AT&T’s proposed DAS antenna

AT&T’s ambitious plans to fill in cellular coverage gaps with smaller cellular antennas won approval in Palo Alto, Calif. last week, despite protests from residents who live adjacent to one of the 75 future antenna sites.

AT&T’s new Distributed Antenna System (DAS) is designed to cover reception gaps and cope with congestion-related issues in urban and residential areas. The new antennas will be mounted on top of existing utility poles, extending their height approximately nine feet.

AT&T said the new DAS system was necessary in Palo Alto because of the city’s unique topography and building density. The company hopes the lower profile antennas, designed for neighborhood-wide coverage, will also reduce traffic on its existing cellular network. AT&T expects to install one DAS antenna every 1/4 to 1/3 of a mile.

The new antennas will be serviced from a cabinet mounted on the pole or sidewalk-based concrete pad. This cabinet houses a fiber connection from AT&T’s U-verse network as well as power and monitoring systems necessary to operate the antenna.

AT&T earlier announced it intended to deploy smaller, more-localized cell sites to bolster coverage and network capacity. Many of these antennas will be located in residential and suburban areas that have traditionally rejected large cell towers.

Although the antennas are designed to be fitted to pre-existing utility poles, some residents object to their additional height, which can bring them into view above nearby buildings and trees.

Dorianne and Roy Moss will have one of the antennas as a new neighbor, and they don’t like it.

“When I open my eyes in the morning I see a tree line,” Dorianne Moss said. “The current proposal would be to put a box 9 feet above that.”

Local residents want AT&T to consider shielding certain antennas from public view and AT&T insists it took residents’ complaints into account.

Paul Albritton, AT&T’s counsel, told Palo Alto city officials the company chose locations away from block corners and close to foliage.

Residents in other cities may find AT&T seeking to install similar antennas in the coming year.

Grab this bargain: Frontier’s website accidentally placed two different DSL packages on our order despite only requesting one. We didn’t ask for the phone line or satellite TV either, but there they are.

Frontier Communications is in the process of redesigning their website — a project long overdue in an age where customers can pre-qualify themselves for service and schedule installation from most cable operators without ever picking up the phone. If you also plan to improve the visual appeal and functionality of your website, you may need to seek the services of a memphis web design company.

But judging from some e-mail from Frontier employees working on the project, the forthcoming “upgrade” is about to make a bad situation much worse.

Frontier is the sixth largest phone company in the country with customers in 27 states, but they have never run a modern, well-functioning website. Frontier’s service pre-qualification tool has never worked properly in Rochester, N.Y., the largest city where Frontier provides service, and placing an order for service is fraught with confusion for customers who don’t speak telecom jargon.

Based on a reader tip, we tested the website this afternoon here at Stop the Cap! HQ.

Placing an order for DSL service is currently based on your street address, but the order process gives no indication if the company can actually provision service at the speeds requested.

As a customer journeys through a cumbersome 10-step order process, it becomes easy to be sidetracked with endless promotional tricks and traps in numbers I haven’t seen since last ordering a domain name from GoDaddy. The shopping cart also erroneously added two different broadband service packages on our order, despite only selecting one.

Step 1 offers murky promotions such as the impenetrable “Shop Promo VISA CD 100 2Y Challenger.” Promotions do not clearly disclose their terms up front. This one only discloses the two year service agreement with a steep early termination fee with the designation: “2Y.” Avoiding promotions still did wonders for our monthly bill, especially considering we were just looking for broadband service. We found Frontier quietly added a “digital unlimited phone” we could care less about for $30.99 a month, America’s Top 120 (presumably satellite TV we did not request) for $44.99 a month, Broadband Max (the slower DSL service we did not want) for $34.99 and Simply Broadband Ultimate (the service we did) for an extra $59.99. Our out the door price for what was supposed to be broadband-only service? A low, low $170 a month minus a $5 service loyalty credit for taking two services.

Step 2 piled on another $5 fee for satellite-delivered local channels for the satellite package we never asked for, but the duplicate broadband service was gone. Now we were stuck with the slower Broadband Max. Step 3 forced us to wade through more than a dozen phone feature packages for the phone line we don’t need. Step 4 sticker-shocked us with installation fees ranging from $50 for a self-install kit to $175 for a home installation of DSL and Wi-Fi. Those fees can be waived with a perpetually-renewing two year service contract (up to a $135 credit). At that point we had enough and bailed on the order.

This represents Frontier’s online shopping experience today. A Frontier employee who wishes to remain anonymous warns Stop the Cap! things could get much worse.

Our source tells us Frontier has outsourced much of the work on its forthcoming redesigned website to third party contractors who are now reportedly in over their heads, unaware that Frontier operates with a range of very different products and services depending on the service area. For them, one-size-fits-all seemed good enough:

[These contractors] don’t understand products or how those products interact with each other, yet they have been put in charge of creating the ability for customers to order them based on where they live.  The company has current issues with their website in that they can’t figure out how to get the right products to display for a customer in Rochester, N.Y. vs. a customer in Fort Wayne, Ind. Instead, Frontier has products configured by region, then broken down by zip code, and then by the customer’s phone exchange.

Unfortunately, new customers don’t know what phone number they will be assigned and that leaves them unable to determine what products are actually available to them. The products offered should be based on the customer’s actual service address, but these contractors don’t appear to have the expertise to make that adjustment.

The shopping cart application has also proved a problem, according to our source. Internal testing of the new site’s functionality has proved distressing because components of the site are still being developed. Recent tests found customers could not correctly select products available in their area or the site could not properly apply them to the shopping cart (a problem we found ourselves using the live site available now).

Our source tells us Frontier’s project manager is hell-bent on bringing the site up by Feb. 9, ready or not.

“We have brought up the fact that there are HUGE navigation issues that are completely not friendly to the customer,” says the employee. ” They are not concerned with any of those issues at the moment, just getting the product to launch. We have been told to manipulate the processes we are to use in order to be able to get any testing done.”

The whistleblower informs us customers are likely to have a range of problems using the new site if it launches in its current state:

• Customers will be able to place orders for products they can’t get;
• Customers will receive inaccurate information about the products and pricing;
• Customers will not be able to get any promotions that they can currently get on the existing Frontier.com application;
• Customers may not be correctly informed about installation charges or taxes, deposit requirements, credit validations, etc.

Frontier needs to take a lesson from some of their competitors that have greatly simplified the ordering process for consumers that can get quickly confused. Frontier should de-emphasize the tricks and traps from the many add-ons and service commitment agreements thrown at customers. Efforts to repeatedly up-sell customers on products and services should be managed separately, perhaps in a follow-up verification phone call where a customer service agent can handle any order changes required. With customers getting a choice between a cable, satellite, or a telco provider, those overwhelmed by one company’s website will simply find another provider.

In the meantime, those with questions or concerns about Frontier might do better just calling them directly at 1-800-921-8101.

North Carolina has achieved a new low. It is now tied with bottom-rated Mississippi as America’s least-connected state, at least in terms of broadband adoption.

Christopher Mitchell and Todd O’Boyle add up the cost to the state’s economy from years of broadband neglect from dominant providers like Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink.

Although the largest cities in the state do reasonably well, suburban and rural North Carolina continue to suffer with slow or no service at all, thanks to last-generation cable and spotty DSL service that has not kept up with other states.

Mitchell and O’Boyle blame much of the problem in their editorial in the Charlotte News & Observer on two factors: a lack of competition and a legislature that cozied up to corporate dollars to pass an anti-competitive community broadband ban in 2011.

After state legislators collected more than $1 million in campaign donations from Time Warner Cable and AT&T, the General Assembly passed a law in 2011 that effectively barred communities from building their own networks. These corporations are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a national organization that drafts business-friendly “model bills” to push a corporate agenda in statehouses across the country.

The impetus for that effort was the city of Wilson’s decision to build its own network after existing providers declined to improve their services. The city’s globally competitive fiber optic network offers Internet connections far faster than possible on DSL or cable – and it is far more reliable.

Because it is owned by the city, the Wilson network keeps its prices affordable. And because locals now have a choice, Time Warner Cable priced its services more competitively in Wilson than in nearby towns without meaningful competition.

Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink waged a multiyear lobbying campaign to secure the 2011 bill. They claimed it encouraged fair competition, but their real goal was to eliminate consumer choice, as documented in a new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Common Cause: “The empire lobbies back: How national cable and DSL companies banned the competition in North Carolina.”

As a result, although Time Warner Cable has invested in a data center and billing operation in the state (and received taxpayer-funded tax breaks in the process), average consumers are still receiving service that lags far behind community-owned fiber networks in cities like Wilson and Salisbury.

AT&T’s response to a call for investment was news it told 75 of its Greensboro-area workers to either move to Alabama or start looking for work somewhere else.

Both authors argue that North Carolina’s state legislature has decided to outsource the state’s broadband future to a handful of out-of-state corporations that have been able to increase rates, trickle out service improvements, and keep true competition at bay.

Christopher Mitchell works for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Todd O’Boyle is affiliated with Common Cause.

Experiencing a higher bill.

WOW!, formerly WideOpenWest, is informing many of its customers it is raising rates $8-9 a month — $5 for bundled customers and a new $3-4 a month “Broadcast TV Surcharge” the company claims covers the increasing amount of fees charged by local broadcasters in return for permission to carry their signals on the cable system. The amount of the surcharge varies depending on costs in a particular market.

The excuse for the increase: increased programming costs.

WOW! equipment fees have also increased. The HD-DVR box that used to cost $9.99 will now be priced at $13 a month. A standard HD set top box is only increasing a penny — $4.99 to $5.

Customers complain WOW!’s prices are now approaching parity with competitors including Time Warner Cable and AT&T U-verse. Both competing providers have increased promotional mailings in areas where WOW! is increasing prices.

Comcast is introducing a new $1.99/month fee for equipment that allows customers with older televisions to watch the cable television lineup they already pay to receive.

Customers with Digital Transport Adapters, also known as DTAs, will soon find the new fee on their Comcast bill. Comcast formerly offered up to two DTA boxes for free in areas where the company reclaimed space on cable systems by moving analog television channels to digital. Customers needing more than two boxes paid $1.99 for each additional box, but now Comcast will charge everyone for the devices.

Comcast expects to earn more than $550 million in new revenue nationwide from the introduction of the new fee.

Customers are unhappy.

“So after paying more than $60 a month for a television package, we now have to shell out even more for the equipment to watch it,” asks Stop the Cap! reader Deepak in Philadelphia, one of the first cities where Comcast will levy the fee. “Comcast says we cannot buy our own box or buys theirs outright to avoid paying the fee either.”

The devices cost Comcast an estimated $35-50 each, depending on their capabilities, so Comcast will book the additional revenue as profit as early as mid-2014.