Bell’s Fibe customers in Ontario noticed something unusual in the company’s latest newspaper ads luring potential new signups for the company’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service.

Subscribe to Bell Fibe™ Internet and get way more than the cable company for a lot less.

Get super-fast download speeds of up to 25 Mbps – more than double the 12 Mbps on cable.
Watch way more stuff online with 125 GB of usage – more than double the 60 GB on cable.
Plus, share pics and videos more than 12x faster than cable, with upload speeds of up to 7 Mbps.
All this for less than the regular rate you’re paying with cable’s 12 Mbps service.¹

See full offer details.¹²

Offer ends October 31, 2011. Available to residential customers in select areas of Rogers’ footprint in Ontario where technology permits. Modem rental required; one-time modem rental fee waived for new customers. Usage 125 GB/month; $1.00/additional GB. Subject to change without notice and not combinable with any other offers. Taxes extra. Other conditions apply.

¹Current as of Sept 29, 2011. Based on customer’s subscription to Rogers’ Express Internet package at the regular rate of $46.99/mo., prior to August 4, 2011.

²Available to new customers who subscribe to Fibe 25 Internet and at least one other select service in the Bundle; see bell.ca/bellbundle. Promotional $33.48 monthly price: $76.95 monthly price, less the $5 Bundle discount, less the monthly credit of $38.47 applicable for months 1-12. Total monthly price after 12 months is $71.95 in the Bundle.

75GB for existing customers, 125GB for new ones.

Setting aside the fact Bell’s package costs $71.95 a month after the first year, compared with Rogers’ regular everyday price of $46.99, existing customers were surprised to learn Bell’s usage cap for new customers (located in select areas of Rogers’ competing footprint in Ontario) was 125GB per month.  That stood out, because existing customers currently live with a monthly cap of just 75GB per month.

That means new Bell customers, who happen to also have the choice of being served by Rogers Cable, evidently have a considerably less “congested” network that allows a more generous 125GB usage cap over nearby neighborhoods not served by Rogers, where things must be “much worse” to justify the current usage limit of 75GB per month.

Customers call it another example of providers subjectively setting usage limits not according to technical need, but competitive reality.

“If having separate rates by province wasn’t enough, now we have different rates based on the neighborhood,” shared one Toronto Bell customer. “I will need to call them to adjust this.”

Bell’s website provides conflicting information to existing customers over exactly what their usage cap is.  Despite the advertised 125GB cap promoted online, many existing customers are still finding 75GB to be their monthly limit.  Customers are getting some satisfaction calling Bell and threatening to cancel service over the discrepancy.  Don’t bother with the regular customer service representatives — readers report they can do nothing for you.  Instead, tell Bell you are canceling service, get transferred to the Customer Retentions Department, and then tell them you will stay if you get the new customer promotion that comes with the 125GB usage cap.  If you ask, Bell will often configure your account with the promotion noted above, which comes with the automatically more generous usage cap.

Stop the Cap! has always believed usage caps have nothing to do with the network congestion and “fair use” excuses providers like Bell have repeatedly argued.  They exist because market forces allow them to, and when competitors arrive with more generous allowances (or none at all), incumbent providers suddenly find enough capacity to be more generous with their customers.  At least some of them.

Fiber optic cable spool

For the most populated provinces in Canada, questions about when fiber-to-the-home service will become a reality are easy to answer:  Never, indefinitely.

Some of Canada’s largest telecommunications providers have their minds made up — fiber isn’t for consumers, it’s for their backbone and business networks.  For citizens of Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver coping with bandwidth shortages, providers have a much better answer: pay more, use less Internet.

Fiber broadband projects in Canada are hard to find, because providers refuse to invest in broadband upgrades to deliver the kinds of speeds and capacity Canadians increasingly demand.  Instead, companies like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers continue to hand out pithy upload speeds, throttled downloads, and often stingy usage caps.  Much of the country still relies on basic DSL service from Bell or Telus, and the most-promoted broadband expansion project in the country — Bell’s Fibe, is phoney baloney because it relies on existing copper telephone wires to deliver the last mile of service to customers.

Much like in the United States, the move to replace outdated copper phone lines and coaxial cable in favor of near-limitless capacity fiber remains stalled in most areas.  The reasons are simple: lack of competition to drive providers to invest in upgrades and the unwillingness to spend $1000 per home to install fiber when a 100GB usage cap and slower speeds will suffice.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that while 30-50 percent of homes in South Korea and Japan have fiber broadband, only 18 percent of Americans and less than 2 percent of Canadians have access to the networks that routinely deliver 100Mbps affordable broadband without rationed broadband usage plans.

In fact, the biggest fiber projects underway in Canada are being built in unexpected places that run contrary to the conventional wisdom that suggest fiber installs only make sense in large, population-dense, urban areas.

Manitoba’s MTS plans to spend $125-million over the next five years to launch its fiber to the home service, FiON.  By the end of 2015, MTS expects to deploy fiber to about 120,000 homes in close to 20 Manitoba communities.  In Saskatchewan, SaskTel is investing $199 million in its network in 2011 and approximately $670 million in a seven-year Next Generation Broadband Access Program (2011 – 2017). This program will deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and upgrade the broadband network in the nine largest urban centers in the province – Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan, Swift Current, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.

“Saskatchewan continues to be a growing and dynamic place,” Minister responsible for SaskTel Bill Boyd said. “The deployment of FTTP will create the bandwidth capacity to allow SaskTel to deploy exciting new next generation technologies to better serve the people of Saskatchewan.”

But the largest fiber project of all will serve the unlikely provinces of Atlantic Canada, among the most economically challenged in the country.  Bell Aliant is targeting its FibreOP fiber to the home network to over 600,000 homes by the end of next year.  On that network, Bell Aliant plans to sell speeds up to 170/30Mbps to start.

In comparison, residents in larger provinces are making due with 3-10Mbps DSL service from Bell or Telus, or expensive usage-limited, speed-throttled cable broadband service from companies like Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron.

Bell Canada is trying to convince its customers it has the fiber optic network they want.  Its Fibe Internet service sure sounds like fiber, but the product fails truth-in-advertising because it isn’t an all-fiber-network at all. It’s similar to AT&T’s U-verse — relying on fiber to the neighborhood, using existing copper phone wires to finish the job.  Technically, that isn’t much different from today’s cable systems, which also use fiber to reach into individual neighborhoods.  Traditional coaxial cable handles the signal for the rest of the journey into subscriber homes.

A half-fiber network can do better than none at all.  In Ontario, Bell sells Fibe Internet packages at speeds up to 25Mbps, but even those speeds cannot compare to what true fiber networks can deliver.

Globe & Mail readers seemed to understand today’s broadband realities in the barely competitive broadband market. One reader’s take:

“The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) preventing wide scale deployment of FTTH isn’t the technology, nor the cost. It’s a lack of political vision and will, coupled with incumbent service providers doing whatever they can to hold on to a dysfunctional model that serves their interests at the expense of consumers.”

Another:

“The problem with incumbents is they only think in 2-3 year terms. If they can’t make their money back in that period of time, they’re not interested. Thinking 20, heck even 10 years ahead is not in their vocabulary.”

Losing customers.

A year after Frontier Communications assumed control of Verizon’s assets in the Pacific Northwest, customers are fleeing the company’s inherited fiber-to-the-home service FiOS, after announcing a massive (since suspended, except in Indiana) 46 percent rate hike for the television portion of the service.  A new $500 installation fee has kept all but the bravest from considering replacing customers who have left for Comcast and various satellite TV providers.

Frontier’s second-quarter financial results revealed the company has lost at least 14,000 out of 112,000 FiOS TV customers in the region (and in the Fort Wayne, Ind. market, where the service is also available.)

Early reaction to the original rate hike announcement started customers shopping for another provider — mostly Comcast, which competes in all three states where Frontier FiOS operates.  Even after the rate hike was suspended in some markets, intense marketing activity by Frontier to drive customers towards its partnership with satellite provider DirecTV managed to convince at least some of those customers to pull the plug on fiber in return for a free year of satellite TV, although an even larger number presumably switched to the cable competition.

D.A. Davidson, a financial consulting firm, told The Oregonian the message was clear.

“They would love to get rid of the FiOS TV customers,” Donna Jaegers, who follows Frontier, told the newspaper. “They’re programming costs are very high compared to the rates that they charge.”

Jaegers said Frontier Communications completely botched their efforts to transition customers away from FiOS TV towards satellite, because most of those departing headed for the cable competition, attracted by promotional offers and convenient billing.

Many others simply don’t want a satellite dish on their roof, and are confounded about Frontier’s message that satellite TV is somehow better than fiber-to-the-home service.

Frontier admits its FiOS service is now underutilized, but claims it will continue to provide the service where it already exists.

Wilderotter

Frontier Claims Its DSL Service is Better Than Cable Broadband

Frontier’s general business plan is to provide DSL service in rural areas where it faces little or no competition, and most of Frontier’s investment has been to upgrade Verizon’s landline network to sustain 1-3Mbps DSL service, for which it routinely charges the same (or more) for standalone broadband service that its cable competitors charge for much faster speeds.

But Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter says their DSL service is better than the cable competition.

“A key differentiator between our network and cable competition is that you consistently get the speed you pay for,” Wilderotter told investors on a conference call. “There’s no sharing at the local level. High demand for bandwidth-intensive applications like video are putting pressure on all wired networks. To that end, we want to make sure that we have more than enough capacity to satisfy the expectations of our customers. We’re spending capital in all parts of the network with specific emphasis in the middle mile, which will enable us to consistently deliver a quality customer experience for our customers of today and tomorrow.”

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter defends anemic broadband additions during the 2nd quarter of 2011 and tries to convince investors DSL service is better than the cable competition. August 3, 2011. (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Netflix Traffic Represents 25% of Frontier’s Broadband Traffic; Online Video — 50%

Wilderotter admitted Frontier’s broadband network is overcongested in many regions, which she partly blamed for the company’s anemic addition of new broadband customers.

She noted Netflix, which has itself consistently rated Frontier the worst wired broadband provider in the country for being able to deliver consistent, high quality access to their streaming service, represents one-quarter of all capacity usage of Frontier’s broadband network.

“Video is about 50 percent,” Wilderotter added.  In an investor conference call, she explained network congestion in more detail:

“In [the second quarter], we had many areas with unacceptable levels of network congestion, which negatively impacted our growth in net high-speed additions.” Wilderotter said. “We believe all of the major congestion issues will be fixed by the end of [the third quarter], and that will enable us to drive higher growth and net broadband activation in [former Verizon service areas.]”

“What we decided to do is to go for fixing the middle mile, which is the [central office] to the […] neighborhood and to expand that capability by 100-fold. And then also, expand from the [central office] out to the Internet and make sure that we have huge capacity to deliver and receive capability to our customers. So when we sell 6 meg, 10 meg, 25 meg, 50 meg, the customer gets what we sell them and that was extremely important for us.”

“So what we did is in the areas where we saw the congestion increase based upon usage increases, and we’ve built new households. We’ve held off on marketing to a lot of those new households until we fixed the congestion problem because we didn’t want to exacerbate what we had already. We’ve shifted capital in terms of the mix of how we’ve spent capital to fix this problem. I’d say we’re probably 75% of the way there in fixing congestion. This quarter is another big quarter for us to get all of the major issues out of the network, which will allow us in the back end of this quarter through the fourth quarter, to really start pushing the penetration levels where we’ve built new households in the areas that have been affected by congestion.”

Frontier Introduces Line Bonded DSL — Two Connections Can Improve DSL Speeds

Frontier Faster? Frontier announces line bonded DSL.

Frontier Communications also announced the introduction of Frontier Second Connect, a DSL line bonding product that delivers two physical connections to a single household.  Line bonding allows for improved broadband speeds.

“Second Connect gives our customers two exclusive connections in one household, and we’re the only provider in every market that can do that,” Wilderotter claimed.

In more urban markets, Frontier’s DSL speeds are woefully behind those available from most cable competitors.  Frontier has begun upgrading some of their legacy service areas and retiring older equipment in an effort to improve the quality of service.

“The real initiatives that we have underway are called middle mile, interoffice facilities, as well as some of the more aged equipment that’s in the network,” said Dan McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer. “So as we go through, there’s about 600 projects that are underway today that will improve both the speed and capability.”

“We’ve inherited markets that there has not been upgrades to capacity in these markets for many years and fixes to the networks, plus the elements as the DSLAMs, even the DSLAMs themselves are old,” Wilderotter said. “So we’re replacing network elements in the neighborhood. We’re splitting them and moving customers to other network elements to make sure that they have a good experience.”

Frontier executives answer a question from a Wall Street banker about DSL speeds and congestion problems on Frontier’s broadband network. A detailed technical discussion ensues as the company tells investors it is redirecting some capital to fixing Frontier’s overcongested network. August 3, 2011. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Frontier Still Losing More than 8% Of Its Landline Customers Every Year

Despite broadband rollouts and incremental improvements, more than eight percent of Frontier’s landline customers disconnect service permanently every year.  Frontier called that disconnect rate an improvement over its line losses last year, which exceeded 11 percent in some areas.

“Total line losses improved to an 8.6% year-over-year decline, our lowest level since taking ownership when the pro forma loss rate was 9.7%,” reported Wilderotter. “We also improved [the] loss rate [in former Verizon service areas to] 10.1% compared to 11.4% in Q2 2010.”

Most of Frontier’s departing customers are switching to cable providers and/or cell phone service.

(Update 8-23-2011: We are now told in many areas, Frontier’s Second Connect service is not actually a bonded DSL product, but rather a “dry loop” second DSL line that carries the same speed as your primary line.  Presumably, household members can divide up who uses which DSL circuit for Internet access.  The charge for Second Connect in ex-Verizon service areas is $14.99 per month plus a second mandatory monthly modem rental fee of $6.99. If the web link does not work, it means the service is not available in your service area.)

The Federal Communications Commission today raised the hurdle for AT&T when it told the wireless company it would consider its proposed acquisition of wireless spectrum from Qualcomm in concert with its application to acquire T-Mobile USA.

The FCC wrote both AT&T and Qualcomm regarding the ongoing review of both transactions:

“The Commission’s ongoing review has confirmed that the proposed transactions raise a number of related issues, including, but not limited to, questions regarding AT&T’s aggregation of spectrum throughout the nation, particularly in overlapping areas. As a result, we have concluded that the best way to determine whether either or both of the proposed transactions serve the public interest is to consider them in a coordinated manner at this time.”

AT&T Donates $9,000 to the United Way of Northwest Florida, which promptly returns the favor with a nice letter to the FCC supporting the telecom company's agenda.

At issue is whether AT&T is warehousing wireless spectrum it actually has little intention to use and whether or not AT&T is being honest when it suggests it needs to acquire T-Mobile USA to expand the number of frequencies open for its growing wireless network.

Critics of the merger claim AT&T has plenty of unused spectrum available to deliver service, particularly in the rural areas AT&T claims T-Mobile can help it serve.  T-Mobile is not well-known for its service in smaller communities and rural areas, preferring to rely on roaming agreements to achieve national coverage.  With its proposed acquisition of valuable spectrum in the 700MHz range from Qualcomm, excellent for penetrating buildings and delivering reliable service, the FCC may be wondering if the proposed merger with T-Mobile is necessary at all.

Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge doesn’t think so.

“We are pleased that the Commission has decided to consider AT&T’s purchase of Qualcomm spectrum in the context of AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile.  It doesn’t matter whether both transactions are in the same docket; the fact that the Bureau will consider them together in any manner is a strong statement,” Sohn said.

“This April, several public interest groups, Consumers Union, Free Press, the Media Access Project, Public Knowledge, and the New America Foundation, asked for the Commission to take that action because we said that both deals together would ‘further empower an already dominant wireless carrier to leverage its control over devices, backhaul, and consumers in ways that stifle competition,” Sohn added.  “We look forward to working with the Commission on these issues which are so vital to the economy of this country.”

Companies that have acquired wireless spectrum at government auctions have not always put those frequencies to use.  At least one firm warehoused spectrum as an investment tool, earning proceeds reselling it to other providers.  Others have simply squatted on their spectrum, sometimes to keep it away from would-be competitors.

Of course, considering AT&T is a master of dollar-a-holler astroturf operations and lobbying, it’s only a matter of time before a renewed blizzard of company-ghost-written letters start arriving at the Commission telling them AT&T needs both the Qualcomm spectrum -and- the merger with T-Mobile.

Groups like the NAACP, United Way of Northwest Florida, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association ought to know, right?

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Bones for alerting us.