“We just don’t see the need of delivering [gigabit broadband] to consumers.” — Irene Esteves, former chief financial officer, Time Warner Cable, February 2013

“For some, the discussion about the broadband Internet seems to begin and end on the issue of ‘gigabit’ access. The issue with such speed is really more about demand than supply. Most websites can’t deliver content as fast as current networks move, and most U.S. homes have routers that can’t support the speed already available.” — David Cohen, chief lobbyist, Comcast Corp., May 2013

“We don’t focus on megabits, we don’t focus on gigabits, we focus on activities. We go to the activity set to get a sense of what customers are actually doing and the majority of our customers fit into that 6Mbps or less category.” — Maggie Wilderotter, CEO, Frontier Communications, May 2013

“It would cost multiple billions” to upgrade Cox’s network to offer gigabit speeds to all its customers. — Pat Esser, CEO, Cox Communications, Pat Esser, chief executive of Cox Communications Inc., January 2013

“The problem with [matching Google Fiber speeds] is even if you build the last mile access plant to [offer gigabit speeds], there is neither the applications that require that nor a broader Internet backbone and servers delivering at that speed. It ends up being more about publicity and bragging. There has been a whole series of articles in the paper about ‘I’m a little startup business and boy it is really great I can get this’ and my reaction is we already have plant there that can deliver whatever it is they are talking about in those articles, which is usually not stuff that requires that high-speed.” — Glenn Britt, CEO, Time Warner Cable, December 2012

“Residential customers, at this time, do not need the bandwidth offered with dedicated fiber – however, Bright House has led the industry in comprehensively deploying next-generation bandwidth services (DOCSIS 3.0) to its entire footprint in Florida – current speeds offered are 50Mbps with the ability to offer much higher. We provision our network according to our customers’ needs.” – Don Forbes, Bright House Networks, February 2011

‘Charter [Cable] is not seeing enough demand to warrant extending fiber to small and medium-sized businesses — and certainly not to every household.’ — “Speedier Internet Rivals Push Past Cable“, New York Times, Jan. 2, 2013

Unless you live in Kansas City, Austin, in a community where public broadband exists, or where Verizon FiOS provides its fiber optic service, chances are your broadband speeds are not growing much, but are getting more expensive. The only thing innovative coming from the local phone or cable company is a constant effort to convince customers they don’t need faster Internet access anyway.

At least until a competitor threatens to shake up the comfortable status quo.

Time Warner Cable claims they are perfectly comfortable offering residential customers no better than 50/5Mbps, except in markets like Kansas City (and soon in Texas) where 100Mbps is more satisfying. Why is a glass Time Warner claims is full to the brim everywhere else in the country only half-full in Kansas City? Google Fiber might be the answer. It offers 1,000/1,000Mbps service for less money than Time Warner used to charge for 50Mbps service, and Google is also headed to Austin.

AT&T scoffed at following Verizon into the world of fiber optic broadband, where broadband speeds are limited only by the possibilities. Instead, they built their half-fiber, half-Alexander Graham Bell-era copper wire hybrid network on the cheap and ended up with broadband speeds topping out around 24Mbps, at least in a perfect AT&T world, assuming everything was ideal between your home and their central office.

At the time U-verse was first breaking ground, cable broadband’s “good enough for you” top Internet speed was typically 10-20Mbps. Now that incrementally faster cable Internet speeds are available from recent DOCSIS 3.0 cable upgrades, AT&T is coming back with an incremental upgrade of its own, to deliver around 75Mbps.

It is still slower than cable, but AT&T thinks it is fast enough for their customers, except in Austin, where Google Fiber provoked the company to claim it would build its own 1,000Mbps fiber network to compete (if it got everything on its Christmas Wish List from federal, state, and local governments).

Are you starting to see a trend here? Competition can turn providers’ investment frowns upside down and get customers faster Internet access.

Wilderotter: Most of our customers are satisfied with 6Mbps broadband.

In rural markets were Frontier Communications faces far less competition from well-heeled cable companies, the company can claim it doesn’t believe most of its customers need north of 6Mbps to do important things on the Internet. If they did, where would they go to do them?

Where Comcast and AT&T directly compete, major Internet speed increases are a matter of “why bother – who needs them.” Comcast is more generous where it faces down Verizon FiOS. AT&T also knows the clock is ticking where Google Fiber is coming to town.

Verizon FiOS, Google Fiber, and a number of community-owned fiber to the home broadband networks like EPB in Chattanooga and Greenlight in Wilson, N.C. seem more interested in boosting speeds to build market share, increase revenue to cover their expenses, and make a marketing point their networks are superior. They respond to requests for speed upgrades differently — “why not?”

Verizon figured out offering 50/25Mbps service was simple to offer and easy to embrace. Two clicks on a FiOS remote control and $10 more a month gets a major speed upgrade for basic Internet customers that used to get 15/5Mbps service. Verizon management reports they are pleased with the number of customers signing up.

In Chattanooga, Tenn. EPB Fiber offered gigabit Internet service because, in the words of its managing director, “it could.” The community-owned utility did not even know how to price residential gigabit service when it first went on offer, but the costs to EPB to offer those speeds are considerably lower over fiber to the home broadband infrastructure.

Broadband customers in Chattanooga, Kansas City and Austin are not too different from customers in Knoxville, Des Moines, and Houston. But the available broadband speeds in those cities sure are.

LUS Fiber in Lafayette, La. changed the song Cox was singing about their ‘adequate’ broadband speeds. Earlier this year, Cox unveiled up to 150/25Mbps service to cut the number of departing customers headed to the community owned utility, already offering those speeds.

Convincing Wall Street that spending money to upgrade networks to next generation technology will earn more money in the long run has failed miserably as a strategy.

“Competitors have been overbuilding, investors are wondering where the returns are,” said Mark Ansboury, president and co-founder of GigaBit Squared. “What you’re seeing is an entrenchment, companies leveraging what they already have in play.”

With North American broadband prices rising, and some cable companies earning 90-95% margins selling broadband, one might think there is plenty of money available to spend on broadband upgrades. Instead, investors are receiving increased dividend payouts, executive compensation packages are swelling as a reward for maximizing shareholder value, and many companies are buying back their stock, refinancing or paying off debt instead of pouring money into major network upgrades.

That is not true in Europe, where providers are making headlines with major network improvements and speed increases, all while charging much less than what North Americans pay for broadband service.

UPC Netherlands is Holland’s second biggest cable company and is in the middle of a broadband speed war with fiber to the home providers.

In the Netherlands, the very concept of Google Fiber’s affordable gigabit speeds terrify cable operators like UPC Netherlands, especially when existing fiber to the home providers in the country are taking Google’s cue and advertising gigabit service themselves. UPC rushed to dedicate up to 16 bonded cable channels to boost cable broadband speeds to 500Mbps in recent field trials, without giving any serious thought to the cable operators in the United States that argue customers don’t need or want the faster Internet speeds fiber offers.

“We had to address it head on very recently because of the fiber (competition)” said vice president of technology Bill Warga. “The company is called Reggefiber in the Netherlands. What they’re touting is a 1Gbps service, [the same speed] upstream and downstream. We came out with 500Mbps service. We had to build a special modem because (DOCSIS) 3.1 chips aren’t out yet. We had to double up on the chips in the modem and put it out there because we had to have a competing product, if anything just in the press. That was a reaction but that tells you how quickly in a marketplace that something can move.”

Despite that, groupthink among cable industry attendees back home at the SCTE Rocky Mountain Chapter Symposium agreed that Google Fiber was a political and marketing stunt, “since the majority of users don’t need those types of speed.”

Who does need and want 500Mbps? Executives at UPC, who have it installed in their homes, admits Warga. But cost can also impact consumer demand. Currently, the most popular legacy UPC broadband package offers 25Mbps for €25 ($32.50). The company now sells 60/6Mbps for €52,50 ($48.75), 100/10Mbps for €42,50 ($55.25) or 150-200/10Mbps for €52,50 ($68.25).

Warga also admits the competition has put UPC in a speed race, and boosted speeds are coming fast and furious.

“They’ll come in and say they’re 100, or 101Mbps we’ll come back and say we’re 110 or 120, or 130Mbps,” Warga said. “It’s a bit of a cat and mouse game, but we always feel like we can be ahead. For us DOCSIS 3.1 can’t come soon enough.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”367”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Cable Broadband Speeds 1-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal investigates why cable companies are getting stingy with broadband speed upgrades while gigabit fiber networks are springing up around the country. (4 minutes)

West Virginia has spent nearly three times more than it anticipated for each mile of fiber optics being laid by Frontier Communications as part of the state’s taxpayer-funded broadband expansion project, according to a new report.

The Saturday Gazette-Mail reports that state officials originally planned to spend $17,000 for each mile of fiber cable laid to community institutions including schools and libraries. Instead, it is paying $47,500 per fiber mile, more than double the industry average of $20,000.

Frontier Communications is getting at least $45 million in taxpayer dollars towards construction costs and will end up owning the completed fiber network that won’t directly deliver broadband service to a single home or business in the state.

West Virginia will make use of a 675-mile institutional fiber network when the project is finished, 25 percent smaller than the 900-mile network originally proposed.

State officials including Homeland Security director Jimmy Gianato have come up with some novel defenses for the cost overruns, blaming:

• The 2011 Japanese earthquake/tsunami that allegedly spiked fiber prices to as much as $50,000 per mile;
• Superstorm Sandy which delayed the project and caused $14 million in damage;
• The cost of environmental impact studies.

The state is in a hurry to spend down the remaining funds left over from the $126.3 million taxpayer grant before they expire September 30. The broadband project has been mired in controversy from almost the beginning, including allegations that major telecom company employees serving as consultants steered project managers to invest in expensive, oversized routers intended to serve college campuses that ended up installed in tiny community libraries.

State officials also found many of the institutions slated to receive fiber upgrades already had fiber service. That left officials scrambling to find any schools, libraries, hospitals — even prisons where taxpayer-funded fiber broadband would prove useful.

In the end, Frontier will be the biggest beneficiary of the project and state officials predict $4-8 million will remain in unspent funds when the project is complete.

“If people step back, they can see this monstrosity in all its true glory,” says Jan Huntser. “Private companies like Frontier don’t want taxpayer money building public fiber networks for homes and businesses because that represents unfair competition. Instead, Frontier pockets taxpayer money to build a private fiber network they will end up owning that taxpayers cannot access. Instead, we’ll keep using their slow DSL service.”

Huntser says if taxpayer money is spent to build fiber networks, taxpayers ought to be able to use them.

“None of this makes any sense,” Huntser adds. “Frontier tells friends to buy a satellite dish for broadband because they will never offer it while a library in that town has four terminals and enough broadband equipment to support a business with hundreds of employees. They can’t even understand how to make it work, so they still rely on their DSL service to run the Wi-Fi connection instead.”

Frontier Communications is considering adding redundant backup fiber service in certain areas to prevent major customer outages when fiber cables get severed by contractors or storm events.

In May, 26,000 customers in the Palouse, Idaho area and all of Benewah County lost phone and Internet service after a fiber cut. Communities also lost 911 access.

Martin Erkela, Frontier general manager in Moscow, told city councilors the company is considering adding backup connections available to route around fiber cuts.

Similar redundancy would have also helped customers in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia who lost service for more than 14 hours after a fiber cut occurred there.

This morning, a number of West Virginians are also experiencing weather-related outages in the Morgantown, Fairmont, Wheeling and Martinsburg areas.

Frontier has experienced a number of service outages related to cable cuts, most accidentally severed during storms or by independent contractors working for other utilities or doing road maintenance or construction.

Redundant backup connections can be used to restore service when a primary fiber link is broken. Providers often don’t invest in backup service for cost reasons, especially if those circuits go unused when primary service is working normally.

Despite findings from an independent consultant that reported West Virginia wasted millions on a broadband expansion effort that effectively built a private, taxpayer-funded fiber network for Frontier Communications, the governor’s office abruptly canceled a 2011 follow-up state audit of the $126.3 million project.

The Charleston Gazette reports Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s office said it dropped the audit because Frontier “answered or addressed” issues raised in a memo produced by an out-of-state independent consulting firm.

ICF’s document was so scathing of the state government’s handling of federal broadband stimulus funds, the governor’s office kept it secret until a copy was independently leaked to the Charleston newspaper. The governor’s office said it initially withheld the “internal memorandum” produced by Vienna, Va.-based ICF International because it proved “embarrassing to some people.”

Among ICF’s findings:

• Taxpayers underwrote the construction of a Frontier Communications’ owned and operated fiber broadband network so fragmented in its construction, the only entity likely to benefit is Frontier Communications;
• ICF found West Virginia’s broadband grant program created an “unintended monopoly” for Frontier Communications, and an unusable ‘open access’ network except for Frontier;”
• Frontier’s documentation and expense reports, submitted for reimbursement by taxpayers were inadequate and could have resulted in double billing;
• Frontier overbuilt its network with excessive numbers of fiber strands three to six times above industry standards, driving up construction costs.

Frontier’s called the ICF report “worthless” and accused the consultant of using inaccurate and stale comments that repeat “previously repudiated allegations.”

Frontier also produced its own company-sponsored “external audit” of its work on the $126.3 million broadband project that found “no material deficiencies.”

But ICF says it is standing by its report, and documented instances where the state authorized Frontier to spend significant sums to build fiber connections to community institutions that were later scaled back by the company. Whether Frontier was paid for the originally scheduled work, or for the scaled back construction eventually completed, is unknown.

At this point, ICF reports it is resigned to the fact Frontier will be a major beneficiary of the taxpayer-funded fiber infrastructure and the state has few options to fix the problems they created. The consultant firm says the only workable option would be a joint effort by Frontier’s competitors to build, at their own expense, a “middle-mile, open-access network” that can interconnect with Frontier’s taxpayer-funded network, assuming Frontier will allow it.

A major critic of the broadband stimulus program in West Virginia, Citynet President Jim Martin, has long said the broadband project was primarily going to benefit Frontier.

In September 2010, Martin told the Gazette, “Frontier is going to have the state’s business forever. No other company will have the money to come in and build the network.”

Two months later, Martin was back ringing the alarm bell before more than $126 million in taxpayer funds were spent.

“The state represented it would build a ‘middle-mile’ network reaching 700,000 homes and 100,000 businesses, and it would be this great new superhighway and do all the things the federal government is seeking,” Martin told the Gazette. “But afterward, Citynet and others got to look and it looks like it is a windfall for Frontier Communications only.”

“We’ll ultimately prove this was a complete sham and didn’t benefit anybody,” Martin said. “We’re here. We’re not going anywhere. We totally recognize this is going to be a long battle unless the Broadband Council or the new governor or the next governor does something. We’re going to be on this for however many years it takes. We’re going to hold the state accountable for every single dollar they’re spending. At the end of the day we will show that no jobs were created, there’s no benefit to the citizens of West Virginia. Hopefully we’ll show this was all about Frontier.”

Three years later, Martin is still trying to get accurate broadband maps that depict exactly where Frontier has laid its publicly funded fiber infrastructure. Apparently they are secret, too.

Frontier’s new mascot

I’m sure more than a few readers work for a company with a marketing department that churns out advertising and imagery that leaves you shaking your head wondering what they were thinking.

There are some employees at Frontier Communications who are head-scratching this week as the company unleashes “Frontier’s First Ever Spokesman.”

His name is Francis Abraham Buffalo (his friends get to call him “Frank.”) He’s a… buffalo.

An internal memo obtained by Stop the Cap! informs employees Frank is prepared to bulldoze his way through “the clutter and get consumers buzzing.”

“Think of the Aflac duck and the Geico gecko,” a Frontier executive writes. “People have a truly positive association with them that translates into a positive feeling for those companies.”

But can a new mascot really change perceptions about a company more than the quality of the products or services a company provides (or doesn’t)?

For the record, your editor has never been particularly moved by either the duck or the gecko, and I, along with many other Americans, stopped watching television commercials years ago with the advent of the DVR. I have also never bought a product or service based on anything other than its merits and price. Frontier’s buffalo will not change that.

The mascot search involved a nationwide focus group of at least 800 customers and non-customers who were shown a series of “try-outs” involving lip-synched ducks, pigs, and various other creatures you may have last encountered as roadkill.

“Frank was the top choice, lifting our preference rating over the competition by 8 points and decreasing the competition by 3 points.  That’s a net 11 point increase for Frontier and solid support that we’re on the right path,” the company trumpets.

Of course, their cable competitors can always suggest while Frontier is busy playing with animals, they are delivering far faster broadband service and a better package of phone, broadband, and television service that does not involve a third-party satellite dish stuck on your roof.

Even some Frontier employees were less than enthusiastic about the endeavor, already predicting the response ads from the competition.

“I thought the pig would’ve been a better choice,” writes one. “I can just see the competition running ads about not getting ‘Buffaloed’ by Frontier!”

Most of the excitement among employees seems to emanate from the office that envisioned the campaign and spent a lot of money to make it happen.

“A landmark decision in the continuing evolution of Frontier,” jokes a Frontier worker less than thrilled with the result.

Even Frontier executives admit that Frank might be a big, fat target:

“We have also heard some concerns from our employees that we are proactively addressing in the campaign so our competitors won’t take advantage of our new brand spokesperson.”

“Frank will be a boffo buffalo. A solid, truth-talking machine that doesn’t like fuss or tricks – and neither do we.   We play it straight — price guarantees and no contracts make it easy for consumers to understand our products and services.  So if anyone asks, Frank is not here to “buffalo” or trick anyone (call Cable if you want that!).  He doesn’t deal with BS or malarkey, and that means no hidden fees, no surprises.”

Phillip “It’s actually an American bison” Dampier

Frontier is asking for advice on how to make Frank a better buffalo and offer any additional feedback. At Stop the Cap! we are always willing to help, so we publicly offer advice for our hometown phone company.

1. The American buffalo is actually the American bison, but that probably sounds too French (it is actually Greek, but nobody wants to get too close to Greece these days). The bison’s story is remarkably similar to phone companies like Frontier. It once roamed across the American landscape in great herds but was targeted to near extinction. Just like your landline. It still maintains “near threatened” status, and is only gradually making a comeback with the help of conservation efforts. While our ancestors shared their lives with the bison, most people today will only meet one in a zoo or park. We are unsure why Frontier would want to associate itself with an animal best known in the past and unlikely to be seen today.
2. Lip-synching animals (and babies) has become cliché. We were not too impressed with the voice talent Frontier decided to use for their animals either. Instead, check out Telus, western Canada’s biggest phone company. They turn animal wrangling into an art form, using various critters in their ads for phone, broadband, and wireless service. Telus compliments their animal friends with Canadian musicians to visually and musically deliver whatever message the company wants to share.
3. While Frontier may have eliminated some of its old tricks like contract termination, equipment, service protection, and surcharge fees from customer bills, many of us have long memories of the surprise steep cancellation fees charged when dropping landline service that we kept for 20+ years. Others found Frontier’s inadequate DSL only slightly less annoying than the $100+ service termination fee thrown on the last bill. Some of those fees are still being charged to customers, including a particularly silly broadband account service order charge that still stings departing customers. It is hard to accept Frontier’s new marketing messages when the company is still baiting the traps.
4. Frontier’s reputation problem does not come from poor advertising. It comes from a poor selection of products and services. Frontier until recently has simply refused to keep up with the reality of today’s broadband market. Sorry, basic DSL will no longer cut it, particularly when a competitor arrives. Cable can still out-class Frontier’s broadband products even after upgrades to ADSL2+ and VDSL. Frontier bills are still loaded with surprise surcharges and extras that raise the out-the-door price, sometimes even higher than what cable charges. The more important question to ask focus groups is why people do business with Frontier. Is it because they have to or they want to?

Frontier still does not evoke “cutting edge” anything. Frontier FiOS, inherited from Verizon, is the child nobody wants to talk about.

For years, Frontier only offered ADSL at speeds that stopped keeping up with cable a decade ago, even in large metro areas like Rochester, N.Y. When the company advertised “up to” in association with broadband speeds, it meant it: advertise up to 12Mbps but deliver service as slow as 3.1Mbps. With VDSL, 25Mbps might be doable, but cable already offers 30/5 or 50/5Mbps that is a sure thing.

Frontier’s landline service is generally reliable and works even with a power outage if you have a wired phone. But the company charges too much for a phone line many people are now jettisoning in favor of their cell phone and the company is still pushing long distance calling plan bundles that are now irrelevant. Does anyone under 35 know what a toll-call is?

Frontier’s “television” service for most customers is a third-party reseller agreement with a satellite provider with its own contract and conditions. Exciting? Not exactly.

There isn’t much to see here. AT&T and Verizon have spent money to earn money. The only major success story from AT&T’s landline business is its U-verse platform. Verizon FiOS delivers the most formidable competition cable operators like Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have seen. Even CenturyLink has invested in Prism, a fiber to the neighborhood system that can deliver a true triple-play package of services that give customers a reason to stay.

Frontier has Frank the Buffalo and some long-overdue technology upgrades that probably won’t win back a lot of customers.

So what are the strengths Frontier can sell?

1. In most markets, Frontier has no hard limit on broadband usage. That is an attractive selling point where cable operators slap usage caps on customers. Usage caps can and do trigger customer defections;
2. Frontier phone service is generally more reliable than cable or Voice over IP. Talk to customers in storm-struck areas who lost power and cable, but their phone line kept on working;
3. Frontier ADSL2+ and VDSL can outperform rural cable operators who have either oversold their shared network or don’t offer higher DOCSIS 3 speeds yet;
4. Frontier Wi-Fi, if vastly expanded, can be a useful free add-on and selling tool in areas served by cable operators that do not offer the service. But Frontier Wi-Fi hotpots have to be more commonly encountered to make a difference.

Above all, Frontier must keep upgrading its network to stay competitive. Once you lose customers, they can be extremely hard to get back. For many of us, establishing an account with the phone company meant significant installation fees and several days before a crew would turn up to connect service. Frontier knows perfectly well going back to the phone company after leaving is a high hurdle many never attempt.

The best mascot a company like Frontier can adopt are real customers and employees talking about their satisfaction with the changes Frontier is making. Without that, the customers that left will probably always think of Frontier as yesterday’s news. Using an American buffalo that neared extinction itself is probably not going to change that perception.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Animal Mascot Tryouts 4-13.flv[/flv]

Here are Frontier’s animal mascot tryouts. (1 minute)