Frontier's broadband stimulus requests were also shot down when West Virginian cable operators objected

Even companies whose raison d’être these days is to provide better phone and broadband service to rural Americans are being turned down. Frontier Communications, who wants to take control of 617,000 phone lines in West Virginia from Verizon was, in part, promoting rural broadband stimulus funding as a benefit of the deal. After all, a phone company specializing in serving the underserved would stand a better chance of securing broadband stimulus money than a telephone behemoth like Verizon.

Apparently not. The feds turned down their $55 million dollar broadband stimulus application, too.

Frontier applied for two stimulus grants, one to provide fiber optic connections to schools, libraries and health care facilities, the other to fund broadband expansion in West Virginia.

West Virginia’s incumbent cable companies teamed up and just said no.

Opposition piled on from Armstrong Cable Services, Comcast, JetBroadband and Suddenlink urging federal officials to deny Frontier’s applications. They claimed the phone company was trying to secure taxpayer money to provide broadband service in their territories, making the application redundant.

“They had said this was a reason to grant approval, that this would really boost broadband deployment,” Patrick Pearlman, deputy director of the state PSC’s Consumer Advocate Division, which is opposing the Frontier-Verizon sale told the Charleston Gazette. “They went on about how they’re going to get all this money and bring all this, but apparently they couldn’t count on the feds.”

Frontier didn’t blame themselves for the failure, of course. They blamed state officials for holding up their deal with Verizon.

“This is one of the reasons why we have asked this and other commissions to act expeditiously in their review of the proposed transaction,” Daniel McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer told the Gazette.

State regulators should take the rejection as a lesson learned if they believed Frontier’s claims that approving the deal would result in an improved position for broadband stimulus funding. It was not to be. Even small cable companies will pounce on applications that suggest competition might be on the way.

More and more, it appears likely the grand plan for vastly improved broadband will be reduced to funding a handful of showcase rural broadband projects that solve some of the nation’s broadband deficiency woes, but after telecommunications industry and their lobbyist friends are done chewing up the project, plans of expanded broadband providing Americans with better choices at reasonable prices will remain a broadband pipe dream.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TDS Telecom CEO Announces Broadband Grants for Michigan 12-2009.flv[/flv]

TDS Telecom’s grant for broadband expansion is an example of showcasing hit or miss rural broadband projects.  The company secured $8.6 million to expand broadband Internet services to TDS customers in one Chatham Telephone Company exchange in northern Michigan.  Considering TDS serves largely rural customers in 30 states, winning expansive broadband improvement for all Americans is about as likely as winning the Powerball jackpot. TDS CEO Dave Wittwer explains the stimulus funding to customers in this video. (1 minute)

Burlington Telecom (BT), the city owned-and-operated fiber-based cable, broadband, and telephone provider is mired in debt and is not financially viable in its current form.

Those are the findings of a “blue ribbon” committee tasked with answering questions about the future of the financially-troubled municipally-owned provider serving 4,600 Burlington customers in Vermont.

In an 11-page public report, the committee recommended the city partner with a commercial entity that would assume a majority interest in BT.  As a minority stakeholder, the city could eventually recoup the 17 million dollar investment it has made in the company.

Although some residents have lobbied the city to abandon the 100 percent fiber network to stem ongoing losses, the committee advised against it.

“The city has a considerable asset in BT, and should not give this asset away at a fire sale price,” notes one independent consultant working with the committee. “BT is too important to be jettisoned, in part because it keeps the competition honest.”

Burlington Telecom building and staff

But carrying forward as-is is not a good idea either, the report concludes.

“BT is not viable in relationship to its current debt load of $51 million and its ability to generate earnings to repay this debt. BT cannot meet its principal and interest obligations at this time,” the committee concluded, noting that the company’s current business plan can’t meet future financial challenges either.

As if to underscore that notion, BT this month asked the city of Burlington for a $386,000 loan from to make an interest payment to CitiLeasing by Wednesday, to prevent the company from technically defaulting on its $32 million municipal lease purchase.  On Friday, a judge issued a restraining order forbidding such a loan unless the Vermont Public Service Board agrees.

The committee noted that the reasons for BT’s financial problems weren’t rooted in its “first-class” fiber optic network, or its usefulness to the city.

In summary, the committee and its consultants blamed the problems on these factors:

• HBC found BT overpaid for its fiber network, spending $1,000 per home passed, when fiber build-out prices have dropped in the past few years.

• BT is spending too much money on customer installations.  HBC reports BT could save more than $600 off the $1,600 the company pays to hook up each customer.

• The company uses the same door-to-door marketing company Comcast uses to get new customers.  Additionally, BT contracts with a third party service company to handle installations and service calls.  This work should be done in-house, HBC recommends, as paying a company based on how many installations are performed provides a built-in incentive to cut corners and quality.

• BT’s broadband products are too slow for a compete, handing incumbent cable provider Comcast an unnecessary competitive advantage.  Fiber can blow cable modem service out of the water when competing on speeds, but BT foolishly charges too much money for too slow service topping out at just 8Mbps/8Mbps, for a whopping $71.80 a month.  BT calls that “the ultimate Internet experience.”  It’s not.  HBC predicts broadband will become BT’s most important service, so it is critical for the company to make the product more attractive to customers.

• BT is mired in politics that has nothing to do with its service to the community, and it creates unnecessary distractions that commercial providers do not have.  Some who oppose the municipal fiber project or the current city council use BT as a political football.

• Because it is a public entity, too much financial and strategic business information is open to public review, which includes BT’s competitors.  That gives Comcast and FairPoint advance notice of BT plans, pricing, and growth strategies.  Restructuring as a semi-private entity under local government oversight would help guarantee competitive business information stays out of the hands of the competition.

• BT lacks an effective marketing strategy to convince residents and businesses to change providers.  Without a compelling lineup of services, and a marketing effort to sell them, customers will be reluctant to go through a disruptive switch to BT service.  The provider’s bundled service packages are often compelling (a triple play with basic television and phone service only costs $89 a month, less than $20 more than standalone broadband service), but they often lack the services, speed, and channels consumers want.

• The company does not pay enough attention to customer service strategies.  Customers complain BT does not accept cash payments from walk-up customers, who are told to return with a money order.  From a confusing automated attendant that answers customer calls to inconvenient hours and appointment scheduling, BT needs to hire marketing experts to help restructure how it serves potential and subscribing customers.

Burlington Telecom's fiber broadband speeds are the same uploading and downloading, but there is plenty of room for improvement in speeds at a lower price

• BT utilizes a 200-megabit backbone at a cost of $6,000 a month and a 350-megabit backbone at a monthly cost of $16,331. It is HBCs belief that backbone costs can be reduced considerably, as much as $6,000 per month should be saved through re-negotiation. Costs should be in the neighborhood of $25 to $30 per megabit, as compared to the $40 per megabit of speed now being paid by BT. HBC buys twice as much bandwidth per month than BT and pays only $7,000 more for the additional capacity.

• Finally, the company leaves a lot of potential earnings on the table.  It doesn’t provide local-ad insertions on cable channels and doesn’t leverage its excess broadband capacity with businesses by selling them web hosting, co-location, and speed critical services.  It doesn’t provide value-added services that cable companies now offer, such as caller ID on TV.

The Burlington mayor, Bob Kiss, expressed skepticism at some of the conclusions in the committee’s findings.

Kiss believes refinancing BT’s debt would give the telecom company more time to implement better marketing and service improvements, which could attract new customers and revenue.

For Burlington business leaders, the entire affair is an embarrassment.  Many believe significant harm will come from a city gaining a reputation for defaulting on its obligations.

The conclusion many have reached is that Burlington Telecom was naively planned, without sufficient regard to realistic projections of expenses and revenues, and lacks expertise to effectively compete with other local providers.  Building an advanced fiber network for your community is only as good as the services offered at a price that makes sense.  Alienate customers with ineffective marketing or out of touch product packaging, and your future will be in doubt.

[flv width=”368″ height=”228″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Telecom Saga 12-15 02-01 02-05 02-11-2010.flv[/flv]

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>WCAX-TV in Burlington has followed the BT saga for months.  This video includes five reports covering the company’s future viability (13 minutes)

1. Burlington Telecom Saga Continues (12-15-2009)
2. Burlington Telecom Forces Changes In Burlington City Government (02-01-2010)
3. Burlington Telecom Not Financially Viable (02-05-2010)
4. Burlington Council Gets Blue Ribbon Committee Report (02-11-2010)
5. Burlington Telecom’s Fate Under Discussion (02-11-2010)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFFF Burlington Burlington Telecom’s Future Unclear 02-11-2010.flv[/flv]

WFFF-TV in Burlington reports the telecom company’s future is unclear. (1 minute)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Burlington Telecom Not Viable.flv[/flv]

WPTZ in Plattsburgh covered the contention over an upcoming interest payment BT needs to pay by Wednesday.  (3 minutes)

Read our complete coverage on Burlington Telecom.

Frontier's headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications has dismissed the proposition of Google constructing a 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home network, telling readers of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle that most users don’t need ultra-fast Internet access.

Ann Burr, chairman and general manager of Frontier Communications of Rochester made the remark in response to news that citizens and business leaders are excited about promoting Monroe County as a potential test location for Google’s fiber network experiment.

Frontier, which serves Rochester and most of the 585 area code, accused Google of having “a poor track record of following through on such proposals and that creating a fiber-optic network from scratch would be enormously expensive.”

Pot to kettle.  Frontier’s illusory promises for fiber optic connectivity in states like West Virginia, where it seeks to take over the majority of the state’s phone customers from Verizon, never seem to include specific assurances such projects will reach customer homes.

“If Google built its own network, we estimate it would cost $5,000 per household,” Burr told the newspaper.

That’s as exaggerated as Frontier’s DSL speed claims.

Verizon Communications, which is in the business of providing fiber connectivity to the home, disclosed the true costs are far lower than that, and continue to decline.  In the summer of 2008, Verizon’s Policy Blog noted:

Capital Costs
– We said our target per home passed was $700 by 2010, and we are ahead of plan to achieve that objective. In fact, we’ve already beaten the target.
– We said our target per home connected was $650 by 2010, and we’re on plan to hit that target.

No wonder Frontier doesn’t contemplate providing fiber service to customers.  It created its own sticker shock.

Still, the local phone company didn’t want to slam the door entirely on Google’s foot, suggesting it would be willing to talk about leasing space on Google’s network if it launched in the Flower City.

Frontier’s claim that customers don’t believe fast broadband service is important is a remarkable admission, particularly for a company that increasingly depends on broadband service to stop revenue loss from customers dropping traditional phone lines.  That philosophy should be carefully considered by state officials and utility commissions reviewing Frontier’s proposal to take over Verizon phone lines in several states.  Do communities want to receive broadband from a company that dismisses faster broadband speed as irrelevant for the majority of its customers?

Perhaps the remarks came with the understanding Frontier isn’t capable of delivering 21st century broadband speeds over its antique network of copper telephone wire anyway.

That’s the point Time Warner Cable has made repeatedly, especially in the Rochester metro area.  The cable operator routinely promotes its Road Runner cable modem service’s speed advantages over Frontier’s DSL product.  Frontier promises up to 10Mbps, but often manages far less (3.1Mbps was my personal experience with Frontier DSL last April.)  Time Warner Cable promises up to 15Mbps, and often exceeds that with its “PowerBoost” feature.  In rural areas, the phone company tops out at “up to 3Mbps.”  Time Warner Cable notes most of its new broadband customers come at the expense of phone companies like Frontier.  DSL customers switch because they do care about broadband speed.

Judging from the excitement in Rochester over Google’s proposal, Frontier’s dismissal of a fiber optic future seems out of touch, and potentially a drag on the local community’s economic future.

Rochester increasingly will become a broadband backwater because of anemic broadband competition from Frontier Communications.  Its reliance on ADSL technology, more than a decade old, to deliver distance-sensitive broadband service looks out of place compared with the rest of New York State.  Major cities throughout New York are being wired with fiber optic service by Verizon Communications.  Verizon FiOS delivers up to 50Mbps service.  Frontier maxes out at far lower speeds and defines an acceptable amount of broadband usage on its DSL service at just 5GB per month. Using Verizon’s FiOS fiber network, you’d exceed Frontier’s entire month’s ‘allowance’ in less than 15 minutes at Verizon’s speeds.

Rochester is one of many communities challenged by the transition away from a manufacturing economy towards a high technology future.  A world class fiber optic network doesn’t just benefit big business.  It spurs revolutionary growth in medicine, education, software development, telecommunications, and more.  That means good paying jobs.  For consumers with fiber to the home, it opens the door to telecommuting on a whole new level, distance learning opportunities, new ways to access information and entertainment, and allows home-based entrepreneurs to develop new businesses.

With Verizon FiOS unavailable to Rochester indefinitely, and Frontier unwilling to make appropriate investments to keep this city competitive with the rest of upstate New York, those jobs and economic benefits can go to Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Westchester County, and metropolitan New York City.  We’ll be held back on the frontier with Frontier and its ideas of rationed broadband service.

[flv width=”360″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WROC Ontario County Makes Bid for Super Fast Internet 2-11-2010.flv[/flv]

WROC-TV in Rochester reports that Ontario County, to the southeast of Rochester, may have a built-in advantage with an already-installed fiber loop covering much of the county.  The county has a team working on a formal application to Google to provide service in communities like Geneva and Canandaigua.  Frontier’s claims that consumers don’t care about fast broadband speed are belied by the excitement of residents of both counties. (2 minutes)

Suddenlink broadband customers in Lubbock and Midland, Texas will soon have a new option to boost their broadband speed to 36Mbps.  Dubbed MAX36, the new tier leaps over the cable company’s former top broadband speed of 20Mbps.  Upload speeds get a boost as well — to 2Mbps.

Multichannel News reports pricing for the new tier depends on how many other Suddenlink services you have.  Standalone pricing is $75 per month.  Bundle it with television or telephone service and the price drops to $65.  Take all three services and MAX36 costs $60 a month.

Suddenlink serves portions of these Texas communities

If that is too rich for your blood, Suddenlink next week will be providing existing broadband customers in Lubbock and Midland free speed upgrades:

• 1Mbps service increases to 1.5Mbps
• 8Mbps upgrades to 10Mbps service
• 10Mbps service becomes 15Mbps

The new speeds are possible because of DOCSIS 3 upgrades underway at the nation’s ninth largest cable operator.  Suddenlink has focused on DOCSIS 3 upgrades for many of its Texas systems, including Abilene, Bryan/College Station, Georgetown, Lubbock, Midland, San Angelo and Terrell.  The operator also deployed the technology in Beckley, Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia, as well as Jonesboro, Arkansas, Humboldt County, California, and Nixa, Missouri.  The company hopes to upgrade 90 percent of its cable systems within the next two years.  Nationwide, Suddenlink reaches 1.3 million subscribers.

Last summer Suddenlink introduced a usage meter for subscribers in Clovis, New Mexico and included a chart of what constituted average usage for its customers.

Suddenlink's national service area

The company openly admits it limits customer use of its broadband service is several communities where bandwidth upgrades have yet to occur, but at least drops communities from the usage limit list after expansion is complete.  As of February 4th, communities impacted by usage limits include:

• Arkansas: Charleston, Hazen, Mt. Ida, Nashville
• Kansas: Anthony, Fort Scott
• Louisiana: Ville Platte
• Missouri: Jefferson City, Maryville
• Oklahoma: Fort Sill, Healdton, Heavener, Hughes, Idabel
• Texas: Albany, Anson, Brenham, Burkburnett, Caldwell, Canadian, Center, Claredon, Crane, Dimmitt, Eastland, Electra, Hamlin, Henrietta, Junction, Kermit, Monahans, Nocona, Olney, Paducah, Rotan, San Saba, Seymour, Sonora, Trinity, Vernon, Wellington

Suddenlink also admits it engages in “network management” techniques which may spark controversy with the ongoing Net Neutrality debate, despite its declaration it “allows customers to access and use any legal Web content they prefer, thus honoring the principles of network neutrality.”

In addition to “mitigating network congestion, which can interfere with customers’ preferred online activities,” Suddenlink also discloses it “prioritizes certain latency-sensitive traffic such as voice traffic.”

Still, performing system upgrades to put a stop to usage limits and allowances is a move in the right direction, one that other providers seeking to monetize broadband traffic with Internet Overcharging schemes are loathe to take.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Suddenlink Ads.flv[/flv]

Watch some of Suddenlink’s more creative and amusing advertising. (2 minutes)

Time Warner Cable changed their billing system for San Antonio residents late last year, and some customers using automatic bill payment services forgot to update their bank with their new Time Warner account number.  The result?  Missing payments and past due notices.

The decision to issue new account numbers has caused delays in posting payments made under the old number, and some consumers are concerned about late fees and payments not posting to their accounts.

Company officials recommend customers double check their online bill payment services to make sure they reflect the new account number.  Time Warner promises to work with customers who are experiencing problems as a result of the billing system change.  Customers in San Antonio can call (210) 244-0500 or check their website for directions on how to correctly make payments on your account.  If you are billed any late charges, ask the company to waive them.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOAI San Antonio Time Warner Billing Glitch 1-31-2010.flv[/flv]

WOAI-TV in San Antonio ran this story about customers running into the “missing payment” problem with Time Warner Cable. (1 minute)