Frontier’s new mascot

I’m sure more than a few readers work for a company with a marketing department that churns out advertising and imagery that leaves you shaking your head wondering what they were thinking.

There are some employees at Frontier Communications who are head-scratching this week as the company unleashes “Frontier’s First Ever Spokesman.”

His name is Francis Abraham Buffalo (his friends get to call him “Frank.”) He’s a… buffalo.

An internal memo obtained by Stop the Cap! informs employees Frank is prepared to bulldoze his way through “the clutter and get consumers buzzing.”

“Think of the Aflac duck and the Geico gecko,” a Frontier executive writes. “People have a truly positive association with them that translates into a positive feeling for those companies.”

But can a new mascot really change perceptions about a company more than the quality of the products or services a company provides (or doesn’t)?

For the record, your editor has never been particularly moved by either the duck or the gecko, and I, along with many other Americans, stopped watching television commercials years ago with the advent of the DVR. I have also never bought a product or service based on anything other than its merits and price. Frontier’s buffalo will not change that.

The mascot search involved a nationwide focus group of at least 800 customers and non-customers who were shown a series of “try-outs” involving lip-synched ducks, pigs, and various other creatures you may have last encountered as roadkill.

“Frank was the top choice, lifting our preference rating over the competition by 8 points and decreasing the competition by 3 points.  That’s a net 11 point increase for Frontier and solid support that we’re on the right path,” the company trumpets.

Of course, their cable competitors can always suggest while Frontier is busy playing with animals, they are delivering far faster broadband service and a better package of phone, broadband, and television service that does not involve a third-party satellite dish stuck on your roof.

Even some Frontier employees were less than enthusiastic about the endeavor, already predicting the response ads from the competition.

“I thought the pig would’ve been a better choice,” writes one. “I can just see the competition running ads about not getting ‘Buffaloed’ by Frontier!”

Most of the excitement among employees seems to emanate from the office that envisioned the campaign and spent a lot of money to make it happen.

“A landmark decision in the continuing evolution of Frontier,” jokes a Frontier worker less than thrilled with the result.

Even Frontier executives admit that Frank might be a big, fat target:

“We have also heard some concerns from our employees that we are proactively addressing in the campaign so our competitors won’t take advantage of our new brand spokesperson.”

“Frank will be a boffo buffalo. A solid, truth-talking machine that doesn’t like fuss or tricks - and neither do we.   We play it straight — price guarantees and no contracts make it easy for consumers to understand our products and services.  So if anyone asks, Frank is not here to “buffalo” or trick anyone (call Cable if you want that!).  He doesn’t deal with BS or malarkey, and that means no hidden fees, no surprises.”

Phillip “It’s actually an American bison” Dampier

Frontier is asking for advice on how to make Frank a better buffalo and offer any additional feedback. At Stop the Cap! we are always willing to help, so we publicly offer advice for our hometown phone company.

1. The American buffalo is actually the American bison, but that probably sounds too French (it is actually Greek, but nobody wants to get too close to Greece these days). The bison’s story is remarkably similar to phone companies like Frontier. It once roamed across the American landscape in great herds but was targeted to near extinction. Just like your landline. It still maintains “near threatened” status, and is only gradually making a comeback with the help of conservation efforts. While our ancestors shared their lives with the bison, most people today will only meet one in a zoo or park. We are unsure why Frontier would want to associate itself with an animal best known in the past and unlikely to be seen today.
2. Lip-synching animals (and babies) has become cliché. We were not too impressed with the voice talent Frontier decided to use for their animals either. Instead, check out Telus, western Canada’s biggest phone company. They turn animal wrangling into an art form, using various critters in their ads for phone, broadband, and wireless service. Telus compliments their animal friends with Canadian musicians to visually and musically deliver whatever message the company wants to share.
3. While Frontier may have eliminated some of its old tricks like contract termination, equipment, service protection, and surcharge fees from customer bills, many of us have long memories of the surprise steep cancellation fees charged when dropping landline service that we kept for 20+ years. Others found Frontier’s inadequate DSL only slightly less annoying than the $100+ service termination fee thrown on the last bill. Some of those fees are still being charged to customers, including a particularly silly broadband account service order charge that still stings departing customers. It is hard to accept Frontier’s new marketing messages when the company is still baiting the traps.
4. Frontier’s reputation problem does not come from poor advertising. It comes from a poor selection of products and services. Frontier until recently has simply refused to keep up with the reality of today’s broadband market. Sorry, basic DSL will no longer cut it, particularly when a competitor arrives. Cable can still out-class Frontier’s broadband products even after upgrades to ADSL2+ and VDSL. Frontier bills are still loaded with surprise surcharges and extras that raise the out-the-door price, sometimes even higher than what cable charges. The more important question to ask focus groups is why people do business with Frontier. Is it because they have to or they want to?

Frontier still does not evoke “cutting edge” anything. Frontier FiOS, inherited from Verizon, is the child nobody wants to talk about.

For years, Frontier only offered ADSL at speeds that stopped keeping up with cable a decade ago, even in large metro areas like Rochester, N.Y. When the company advertised “up to” in association with broadband speeds, it meant it: advertise up to 12Mbps but deliver service as slow as 3.1Mbps. With VDSL, 25Mbps might be doable, but cable already offers 30/5 or 50/5Mbps that is a sure thing.

Frontier’s landline service is generally reliable and works even with a power outage if you have a wired phone. But the company charges too much for a phone line many people are now jettisoning in favor of their cell phone and the company is still pushing long distance calling plan bundles that are now irrelevant. Does anyone under 35 know what a toll-call is?

Frontier’s “television” service for most customers is a third-party reseller agreement with a satellite provider with its own contract and conditions. Exciting? Not exactly.

There isn’t much to see here. AT&T and Verizon have spent money to earn money. The only major success story from AT&T’s landline business is its U-verse platform. Verizon FiOS delivers the most formidable competition cable operators like Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have seen. Even CenturyLink has invested in Prism, a fiber to the neighborhood system that can deliver a true triple-play package of services that give customers a reason to stay.

Frontier has Frank the Buffalo and some long-overdue technology upgrades that probably won’t win back a lot of customers.

So what are the strengths Frontier can sell?

1. In most markets, Frontier has no hard limit on broadband usage. That is an attractive selling point where cable operators slap usage caps on customers. Usage caps can and do trigger customer defections;
2. Frontier phone service is generally more reliable than cable or Voice over IP. Talk to customers in storm-struck areas who lost power and cable, but their phone line kept on working;
3. Frontier ADSL2+ and VDSL can outperform rural cable operators who have either oversold their shared network or don’t offer higher DOCSIS 3 speeds yet;
4. Frontier Wi-Fi, if vastly expanded, can be a useful free add-on and selling tool in areas served by cable operators that do not offer the service. But Frontier Wi-Fi hotpots have to be more commonly encountered to make a difference.

Above all, Frontier must keep upgrading its network to stay competitive. Once you lose customers, they can be extremely hard to get back. For many of us, establishing an account with the phone company meant significant installation fees and several days before a crew would turn up to connect service. Frontier knows perfectly well going back to the phone company after leaving is a high hurdle many never attempt.

The best mascot a company like Frontier can adopt are real customers and employees talking about their satisfaction with the changes Frontier is making. Without that, the customers that left will probably always think of Frontier as yesterday’s news. Using an American buffalo that neared extinction itself is probably not going to change that perception.

Here are Frontier’s animal mascot tryouts. (1 minute)

Other stories of interest:

1. Upstate New York Broadband Rankings Out: Rochester Ranks Last in Speed and Value
2. Charter’s Latest Bill Padder: The $3 ‘Change of Service Computerized (Junk) Fee’
3. FiOS TV Rate Hike in Indiana: “It’s Not Just a Price Increase, It’s an Offer,” Says Frontier Exec
4. Frontier Settles Oregon Class Action Lawsuit Over Unjust FiOS Video Late Fees; Refunds Coming
5. Frontier’s Mess of a 4th Quarter: Dividend Slashing, Underwhelming Broadband Don’t Impress

West Virginia’s broadband future is up for hot debate in the state legislature as Internet haves and have nots fight over whether the state should spend money to bring broadband to those lacking it or improve service for those that do.

House Bill 2979, a bill to expand the broadband purview of the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council, has turned into one of the most contentious bills before the legislature this term. An amendment to redefine what speeds represent “broadband” and requiring the council to prioritize efforts on unserved areas has sparked the most debate.

Sen. Robert Plymale (D-Cabell) introduced and won support for an amendment that would discard the current provider-favored standard defining a community as “served” if customers can buy at least 200kbps service. Plymale favors adopting the federal broadband speed standard — 4/1Mbps as the bare minimum. Plymale also wants the state to devote most of its resources to getting broadband to rural areas that do not have the service today.

“If you’re going to compete in this world today, you have to have access,” Plymale told lawmakers. “Access has to be the number one item, and this amendment allows access to be the priority.”

Plymale

But other lawmakers representing constituents in communities that already have broadband, but receive inadequate speed and service, objected to Plymale’s amendment.

Sen. Herb Snyder (D-Jefferson) claims Plymale’s amendment would restrict the council’s ability to manage broadband resources and require it to spend most of its funding on wiring smaller communities at the cost of service upgrades that could reach more people. Approximately 85,000 West Virginians still have no broadband access other than satellite.

“It’s entirely appropriate to use taxpayer dollars to help and assist people to get broadband service and get on the information superhighway rather than upgrading those already on it,” argued Sen. Mitch Carmichael (R-Jackson), who also happens to also be an employee of Frontier Communications.

Much of the state’s broadband infrastructure spending has been devoted to institutional and middle mile networks that consumers and small businesses cannot directly access. Spending on “last mile” infrastructure makes the difference between getting broadband service or being told it is unavailable.

But Sen. Snyder argues satellite broadband already offers access to the entire state, so broadband speed improvements were more important.

“As we speak the entirety of West Virginia is bathed in 5Mbps satellite broadband service,” Snyder said. “So we’re already surpassing that standard in the entire state, unless you’re in a cave where you can’t get the signal.”

Getting the best broadband bang for the buck was a priority for Sen. Clark Barnes (R-Randolph). He wanted to make sure any amendment would not prevent the council from spending money in areas where satellite service was available.

“If we have 10 folks up in Possum Hollow that have no access to broadband, would they receive priority over the thousand people who only have 2Mbps service?” he said.

The answer would seem to be yes under Plymale’s amendment.

Other stories of interest:

1. Frontier Stymies Broadband Grants to Independent ISPs; Complains They Duplicate Service
2. W.V. Does Broadband Mapping With Volunteers; No More Well-Connected Nation Money Flush
3. Frontier’s Wilderotter Claims W.V. Among Top-5 Broadband States; Facts Say Otherwise
4. West Virginia Upset With Current State of Broadband; Companies Losing Business Over Lack of Service
5. West Virginia’s Conundrum Proves Inflexible Broadband Grants, Poor Planning Wastes Taxpayer Money

Frontier’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications is boasting it spent $123.6 million in New York to upgrade broadband speeds, now available up to 25Mbps through bonded ADSL2+ or VDSL technologies.

Frontier’s New York customers are now offered traditional 1-6Mbps DSL, Broadband Ultra (up to 12Mbps) and Broadband Ultimate (up to 25Mbps).

Kevin Smith, senior vice president and general manager of Frontier’s New York division said 155 of Frontier’s 194 switching offices now have faster speeds available, as do 214 remote DSLAM switches. In all, Frontier now reaches 403,000 New York households with faster Internet service.

The company also spent a considerable sum in the Rochester and Chenango areas to upgrade its backbone network with interoffice 10G Ethernet Ring Protection Switching topology. Rochester remains an important center for Frontier, as its largest metropolitan market. IT software upgrades in Rochester will also help improve the national help desk and network operations.

Frontier also plans a major broadband expansion in Hamilton County with broadband grant funds that will improve the company’s backbone between Eagle Bay and Gloversville. That will introduce 25Mbps service to more than half of the households in the immediate area.

Frontier claims it intends to further expand broadband to 85 percent of its service areas nationwide, including those it acquired from Verizon Communications.

Other stories of interest:

1. Exclusive: Frontier Communications Has Plans for AT&T U-verse for Landline Customers
2. Frontier Boosting Speeds in Select Areas; Premium Customers Win No Modem Rental Fee
3. Frontier Communications Delivers F-Minus Broadband in Ohio; ‘Upgrades Will Cost A Lot of Money’
4. Frontier Boosting DSL Speeds in Kanawha, Putnam County, W.V.; 25Mbps $54.99/Month
5. Verizon FiOS Offers Easy $10 Upgrade to 50/25Mbps Service: Click Your Remote Twice

Burdette: Won’t release a publicly funded report to a reporter he considers “dangerous.”

A damning report criticizing West Virginia’s use of $126.3 million in federal stimulus tax dollars to expand broadband in the state may never be made public because it might “be embarrassing to some people.”

State taxpayers funded the $118,000 review but they cannot read the results because Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s administration has declared the report confidential.

Once again, the Charleston Gazette’s Eric Eyre was promptly on the case asking Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette why the state wants to keep the findings secret.

“The documents may be embarrassing to some people . . .  . Embarrassing because it was someone’s opinion,” Burdette told Eyre. “It was a specific document, citing specific companies, and making very specific suggestions to me.”

The newspaper did glean some information from its Freedom of Information request to the state — it learned of the existence of the consultant’s document and his criticism of some of the players involved in the broadband expansion effort.

But Burdette won’t name names, other than to say the consultant wasn’t targeting the governor’s office for criticism. Possible companies that could be in the report include various equipment vendors and consultants tied to technology companies including Verizon and Cisco. It could also target Frontier Communications, the largest grant recipient.

Burdette decided on his own he didn’t like the report’s findings and dismissed requests to release copies to the public because he claimed it was an “internal memorandum” not required to be released under state law.

“”There’s some criticism of the players in there that I don’t accept,” Burdette told the newspaper. “I had the memo drafted, but I didn’t use it. It was assumptions and making recommendations. At the end of the day, I didn’t agree with their assessment.”

That decision promptly sparked West Virginia’s House Minority Leader Tim Armstead (R-Kanawha) to demand the release of all documents related to the taxpayer-funded broadband stimulus program, noting the federal government administered program requires grant recipients to be open and transparent about how taxpayer funds are spent.

A secret report about that very subject does not meet that requirement, according to Armstead.

“When you have a project, and you’re talking about millions of dollars in spending, and there are questions about whether those funds were efficiently spent, the public has a right to know about it,” Armstead told the Gazette. “It’s insulting to tell the public they have to pay for something and they can’t see it. The public paid for that report.”

Armstead has introduced a bill that would drop the exemption from the Freedom of Information Act Burdette cited to keep the report secret.

When Eyre asked Burdette why he won’t release the report, Burdette responded, “Because you’re dangerous.”

Last week, Tomblin’s administration abruptly cancelled a statewide “broadband summit,” fearing ongoing scrutiny of the broadband funding project and how the money was spent would be the main topic of discussion.

Other stories of interest:

1. Frontier Keeping Exact Locations of Publicly-Funded Fiber Lines in W.V. ‘Our Little Secret’
2. West Virginia Broadband Stimulus Money Flush: $22,000 Routers Sit Unused for 2 Years
3. West Virginia Money Party: Taxpayer-Funded Broadband Stimulus = Windfall for Verizon Consultants
4. $126.3 Million West Virginia Broadband Grant: “An Orchestrated Train Wreck,” Says Delegate
5. West Virginia’s Conundrum Proves Inflexible Broadband Grants, Poor Planning Wastes Taxpayer Money

Find the Frontier Fiber

After spending tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to wire more than 500 miles of fiber broadband cable in public buildings across West Virginia, Frontier is allegedly withholding detailed engineering maps detailing the new fiber network from its competitors.

The Charleston Gazette’s Eric Eyre has kept a close watch on broadband stimulus funding in West Virginia, and the circus of controversy surrounding how the money has been spent.

But now that Frontier’s taxpayer-funded institutional fiber network has been built, efforts to install Internet connections to end users has become complicated… unless you choose Frontier Communications as your vendor.

State Broadband Deployment Council member Jim Martin from Citynet has been a vocal critic of the broadband spending priorities in West Virginia for several years. He’s particularly irritated taxpayer funds have been effectively diverted to Frontier to build a modern fiber network that mostly benefits Frontier and its shareholders. Now his company wants to see if it can use the new fiber network to connect more West Virginians to fiber Internet service, but Martin claims he has been given the runaround by Frontier, state officials, and a broadband council that includes a Frontier executive as a member.

“A number of providers have inquired about where that fiber is located so they can expand broadband to customers,” Martin told the Gazette. “The engineering maps are important so they will know exactly where the fiber is connected, and so they can tap it.”

Only Martin cannot get the detailed engineering maps he needs. Eyre describes the high-tech equivalent of “button, button, who’s got the button?”

Martin started asking about the maps eight months ago. State officials overseeing the broadband expansion project promised to check into his request, but they haven’t released the engineering maps.

On Wednesday, Frontier executive Dana Waldo, who also serves on the Broadband Deployment Council, told Martin to request the maps from the state “broadband grant implementation team,” which heads the broadband expansion project.

“Those are requests that have to go to the implementation team,” said Waldo, who heads Frontier’s West Virginia operations. “It provides for a consistent process.”

However, Gale Given, who serves on the project team and heads the state’s Office of Technology, referred Martin to Frontier.

“If you need detailed engineering maps,” Given said, “it’s my understanding the [broadband project] team is not going to produce those.”

Given noted that less-detailed maps are available on the state’s broadband project website.

“If you need a specific area,” she said, “tell us the specific area you need.”

Martin says the maps on the website mentioned are hand-drawn Google Maps, unsuitable to work with because they lack detail.

Other stories of interest:

1. West Virginia Money Party: Taxpayer-Funded Broadband Stimulus = Windfall for Verizon Consultants
2. West Virginia’s Institutional Broadband Funding Scandal: Throwing Money at a Non-Problem
3. Frontier Stymies Broadband Grants to Independent ISPs; Complains They Duplicate Service
4. $126.3 Million West Virginia Broadband Grant: “An Orchestrated Train Wreck,” Says Delegate
5. Bray’s Back: Getting a Reality Check on West Virginia’s Broadband Picture

Frontier Communications is hoping to capitalize on cable operators alienating customers with extra modem fees and the increasing cost of cable broadband with a new offer it claims is free from hidden charges and other gotcha’s.

Frontier’s “Simple Choice“ offers DSL broadband at speeds up to 6Mbps for $19.99 a month with the promise of an “end to confusing Internet bills” loaded with modem rental fees, contracts, or other “plan-cuffs” that “require a law degree to understand.” Frontier also offers to double your speeds for $10 more per month.

“It gives consumers an awesome amount of flexibility and choice,” said Cecilia K. McKenney, executive vice president of administrative services at Frontier. “By offering new broadband speed tiers to residential and commercial customers and eliminating contracts and early termination fees on our residential offers, we are truly simplifying the broadband experience.”

The offer includes a three-year price lock on voice and broadband, a free wireless router, no contract and no early termination fees. There is no Internet activation fee where a free self-installation kit is available.

But despite the promises of no tricks or traps, Frontier couldn’t help themselves in the fine print accompanying the offer:

1. The offer is only available to customers subscribing to a “qualifying package of Frontier residential local service with calling features and long distance.” This means you must keep a Frontier voice landline with an added-cost long distance and feature package (eg. Caller ID, Call Waiting, voicemail, etc.) In Rochester, N.Y., a landline with qualifying features starts at $31 a month before taxes and fees.
2. A $49.99 “Internet installation fee” is payable if a self-install kit is not available.
3. A $9.99 “broadband processing fee” applies if/when you disconnect your broadband service.
4. Taxes, governmental, and “other Frontier-imposed surcharges” that go unspecified also apply.
5. Frontier does not guarantee you will actually receive 6Mbps service. Speeds will vary depending on local line conditions.

Other stories of interest:

1. New Year Hangover: Frontier’s ‘$20.10 for 2010′ DSL Promotion Loaded With Tricks and Traps
2. Frontier Boosting Speeds in Select Areas; Premium Customers Win No Modem Rental Fee
3. Fighting to Improve 2nd Quarter Results: Why Providers Are Promotion Happy
4. Bottom-Ranked Suddenlink Upset About Frontier’s Ad Claims Their DSL is Better
5. Frontier Introducting Wi-Fi in Fort Wayne; Free Service Limited & Slow

Residents in mountainous western North Carolina have been frustrated by broadband availability maps from the Federal Communications Commission that suggest broadband service is plentiful and fast. But on the ground, customers trying to sign up for Internet access the FCC says is readily available is anything but.

The FCC’s National Broadband Map has been repeatedly criticized by broadband advocates for relying on voluntary data supplied by Internet Service Providers — data that has often proved incomplete, exaggerated, or just plain inaccurate.

Wally Bowen, executive director of Asheville’s Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN), wants to show the FCC its broadband map is out of touch with the real world. MAIN has announced a new website that will let western North Carolina residents test and report the real broadband speeds they are getting from providers to the FCC. If no broadband service is available at all, residents can report that as well.

“Based on our experience, we believe the FCC is underestimating the scope of this problem,” said Bowen, an advocate for Internet access in rural areas. “The FCC’s estimate is based primarily on data provided by the cable and telephone companies.”

With a growing amount of federal money available to wire unserved areas, phone and cable companies may have a vested interest exaggerating their coverage areas and Internet speeds to stop would-be competitors from entering their territories and building new networks. New providers could find a very enthusiastic customer base of more than 48,000 aggravated residents in 16 counties in western North Carolina that have no broadband options at all.

“This new website empowers citizens to compare their real-life experience with the FCC data, but more importantly, it dissects the broadband problem, provides ideas for solving it, and shows citizens how to add their voices to the policy debate,” said Bowen.

Bowen believes profit-minded private companies are unlikely to ever be enthusiastic about wiring rural communities when larger profits can be earned in larger cities.

“Solving this problem isn’t rocket science,” said Bowen. “We’ve seen this movie before. Seventy-five years ago, for-profit electric utilities left rural America in the dark, so Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act and allowed local communities to solve the problem themselves by creating nonprofit electric cooperatives.”

But federal funds are off-limits if another provider already claims to offer service in an area, no matter how poorly they deliver it. Many large cable and phone companies have also worked to ban community-owned broadband networks from ever getting off the ground with the passage of corporate-sponsored bills passed by state legislatures. That leaves rural residents waiting endlessly for the telephone company to get around to providing some level of broadband service.

Problems with Frontier Communications’ DSL in the region tells the story:

Paul Manogue lives in an area considered “served” by Frontier Communications. The phone company sold him 3Mbps service, but after installation, Manogue found Frontier locked down his DSL modem to 1.5Mbps, the fastest speed his telephone line could comfortably handle. Today, Manogue pays $60.98 for 1.5Mbps service that has since further degraded. Today his top speed is 1Mbps or less, even though his monthly bill remains the same. His broadband connection does not come close to the 4/1Mbps minimum speed the FCC expects from today’s rural broadband networks.

“We have been bluntly told [by Frontier] that the level of service we receive is what we pay for,” Manogue told MAIN. Manogue has no other options.

Bill Duffell of Burningtown thinks Frontier broke its promise to deliver broadband where Verizon, his old provider, refused. He is still waiting, along with a number of other residents, for even basic DSL.

“Frontier promised to bring high-speed Internet access to remote areas of western North Carolina within three years,” he said. “They have not done this and now tell me there are no plans to bring high-speed Internet to the area. Internet access via satellite costs me $129.99 per month with Exede/WildBlue and is weather dependent.”

Allen in Madison County says Frontier delivered tolerable service until six months ago, when his speeds began to drop.

“The breaking point was when I was going to upload a 30 minutes video and found out it was going to take over 13 hours to upload.” Allen says. “I called Frontier and they [told me I was] ‘in a high volume area.’”

Anyone considering launching a competitive broadband service to improve the online experience of Manogue, Duffell, Allen and others will not qualify for any federal assistance because Frontier, the incumbent provider, already provides DSL broadband. Frontier also receives significant aid from the Connect America Fund — up to $775 to extend broadband to each individual home or business it earlier deemed unprofitable to serve. Each additional connection risks slowing down every other connection in the immediate area if Frontier does not maintain regular upgrades.

Two of the largest phone companies in the country — AT&T and Verizon — have both refused CAF money altogether. AT&T sees a bigger financial opportunity disbanding their wired telecommunications networks in rural America and forcing customers to switch to more costly (and much more profitable) wireless data services.

“The refusal of Connect America funding by the big carriers, plus their plans to abandon their wired networks in rural areas, is a policy earthquake that’s been ignored by corporate media,” Bowen said.

Other stories of interest:

1. Travesty: North Carolina’s Telecom Companies Oppose 4Mbps Broadband Service in Rural Areas
2. North Carolina: Welcome to the Home of America’s Worst Broadband Service
3. A Look at Broadband Numbers in the United States: DSL Hurting Phone Companies
4. The Truth About North Carolina’s Community Networks Told in Four Minutes
5. Frontier’s Wilderotter Claims W.V. Among Top-5 Broadband States; Facts Say Otherwise

Netflix has released figures for January ranking Internet Service Providers delivering the best viewing experience for viewing Netflix’s catalog of online video titles.

At the top is Google Fiber, which comes as little surprise considering Google provides 1,000/1,000Mbps service to its limited number of customers in Kansas City.

Suddenlink saw the greatest improvement. The mostly-rural and small city cable provider jumped five points in January’s ratings, scoring 3rd. Cablevision’s Optimum broadband service jumped ahead of three rivals to score second place.

Time Warner Cable and Cox remained in the middle, while AT&T U-verse demonstrated that the benefits of a fiber network end when the remaining copper wire to the customer’s home comes into play. U-verse performed only marginally better than the DSL services of independent phone companies like Windstream and CenturyLink. Frontier managed some minor improvement, now scoring 14th place out of 17.

The worst performers: DSL services from both Verizon and AT&T and Clearwire’s 4G WiMAX network, which scored dead last.

Other stories of interest:

1. Back to Kansas City: Google Fiber Now Going in the Ground; TV Service Also Announced
2. Fox and Google Make Amends With Fiber TV Agreement; AMC, HBO Still Missing
3. Kansas’ Fiber Broadband Cup Runneth Over: New SureWest Projects Compliment Google
4. AT&T and Time Warner Cable: ‘We Can Compete With Google Fiber’
5. Google Fiber Launches Next Week in Kansas City

Frontier Communications has admitted in a December regulatory filing it lost a combined 60 percent of its residential and business landline customers in Washington over the last decade, with more than 15,000 more departing during the first nine months of 2012.

The company revealed those numbers as part of an effort to win “minimal regulation” in the state of Washington, claiming its cable, wireless, and Voice Over IP competitors have eaten away its customer base. During the period between 2000 and 2011, the number of access lines served by Frontier in Washington declined from 895,435 to 342,869.

Frontier revealed it lost 15,310 more customers from March-September 2012 in cities like Everett (1,302), Marysville (2,009), and Redmond (2,975). Many of those customers took their business to Comcast. Others rely on wireless service Frontier does not provide.

Frontier claims it faces robust competition in Washington and should be entitled to deregulation.

“These alternative providers have captured a significant share of the market for business and residential telecommunications services and additional features,” Frontier’s filing says. “Frontier is no longer the largest or predominant provider of telecommunications service.”

In Washington, companies like Frontier now just hold 19% of the voice telephone business. Wireless providers are now the predominant voice service provider, serving 6.1 million subscribers in Washington.

Frontier admits the competition has been beating the company’s pants off:

“The alternative service providers have clearly been successful in competing with Frontier as evidenced by the persistent and continuing loss of access lines by Frontier,” Frontier’s filing says. “As noted above, Frontier has experienced a 62% reduction in the number of access lines it serves in Washington from 895,435 as of January 1, 2001 to 342,869 as of September 30, 2012. This loss of access lines has been ubiquitous across Frontier’s exchanges in that all but one of Frontier’s 102 exchanges has experienced line losses since 2009.”

Deregulation would allow Frontier to increase prices or change how its markets and bundles certain products. It would also reduce the amount of oversight the company faces from state regulators.

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission temporarily set aside Frontier’s request at a meeting held Jan. 31. The regulator wants further time to investigate Frontier’s petition and will schedule future hearings on the matter in the future.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Steve who first noticed the regulatory filing.

Other stories of interest:

1. Frontier Customers’ Long Wait for Slow Broadband
2. Frontier Attempts to Win Over Dissatisfied Cable Customers Plagued With Rate Hikes, Outages
3. Where’s Our Refund? Two Months and $26.09 Later, Frontier Finally Sends A Check
4. FiOS TV Rate Hike in Indiana: “It’s Not Just a Price Increase, It’s an Offer,” Says Frontier Exec
5. CenturyLink Seeks Right to Delay Repair of Your Landline Service (No Credits, Either)