Growing questions are being raised about whether Comcast is violating FCC and Department of Justice policies that prohibit the cable company from prioritizing its own content traffic over that of its competitors.

Comcast’s Xfinity Xbox app offers Comcast customers access to Xfinity online video content without eating into their monthly 250GB Internet usage allowance. Netflix has called that exemption unfair, because its content does count against Comcast’s usage cap. New evidence now suggests Comcast may also be prioritizing the delivery of its Xfinity content over other broadband traffic, a true Net Neutrality violation if proven true.

Bryan Berg, founder and chief technology officer at MixMedia, believes he has found proof the cable company is giving its own video content preferential treatment, in this somewhat-technical finding published on his blog:

What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app. This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network.

Berg also contends Comcast’s earlier explanation that its Xfinity content should be exempt from its usage cap because it travels over the company’s private Internet network is also flawed:

In addition, contrary to what has been widely speculated, the Xfinity traffic is not delivered via separate, dedicated downstream channel(s)—it uses the same downstream channels as regular Internet traffic.

Berg

Broadband traffic management is of growing interest to Internet Service Providers, who contend it can be used to manage Internet traffic more efficiently and improve speed and time-sensitive online applications like streamed video, online phone calls, and similar services. But manufacturers of traffic management equipment also market the technology to ISPs who want to favor certain kinds of content while de-prioritizing or even throttling the speed of non-preferred content. The technology can also differentiate traffic that counts against a monthly usage cap, and traffic that does not.

Quality of Service (QoS) technology can be used to improve the customer’s online experience or help a provider launch Internet Overcharging and speed throttling schemes that can heavily discriminate against “undesirable” online traffic.

Berg further found that when he saturated his 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection, traffic from providers like Netflix suffered due to the bandwidth constraints.  Because he flooded his connection, Netflix buffered additional content (slowing his stream start time) and reduced the bitrate of the video (which can dramatically reduce the picture quality at slower speeds). But when he launched Xfinity video streaming, that traffic was unaffected by his saturated connection. In fact, he discovered Xfinity traffic was exempted from his normal download speed limit, allowing his connection to exceed 25Mbps.

While that works great for Xfinity fans who do not want their videos degraded when other household members are online, it is inherently unfair to competitors like Netflix who are forced to reduce the quality of your video stream to compensate for lower available bandwidth.

According to the consent decree which governs the merger of the cable operator with NBC-Universal, prioritizing traffic in this way is a no-no when the company also engages in Internet Overcharging schemes, namely its arbitrary usage cap:

“If Comcast offers consumers Internet Access Service under a package that includes caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing, it shall not measure, count, or otherwise treat Defendants’ affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic. Comcast shall not prioritize Defendants’ Video Programming or other content over other Persons’ Video Programming or other content.”

This graph shows Berg's artificially saturated 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection. The traffic in red represents Xfinity Xbox traffic, which is given such high priority, it allows Berg to exceed his usual download speed limit.

Comcast sent GigaOm a statement that denies the company is doing any such thing:

“It’s really important that we make crystal clear that we are not prioritizing our transmission of Xfinity TV content to the Xbox (as some have speculated). While DSCP markings can be used to assign traffic different priority levels, that is not their only application – and that is not what they are being used for here. It’s also important to point out that our Xfinity TV content being delivered to the Xbox is the same video subscription that customers already paid for and is delivered to their home over our traditional cable network – the difference is that we are now delivering it using IP technology to the Xbox 360, in a similar manner as other IP-based cable service providers. But this is still our traditional cable television service, which is governed by something known as Title VI of the Communications Act, and we provide the service in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

Our View

Comcast, as usual, is talking out of every side of its mouth. In an effort to justify their unjustified usage cap, they have pretzel-twisted a novel way out of this Net Neutrality debate by paving their own digital highway on a Comcast private drive.

Comcast argues their 250GB usage cap controls last-mile congestion to provide an excellent user experience. That excuse completely evaporates in the context of its new toll-free video traffic. In fact, their earlier argument that its regionally-distributed streaming traffic should not count because it does not travel over the “public Internet” at Comcast’s expense does not even make sense.

Berg provides an example:

A FaceTime call from my house to my neighbor’s—which never leaves even the San Francisco metro area Comcast network, given that both of us are Comcast customers—goes over the “public Internet.”

Yet Comcast’s Xbox streams, which pass from Seattle to Sacramento to San Francisco through all of the same network elements that handle my video call (and then some!) are exempt from the bandwidth cap?

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

DOCSIS 3 technology has vastly expanded the last mile pipe into subscriber homes. If Comcast can launch their own private pipe for unlimited IPTV traffic that travels down the same wires their Internet service does, they can comfortably handle any additional capacity needs to support their “constrained” broadband service without the need to limit their customers’ use.

Usage caps remain an end run around Net Neutrality. Consumers given the opportunity to view content under a usage cap on the “public Internet” or using the “toll-free” traffic lane Comcast created for content from their “preferred partners” will make the obvious choice to protect their usage allowance. Comcast is certainly aware of this, and it is a clever way to discriminate through social engineering. It’s also less obvious. You don’t have to de-prioritize or block traffic from your competition to have an impact, you just have to limit it. Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage allowance face suspension of Comcast broadband service for up to one year. That’s a strong incentive to follow their rules.

Netflix is fighting to force Xfinity traffic to fall under the same arbitrary usage cap regime Netflix endures — a truly shortsighted goal. The real issue here is whether Comcast should be capping any of its Internet service.

Comcast has given us the answer, launching the very bandwidth-intense video streaming it used to decry was contributing to an Internet traffic tsunami.

It’s time for Comcast to drop its usage cap.

Happy Days Are Always Here for Top Telecom Execs

Our friends at Fierce Cable put together a list of the top-paid telecommunications executives, and they’re in the money. Your money. While your rates keep going up, their take-home pay often is, too.

Remarkably, actual performance as executives (or lack, thereof) often had no relationship to their ultimate pay package, with a handful of exceptions:

Cable & Satellite

Brian L. Roberts, Comcast — $26.9 million: The Roberts family has dominated Comcast since the 1980s, so it is no surprise their pay packages are as colossal as the company itself.

Michael J. Lovett, Charter Communications — $20.54 million: He resigned in Feb. 2012 but got a great golden parachute: nearly double the compensation he earned the year before. Charter is one of America’s least-distinguished cable companies, usually scoring just above “pond scum” in popularity with customers. But you can take that trash talk when you walk $20 million to the bank.

Glenn A. Britt, Time Warner Cable — $16.43 million: His pay went down slightly (well, by a million dollars but with that kind of money, does it really matter?) in 2011. Britt has been around at some iteration of Time since 1972… when Nixon was still president, so he worked his way to the top. But some of his best accomplishments are irritating his customers with talk of overcharging them for Internet access.

James L. Dolan, Cablevision — $11.45 million: The Dolan family and Cablevision go together like cookies and milk, but Wall Street can’t help but bet when the family will finally cash out of cable and sell the company to Time Warner or Comcast. With $11 million in salary, stock awards, and bonuses, what’s the hurry?

Joseph Clayton, Dish Network — $9.84 million: Clayton is a Dish freshman, only coming on board 11 months ago. His salary was a paltry $467,000 in 2011. Thank goodness for the $9 mil in stock and bonus pay!

Michael D. White, DirecTV — $5.94 million: Ouch… a pay cut. White made $32.93 million the year before. Now he’ll have to clip coupons from the Sunday newspaper like the rest of us.

Rodger L. Johnson, Knology — $3.13 million: Not bad for running a company almost nobody has heard of and will soon no longer exist.  WideOpenWest bought them out last month.

The Wireline Companies & Their Friends

Stephenson: Blew a $39 billion dollar merger deal with T-Mobile, but walks away with $22 million in pay anyway.

Lowell McAdam, Verizon — $23.1 million: McAdam’s promotion paid handsomely. As former chief operating officer, he only walked home with a little more than $7 million last year. Now he’s earning every penny conjuring up ways he can do away with your cell phone subsidy -and- keep Verizon Wireless’ rates as high as ever.

Randall Stephenson, AT&T — $22.01 million: If you blew a multi-billion dollar merger deal at your company, do you think the only punishment you’d receive is a $5 million pay cut? Stephenson is the cat that fell out of the wireless merger window, and landed on his feet unharmed. Unfortunately the same isn’t true for his customers.

Dan Hesse, Sprint — $11.88 million: His pay is down about $2 million from 2010, and he recently announced he was going to take another pay cut for the team. If anyone deserves hazard pay, Hesse is the man. Wall Street hates him for not following his competitors gouging customers with higher prices and more restrictive service plans and policies. The big money crowd in New York’s financial district already has his going away party well-planned.

Jeff Gardner, Windstream — $9.78 million: His pay is up around $2 million. Windstream can afford it, acquiring companies later stripped clean of employees. PAETEC workers will learn this lesson soon enough. At Windstream, all the money rises to the top… management that is.

George A. Cope, Bell Canada — $9.6 million: His salary more than doubled over 2010 and why not. Bell is the first telecommunications company in North America to be audacious enough to demand an entire country be stripped of flat rate Internet service. That move managed to organize 500,000 Canadians that normally are resigned to the fact the revolving door at the Canadian Radio-tv and Telecommunications Commission has locked them out for years. Thanks Bell!

Glen F. Post III, CenturyLink — $8.55 million: Post saw his pay slashed from $14.5 million the year before, but merger deals like Qwest (with the corresponding huge bonus for pulling it off) only come once or twice in a career.

Hesse: Wall Street's least-wanted.

Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier — $6.72 million: No, we don’t understand it either. Her pay is down from $8.58 million, but considering Frontier’s current stock price and bottom-rated service, wouldn’t half of this money be better spent on improving broadband in states like West Virginia?

John F. Cassidy, Cincinnati Bell — $6.06 million: Cassidy earned more than two million more the year before. Cincinnati Bell is an aberration in an industry that is convinced the only good thing telecom companies can do is merge with each other to get bigger and bigger.

Paul H. Sunu, FairPoint — $4.25 million: The company that couldn’t find one customer’s business on a service call despite being literally right next door to FairPoint itself, is clawing its way back from bankruptcy and Sunu’s pay package reflects that. He only earned $775,000 the year earlier.

Ian Paul Livingston, BT — $3.8 million: British Telecom’s chief got a modest salary hike in 2011, and the U.K. phone company has done modestly better recognizing better broadband in the key to its future. BT is the AT&T of the United Kingdom, but British salaries are downright frugal compared to the high flyers on this side of the Atlantic.

David A. Wittwer, TDS Telecom — $2.29 million: You can’t complain about a cool $2 million in salary for a company with only around 1.1 million customers.

Ben Verwaayen, Alcatel-Lucent — $2.25 million: His salary dropped slightly from 2010. Alcatel-Lucent could do considerably better if they can win the public policy debate that fiber optic broadband is the wave of the future. Alcatel-Lucent is a major player.

Your contract with Sprint ends in June, but why wait, beckons the cell phone company, when you can upgrade your phone today (with a new two-year service agreement).

Two years earlier, providers wheeled and dealed upgrade-reluctant customers, particularly those considering their first smartphone, thanks to the bill shock that results when customers see a $30 mandatory data plan added to their monthly bill.  Sprint went one step further, handing 4G-capable customers Clearwire WiMAX — a technology even Russian cell phone companies can’t wait to abandon — and added a $10 premium data surcharge for the privilege.

In Sprint’s favor: their willingness to deal discounts on phone upgrades and their truly unlimited data plans. But while Sprint continues to bank on unlimited data, the bill on cheap phone upgrades may now be coming due.

The American wireless industry is increasingly taking a page from the airlines, adopting irritating fees and surcharges while curtailing the perks and rewards that used to come with customer loyalty and family plans that routinely run into the hundreds of dollars.

Equipment Upgrade Fees

Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile all have a nasty surprise in store for customers who have not upgraded their smartphones in the last year or so: the equipment upgrade fee.  Sprint and AT&T both charge $36 per phone, Verizon Wireless now charges $30, T-Mobile $18.

Verizon customers are especially peeved because that wireless company used to reward loyal customers with a $50 credit off any new phone at contract renewal time. Today, instead of getting “New Every Two” discounts, Big Red will charge you $30 for every new phone when you renew your contract.

Verizon’s excuse is that the new fee will be used to offer customer “wireless workshops” and “online educational tools,” according to Verizon spokeswoman Brenda Rayney. The company also claims the fees will cover more sophisticated consultations with “company experts” that are trained to provide advice and guidance on today’s sophisticated smartphones. In other words, these fees are supposed to compensate Verizon’s store and kiosk employees.

For people like my cousin, upgrading to a new Sprint phone at contract renewal time is an exercise in frustration. In addition to the $149-199 subsidized equipment price, Sprint now tacks on a $36 upgrade fee (per phone).  What miffs him is that Sprint is treating new customers better than existing ones, willing to waive one-time activation fees (coincidentally the same $36) for new customers, but steadfastly refusing to credit equipment upgrade fees for existing loyal customers.

Sprint will tell you they are not alone charging upgrade fees, and they would be right. All four major national carriers now charge the fees, effectively a penalty when customers decide to upgrade their phones.

Many also find it nearly impossible to get companies like Verizon Wireless to waive the fees, even when some of their best customers ask.

“Verizon Wireless was willing to throw away my 12 year account, earning them more than $500 a month in revenue, over the upgrade fee issue,” reports Stan Dershau. “Our contract expired this month and it was time for new phones, and Verizon absolutely insisted that we pay $150 in upgrade fees for new equipment on our account, even after the $600 they’ll collect from the smartphones we intended to buy.”

Dershau found absolutely nobody willing to relent on Verizon’s upgrade fees. Even supervisors told him the company has a no-waiver policy that is strictly enforced, and they could do little more than offer a token service credit even if Dershau threatened to take his business somewhere else.

“I haven’t decided what to do yet, but I canceled my upgrade plans for now,” he reports.

Dershau was always able to get Verizon to waive earlier fees because of the monthly business he brings them, but those days are over.

“It’s a whole different attitude with them now,” Dershau says. “They just want money.”

AT&T's fine print.

Ben Popken recently wrote about his efforts to avoid Verizon’s $30 upgrade fee, with mixed results.

Verizon’s suggested solution is to sell your old phones back to the company through their trade-in program, using the money to offset the equipment upgrade fee. But unless you own an iPhone, Verizon’s trade-in offers are strictly low-ball, often under $30 on non-Apple phones. That leaves you with a slightly lower upgrade fee and the loss of your old phone, which Verizon may recycle or resell refurbished to someone else.

Popken explains he found one convoluted way around Verizon’s fees:

First, start a new line of service with the new phone you want. Then, port your old phone number to a 3rd party service, like Google Voice (here’s a guide from Lifehacker on doing so). Lastly, cancel the line with the old phone and port the old phone number back onto the new phone, thus keeping the new phone, the old number, and dodging the fee. But there’s a catch. It only works if you wait three months to port the number back. If you do it before then, Verizon’s system treats it like you’re continuing the same service, and they hit you with the $30 upgrade fee. Curses.

Popken forgets, however, that Google itself charges a $20 fee to port cell phone numbers to Google Voice, eliminating 2/3rds of your potential savings.

In fact, outside of purchasing a phone at the full, unsubsidized price from a third party, Verizon’s $30 fee will be visiting your phone bill sooner or later, if you decide to upgrade.

The Phone Subsidy: Slaying North America’s Sacred Cow Wireless Business Model

Consumers who crave the newest smartphones should thank their lucky stars they live in Canada or the United States, where the wireless industry heavily discounts the upfront cost of the phone when customers sign a service contract. But phone companies like AT&T and Verizon are not giving you a gift. In return for fronting a discount of as much as $400, companies set their monthly rates higher to recoup that subsidy over the life of your two-year contract.

That worked fine when cell phone companies only paid a few hundred dollars for basic phones. But today’s most popular smartphones can cost companies $400 each, and that upfront revenue hit has annoyed Wall Street for years. Even worse, while providers hand you a discounted phone, they’ve already paid the asking price to companies like Apple and Samsung, who book that revenue immediately and never have to worry about a customer skipping out on their contract.

Wall Street has been putting pressure on companies to do something about the expensive phone subsidies, and companies are responding. The equipment upgrade fee, increased activation fees, and rising monthly service charges are all a part of a greater plan to discourage customers from upgrading their phones and increase profits.

Wall Street analysts love every part of it, especially if companies can do away with equipment subsidies -and- maintain today’s pricing:

“Optimism has increased that we are witnessing the leading edge of a more disciplined, and more profitable, future,” Craig Moffett, a telecom analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a recent research note. The question now, he wrote, is how much carriers can increase their profits thanks to “increased discipline and pricing power.”

The answer could be quite a lot. A marketplace experiment in Spain is being closely watched by wireless phone companies worldwide and could be coming to Canada and the United States before your next two-year contract is up for renewal.

In March, Telefónica SA, Spain’s largest cell phone company, stopped subsidizing smartphones for new customers. Vodafone, which co-owns Verizon Wireless, quickly followed.

As a result, Spanish customers looking for an iPhone will now pay $800 to purchase the phone at full price, or they can sign up for an “installment plan” that will add $45 a month to their cell phone bill for the next 18 months. Both companies say the new policy won’t apply to existing customers, in an effort to discourage them from switching companies.

Telefónica anticipates the changes will slash as least 25% off of their spending. Instead of fronting subsidies to attract new customers, the phone company will increase subsidies for existing customers who agree to stay. Unfortunately for Telefónica, early results are not promising. More than 500,000 customers left the same month the new policy was announced.

A handful of smaller Spanish players see the move by both major companies as a competitive opportunity to win over new customers. Orange, for example, has not stopped offering subsidies and as a result Telefónica has lost potential new customers who signed with Orange instead. The “churn rate” of customers coming and going remains a concern for company executives. But so far, Telefónica considers getting rid of phone subsidies more important than the customers they have forfeit over the new policy.

“We are pretty firm on our strategy of trying to change the paradigm of the sector, […] devoting the bulk of our efforts to our existing customers and, therefore, trying to move away from incentivizing churn of our customers either from us or from the others,” said company CEO Cesareo Alierta Izuel. “We are very firm on this new handset strategy. We need to fight to see if the trend is going to the right direction. And again, we think it is.”

The Wall Street Journal reports Telefónica’s bold plan has caught the attention of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, who sees it as a potential profit booster, and McAdam expects Verizon may cautiously follow the Spanish company’s lead.

“We’ll probably offer some things like that, and then we’ll see what the adoption is like,” McAdam said. “You can’t push this on customers before customers are ready for it.”

For now, some customers are not even ready for equipment upgrade fees. My cousin’s upgrade plans remain on hold for now, as are those of the Dershau family.

“I am not going to be browbeaten into paying these unjustified fees,” Dershau said. “Where does it stop?”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Dodging Verizon’s New 30 Upgrade Fee 5-9-12.flv[/flv]

Ben Popken talks about trying to avoid Verizon’s $30 equipment upgrade fee.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cox Ads 5-2012.flv[/flv]

Cox Cable has slammed its phone company competition in a series of new TV commercials that call out antiquated and slow DSL. But customers switching to Cox have to endure that company’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes.  Cox arbitrarily limits your Internet usage in an effort to maximize profits and reduce costs.  Watching the online video Cox advertises could put you perilously close to your monthly allowance. Exceed it once too often and you may find your account shut off.

Cox executives promise they’ll listen to customers and what they want. Stop the Cap! urges you to participate in our pushback against Cox usage caps. Tell the cable company it does no good selling their broadband service for online video when the company threatens to shut it down if you watch “too much.”  (2 minutes)

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.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Home Phone Connect – Home Phone Transfer Verizon Wireless.flv[/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.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNET Verizon HomeFusion Broadband May 2012.flv[/flv]

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