The Russian Federation has now passed the United States in fiber broadband deployment, with more than 8% of Russians now able to subscribe to fiber Internet service delivered directly to their home or building.  The United States is effectively stalled at 8%, with most Americans getting fiber broadband from Verizon Communications, community-owned providers, or a rural phone company co-op. Those are the findings of DSL Prime.

The most aggressive fiber broadband network upgrades are in South Korea and Japan, where between 40-60 percent of homes subscribe to the service, which often delivers speeds of 100Mbps or greater to residential users. But eastern Europe and Russia are also becoming increasingly important targets for fiber broadband manufacturers and vendors, who are selling the glass-fiber cables and network equipment to private telecommunications companies that used to be state enterprises.

The Baltic state of Lithuania has achieved a leadership role in Europe, with almost 30 percent of homes wired for fiber and growing.

Much of the initial fiber broadband buildout in eastern Europe and Russia is ironically the product of former socialist state planning that existed during the Communist era.  A large number of urban residents in the region live in government-constructed multi-dwelling units, part of larger complexes. That infrastructure reduces the costs of wiring large numbers of potential customers, and some providers deploy fiber to the building and use existing copper phone wiring within to reach individual units.  The short distance of copper has little impact, with speeds commonly ranging from 50-100Mbps.

Much like in the United States, urban areas are much more likely to be targeted for fiber than rural ones, and Russia in particular also depends on robust wireless service in some cities with decrepit wired telecommunications infrastructure.

DSL Prime‘s Dave Burstein argues that fiber upgrades are a good idea in the long run, but appreciates technology improvements in both DSL and cable broadband are helping bring higher speeds to consumers as well, so long as providers continue to invest in upgrading their networks.

As uploading becomes more important, no other current technology delivers as much upstream performance as fiber broadband, which can often equal downstream speeds.

Frontier Communications will not roll out a national IPTV service to compete with cable operators in all of its service areas, but is still exploring its options for providing pay-TV service in larger cities.

That decision, announced by executive vice president and chief financial officer Donald R. Shassian, came at last week’s Global Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference sponsored by Wall Street investment bank J.P. Morgan.

Shassian used the occasion to clarify remarks made during the company’s first-quarter results conference call, which caused some shareholders and analysts concern about the company’s lackluster performance, capital spending plans, and company debt that will come due early next year.

Shassian said Frontier will not deploy U-verse-like IPTV service across its entire national service area, but is considering the future option of delivering the service (and better broadband speeds) theoretically in selected markets.

Shassian also raised the prospect of modifying part of its acquired fiber-to-the-home FiOS network to fiber to the neighborhood technology that companies like AT&T are currently using. But for the foreseeable future, most Frontier customers will have to subscribe to satellite television if they want a video package with their home phone and broadband service.

Stop the Cap! was the first to report Frontier was considering licensing AT&T U-verse to use in selected larger markets where the company has lost considerable ground against cable competitors that deliver consistently faster broadband service.

Wall Street reaction to the proposal has been negative, with concerns Frontier will need to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, to deploy such a network.

Shassian sought to distance the company from any suggestion they will further increase spending on network improvements. In fact, Shassian says Frontier will end its broadband expansion program, and the extra spending to pay for it, by 2013.

“Our capital expenditure spending will decrease in 2013 as the geographic broadband expansion of our network concludes,” Shassian said. “We expect capital expenditures to drop by approximately $100 million in 2013.”

In lieu of national IPTV service, Frontier remains committed to its resale partnership with satellite TV provider Dish Network. But Shassian did admit U-verse technology is among the options the company is exploring to remain competitive.

Surprisingly, Shassian also said the company was considering partially modifying its acquired FiOS network in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest, because of the cost savings it could deliver.

“We have been evaluating alternative platforms which could generate savings from capital expenditures, video transport and even content costs that can be significant to the FiOS video market business,” Shassian said. “I want to be clear that we have no plans to deploy IPTV across our nationwide network and therefore do not see upward CapEx pressure from any potential changes in our facilities-based video strategy.”

Asked about the potential cost savings afforded by swapping out FiOS technology for IPTV fiber to the neighborhood service, Shassian said it could open the door to expanding service in areas where existing copper-based last mile network facilities can sustain a minimum of 20Mbps broadband service. Frontier claims 1.9 million homes in its service area can receive 20Mbps today, of which 600,000 are currently within a Frontier FiOS service area.

“If we changed, we may have to change out set top boxes on [existing FiOS customers],” Shassian said.

In this clip, Frontier Communications’ executive VP and chief financial officer Don Shassian speaks to a J.P. Morgan investor conference in Boston about the company’s broadband and IPTV plans. (May 15-17, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The implication of substantially altering the company’s existing fiber-to-the-home network baffled some analysts.

One, who talked with Stop the Cap! asking not to be attributed, suspects Shassian’s role as a financial officer at Frontier may explain part of the mystery.

“He’s not the chief technology officer, and I suspect he is partly confused about the different technologies,” the analyst explains. “I can’t see Frontier tearing down their current network, but it may make sense for them to switch technology strategies when considering if and where they can expand their network.”

“Frontier’s first quarter results were more than disappointing, and the company is being exceptionally cautious about anything that requires spending right now,” the analyst said. “The next shoe to drop is another dividend cut, which would kill the stock in the market, and if we think Frontier will spend a billion to improve its network, that dividend is going down.”

Our source says he does not have much confidence in Frontier’s current management.

“They talk a nice story, but the numbers never finally add up,” he says. “Rescuing wireline is expensive and companies always promise it will cost incrementally little to expand revenue-enhancing broadband to their rural customers, but if that were true, the companies would have already done it, and without significant spending they have not.”

Shaw is ripping the wires out of its analog FM cable radio service, formerly delivered free of charge to all Shaw subscribers.

Shaw Communications’ plans to abandon its analog cable FM radio service, delivered free of charge to basic Shaw subscribers, has been met with resistance by customers who appreciated the improved reception the service delivered.

Some noted Shaw is eliminating the free service and replacing it with one that requires a digital cable subscription to receive. Shaw:

Shaw previously offered customers access to FM radio stations free of charge with their coax cable connection, as part of their Shaw service. Given that many of our customers no longer use these stations, we are in the process of removing this service across our systems.

Removing FM radio stations allows us to free up additional bandwidth, which means Shaw can deliver faster Internet speeds, increased High-Definition content and more Shaw Exo On Demand programming. This change is part of Shaw’s dedication to providing our customers with leading edge technology through our superior Shaw Exo network.

How can I access my radio stations?

The problem with both of Shaw’s options, according to readers who have contacted Stop the Cap!, is that they come at an added cost.

“Shaw would love it if we streamed those radio stations, which all count against our bandwidth cap, instead of listening to them for free on the cable radio,” says Irene Delasquay from Prince George, B.C. “Galaxie is just a music jukebox service that requires you to buy a digital cable subscription and rent a box to listen, and I don’t want all that extra equipment and expense.”

Some wonder why Shaw is discontinuing the service in the first place. Shirley and Meg Bonney told the Comox Valley Echo:

When we finally we able to speak to a person at Shaw we were told that they “didn’t think that many people were using the FM frequencies”. Had they ever inquired? Had they even tried to find out? Or had they just made a biased assumption – perhaps to try to force people to buy their digital black box in order to access even more of their own, commercial music channels?

We were also told that the CBC frequencies were a “gift” from Shaw.

Many readers who have been in touch with Shaw are being told their best alternative is streaming radio signals over a personal computer, but that presents a problem for some who don’t have a personal computer, have located it in an inconvenient room to listen, or who do not want to waste electricity running a computer just to listen to the radio.

While cable radio is no longer common in many parts of the United States, the vast expanse of Canada combined with an often-insufficient network of low-powered FM repeater transmitters, has made reception of commercial and certain public radio signals difficult, especially inside homes.

Roger and Isabel Thomas feel the loss hurts their ability to stay in touch with informative programming long-abandoned by commercial stations and cable networks:

The FM service provided us with daylong (and night-time) enjoyable, culturally stimulating, commercial free listening. It kept us abreast of national and world-wide events and allowed us to enjoy our selection of favourite music, eclectic though it may have been.

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).

Netflix and consumer groups like Free Press are unimpressed with Comcast’s announcement they plan to experiment with an increased usage cap in some markets and temporarily eliminating it in others.

A Netflix spokesperson issued a statement that says the company has dodged the real issue: discrimination against its traffic, which counts towards whatever Comcast usage cap the company eventually settles on, and doesn’t count towards Xfinity TV, which the cable company owns.

“Increasing the data cap is a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately Comcast continues to treat its own Internet delivered video different under the cap than other Internet delivered video,” says the Netflix statement. “We continue to stand by the principle that ISPs should treat all providers of video services equally.”

Free Press and Stop the Cap! share the belief the company’s usage caps are arbitrary and unnecessary and should be eliminated completely.

“Comcast has never had any legitimate reason to cap its Internet customers, and today’s announcement of new overage charges is just another example of the cable giant’s efforts to discriminate against and thwart online video competition,” said Free Press policy adviser Joel Kelsey. “Data caps are not a reasonable or effective way to manage capacity problems, which are virtually non-existent for Comcast.”

Kelsey also believes Comcast is still trying an end run around Net Neutrality.

“While the move to increase its caps is overdue, the notion that Comcast would charge an exorbitant rate for additional bandwidth — while continuing to exempt its own traffic under its Xbox deal — illustrates that Comcast is really trying to discourage subscribers from experimenting with online video alternatives,” Kelsey said. “We call on Comcast to drop the caps and these exorbitant overage fees entirely.”