Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

Virtually every mayor in the urban centers of upstate New York is accusing Verizon Communications of redlining poor and minority communities when deciding where to provide its fiber-to-the-home service FiOS.

Now they are telling the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice to become more closely involved in reviewing a proposed anti-competitive marketing partnership between the phone company and some of the nation’s largest cable operators.

The mayors are upset that Verizon has chosen to target its limited FiOS network primarily on affluent suburbs surrounding upstate New York city centers.

“Verizon has not built its all-fiber FiOS network in any of our densely-populated cities. Not in Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Binghamton, Kingston, Elmira or Troy,” the mayors say. “Yet, Verizon has expanded its FiOS network to the suburbs ringing Buffalo, Albany, Troy, and Syracuse, as well as many places in the Hudson Valley, and most of downstate New York. As a result, the residents and businesses in our cities are disadvantaged relative to their more affluent suburban neighbors who have access to Verizon’s FiOS, providing competitive choice in high-speed broadband and video services.”

The mayors fear the reduced competition that will come from the marketing partnership between the phone and cable industry will eliminate any pressure on Verizon to expand its fiber optic network into more New York cities. The agreement allows Verizon Wireless customers to received significant bundled discounts when they sign up for cell phone service and a cable package from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, or Bright House Networks. No corresponding discount is available to a Verizon Wireless customer choosing to bundle Verizon FiOS, putting the fiber service at a competitive disadvantage.

“These commercial agreements appear to eliminate any incentive that Verizon might have had to expand its all-fiber network to our high-density urban centers,” the mayors say. “After all, Verizon Wireless, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, will now be able to sell Time Warner’s video and broadband service as part of their bundled package in our communities.”

That leaves most with Verizon’s DSL service, a product Verizon has been marketing less and less to its customers. The company recently announced it would no longer sell standalone DSL broadband, another point of contention for the mayors.

The mayors are concerned that Verizon’s deteriorating landline network will have profound implications for city centers, where tele-medicine, education, business, and entertainment services will all be left lacking if the fiber network is not extended.

“As you are well aware, high-speed broadband is critical to economic development and job creation, as well as improvements in health care, education, public safety, and civic discourse which is so essential to communal life,” say the mayors. “The economic health of our cities and our upstate region depends upon access to the same first-rate communications infrastructure available to the New York City metropolitan region and the suburban communities that ring our cities.”

The nine mayors are also questioning whether Verizon executives misled them when they claimed Verizon’s strong financial performance would allow the company to reinvest profits into further expansion of its FiOS network. Verizon executives have since admitted the company is indefinitely finished with FiOS expansion, except in areas where it already committed to build the fiber network.

Signing the letter were:

• Byron W. Brown – Mayor, City of Buffalo
• Stephanie A. Miner – Mayor, City of Syracuse
• Gerald D. Jennings – Mayor, City of Albany
• Matthew T. Ryan – Mayor, City of Binghamton
• Shayne R. Gallo – Mayor, City of Kingston
• Susan Skidmore – Mayor, City of Elmira
• Brian Tobin – Mayor, City of Cortland
• Robert Palmieri – Mayor, City of Utica
• Lou Rosamilla – Mayor, City of Troy

(The city of Rochester is served by Frontier Communications, which has no plans to deliver a fiber to the home network within its local service area.)

Frontier bills are often confusing, as this example from 2009 illustrates.

Some of Frontier Communications’ 230,000 customers in Oregon are enduring billing snafus after the company accidentally cancelled promotional discounts, resulting in higher bills.

Frontier recently completed a billing system change for those formerly served by Verizon Communications, but The Oregonian reports some customers found bundled service promotions and service contracts established with the former owners suddenly canceled, eliminating discounts that delivered de facto “rate increases” as much as $20 a month.

Frontier had promised customers their “services and pricing plan will remain the same” after the billing system conversion.

Many of the worst-impacted customers subscribe to Frontier’s adopted FiOS fiber-to-the-home service.

Albert, a Stop the Cap! reader with Frontier FiOS, says the “abuse of FiOS customers” has continued since Frontier bought Verizon’s landline and fiber network in the state.

“First they wanted to jack the rates up, then they tried to sell us an ‘upgrade’ to satellite TV, and now it’s just the latest in a series of bill screw-ups from a company that couldn’t run things right if it tried,” Albert tells us. “My contract with the company says ‘no rate hikes while the contract is in effect,’ so they just made it no longer in effect and presto, a rate hike.”

It took four phone calls to straighten things out.

“Frontier’s customer service offices are apparently in other states, and a lot of their people don’t seem to know about FiOS, need supervisors to intervene on everything, and still cannot fix things,” Albert writes. “On the fourth call, I finally got someone who was able to cross-reference my older bills and find the promotion I was supposed to be on, and got me back on it.”

Albert says Frontier really has not offered much to sell people on the company’s fiber optic network.

“Frontier FiOS is a big secret with the company, and the last thing in the world they want to sell you is Frontier FiOS TV,” he reports.

The newspaper reports Frontier’s confusion over promotions and billing have impacted others as well.  Some of the problems have prompted customers to file complaints with the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC), which says it has seen “a big increase” in consumer issues since Frontier’s billing system changeover.

Frontier promised the state it would not raise any rates in Oregon without notifying the Commission, and so far the company has kept its word. But that doesn’t hold true for Albert.

“Dropping the ball on promotions represents a hidden rate increase, and many people will just pay the bill no matter what it says,” Albert said. “Then Frontier will try the backdoor rate increase with more surcharges and rental fees on other services.”

While Frontier executives have heralded the billing system conversion as a major accomplishment that opens the next chapter on Frontier Communications’ future, some customers are less celebratory.

Oregonian reader Max Gramm:

Frontier is perhaps the worst phone companion in history. Twice now they have changed my account number and never informed me, then refused to apply the money I had continued to pay to the old account number to the bill. I would get bill saying I owed $180 dollars even after proving to them I had made payments every single month. They shut off my service for over a week during one of these disputes. Though part of this could be due to Verizon (when they hear I am from Oregon, I get sent to a different department) Frontier has been absolutely awful to work with.

The newspaper recommends customers check their bills for sudden increases and contact Frontier with any questions. If Frontier has no satisfactory answers, file a complaint with the PUC (800-522-2404 or online).

Phillip "An Ex-Frontier Customer" Dampier

The other week while sitting in the dentist’s office waiting for my wallet to be drilled, I overheard a conversation at the reception desk over the latest effort by Frontier Communications to shoot itself in the proverbial foot.

“I decided to get rid of my phone line the other day and when I called Frontier to disconnect, I was told I would owe them more than $150 in disconnection fees for a contract I never knew I had with them,” opened the conversation.

“That happened to my sister as well, and she couldn’t believe it because nobody ever told her she was on a contract,” came the reply.

“I never knew I was either, and I told the representative they needed to show me where I signed up for anything like that or else I’m not paying it,” insisted the latest victim of Frontier’s phantom service contracts.

Within a minute or two, all had decided they were done doing business with the phone company that got its start more than 100 years ago as the well-regarded Rochester Telephone Corporation.  In 2012, there was no turning back after $150 “disconnect” penalties and other insults.  They were intent on being rid of Frontier once and for all.

With customer unfriendly policies like that, it comes as no surprise Frontier has been losing customers in the Rochester market for years, mostly to cell phone providers or Time Warner Cable — the latter which delivers more value and far superior broadband speed in western New York communities not served by Verizon FiOS.

Surprise... you're on a contract with a $150 cancellation penalty.

Twenty years ago, Rochester Telephone delivered excellent value, charging about half what then-NYNEX customers in Buffalo and Syracuse paid for telephone service. But as Frontier has increasingly disengaged from being an aggressive contender for telecommunications services in Rochester, people in this region of one million noticed, especially when Verizon’s fiber to the home service arrived in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and beyond.

What did Frontier offer? Not much. Frontier’s local general manager Ann Burr, who used to be in charge at Time Warner Cable locally, told local media Rochester didn’t need faster broadband speeds. That’s a fitting argument for a company that doesn’t deliver them and believes 3Mbps broadband is plenty fast enough.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave, so long as you aren’t trapped with that long-term service contract you never knew you had. (The New York Attorney General’s office has already spanked Frontier once for the practice, forcing them to issue refunds, and judging from last week’s conversation, it appears the problem has not abated.)

The fact is, Frontier offers little compelling to the landline customers they have left.

Rochester’s experience with Frontier seems apropos when contemplating the phone company’s latest quarterly results, which one analyst called “ugly.” Having listened to at least a dozen of Frontier’s quarterly conference calls with investors over the past three years, there seems to be no shortage of promises of better days to come.  Frontier is among the few companies I have heard call customer losses of 5-11% every quarter “an improvement.”

As one investor put it, the management at Frontier should win an Academy Award for feigned optimism.

This week, the company announced first-quarter earnings fell 51% thanks to lower revenue earned from the dwindling number of residential and business customers. But better days are ahead, really.

Road to nowhere?

Frontier has spent the last year treating their “system conversion” for ex-Verizon territories as the telecom equivalent of the Holy Grail.  Once achieved, the company can do anything. The reorganization underway internally at the company is supposed to improve its lackluster customer service, generate more marketing opportunities, save the company money, and open the door to a new chapter of a unified Frontier family, with ex-Verizon and always-Frontier employees coming together to do things “the Frontier way.”

How much longer investors will stick around waiting for the promised land remains an open question. The stock has already achieved a 52-week low, and if the company cuts its dividend — the primary point of attraction for investors — it will drop much lower.

Frontier’s management decisions have effectively left the company between a rock (Wall Street) and a hard place (its dwindling customers).  Much of the company’s success is predicated on rural broadband/landline service, where the company expects to face little competition.  But Verizon, the company that sold them much of their inherited network, has a little surprise for them.  After selling off the “junk” (a deteriorating copper landline network they no longer care much about), the company’s wireless division is coming back to town to poach Frontier’s customers.

Verizon’s grand plan is to pitch two products:

1. Home Phone Connect: Verizon’s landline replacement works with the customer’s home phones over Verizon Wireless’ network. Customers can share minutes on an existing Verizon Wireless plan for $9.99 a month or get unlimited calling for $19.99 a month. It comes with most popular calling features included.
2. Verizon HomeFusion Broadband: Verizon Wireless has excess capacity in rural areas, especially on 4G LTE-equipped towers, so why not put it to use? While commanding a premium at $60 a month for just 10GB of usage, customers who value speed over money may tolerate that diamond price.  If Verizon finds a way to relax that usage limit and lower prices, it could present a real competitive threat to phone companies delivering lower end DSL service.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Home Phone Connect -- Home Phone Transfer Verizon Wireless.flv

Verizon Wireless introduces Home Phone Connect, a product designed to tell landline companies like Frontier to take a hike.  (2 minutes)

While Verizon isn’t likely to immediately grab major market share with either product, it foreshadows an intent to leverage their rural wireless network to remain a player, even in places where they have abandoned selling landline service.

How to Stop the Erosion

Turning things around? Frontier contemplates licensing U-verse from AT&T

Even in a barely-competitive marketplace, companies must invest to keep up. But that investment annoys Wall Street, which can depress the stock (and the all-important dividend). But improved service retains customers (and may even win a few ex-customers back). So news that Frontier was considering licensing U-verse technology to upgrade their major markets is a logical first step to stop the bleeding. Frontier is irrelevant delivering broadband at speeds of 3Mbps at out the door prices that meet or exceed what the much-faster cable competition charges. U-verse would allow Frontier to deliver faster broadband (up to 24Mbps is plenty fast for a lot of consumers), build its own IPTV offering instead of relying on satellite dish reseller agreements, and maintain landline customers, assuming the company prices its bundle correctly.

While we are big proponents of fiber-to-the-home service, it is clear Frontier will never spend the money to deliver it, even to their largest service areas. They will prefer the cheaper route of fiber to the neighborhood, relying on existing copper infrastructure to connect individual homes to the service. It represents a reasonable first step.

Frontier also must continue aggressive investments in their broadband network in more rural areas. Some of the company’s regional backbones remain woefully congested, and the company just doesn’t deliver the speeds it markets on its website in too many areas.

High speed should really mean "high speed"

Jameson, a Stop the Cap! reader, is a good example. He signed up for “Frontier Max DSL” which claims it can deliver up to 6Mbps in his part of east-central Indiana.  He ended up with 1.6Mbps instead, in part of because Frontier’s records were inaccurate.

I called Frontier tech support after reading some stuff on Stop the Cap! and another site, learning that since I live under 5000 feet from the DSL termination point (the Frontier building down the road) that I shouldn’t have any problems getting their highest speeds. I got lucky and got a customer support agent who understood my problem, and a tech support guy who genuinely seemed concerned about my issue. The tech guy checked Frontier’s records and I was labeled as being 30,000 feet from the building, but I’m really only around 4200 feet away, and my speeds were provisioned at 1.6mbps down and around 450kbps up. He put in a support ticket to have my speeds automatically raised up to the max I’m paying for.

Jameson ended up with around 7Mbps — a little better than the advertised speed, but only because he thought to ask and reached the right people at Frontier to follow through.

Some of our readers in West Virginia are not so lucky, having the mediocre speeds they fought to receive reduced further when a technician suddenly remotely adjusts speed provisioning on customer equipment to reduce their maximum broadband speed.

Frontier’s DSL problems don’t just exist in rural areas. We experienced it first-hand in 2009 when the company advertised up to 10Mbps speeds in Rochester, and delivered 3.1Mbps to us instead.

Consumer Reports documents this is not an isolated problem, with only two-thirds of Frontier customers getting the broadband speeds they pay to receive. If and when a competitor does better, Frontier loses another customer.

Finally, Frontier must improve its customer service. The company is notorious for giving inconsistent answers to customer questions, doesn’t always follow through on commitments, and maintains far too many “gotcha” terms and conditions on contracts that leave customers exposed to unjustified early termination fees.

CNET shows off the equipment used with Verizon’s new HomeFusion wireless broadband service.  (2 minutes)

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson is kicking himself over his decision to allow “unlimited use” plans on AT&T’s wireless network.

Speaking at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference last Wednesday, Stephenson took the audience on a journey through AT&T’s transformation from a landline provider into a company that today sees wireless as the source of the majority of its revenue and future growth.  But the company left a lot of revenue on the table when it offered “unlimited data” for smartphone customers, particularly those using Apple’s iPhone.  It’s a mistake Stephenson wishes he never made.

“My only regret was how we introduced pricing in the beginning… thirty dollars and you get all you can eat and it’s a variable cost model,” Stephenson complained. “Every additional megabyte you use in this network, I have to invest capital. So get the pricing right. Our average revenue [per customer] has been increasing every single quarter since we started down this path.”

Stephenson admitted AT&T’s problems were created by the company itself when it embraced its transformation into a wireless power player.

Years earlier, the current CEO green-lit a new “smartphone” after a visit from Apple proposing a new device that used a touch screen to make calls, launch applications, and surf the wireless web.  It was called the iPhone.

AT&T’s first iPhone, Stephenson said, was not a major problem for AT&T and did not even launch on the company’s growing 3G network. In 2007, the Apple iPhone came pre-loaded with a selection of apps and used AT&T 2G network to move data.  Stephenson said Apple’s launch of a new iPhone in 2008 that worked on AT&T’s 3G network, along with a new App Store that allowed customers to do more with their phones, changed everything.  By 2009, AT&T’s network was overloaded with data traffic in many areas.

“[There] were volumes [of traffic] that nobody had ever anticipated and we had anticipated big volumes of growth,” Stephenson said.

In Stephenson’s view, AT&T’s solution to the traffic problem early on should have been a change to the pricing model, eliminating flat rate service at the first sign of network congestion.

“I wish we had moved quicker to change the pricing model to make sure that people that were consuming the bandwidth were paying for the bandwidth and [instead] we had a model where the high end users were being subsidized by the low end users,” he said.

Stephenson acknowledged the company has service issues in large American cities like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and blames them on a combination of voracious wireless data usage and spectrum shortages.  However, industry observers also note that many of AT&T’s service woes may have come from an unwillingness to invest in sufficient network upgrades as aggressively as other carriers, which have not experienced the same level of network congestion and the resulting steep declines in customer satisfaction AT&T has endured for the last three years.

But the ongoing congestion problems have not hurt AT&T’s revenue and profits.  Stephenson admitted that in 2006, AT&T earned almost nothing from wireless data and made between 30-32% margin selling voice and texting service.

“Today, we’re a $20 billion data revenue company and we’re operating at 41-42% margins,” Stephenson said.

Despite that improved revenue, AT&T says if they don’t get spectrum relief soon, they are going to keep raising prices on consumers. Stephenson said the company has been increasing prices across the board on data plans, new smartphone ownership, those upgrading phones, as well as reducing certain benefits for long-term customers. Stephenson said these actions were taken because spectrum has become a precious resource and bandwidth scarcity requires the company to tamp down on demand.  But that’s not a message he delivers to Wall Street, telling investors AT&T’s key earnings and increased revenue come from price adjustments and metering data usage.

Stephenson also fretted there is too much competition in America’s wireless marketplace.  That competition is eating up all of the available wireless spectrum, threatening to create a spectrum crisis if the federal government does not rethink spectrum allocation policies, he argued.  Stephenson believes additional industry consolidation is inevitable because of the capital costs associated with network construction and upgrades. He said he was uncertain whether AT&T will be able to participate in that consolidation after failing to win approval of its buyout of T-Mobile USA.

Stephenson believes the days of heavy investment in wired networks are over. Stephenson has systematically sought to transition AT&T away from prioritizing wired services in favor of wireless, a position he has maintained since his earliest days as AT&T’s CEO. The company’s decision to end expansion of U-verse — AT&T’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service, and concentrate investment on wireless is part of Stephenson’s grand vision of a wireless America.  Stephenson noted the real fiber revolution isn’t provisioning fiber to the home, it’s wiring fiber to cell towers to support higher data traffic.

But that traffic doesn’t come to users free. Instead, Stephenson believes leaving the meter on guarantees lower rates of congestion because it makes customers think about what they are doing with their phones. It also brings higher profits for AT&T by charging customers for network traffic.  Stephenson believes that assures the returns Wall Street investors demand, attracting capital to front network investments.

With that in mind, Stephenson still believes AT&T can help solve the data digital divide, where poor families cannot afford to participate in the online revolution. Stephenson said it can be managed by handing the disadvantaged sub-$100 smartphones and $20 data plans, assuming they can afford those prices.

What keeps Stephenson up nights?  Worrying about business model busters that manage end-runs around AT&T’s profitable wireless services.

“Apple iMessage is a classic example,” Stephenson noted. “If you’re using iMessage, you’re not using one of our messaging services, right? That’s disruptive to our messaging revenue stream.”

Stephenson remains fearful its network upgrades will improve wireless data service enough to allow customers to switch to Skype for voice and video calling, depriving AT&T of voice revenue.

But the CEO seems less concerned than some of his predecessors that content producers are enjoying “free rides” on AT&T’s network.

“We in this industry have spent more time bemoaning the thought that Google or Facebook may use our network for free, and it just hasn’t played out that way,” Stephenson said. “I mean they do use it for free, they’re getting a bargain, and that is fine.”

“I believe what will play itself out over time, is that the demand model will change this behavior,” he said. “We’re already at a place where some companies that deliver content are coming to us and saying ‘we would like to do a deal with you where you would give us a class of service to deliver our content to your customers.’”

“The content guys that have been so loud about these issues [Net Neutrality] are now the ones coming to us saying we want these models,” Stephenson argued. “I’ve always believed that is what would play out.”

Stop the Cap! edited down Randall Stephenson’s appearance at last Wednesday’s conference.  Stephenson faces few challenges as he presents his world-view about AT&T pricing, spectrum allocation policies, network investments vs. data traffic growth, his vision for AT&T’s future, and how much customers will be forced to pay for today’s “spectrum crisis.”  (28 minutes)

Joe Roget has one word for South Carolina’s Broadband Availability Map: “nuts.”

The 72 year old resident of a small town in South Carolina was excited to read a new statewide broadband availability map showed his street was currently getting DSL service from one of South Carolina’s largest phone companies.  But that was news to AT&T, who provides landline phone service.

“They said they had no idea what I was talking about and that whatever map data I was looking at was totally wrong,” Roget reports to Stop the Cap! “The operator was frank with me, saying it was highly unlikely I would ever receive DSL from AT&T and the company was really not expanding DSL access any longer.”

Karen, a Stop the Cap! reader near Denmark, S.C., reported a similar story.

“The broadband map Connect South Carolina has gotten a government grant to produce is total fiction in my area and is little more than cable and phone company wishful thinking,” Karen reports.

Karen says not only does her street show DSL as readily available, but cable broadband as well.  Karen and her neighbors can get neither.

“‘Never have, never will’ seems to be the attitude unless we pay $20,000 to the cable company to extend wiring down the street,” Karen says. “The phone company doesn’t have time to even consider that, but their call center is nowhere near South Carolina so those people don’t care.”

Roget wonders exactly how Connect South Carolina, a chapter of the industry-connected Connected Nation group, got their data.

The answer: it largely collects it from the data providers volunteer themselves.

“Did anyone ever bother to use some of the millions of taxpayer dollars this group got to actually verify what the cable and phone companies handed out to make sure it was real?” Roget asks.

Darryl Coffey, an engineering consultant for the group, says he spends countless hours trying to verify the data providers submit to the group.

In South Carolina, I verify each of these platforms by going out into the field with tools, test equipment and data.  We refer to this process as “provider validation.”

Provider validation involves driving hundreds of miles following telephone and cable lines, or testing wireless signals in neighborhoods as well as in remote areas.

“I have basic phone service at my home, and I don’t know how Mr. Coffey can follow a phone line to determine if it also can provide me with DSL,” Roget says. “I could tell him, or anyone else at Connected South Carolina, it most certainly does not — had they asked.”

Roget is also upset that South Carolina’s legislature is interested in preventing local communities from deploying their own broadband networks to fill in the gaps where large telecommunications companies refuse to provide service. Only he wonders exactly how legislators will know there is a broadband gap if the group drawing the maps, based on what providers tell them, shows there isn’t a problem.

“What a scam,” Roget concludes. “An industry-backed group draws maps of data volunteered by the providers themselves that legislators use to prove there is no broadband problem in South Carolina and no need for towns and cities to build their own service.”

Karen has virtually given up on South Carolina officials representing the interests of South Carolina’s citizens.

“They look out for the companies, not the people,” Karen says. “It seems if we want better broadband, we will have to move somewhere else, preferably someplace that isn’t dumb or corrupt enough to let the broadband industry control our broadband future.”

Highlights:

• Company still losing video customers, but picking up phone customers (on the cheap), and winning with broadband;
• Broadband consumption pricing still CEO’s favorite flavor of Internet billing, but only for other people’s content;
• Broadband speed matters, as Time Warner continues to win over dissatisfied DSL customers;
• ‘If customers love our broadband, we can charge more for it;’
• Verizon/Time Warner’s cooperative marketing agreement starts with discounts but ends with “exclusive product enhancements.”
• The future of Time Warner Cable Wi-Fi.

Time Warner Cable reported unexpectedly strong profits in its first quarter as the company’s broadband services helped stem the losses from departing cable TV customers.

The cable operator told investors it boosted profits 18%, mostly from increasing revenue the company earns selling broadband access to the Internet and convincing customers to add more Time Warner services.

Time Warner Cable said goodbye to 94,000 residential video subscribers last quarter, higher than analysts expected. But that did little damage to earnings because the company picked up an additional 214,000 broadband customers over the same period, most switching from phone company DSL service.

Time Warner Cable’s increasingly aggressive bundled service promotions, particularly on its triple-play offer of cable, broadband, and phone service, even managed to attract 112,000 new landline customers — a significant accomplishment as Americans continue to disconnect traditional phone lines in favor of cell phones.  It also helped increase the average revenue earned per subscriber.  Time Warner Cable pitches double play promotions as low as $79.00 a month. For just $10 a month more, customers can add a third service, and many do.

Most discounts last for one year, but the operator now often sends letters to customers reaching the end of their promotion offering additional, but lower-value discounts going forward. This has limited bill shock for customers surprised by the company’s regular prices. It also might reduce the urge for customers to shop around for a better deal.

Judging from the company’s financial results, most customers hang on to Time Warner Cable’s broadband regardless of price, if the competition happens to be traditional DSL from the phone company. In fact, as phone and cable companies realize they have sold broadband to virtually every home in their service area that wants it, growth in subscriber numbers going forward largely depends on poaching customers from someone else.  Nobody makes that easier than phone companies trying to sell customers DSL with speeds under 10Mbps.  According to CEO Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable picked up more new broadband customers than Verizon and AT&T combined.

Time Warner Cable broadband speeds give headaches to phone companies trying to sell traditional DSL.

While phone companies continue to argue that speeds don’t matter (at least for their DSL product line), Time Warner believes otherwise and apparently so do their new customers.  The company reports that almost two-thirds of those dumping DSL said their old service was too slow.

Much of the company’s growth in broadband revenue is also coming from the high end, as customers increasingly gravitate towards faster broadband speed tiers.

Britt

Residential DOCSIS 3 (Extreme/Ultimate) customers increased 50% to 218,000, and almost 66% of new broadband customers signed up for either Turbo (20Mbps), Extreme (30Mbps) or Ultimate (50Mbps) service.  Together, these customers now make up 20% of Time Warner’s broadband subscribers, up from less than 16% a year earlier.

Customers are willing to pay higher prices for faster service, a point not lost on Britt, who noted that once customers perceive broadband has more and more value, the company can charge more for it over time.

If Britt’s steadfast belief in Internet Overcharging-consumption billing schemes holds true, some customers might find they are charged substantially more if the company decided to discontinue offering unlimited Internet service.

For now, the company plans to continue its experiments in consumption billing through its Internet Essentials program, now testing in South Texas, which limits customers to 5GB of usage per month before overlimit fees kick in.  But going forward:

“I think we’ve been pretty clear about this, we do think over time, there will be consumption element to the tiers,” Britt said.

But Britt says he wants to keep unlimited access for customers willing to pay for it.

Time Warner's Hotspots in southern California.

“We retained our unlimited tier with no cap (I actually don’t like the term cap),” Britt added. “And I think we should always have that. So that this was not in any way coercive, people who wanted to save money, could. People who wanted to keep what they had have kept it, and they still have unlimited. So our plan is to roll that out further across [the country] as the year goes on.”

Britt noted the company’s own streamed video products would not drain customers’ usage allowances.  But Netflix and other online streamed video would.  Britt adopted the same argument Comcast has used to defend the practice.

“So there’s a set of standards called the IP, Internet Protocol, and those can be used for a wide variety of things in the world,” Britt explains. “There’s also something called the public Internet, which happens to use IP standards. That doesn’t mean those two things are exactly the same. So the application that we have on the iPad is over our closed-circuit network. It’s just a different standard than we’ve used traditionally for our video. But it’s not the public Internet.”

In other developments, the company’s controversial co-marketing agreement with Verizon Wireless has now expanded to four cities: Raleigh, N.C., Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio, and Kansas City, Mo.

Time Warner Cable executives told investors the early stages of the cooperative marketing agreement will consist of a promotion that includes a $200 gift card when a customer buys both a Verizon Wireless plan and upgrades at least one service on their Time Warner Cable account.  But the company plans to gradually reduce discounts and instead offer unspecified “exclusive product enhancements” that will only be available to customers who subscribe to both services.

Lastly, expect Time Warner Cable to continue aggressive deployment of its Wi-Fi networks in New York and Los Angeles.  The company signaled it intends to construct similar Wi-Fi networks in other cities in serves, but most likely not during 2012.

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is convinced Verizon Communications is abandoning quality landline service for millions of New Yorkers while diverting money and resources to its more profitable cell service Verizon Wireless.

Last week, Schneiderman blasted the state’s largest landline provider for mounting complaints about poor service that now impact 92 percent of its customers, calling deregulation a failure for consumers and businesses in New York.

“Verizon customers deserve the high-quality service they’ve been promised,” Schneiderman told The Associated Press.

The attorney general reports that the number of customers enduring service outages for more than 24 hours has increased, while landline infrastructure — particularly wiring — is allowed to deteriorate.

Schneiderman suspects Verizon is shortchanging landline service as an increasing number of wired phone customers disconnect service, often in favor of Verizon’s more lucrative cell phone service.  The state Public Service Commission (PSC) fined Verizon $400,000 in March for similar concerns, pointing to the company’s intentional workforce reductions lengthening repair windows and creating repair backlogs in some regions.

Schneiderman’s office filed comments with the PSC requesting changes to Verizon’s Service Quality Improvement Plan, which was originally launched in 2010:

At best, New York’s telephone service market is a duopoly, and contrary to theoretical expectations of market controls, the presence of a single competitor has not in fact prevented Verizon from allowing customer service to continue to degrade. Rather than meet its obligations to provide wireline telephone customers with minimally adequate telephone service, Verizon is continuing to drastically reduce its workforce with the result that the company cannot meet its customers’ repair needs in a timely manner.

Verizon’s management has demonstrated that it is unwilling to compete to retain its wireline customer base, and instead is entirely focused on expanding its wireless business affiliate. It is incumbent on the Commission to take appropriate regulatory action to ensure that customers receive reliable telephone service with adequate repair performance. Therefore, the Commission should modify Verizon’s service plan to ensure customers receive adequate service quality in the future.

Verizon defended its service in New York pointing out the company has invested $1.5 billion in the state for infrastructure, including its FiOS fiber to the home network.  Verizon spokesman John Bonomo questioned Schneiderman’s claim that 92 percent of Verizon New York customers had poor service, noting 98 percent of its landline customers don’t have service problems.

Schneiderman’s highlighting of a $400,000 service fine imposed by the PSC did not account for unprecedented damage from both Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee late last summer, Bonomo added.

But the state’s attorney general notes Verizon’s service problems in New York have been ongoing well before last summer.

Service complaints, charted here from 2008-2011, show a major spike last summer and fall and remain higher than normal.

Schneiderman

“Since at least 2008, Verizon has frequently failed to meet these PSC telephone service standards essential to safe and reliable telephone service,” Schneiderman says. “Even as the number of telephone lines needing to be maintained has dwindled to half those of a decade ago (as customers choose to rely instead on wireless and/or cable telephony), Verizon’s continues to fail to meet the PSC’s service standard.”

Customers on the upper west side of New York City don’t need to be reminded of Verizon’s service failures.  Hundreds of Verizon landline customers in New York’s largest city were left without basic phone service for more than a week, only made worse by the fact Verizon told many of them they’d be without service for at least one additional week while the company worked on repairs.

Phone and Internet service went dead in multiple buildings along Central Park West April 10, but customers wanted to kill when they learned the phone company wanted more than two weeks to get service restored.

“I was like, excuse me, are you serious? Two weeks?” Iram Rivera, a concierge at 262 Central Park West, told DNAinfo.  His building was hard hit by the service outage – 80 percent of the building’s 80 apartments were affected.

“I just don’t get the feeling that there’s much of an appreciation on Verizon’s part that this is a hardship for people,” said Ken Coughlin, who lives on West 87th Street and Central Park West. “There’s no communication, there’s no updates, it’s infuriating.”

The outage only affected traditional landline service and DSL broadband over copper phone wiring. The more modern fiber-optic FiOS network that provides TV, Internet and voice service wasn’t affected, Bonomo said.

Schneiderman notes landline outages have an especially hard impact on small businesses:

In the current recession, the fragile economic condition of many small businesses puts them at risk of financial disaster if they suddenly lose telephone service, and their provider is unable to restore service promptly. Each day that these businesses are without service they lose significant revenues that many simply cannot survive without.

Small businesses depend on functional telephone service to meet the needs of their customers in numerous ways. When customers are unable to reach a business by telephone, they may assume the business is closed and purchase the goods or services they want elsewhere. Restaurants are prevented from giving reservations to prospective customers who call. Many types of businesses depend on working telephone lines for processing credit card charges, and may lose substantial sales by limiting transactions to cash or checks. Professional offices can be prevented from providing medical, legal or accounting services to their clients without working telephone service.

In Schneiderman’s view, the deregulation policies now in place in New York have failed consumers, leaving them with a duopoly of phone providers with insufficient oversight.

For competition to benefit customers with improved service, lower prices, and more innovation, there has to first be a willingness to compete, which is significantly absent from Verizon-New York’s policies and practices.

Rather than robust competition, New York’s telephone market is at best a duopoly, with as many indicators of cooperation between the two providers as robust contest for customers. Furthermore, the actual behavior of consumers in the real world is markedly different from the PSC’s theoretical assumptions about the telephone market.

When a Verizon customer experiences a prolonged service outage or installation delay, the option to switch carriers to a cable provider is of no immediate use. Finally, even if consumers wanted to compare Verizon’s service performance with cable provider alternatives, the lack of available information prevents consumers from making educated choices.

In New York, most customers are served by Verizon Communications, Time Warner Cable, or Cablevision.  Time Warner Cable and Verizon recently agreed to cross-market the other’s products and services as part of a wireless spectrum transfer.

Just over a week after Verizon Communications announced it would stop selling DSL service to customers without landline voice telephone service, the company today confirmed it plans to stop selling DSL to customers who live in an area also served by the company’s fiber optic FiOS network.

New customers looking for broadband from Verizon will have to sign up for FiOS to get it.

The announcement came as part of a quarterly conference call with Wall Street investors.

Some consumers looking for the cheapest Internet access packages have gotten them from the phone company, often years earlier, and are grandfathered in at those prices.  Verizon says it does not intend to disconnect existing DSL customers, who can keep the service indefinitely, but will not sell the slower broadband service to new or moving customers.

No exact timing for the new policy to take effect was given.

Verizon’s broadband success story has been with its fiber optic network, which continues to add customers.  The same cannot be said of their DSL service, which continues to lose business to Verizon’s cable competitors, especially in areas where FiOS remains unavailable.  FiOS was designed to protect Verizon’s landline business and it seems to be doing exactly that.  At least 63% of Verizon’s landline-associated revenue now comes from its fiber optic service.

Verizon’s executives have made it clear change is coming to the traditional landline business.  The company has not said what it intends to do with DSL customers in non-FiOS areas but did announce they would decommission pay telephones and discontinue long distance calling cards in the future.

Schuyler County

The fastest thing in Schuyler County, N.Y., isn’t broadband — it’s the Watkins Glen International speedway.

County officials hope to change that, voting unanimously this month to approve an agreement with the Southern Tier Network to bring a regional fiber optic system into the county.

The not-for-profit local development corporation established to build and manage the regional fiber network doesn’t sit well with some county residents, however, including one retired Verizon employee who dismissed the project.

Odessa resident Karen Radenberg called fiber optics technology “old school” and said no private company will connect to the fiber network to expand broadband service.

Radenberg urged the county to consider that communications companies have now moved on to using 4G wireless technology instead of fiber.

“That’s ridiculous,” countered Legislature Chairman Dennis Fagan (R-Tyrone).

Fagan

Fagan pointed to nearby Ontario County’s fiber middle-mile and institutional network which has signed companies, including Verizon, as customers.  Verizon reportedly uses the Ontario County network to deliver backhaul connectivity to its cell tower network in the area.  Ontario County is served by several different landline companies including Frontier Communications, Verizon, and Windstream.  Time Warner Cable is the dominant cable provider, but large sections of the county are deemed too rural for cable television service.

Fagan said the new fiber network will improve the chances private companies will expand broadband across the county, but also help deliver an important upgrade to the region’s emergency responder communications system.  The extremely hilly terrain across much of the southern tier creates problems because of signal gaps.  The new fiber network will allow the county to build radio repeaters into areas where the existing network of microwave communications towers cannot reach.

Schuyler County currently has no plans to sell Internet connectivity to the public, but hopes existing private cable and phone companies — including Time Warner Cable and Verizon Communications — will consider utilizing the network to expand service.  Neither company has shown much interest expanding service to new areas recently, most likely because expansion costs will not be recouped fast enough.

If the county network reduces the cost to expand service, more homes and businesses may now fall within a “Return on Investment” formula that could mean the difference between broadband and dial-up.

Cogeco Cable is cracking down on customers who shop around for a better deal.

After dumping its money-losing Portuguese Cabovisao operation earlier this year, the company is looking to recoup its losses, and Canadian consumers are paying the price.

Chief Executive Louis Audet told investors Cogeco has tightened up promotions, giveaways, and credit standards to weed out bargain hunters and those who ultimately never pay their cable bill.

“If somebody else wants these undesirable customers, they’re theirs for the taking,” Audet said. “There’s too many promotion hoppers out there who are jumping from one supplier to the other.”

Audet

At least 9,000 customers left Cogeco during the second quarter, but that did nothing to hurt Cogeco’s bottom line.  Profits nearly quadrupled to $81.5 million according to Audet, but much of that is due to changes in accounting related to its sold-off Portuguese operation. Closer to home, Cogeco revenue inside Canada grew 12.4% from one year ago to $345.6 million.

Cogeco bought Televisao in 2006 for $465 million.  It sold it in February for just over $59 million.

Cogeco Cable, which serves subscribers in smaller cities and suburbs in Ontario and Quebec, is Canada’s fourth largest cable operator with more than 875,000 cable subscribers. Its biggest competitors are Bell (in Ontario and Quebec) and Telus, which has some landline operations on the Gaspé Peninsula in eastern Quebec.

Most of Cogeco’s promotions and retention offers appeal to customers threatening to take their business to the phone companies. But Audet signaled the promotional pricing had become so aggressive, some customers have learned to bounce back and forth between providers to maintain lower pricing indefinitely.

By tightening up customer promotions, Audet said, the company can achieve a “stable” customer base that pays regular Cogeco prices.