what is happening and avoid winding up like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. It’s time to jump before it’s too late.

Payday for Rutledge

Cablevision’s former chief operating officer Tom Rutledge has hit executive pay Powerball, scoring a compensation package worth more than $90 million dollars as the incoming CEO of formerly-bankrupt Charter Communications.

Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal why Rutledge abruptly resigned from his position at Cablevision on Dec. 15.  Just four days later, Charter announced Rutledge would become its new CEO this February, replacing Mike Lovett who earlier announced his departure plans.

Rutledge will be extremely well compensated in his new position, scoring $8,000 a week in walk-around money until February when the executive suite opens up.  After that, his base salary will amount to $2 million annually, with yearly increases possible.  But the real money will come from Rutledge’s bonus and incentives package.  In addition to an annual bonus worth up to $3.5 million annually, Rutledge will also get more than one million shares of Charter stock, worth more than $70 million at present.  If Rutledge focuses on boosting that stock price, he could earn considerably more.

That’s a remarkable pay package for a cable company that declared bankruptcy just two years ago.  It’s also a lot more money for Rutledge, who collected just over $28 million at his old job at Cablevision.

In 2010, soon-to-be-former Charter CEO Mike Lovett earned just under $11 million in total compensation.

Storm damage in eastern Massachusetts. (Courtesy: WGBH Boston)

The northeastern United States got more than its fair share of severe storms these past few months.  Remnants of Hurricane Irene caused severe flooding, heavy rainstorms that followed didn’t help.  But one of the worst of all was the Halloween Nor’easter that left serious wind damage in some areas, heavy snowfall in others, leaving customers without power, phone, cable, and broadband service for days, if not weeks.

Telecommunications companies including Cablevision, Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications, Dish Network, Time Warner Cable, and Metrocast Communications of Connecticut are under fire across the region for not providing automatic service credits for impacted customers.  Charter and Comcast are both facing a class action lawsuit filed last week by a Massachusetts law firm that accuses the cable operators of “gouging” their customers by not automatically crediting affected subscribers for lost service.

Jeffrey Morneau of Springfield, Mass. law firm Connor, Morneau & Olin says up to 1.2 million Charter and Comcast customers were without service, but the companies will only provide credits on a case-by-case basis, and only if customers request them within a short time after the outage occurred.

“If you pay for a service and you don’t get it, the company can’t keep your money,” Morneau said.

Stop the Cap! readers in Massachusetts and New Hampshire report Comcast will grant reasonable service credit requests, assuming you get through to ask for them.

“Hold times are epic,” reports Tom Turlin, a Comcast customer in Massachusetts.  “I managed to get my credit by using their web contact form instead.”

Most providers require consumers to request credits for outages within 30-60 days of the service interruption, and time is running out for Nor’easter credits.

“Most people think they will only get 50 cents back so why bother, but actually with today’s huge cable bills, credits can be substantial,” Turlin says. “I received almost $15 back on my bill.”

Only AT&T, Connecticut’s largest phone company, agreed to automatically credit customers the company determined were without service for at least 24 hours.  Customers who don’t receive credit automatically can appeal to the company for credit they believe they are entitled to receive.

Here’s how different companies are responding:

AT&T: “We will give U-verse TV customers in Connecticut who experience a service outage for longer than 24 hours a pro-rated credit,” AT&T said. “In addition, we will voluntarily give similar credits for U-verse Voice and U-verse High Speed Internet service customers who experienced a service outage for longer than 24 hours. Customers are not required to take any action: the credits will be applied automatically on the customer bill for impacted customers within the next several billing cycles.”

Cablevision: “While state law provides for consumer credits for qualifying outages for cable service only, Cablevision has been providing a credit to customers on an individualized basis for all their services,” Cablevision said. “Customers will be credited when they notify us that they had a service outage. We are extending our normal period to request refunds to 45 days from the date of the storm.”

Charter: Customers must call or visit the cable company offices in person to request service credit.  “We are providing credit to customers for the entire time they were without service, from the time they lost power to the time their Charter services were fully restored, and we are providing credit for all services,” Charter said.

Comcast: “In order to receive a credit, a customer must contact Comcast and identify the time period during which they did not have access to Comcast services,” Comcast said.

Cox: “We need our customers to call us after their service is restored to report that they were without Cox services, and for how long,” Cox said. “We then credit their accounts from the time of the service outage until service was actually restored.”

DISH Network: The satellite provider is waiving service and equipment fees for consumers who need their equipment realigned, reinstalled or repaired due to the storm. “DISH subscribers who indicated that they were without service due to the storm were provided a credit for their time without service,” DISH said. “In addition, DISH subscribers who needed to suspend their service due to storm damage were allowed to do so at no charge.”

MetroCast Communications of Connecticut: It will provide customers with a refund on their next invoice after contacting the company. “The credit equals a prorated amount of the affected customer’s monthly charges for all MetroCast services, calculated based on the number of days during which such services were interrupted, and are included in the customer’s next invoice,” MetroCast said.

Time Warner Cable: Customers must contact the cable company online, by e-mail or phone and request credit for the number of days they were without service.  Most service credit requests that can be verified are granted within hours, and will appear on the next billing statement.

WSHM in Springfield covers the ongoing dispute city officials have with Comcast, who is refusing to automatically provide storm credits to customers impacted by the October Nor’easter.  (2 minutes)

Charter Cable is upgrading its broadband service to deliver free speed upgrades, but with the company’s Internet Overcharging-usage cap scheme in place, some customers are not impressed.

“We plan to streamline Charter Internet options to: Lite, Express, Plus, and Ultra,” Charter social media rep “Eric” wrote on the Broadband Reports‘ Charter customer forum. “Current Max customers will be able to move to a different level of Internet Service.”

The company’s boosted speeds (prices vary in different markets):

• Charter Lite: 1Mbps/128kbps → Unknown ($19.99) 100GB limit
• Charter Express: 12/1Mbps → 15/3Mbps ($44.99) 100GB limit
• Charter Plus: 18/2Mbps → 30/4Mbps ($54.99) 250GB limit
• Charter Max: 25/3Mbps → Discontinued ($69.99) 250GB limit
• Charter Ultra: 60/5Mbps → 100/5Mbps ($99.99-109.99) 500GB limit

Charter has usage caps on all of its residential broadband service plans, but Stop the Cap! readers tell us they are not always enforced.  No overlimit fees are charged.  No announcements have been made about any changes to the existing usage limits.  Some Charter Max customers tell us they are using the speed upgrades an an excuse to downgrade to the cheaper Plus plan, which is faster and $15 less a month, with the same 250GB usage cap.  Customers who absolutely won’t tolerate a usage limit have to upgrade to commercial-grade service, which is considerably more expensive.  Lower speed plans run about $80 a month in many areas, but are unlimited.

“I’m glad to discover faster upload speeds, which I’ve waited for a long time, but I’d rather have no usage limits to worry about instead of faster speeds,” shares Stop the Cap! reader and Charter customer Paul McNeil.  “My problem with these faster speeds is that you can’t use them for too long.  Why buy a luxury race car you can only drive down the street?”

Light users who use the Internet primarily for e-mail or web page browsing rarely require more than the most budget-priced broadband package because high speeds do not deliver a significantly improved user experience.  But those who use the Internet for higher-bandwidth applications including video, downloading, certain online games, and file backup do benefit the most from high speed packages.  But when providers slap usage limits on them, the value erodes away.

“Why spend more for less?” asks McNeil. “Two years ago there were no limits and I honestly received more value from my Charter Internet service then over what I have to deal with now.”

Genachowski

The cable industry is expanding so-called “lifeline Internet service” to more households in an effort to combat what a government agency calls “a persistent digital divide.”

Next spring, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Charter Communications will launch low-speed Internet service for $9.95 a month for two years.  The offers will echo Comcast’s Internet Essentials, which launched earlier this year as part of a deal with the government to win approval of the cable company’s merger with NBC-Universal.

The Federal Communications Commission calls the effort “Connect to Compete,” and suggests the public-private initiative will help rural Americans and low-income minorities get affordable Internet access. A study by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration found just 55% of black households and 57% of Hispanics currently subscribe to broadband.  More than 72% of Caucasian households and more than 81% of Asian homes use broadband by comparison.  The rural southern states of Mississippi (52%), Arkansas (52%) and Alabama (56%) have the lowest broadband penetration rates in the country.  In contrast, more than 80% of Utah residents have broadband in their homes.

“In this difficult economy, we need everyone to be working together on solutions,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said. “Broadband is a key to economic and educational opportunity and these kinds of commitments to close the digital divide are powerful.”

But not every poverty-stricken American will qualify for the discount programs.

Cable operators are following Comcast’s lead, restricting access to families with at least one school age child enrolled in the free school lunch program.  Customers must not have existing broadband service during the last 90 days and customers with past due balances cannot sign up.  Don’t have children or fell behind on your cable bill?  No discount Internet for you.

Pilot programs will be launched by each operator in around a dozen cities total starting next spring, with plans to roll programs out nationally by the start of the 2012 school year.  Broadband speeds, usage limits, and other fees were not disclosed.  Comcast’s Internet Essentials operates at 1.5Mbps with upload speeds up to 384kbps.

Comcast’s program sells a netbook computer loaded with Windows 7 Starter Edition for around $150.  The $250 computers expected to be provided by Microsoft will include Windows 7 Home Premium operating system and Microsoft Office.  An additional vendor will sell refurbished computers to interested program participants for around $150.

The program will primarily reach urban residents who cannot afford current Internet service plans that are sold for $40-45 a month.  Rural residents are unlikely to benefit much because most cable operators do not deliver service in rural areas.

CenturyLink announced its own version of discounted DSL Internet in October to sell for $9.95 a month, but with numerous “gotcha” fees and surcharges.

One group unlikely to take advantage of the program: older householders, particularly those ages 65 and older, where just 45% have broadband at home.  The biggest reason the rest don’t?  They don’t believe they need the Internet at any cost.

Phillip "Frontier DSL is Too Slow and Expensive" Dampier

Frontier Communications occasionally sends me mailers promoting their latest offer for DSL and/or satellite service.  The price on the front of the letter looks good — usually around $20 a month — despite the fact the best Frontier can deliver my area less than one mile from the Rochester, N.Y. city line is 3.1Mbps.  But Frontier’s fine print is infamous for bill padding extra fees, charges, and service commitments that makes the out-the-door price literally higher than Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service, which actually delivers substantially faster speed at a lower price.

I’m not alone.

Customers in several Frontier service areas are openly wondering why they should do business with the phone company when they are charging more for less service.

In Ohio, Frontier Communications competes in some areas with Buckeye Cablevision.  Frontier sells DSL Internet in northwest Ohio for $29.99 a month.  For that, customers like Inquiry receive 6.2Mbps even though they bought 7.1Mbps service.

“Their [Internet prices] are significantly higher when comparing the other providers in northwest Ohio,” Inquiry writes. “Buckeye Cablevison has 10Mbps service for $24.95/month. And they actually give the customer 10.8Mbps.”

In areas where Frontier often finds itself the only game in town, that price is downright cheap.

Frontier's "High Speed" Fantasies

Nialis in Aliso Viejo, Calif. doesn’t know what Inquiry is complaining about.  He pays $30 a month for 1.5Mbps DSL service from Frontier.

Eric McDaniel from McDavid, Fla. found small relief when he complained about the 2.2Mbps DSL service he was paying $39.99 a month to receive.

“I now pay $29.99, and that is only because I threatened to cancel my service,” McDaniel says. “Now they give me a $10 recurring credit.”

“What are you going to do when they’re the only show in town?”

Even Charter Communications, one of America’s lowest rated cable companies, has prices and service that beats Frontier hands-down.

In some Charter areas like Wausau, Wisc., Frontier DSL comes with a two year service commitment, a $14.99 monthly Wireless Router Fee, and comparatively slow service:

Frontier Communications Pricing - Wisconsin

Customers can pay $29.99 a month (before fees) for “up to 3Mbps” DSL service from Frontier or spend $29.99 and get 12Mbps from Charter:

Charter Communications Pricing - Wisconsin

So how does Frontier Communications keep offering service at uncompetitive prices?  They have much greater success in the rural markets they favor, where cable competition rarely exists.  Plus, many consumers may not understand the impact of the speed differences they receive from different providers, tending to blame “the Internet” for slowdowns more than the provider delivering the service.  Some customers may also be attracted to valuable customer promotions that include free netbooks or television sets, and forget about the fine print service commitments that come with the deal.

As dwink9909 from Clintonville, Wisc. shared on the Frontier Broadband Reports forum: “Frontier Communications Inc. is free to charge the maximum the market will bear primarily because they are the only provider in most of the areas they serve. That’s certainly true here in Wisconsin. Six miles south of me you can get dial-up service from two dozen ISPs and broadband via wireless, cable or DSL, but here there is only a single provider for telephone and broadband. We are among the “under-served” millions who are just glad to have high speed Internet at any cost.”

Frontier is only too happy to oblige.